There's trouble ahead for May if the Daily Mail are running articles questioning who is a JAM and finding some of them on £100K a year. If people self-identify like this, it will be most of the population and how on earth is May going to afford to make so many people better off?
There's trouble ahead for May if the Daily Mail are running articles questioning who is a JAM and finding some of them on £100K a year. If people self-identify like this, it will be most of the population and how on earth is May going to afford to make so many people better off?
I know we're wary of previously accepted wisdom, but I thought the position of the FN was that it had more base support now, but currently was still very transfer unfriendly. I suppose if we ended up with far left and far right (inasmuch as left and right apply) all bets are off, so to speak.
That is precisely the risk, although the FN is not *as* transfer-unfriendly as it once was (see the 2002 figures above, for example). The Hollande-Le Pen polls put the two more-or-less neck-and-neck, which suggests that in the right circumstances enough would be prepared to back her or abstain to give her a fighting chance.
Admittedly, Hollande is highly unlikely to reach the second round - and if he does, it's likely to be because his polling has improved from its current awful levels, which of itself should feed across into the head-to-head figures vs Le Pen - but with the possibility again of someone reaching the run-off on a sub-20 score, I wouldn't entirely rule it out.
But to my mind, the risk of a far-left/far-right run-off, while still lowish, is the greater one.
I agree: Melenchon vs Le Pen, which is possible if Hollande/Valls, Macron. Fillon, Melenchon and Bayrou are all in the teens, sees her become President.
It's also why I think Macron (24s on Betfair!) is fabulous value. I think Bayrou and Hollande supporters will vote Macron in the first round to avoid the risk of a Fillon v Le Pen second round. Given Bayrou is just 9% in the polls, him pulling out completely has to be possible.
He was polling 9-10% this time five years ago, didn't drop out (he then improved slightly).
What we have seen in the first round of the LR primary, and in 2012, is a slight sorting *in favour* of candidates who might eventually win, even in the first round. In 2012 that meant backers of minor parties slightly moved to one of the top three candidates, shifting the vote by 1-2%.
Yes, but he has already said he won't stand if Juppe is the LR candidate, so he's clearly not as committed. Were he to be offered a major role in a Macron government, I reckon he'd be sorely tempted to pull out and offer his full support...
Of course, Fillon could get there first; perhaps offering him his Minister of Education job back. But I reckon that Bayrou and Macron are quite similar centrists.
(Kudos to Macron for marrying his old drama teacher...)
If I were Fillon, I'd offer Juppé a job, which should at least keep Bayrou fairly neutral.
A few months ago there was a discussion about test flights for new planes, and whether the crew wore suits and ties. Well, the latest video from Airbus about their latest plane - the stretched A350 - has some rather heavy evidence that they wear full safety equipment.
» show previous quotes Pensions don't 'accrue' - they are paid out of current revenue - so there are no 'pensions accrued in the UK' for the Scottish Government to pay to Scottish Pensioners. Looks like its both wits & pensions you'll be short of....
Dear Dear, no matter that Westminster squander the funding , they have the obligation to pay the UK pension just the same as if they banked the contributions. I cannot believe you are as stupid as you make out , just being obtuse I suspect. If they transfer the liabilities when Scotland becomes independent then they will transfer the funds/assets etc that go with it. So either it will be directly paid by the UK or it will be funded by the UK as a lump sum upfront payment or an ongoing funds transfer. I doubt that the UK welching on its debt would sit well internationally , they are pariah enough with their current xenophobia without also being welchers.
It would be up for negotiation but the basic precedent is clear: any assets and liabilities that can be applied to a territory belong to the successor state for that territory; any assets and liabilities that are national are divvied up on a population share. In the first category are things like military bases and pensions for the people living in that territory. In the second category are the national reserves, the national debt, embassy buildings etc. Of course there can be a haggle so the rUK wouldn't have to give 10% of their embassies to Scotland.
Pensions are tricky though. Issues are still grinding on between the Czech Republic and Slovakia, although I think the issues relate to EU law, which both countries are members of.
Exactly it would be handled in an adult fashion unlike the mince that Carlotta keeps peddling. Hopefully her shift will end soon and Scott will be on with his tweets, who would ever have thought you could look forward to that.
The Scottish government will surely enjoy it's four months of pensions payments already paid for after independence. After that I assume it'll start paying for them itself?
Fact we do not need to fund Westminster will mean we will be rolling in it , Trident rent will cover pensions.
Those aren't facts, because they aren't true. Scotland's share of UK military spending, let alone the part spent on Trident doesn't nearly cover its pensions liability. An independent Scotland would presumably want a military. The budget might go on different things and not include Trident, but it won't necessarily be less than the UK figure in proportion. The White Paper promised Scottish defence spending would match the UK one as a proportion of GDP.
Scots after independence wouldn't be British citizens.
What's your basis for that assertion?
'Would some people lose their British citizenship?
'Current British nationality law – the British Nationality Act 1981 - does not prevent British citizens from holding dual/multiple nationalities. Assuming that Scottish nationality law also allowed for dual citizenship, British citizens who became eligible for Scottish citizenship could, in theory, become dual Scottish/British citizens. However, it is possible that the UK Government would decide to impose some qualifying restrictions on who could continue to claim British citizenship – for example, by requiring a historical or ongoing connection to the rest of the UK, or requiring people to actively choose to retain their British citizenship. This would have some similarities with the approach taken in 1949 towards citizens of Eire after the Republic of Ireland was established.'
Yes, my language was loose. I meant that they wouldn't be solely British citizens.
But either way, I can't see how pensions and benefits wouldn't be the responsibility of the relevant successor state (with pension funds transferred as appropriate too).
» show previous quotes Pensions don't 'accrue' - they are paid out of current revenue - so there are no 'pensions accrued in the UK' for the Scottish Government to pay to Scottish Pensioners. Looks like its both wits & pensions you'll be short of....
Dear Dear, no matter that Westminster squander the funding , they have the obligation to pay the UK pension just the same as if they banked the contributions. I cannot believe you are as stupid as you make out , just being obtuse I suspect. If they transfer the liabilities when Scotland becomes independent then they will transfer the funds/assets etc that go with it. So either it will be directly paid by the UK or it will be funded by the UK as a lump sum upfront payment or an ongoing funds transfer. I doubt that the UK welching on its debt would sit well internationally , they are pariah enough with their current xenophobia without also being welchers.
It would be up for negotiation but the basic precedent is clear: any assets and liabilities that can be applied to a territory belong to the successor state for that territory; any assets and liabilities that
Exactly it would be handled in an adult fashion unlike the mince that Carlotta keeps peddling. Hopefully her shift will end soon and Scott will be on with his tweets, who would ever have thought you could look forward to that.
The Scottish government will surely enjoy it's four months of pensions payments already paid for after independence. After that I assume it'll start paying for them itself?
Fact we do not need to fund Westminster will mean we will be rolling in it , Trident rent will cover pensions.
Those aren't facts, because they aren't true. Scotland's share of UK military spending, let alone the part spent on Trident doesn't nearly cover its pensions liability. An independent Scotland would presumably want a military. The budget might go on different things and not include Trident, but it won't necessarily be less than the UK figure in proportion. The White Paper promised Scottish defence spending would match the UK one as a proportion of GDP.
No, an independent Scotland would go the Irish route, declare neutrality and hide behind England's military force
I know we're wary of previously accepted wisdom, but I thought the position of the FN was that it had more base support now, but currently was still very transfer unfriendly. I suppose if we ended up with far left and far right (inasmuch as left and right apply) all bets are off, so to speak.
That is precisely the risk, although the FN is not *as* transfer-unfriendly as it once was (see the 2002 figures above, for example). The Hollande-Le Pen polls put the two more-or-less neck-and-neck, which suggests that in the right circumstances enough would be prepared to back her or abstain to give her a fighting chance.
But to my mind, the risk of a far-left/far-right run-off, while still lowish, is the greater one.
I agree: Melenchon vs Le Pen, which is possible if Hollande/Valls, Macron. Fillon, Melenchon and Bayrou are all in the teens, sees her become President.
It's also why I think Macron (24s on Betfair!) is fabulous value. I think Bayrou and Hollande supporters will vote Macron in the first round to avoid the risk of a Fillon v Le Pen second round. Given Bayrou is just 9% in the polls, him pulling out completely has to be possible.
He was polling 9-10% this time five years ago, didn't drop out (he then improved slightly).
What we have seen in the first round of the LR primary, and in 2012, is a slight sorting *in favour* of candidates who might eventually win, even in the first round. In 2012 that meant backers of minor parties slightly moved to one of the top three candidates, shifting the vote by 1-2%.
Yes, but he has already said he won't stand if Juppe is the LR candidate, so he's clearly not as committed. Were he to be offered a major role in a Macron government, I reckon he'd be sorely tempted to pull out and offer his full support...
Of course, Fillon could get there first; perhaps offering him his Minister of Education job back. But I reckon that Bayrou and Macron are quite similar centrists.
(Kudos to Macron for marrying his old drama teacher...)
If I were Fillon, I'd offer Juppé a job, which should at least keep Bayrou fairly neutral.
Prime Minister... Again....
Given the state of the parties the PM is likely to be a Republican regardless of who wins the Presidency.
» show previous quotes Pensions don't 'accrue' - they are paid out of current revenue - so there are no 'pensions accrued in the UK' for the Scottish Government to pay to Scottish Pensioners. Looks like its both wits & pensions you'll be short of....
Dear Dear, nohey will the funds/assets etc that go with it. So either it will be directly paid by the UK or it will be funded by the UK as a lump sum upfront payment or an ongoing funds transfer. I doubt that the UK welching on its debt would sit well internationally , they are pariah enough with their current xenophobia without also being welchers.
It would be up for negotiation but the basic precedent is clear: any assets and liabilities that can be applied to a territory belong to the successor state for that territory; any assets and liabilities that are national are divvied up on a population share. In the first category are things like military bases and pensions for the people living in that territory. In the second category are the national reserves, the national debt, embassy buildings etc. Of course there can be a haggle so the rUK wouldn't have to give 10% of their embassies to Scotland.
Pensions are tricky though. Issues are still grinding on between the Czech Republic and Slovakia, although I think the issues relate to EU law, which both countries are members of.
Exactly it would be handled in an adult fashion unlike the mince that Carlotta keeps peddling. Hopefully her shift will end soon and Scott will be on with his tweets, who would ever have thought you could look forward to that.
The Scottish government will surely enjoy it's four months of pensions payments already paid for after independence. After that I assume it'll start paying for them itself?
Fact we do not need to fund Westminster will mean we will be rolling in it , Trident rent will cover pensions.
Those aren't facts, because they aren't true. Scotland's share of UK military spending, let alone the part spent on Trident doesn't nearly cover its pensions liability. An independent Scotland would presumably want a military. The budget might go on different things and not include Trident, but it won't necessarily be less than the UK figure in proportion. The White Paper promised Scottish defence spending would match the UK one as a proportion of GDP.
If Scotland wants to join NATO I suspect a Trump White House will be a lot more concerned about the 2% spend.
A few months ago there was a discussion about test flights for new planes, and whether the crew wore suits and ties. Well, the latest video from Airbus about their latest plane - the stretched A350 - has some rather heavy evidence that they wear full safety equipment.
First flight is fully choreographed. Pilots follow the exact manoeuvres in sequence that have already been tested on ground. Later on you test extreme conditions and that's when you are most likely to have accidents.
Another Thread on how best to stop Le Pen winning. Surely PBers have spoken at length on this subject?
And we all agree that pollsters of any stripe are crap, as they try and manage a social and twitter revolution that has the polls beaten by wide margins.
When it comes to crapness I think the polls have some way to go to matching Twitter.....in Twitter land Prime Minister Milliband and Prime Salmond of Scotland welcome President Clinton's election.....
It was Twitter and like formats, that flew over the heads of the MSM and the Polls, that won it for Trump.
A few months ago there was a discussion about test flights for new planes, and whether the crew wore suits and ties. Well, the latest video from Airbus about their latest plane - the stretched A350 - has some rather heavy evidence that they wear full safety equipment.
First flight is fully choreographed. Pilots follow the exact manoeuvres in sequence that have already been tested on ground. Later on you test extreme conditions and that's when you are most likely to have accidents.
Scots after independence wouldn't be British citizens.
What's your basis for that assertion?
'Would some people lose their British citizenship?
'Current British nationality law – the British Nationality Act 1981 - does not prevent British citizens from holding dual/multiple nationalities. Assuming that Scottish nationality law also allowed for dual citizenship, British citizens who became eligible for Scottish citizenship could, in theory, become dual Scottish/British citizens. However, it is possible that the UK Government would decide to impose some qualifying restrictions on who could continue to claim British citizenship – for example, by requiring a historical or ongoing connection to the rest of the UK, or requiring people to actively choose to retain their British citizenship. This would have some similarities with the approach taken in 1949 towards citizens of Eire after the Republic of Ireland was established.'
Yes, my language was loose. I meant that they wouldn't be solely British citizens.
But either way, I can't see how pensions and benefits wouldn't be the responsibility of the relevant successor state (with pension funds transferred as appropriate too).
They would, but there would also be a transitional period, the length of which would depend on negotiated terms. I believe that a good many Irish citizens are currently paid UK state pensions for their time working & contributing in the UK, and the same should apply to the citizens of a putative indy Scotland for their time working within the UK.
Another Thread on how best to stop Le Pen winning. Surely PBers have spoken at length on this subject?
And we all agree that pollsters of any stripe are crap, as they try and manage a social and twitter revolution that has the polls beaten by wide margins.
When it comes to crapness I think the polls have some way to go to matching Twitter.....in Twitter land Prime Minister Milliband and Prime Salmond of Scotland welcome President Clinton's election.....
It was Twitter and like formats, that flew over the heads of the MSM and the Polls, that won it for Trump.
LOL. Do you *really* believe that Twitter and the like won it for Trump?
What I'd like to see is a system that allows the candidate who's everybody's second favourite to win through, even if that person is no-one's first favourite.
Doesn't seem right to totally rule that candidate out just because of coming second. You end up with someone few people much want, and call it a majority.
» show previous quotes Pensions don't 'accrue' - they are paid out of current revenue - so there are no 'pensions accrued in the UK' for the Scottish Government to pay to Scottish Pensioners. Looks like its both wits & pensions you'll be short of....
Dear Dear, no matter that Westminster squander the funding , they have the obligation to pay the UK pension just the same as if they banked the contributions. I cannot believe you are as stupid as you make out , just being obtuse I suspect. If they transfer the liabilities when Scotland becomes independent then they will transfer the funds/assets etc that go with it. So either it will be directly paid by the UK or it will be funded by the UK as a lump sum upfront payment or an ongoing funds transfer. I doubt that the UK welching on its debt would sit well internationally , they are pariah enough with their current xenophobia without also being welchers.
It would be up for negotiation but the basic precedent is clear: any assets and liabilities that can be applied to a territory belong to the successor state for that territory; any assets and liabilities that
Exactly it would be handled in an adult fashion unlike the mince that Carlotta keeps peddling. Hopefully her shift will end soon and Scott will be on with his tweets, who would ever have thought you could look forward to that.
The Scottish government will surely enjoy it's four months of pensions payments already paid for after independence. After that I assume it'll start paying for them itself?
Fact we do not need to fund Westminster will mean we will be rolling in it , Trident rent will cover pensions.
Those aren't facts, because they aren't true. Scotland's share of UK military spending, let alone the part spent on Trident doesn't nearly cover its pensions liability. An independent Scotland would presumably want a military. The budget might go on different things and not include Trident, but it won't necessarily be less than the UK figure in proportion. The White Paper promised Scottish defence spending would match the UK one as a proportion of GDP.
No, an independent Scotland would go the Irish route, declare neutrality and hide behind England's military force
Now the big girls blouses crawl out. UK military ( or England as you term it ) could not beat a carpet. Two carriers with no planes , next to no navy with their latest and greatest unable to work in warm climates as engines blow up, submarines that are crap , etc. A few infantry left as teh only thing that works.
There's trouble ahead for May if the Daily Mail are running articles questioning who is a JAM and finding some of them on £100K a year. If people self-identify like this, it will be most of the population and how on earth is May going to afford to make so many people better off?
» show previous quotes Pensions don't 'accrue' - they are paid out of current revenue - so there are no 'pensions accrued in the UK' for the Scottish Government to pay to Scottish Pensioners. Looks like its both wits & pensions you'll be short of....
Dear Dear, no matter that Westminster squander the funding , they have the obligation to pay the UK pension just the same as if they banked the contributions. I cannot believe you are as stupid as you make out , just being obtuse I suspect. If they transfer the liabilities when Scotland becomes independent then they will transfer the funds/assets etc that go with it. So either it will be directly paid by the UK or it will be funded by the UK as a lump sum upfront payment or an ongoing funds transfer. I doubt that the UK welching on its debt would sit well internationally , they are pariah enough with their current xenophobia without also being welchers.
Exactly it would be handled in an adult fashion unlike the mince that Carlotta keeps peddling. Hopefully her shift will end soon and Scott will be on with his tweets, who would ever have thought you could look forward to that.
The Scottish government will surely enjoy it's four months of pensions payments already paid for after independence. After that I assume it'll start paying for them itself?
Fact we do not need to fund Westminster will mean we will be rolling in it , Trident rent will cover pensions.
Those aren't facts, because they aren't true. Scotland's share of UK military spending, let alone the part spent on Trident doesn't nearly cover its pensions liability. An independent Scotland would presumably want a military. The budget might go on different things and not include Trident, but it won't necessarily be less than the UK figure in proportion. The White Paper promised Scottish defence spending would match the UK one as a proportion of GDP.
The money we spend already is not spent in Scotland, we are funding elsewhere, our spending would triple immediately for no increase.
There's trouble ahead for May if the Daily Mail are running articles questioning who is a JAM and finding some of them on £100K a year. If people self-identify like this, it will be most of the population and how on earth is May going to afford to make so many people better off?
» show previous quotes Pensions don't 'accrue' - they are paid out of current revenue - so there are no 'pensions accrued in the UK' for the Scottish Government to pay to Scottish Pensioners. Looks like its both wits & pensions you'll be short of....
Dear Dear, no matter that Westminster squander the funding , they have the obligation to pay the UK pension just the same as if they banked the contributions. I cannot believe you are as stupid as you make out , just being obtuse I suspect. If they transfer the liabilities when Scotland becomes independent then they will transfer the funds/assets etc that go with it. So either it will be directly paid by the UK or it will be funded by the UK as a lump sum upfront payment or an ongoing funds transfer. I doubt that the UK welching on its debt would sit well internationally , they are pariah enough with their current xenophobia without also being welchers.
Exactly it would be handled in an adult fashion unlike the mince that Carlotta keeps peddling. Hopefully her shift will end soon and Scott will be on with his tweets, who would ever have thought you could look forward to that.
The Scottish government will surely enjoy it's four months of pensions payments already paid for after independence. After that I assume it'll start paying for them itself?
Fact we do not need to fund Westminster will mean we will be rolling in it , Trident rent will cover pensions.
Those aren't facts, because they aren't true. Scotland's share of UK military spending, let alone the part spent on Trident doesn't nearly cover its pensions liability. An independent Scotland would presumably want a military. The budget might go on different things and not include Trident, but it won't necessarily be less than the UK figure in proportion. The White Paper promised Scottish defence spending would match the UK one as a proportion of GDP.
The money we spend already is not spent in Scotland, we are funding elsewhere, our spending would triple immediately for no increase.
There's trouble ahead for May if the Daily Mail are running articles questioning who is a JAM and finding some of them on £100K a year. If people self-identify like this, it will be most of the population and how on earth is May going to afford to make so many people better off?
» show previous quotes Pensions don't 'accrue' - they are paid out of current revenue - so there are no 'pensions accrued in the UK' for the Scottish Government to pay to Scottish Pensioners. Looks like its both wits & pensions you'll be short of....
Dear Dear, no
It would be up for negotiation but the basic precedent is clear: any assets and liabilities that can be applied to a territory belong to the successor state for that territory; any assets and liabilities that
Exactly it would be handled in an adult fashion unlike the mince that Carlotta keeps peddling. Hopefully her shift will end soon and Scott will be on with his tweets, who would ever have thought you could look forward to that.
The Scottish government will surely enjoy it's four months of pensions payments already paid for after independence. After that I assume it'll start paying for them itself?
Fact we do not need to fund Westminster will mean we will be rolling in it , Trident rent will cover pensions.
Those aren't facts, because they aren't true. Scotland's share of UK military spending, let alone the part spent on Trident doesn't nearly cover its pensions liability. An independent Scotland would presumably want a military. The budget might go on different things and not include Trident, but it won't necessarily be less than the UK figure in proportion. The White Paper promised Scottish defence spending would match the UK one as a proportion of GDP.
No, an independent Scotland would go the Irish route, declare neutrality and hide behind England's military force
Now the big girls blouses crawl out. UK military ( or England as you term it ) could not beat a carpet. Two carriers with no planes , next to no navy with their latest and greatest unable to work in warm climates as engines blow up, submarines that are crap , etc. A few infantry left as teh only thing that works.
Casually forgetting about England's independent nuclear weapons
I like the French system. I like the way it forces a choice from minor party supporters and gives a chance for reflection.
But who is to say what a 'minor party' is?
Suppose the French system had been used in that Inverness election in 1992, when the result was:
LD 26.0 Lab 25.1 SNP 24.7 Con 22.6 Grn 1.5
Realistically, there's only one minor party there.
If you use FPTP then fine, it's a close-run thing but the LDs win. If, however, you use a majoritarian system then why use a method that would undoubtedly write off a great many SNP, Con and Grn voters who didn't pick which two of the four (or three, excluding their own party) would make the run-off, and consequently would be highly unlikely to prove the support of 50%+? Why not simply go through all the preferences and redistribute as necessary?
There's trouble ahead for May if the Daily Mail are running articles questioning who is a JAM and finding some of them on £100K a year. If people self-identify like this, it will be most of the population and how on earth is May going to afford to make so many people better off?
Having gained independence, why would any Scot want the country's pensioners to be at the mercy of the whims of a foreign government?
You pay your debts regardless , being a foreigner does not cancel them out.
What's the legal basis for this liability (beyond the contributions that exist within the fund)?
More basis than Scotland paying off UK debts. Scotland would be happy if rUK took that position , just keep it and we can start off with our own assets and debt free. If UK want to keep everything then it would be everything, even the UK debts.
There's trouble ahead for May if the Daily Mail are running articles questioning who is a JAM and finding some of them on £100K a year. If people self-identify like this, it will be most of the population and how on earth is May going to afford to make so many people better off?
The £100k a year people are NOT Jams. They can piss OFF.
The Mail frequently lets its mask slip with "typical two home families" - there's nothing remotely "typical" about a "two home family" - except in the conmentariate....
» show previous quotes Pensions don't 'accrue' - they are paid out of current revenue - so there are no 'pensions accrued in the UK' for the Scottish Government to pay to Scottish Pensioners. Looks like its both wits & pensions you'll be short of....
Dear Dear, no
It would be up for negotiation but the basic precedent is clear: any assets and liabilities that can be applied to a territory belong to the successor state for that territory; any assets and liabilities that
Exactly it would be handled in an adult fashion unlike the mince that Carlotta keeps peddling. Hopefully her shift will end soon and Scott will be on with his tweets, who would ever have thought you could look forward to that.
The Scottish government will surely enjoy it's four months of pensions payments already paid for after independence. After that I assume it'll start paying for them itself?
Fact we do not need to fund Westminster will mean we will be rolling in it , Trident rent will cover pensions.
Those aren't facts, because they aren't true. Scotland's share of UK military spending, let alone the part spent on Trident doesn't nearly cover its pensions liability. An independent Scotland would presumably want a military. The budget might go on different things and not include Trident, but it won't necessarily be less than the UK figure in proportion. The White Paper promised Scottish defence spending would match the UK one as a proportion of GDP.
No, an independent Scotland would go the Irish route, declare neutrality and hide behind England's military force
Now the big girls blouses crawl out. UK military ( or England as you term it ) could not beat a carpet. Two carriers with no planes , next to no navy with their latest and greatest unable to work in warm climates as engines blow up, submarines that are crap , etc. A few infantry left as teh only thing that works.
Casually forgetting about England's independent nuclear weapons
Yes great one lets kill ourselves , great idea baldrick, phone President Trump and ask for the key.
» show previous quotes Pensions don't 'accrue' - they are paid out of current revenue - so there are no 'pensions accrued in the UK' for the Scottish Government to pay to Scottish Pensioners. Looks like its both wits & pensions you'll be short of....
Dear Dear, no
It would be up for negotiation but the basic precedent is clear: any assets and liabilities that can be applied to a territory belong to the successor state for that territory; any assets and liabilities that
Exactly it would be handled in an adult fashion unlike the mince that Carlotta keeps peddling. Hopefully her shift will end soon and Scott will be on with his tweets, who would ever have thought you could look forward to that.
The Scottish government will surely enjoy it's four months of pensions payments already paid for after independence. After that I assume it'll start paying for them itself?
Fact we do not need to fund Westminster will mean we will be rolling in it , Trident rent will cover pensions.
Those aren't facts, because they aren't true. Scotland's share of UK military spending, let alone the part spent on Trident doesn't nearly cover its pensions liability. An independent Scotland would presumably want a military. The budget might go on different things and not include Trident, but it won't necessarily be less than the UK figure in proportion. The White Paper promised Scottish defence spending would match the UK one as a proportion of GDP.
No, an independent Scotland would go the Irish route, declare neutrality and hide behind England's military force
Now the big girls blouses crawl out. UK military ( or England as you term it ) could not beat a carpet. Two carriers with no planes , next to no navy with their latest and greatest unable to work in warm climates as engines blow up, submarines that are crap , etc. A few infantry left as teh only thing that works.
Casually forgetting about England's independent nuclear weapons
There's trouble ahead for May if the Daily Mail are running articles questioning who is a JAM and finding some of them on £100K a year. If people self-identify like this, it will be most of the population and how on earth is May going to afford to make so many people better off?
The £100k a year people are NOT Jams. They can piss OFF.
One out of the four could be counted, rest are just greedy whingers.
Friends of ours are what I would call genuine JAMs; they have a reasonable lifestyle, but wonder whether they can afford to have and raise a second child. They do not have many savings and a heavyish mortgage. As he put it to me this week: "We're only one illness away from being in the sh*t."
» show previous quotes Pensions don't 'accrue' - they are paid out of current revenue - so there are no 'pensions accrued in the UK' for the Scottish Government to pay to Scottish Pensioners. Looks like its both wits & pensions you'll be short of....
Dear Dear, no matter that Westminster squander the funding , they have the obligation to pay the UK pension just the same as if they banked the contributions. I cannot believe you are as stupid as you make out , just being obtuse I suspect. If they transfer the liabilities when Scotland becomes independent then they will transfer the funds/assets etc that go with it. So either it will be directly paid by the UK or it will be funded by the UK as a lump sum upfront payment or an ongoing funds transfer. I doubt that the UK welching on its debt would sit well internationally , they are pariah enough with their current xenophobia without also being welchers.
Exactly it would be handled in an adult fashion unlike the mince that Carlotta keeps peddling. Hopefully her shift will end soon and Scott will be on with his tweets, who would ever have thought you could look forward to that.
The Scottish government will surely enjoy it's four months of pensions payments already paid for after independence. After that I assume it'll start paying for them itself?
Fact we do not need to fund Westminster will mean we will be rolling in it , Trident rent will cover pensions.
Those aren't facts, because they aren't true. Scotland's share of UK military spending, let alone the part spent on Trident doesn't nearly cover its pensions liability. An independent Scotland would presumably want a military. The budget might go on different things and not include Trident, but it won't necessarily be less than the UK figure in proportion. The White Paper promised Scottish defence spending would match the UK one as a proportion of GDP.
The money we spend already is not spent in Scotland, we are funding elsewhere, our spending would triple immediately for no increase.
Care to share your thinking and figures for that?
Simple fact is we pay a share prorata per population and a fraction of that is spent in Scotland, whereas a shedload is spent in England. Numbers are asy to find if you are interested and further cuts planned.
There's trouble ahead for May if the Daily Mail are running articles questioning who is a JAM and finding some of them on £100K a year. If people self-identify like this, it will be most of the population and how on earth is May going to afford to make so many people better off?
The £100k a year people are NOT Jams. They can piss OFF.
One out of the four could be counted, rest are just greedy whingers.
Friends of ours are what I would call genuine JAMs; they have a reasonable lifestyle, but wonder whether they can afford to have and raise a second child. They do not have many savings and a heavyish mortgage. As he put it to me this week: "We're only one illness away from being in the sh*t."
They're not exactly conspicuous spenders, either.
Sure lots are but from those four sets and the choices they have made , only one could be considered JAMS. I have little savings , heavyish mortgage, wife does not work, etc but doubt anyone would have consider me a JAM given my income.
» show previous quotes Pensions don't 'accrue' - they are paid out of current revenue - so there are no 'pensions accrued in the UK' for the Scottish Government to pay to Scottish Pensioners. Looks like its both wits & pensions you'll be short of....
Dear Dear, no matter that Westminster squander the funding , they have the obligation to pay the UK pension just the same as if they banked the contributions. I cannot believe you are as stupid as you make out , just being obtuse I suspect. If they transfer the liabilities when Scotland becomes independent then they will transfer the funds/assets etc that go with it. So either it will be directly paid by the UK or it will be funded by the UK as a lump sum upfront payment or an ongoing funds transfer. I doubt that the UK welching on its debt would sit well internationally , they are pariah enough with their current xenophobia without also being welchers.
Exactly it would be handled in an adult fashion unlike the mince that Carlotta keeps peddling. Hopefully her shift will end soon and Scott will be on with his tweets, who would ever have thought you could look forward to that.
The Scottish government will surely enjoy it's four months of pensions payments already paid for after independence. After that I assume it'll start paying for them itself?
Fact we do not need to fund Westminster will mean we will be rolling in it , Trident rent will cover pensions.
Those aren't facts, because they aren't true. Scotland's share of UK military spending, let alone the part spent on Trident doesn't nearly cover its pensions liability. An independent Scotland would presumably want a military. The budget might go on different things and not include Trident, but it won't necessarily be less than the UK figure in proportion. The White Paper promised Scottish defence spending would match the UK one as a proportion of GDP.
The money we spend already is not spent in Scotland, we are funding elsewhere, our spending would triple immediately for no increase.
Care to share your thinking and figures for that?
Simple fact is we pay a share prorata per population and a fraction of that is spent in Scotland, whereas a shedload is spent in England. Numbers are asy to find if you are interested and further cuts planned.
There's trouble ahead for May if the Daily Mail are running articles questioning who is a JAM and finding some of them on £100K a year. If people self-identify like this, it will be most of the population and how on earth is May going to afford to make so many people better off?
The £100k a year people are NOT Jams. They can piss OFF.
One out of the four could be counted, rest are just greedy whingers.
Friends of ours are what I would call genuine JAMs; they have a reasonable lifestyle, but wonder whether they can afford to have and raise a second child. They do not have many savings and a heavyish mortgage. As he put it to me this week: "We're only one illness away from being in the sh*t."
They're not exactly conspicuous spenders, either.
Sure lots are but from those four sets and the choices they have made , only one could be considered JAMS. I have little savings , heavyish mortgage, wife does not work, etc but doubt anyone would have consider me a JAM given my income.
Almost everyone just about manages but that's because they set their expenditure to their income, not the other way around. Given a pay rise they will still just about manage because they will spend more. Given a pay cut they may still be able to just about manage by spending less.
Very few people spend either the least or the most that they could spend.
» show previous quotes Pensions don't 'accrue' - they are paid out of current revenue - so there are no 'pensions accrued in the UK' for the Scottish Government to pay to Scottish Pensioners. Looks like its both wits & pensions you'll be short of....
Dear Dear, no matter that Westminster squander the funding , they have the obligation to pay the UK pension just the same as if they banked the contributions. I cannot believe you are as stupid as you make out , just being obtuse I suspect. If they transfer the liabilities when Scotland becomes independent then they will transfer the funds/assets etc that go with it. So either it will be directly paid by the UK or it will be funded by the UK as a lump sum upfront payment or an ongoing funds transfer. I doubt that the UK welching on its debt would sit well internationally , they are pariah enough with their current xenophobia without also being welchers.
Exactly it would be handled in an adult fashion unlike the mince that Carlotta keeps peddling. Hopefully her shift will end soon and Scott will be on with his tweets, who would ever have thought you could look forward to that.
The Scottish government will surely enjoy it's four months of pensions payments already paid for after independence. After that I assume it'll start paying for them itself?
Fact we do not need to fund Westminster will mean we will be rolling in it , Trident rent will cover pensions.
The money we spend already is not spent in Scotland, we are funding elsewhere, our spending would triple immediately for no increase.
Care to share your thinking and figures for that?
Simple fact is we pay a share prorata per population and a fraction of that is spent in Scotland, whereas a shedload is spent in England. Numbers are asy to find if you are interested and further cuts planned.
Means nothing , someone has made some guesses on UK income. There is no Scottish state and no Scottish GDP. We are a subset of teh UK and it cannot be accurately extrapolated in any decent way shape or form. If you take a prorata based on population which is still a guess , we get a fraction of the amount we contribute to military spending come back and be spent in Scotland.
Our lovable Scotnats are very kind to fill the vacuum left by the absence earth-shattering political events at the moment, but I don't see why we're having this discussion? There won't be Scottish independence. There won't be Indyref 2. Stick a fork in it; it's done.
There's trouble ahead for May if the Daily Mail are running articles questioning who is a JAM and finding some of them on £100K a year. If people self-identify like this, it will be most of the population and how on earth is May going to afford to make so many people better off?
The £100k a year people are NOT Jams. They can piss OFF.
One out of the four could be counted, rest are just greedy whingers.
Friends of ours are what I would call genuine JAMs; they have a reasonable lifestyle, but wonder whether they can afford to have and raise a second child. They do not have many savings and a heavyish mortgage. As he put it to me this week: "We're only one illness away from being in the sh*t."
They're not exactly conspicuous spenders, either.
Sure lots are but from those four sets and the choices they have made , only one could be considered JAMS. I have little savings , heavyish mortgage, wife does not work, etc but doubt anyone would have consider me a JAM given my income.
Yep, fair enough.
What annoys me is that our friends are strivers: she has a full-time job, whilst he looks after their son (I have to take part of the blame for that!) and does some contracting whilst their son naps. To make ends meet, they even take in lodgers in their spare rooms (usually students at language schools).
Yet they're still only just managing. Part of this is because they're in Cambridge, which can be an expensive place to live with a mortgage. But something's wrong when people work so hard and yet struggle to make progress.
There's trouble ahead for May if the Daily Mail are running articles questioning who is a JAM and finding some of them on £100K a year. If people self-identify like this, it will be most of the population and how on earth is May going to afford to make so many people better off?
The £100k a year people are NOT Jams. They can piss OFF.
One out of the four could be counted, rest are just greedy whingers.
Friends of ours are what I would call genuine JAMs; they have a reasonable lifestyle, but wonder whether they can afford to have and raise a second child. They do not have many savings and a heavyish mortgage. As he put it to me this week: "We're only one illness away from being in the sh*t."
They're not exactly conspicuous spenders, either.
Sure lots are but from those four sets and the choices they have made , only one could be considered JAMS. I have little savings , heavyish mortgage, wife does not work, etc but doubt anyone would have consider me a JAM given my income.
Yep, fair enough. What annoys me is that our friends are strivers: she has a full-time job, whilst he looks after their son (I have to take part of the blame for that!) and does some contracting whilst their son naps. To make ends meet, they even take in lodgers in their spare rooms (usually students at language schools). Yet they're still only just managing. Part of this is because they're in Cambridge, which can be an expensive place to live with a mortgage. But something's wrong when people work so hard and yet struggle to make progress.
Ever considered the impact of 300k young immigrants added to the UK each year, on housing costs and wage/salary rates?
There's trouble ahead for May if the Daily Mail are running articles questioning who is a JAM and finding some of them on £100K a year. If people self-identify like this, it will be most of the population and how on earth is May going to afford to make so many people better off?
The £100k a year people are NOT Jams. They can piss OFF.
One out of the four could be counted, rest are just greedy whingers.
Friends of ours are what I would call genuine JAMs; they have a reasonable lifestyle, but wonder whether they can afford to have and raise a second child. They do not have many savings and a heavyish mortgage. As he put it to me this week: "We're only one illness away from being in the sh*t."
They're not exactly conspicuous spenders, either.
Sure lots are but from those four sets and the choices they have made , only one could be considered JAMS. I have little savings , heavyish mortgage, wife does not work, etc but doubt anyone would have consider me a JAM given my income.
Almost everyone just about manages but that's because they set their expenditure to their income, not the other way around. Given a pay rise they will still just about manage because they will spend more. Given a pay cut they may still be able to just about manage by spending less.
Very few people spend either the least or the most that they could spend.
My dad taught me an important lesson when I was a child: "Expenditure swells to fill income".
Its human nature. All three of us kids have tried to break that trend; one of us saves at least 10% of earnings, and often much more than that. I saved enough money to allow myself "luxuries" such as a year out walking.
It's an annoyance when you're young and not earning much; it's a boon later in life.
Mind, savings rates are so cr@p that in many ways saving seems stupid.
But this conversation just makes me realise how lucky I've been.
There's trouble ahead for May if the Daily Mail are running articles questioning who is a JAM and finding some of them on £100K a year. If people self-identify like this, it will be most of the population and how on earth is May going to afford to make so many people better off?
The £100k a year people are NOT Jams. They can piss OFF.
One out of the four could be counted, rest are just greedy whingers.
Friends of ours are what I would call genuine JAMs; they have a reasonable lifestyle, but wonder whether they can afford to have and raise a second child. They do not have many savings and a heavyish mortgage. As he put it to me this week: "We're only one illness away from being in the sh*t."
They're not exactly conspicuous spenders, either.
Sure lots are but from those four sets and the choices they have made , only one could be considered JAMS. I have little savings , heavyish mortgage, wife does not work, etc but doubt anyone would have consider me a JAM given my income.
Yep, fair enough. What annoys me is that our friends are strivers: she has a full-time job, whilst he looks after their son (I have to take part of the blame for that!) and does some contracting whilst their son naps. To make ends meet, they even take in lodgers in their spare rooms (usually students at language schools). Yet they're still only just managing. Part of this is because they're in Cambridge, which can be an expensive place to live with a mortgage. But something's wrong when people work so hard and yet struggle to make progress.
Ever considered the impact of 300k young immigrants added to the UK each year, on housing costs and wage/salary rates?
There's trouble ahead for May if the Daily Mail are running articles questioning who is a JAM and finding some of them on £100K a year. If people self-identify like this, it will be most of the population and how on earth is May going to afford to make so many people better off?
The £100k a year people are NOT Jams. They can piss OFF.
One out of the four could be counted, rest are just greedy whingers.
Friends of ours are what I would call genuine JAMs; they have a reasonable lifestyle, but wonder whether they can afford to have and raise a second child. They do not have many savings and a heavyish mortgage. As he put it to me this week: "We're only one illness away from being in the sh*t."
They're not exactly conspicuous spenders, either.
Sure lots are but from those four sets and the choices they have made , only one could be considered JAMS. I have little savings , heavyish mortgage, wife does not work, etc but doubt anyone would have consider me a JAM given my income.
Yep, fair enough.
What annoys me is that our friends are strivers: she has a full-time job, whilst he looks after their son (I have to take part of the blame for that!) and does some contracting whilst their son naps. To make ends meet, they even take in lodgers in their spare rooms (usually students at language schools).
Yet they're still only just managing. Part of this is because they're in Cambridge, which can be an expensive place to live with a mortgage. But something's wrong when people work so hard and yet struggle to make progress.
The U.K. has the both very expensive childcare and very expensive housing costs, compared to most countries. Housing is also very small, I don't have the stats to hand but the average home is possibly the smallest in the OECD. Commuting can also be very expensive.
Conclusion: most families in this country are JAMs, if we are honest with ourselves.
The standard of living is terrible, unless you're a well off singleton, a pensioner, or a financier.
There's trouble ahead for May if the Daily Mail are running articles questioning who is a JAM and finding some of them on £100K a year. If people self-identify like this, it will be most of the population and how on earth is May going to afford to make so many people better off?
The £100k a year people are NOT Jams. They can piss OFF.
One out of the four could be counted, rest are just greedy whingers.
Friends of ours are what I would call genuine JAMs; they have a reasonable lifestyle, but wonder whether they can afford to have and raise a second child. They do not have many savings and a heavyish mortgage. As he put it to me this week: "We're only one illness away from being in the sh*t."
They're not exactly conspicuous spenders, either.
Sure lots are but from those four sets and the choices they have made , only one could be considered JAMS. I have little savings , heavyish mortgage, wife does not work, etc but doubt anyone would have consider me a JAM given my income.
Yep, fair enough. What annoys me is that our friends are strivers: she has a full-time job, whilst he looks after their son (I have to take part of the blame for that!) and does some contracting whilst their son naps. To make ends meet, they even take in lodgers in their spare rooms (usually students at language schools). Yet they're still only just managing. Part of this is because they're in Cambridge, which can be an expensive place to live with a mortgage. But something's wrong when people work so hard and yet struggle to make progress.
Ever considered the impact of 300k young immigrants added to the UK each year, on housing costs and wage/salary rates?
Yes. The academic evidence as opposed to your bar room anec-bollocks, is: limited.
There's trouble ahead for May if the Daily Mail are running articles questioning who is a JAM and finding some of them on £100K a year. If people self-identify like this, it will be most of the population and how on earth is May going to afford to make so many people better off?
The £100k a year people are NOT Jams. They can piss OFF.
One out of the four could be counted, rest are just greedy whingers.
Friends of ours are what I would call genuine JAMs; they have a reasonable lifestyle, but wonder whether they can afford to have and raise a second child. They do not have many savings and a heavyish mortgage. As he put it to me this week: "We're only one illness away from being in the sh*t."
They're not exactly conspicuous spenders, either.
Sure lots are but from those four sets and the choices they have made , only one could be considered JAMS. I have little savings , heavyish mortgage, wife does not work, etc but doubt anyone would have consider me a JAM given my income.
Almost everyone just about manages but that's because they set their expenditure to their income, not the other way around. Given a pay rise they will still just about manage because they will spend more. Given a pay cut they may still be able to just about manage by spending less.
Very few people spend either the least or the most that they could spend.
There's trouble ahead for May if the Daily Mail are running articles questioning who is a JAM and finding some of them on £100K a year. If people self-identify like this, it will be most of the population and how on earth is May going to afford to make so many people better off?
The £100k a year people are NOT Jams. They can piss OFF.
One out of the four could be counted, rest are just greedy whingers.
Friends of ours are what I would call genuine JAMs; they have a reasonable lifestyle, but wonder whether they can afford to have and raise a second child. They do not have many savings and a heavyish mortgage. As he put it to me this week: "We're only one illness away from being in the sh*t."
They're not exactly conspicuous spenders, either.
Sure lots are but from those four sets and the choices they have made , only one could be considered JAMS. I have little savings , heavyish mortgage, wife does not work, etc but doubt anyone would have consider me a JAM given my income.
Yep, fair enough. What annoys me is that our friends are strivers: she has a full-time job, whilst he looks after their son (I have to take part of the blame for that!) and does some contracting whilst their son naps. To make ends meet, they even take in lodgers in their spare rooms (usually students at language schools). Yet they're still only just managing. Part of this is because they're in Cambridge, which can be an expensive place to live with a mortgage. But something's wrong when people work so hard and yet struggle to make progress.
Ever considered the impact of 300k young immigrants added to the UK each year, on housing costs and wage/salary rates?
Yes. The academic evidence as opposed to your bar room anec-bollocks, is: limited.
Sorry.
Anecdote on PB has been a better gauge of real life than academic studies and polls for the last few years. Dismiss it at your peril.
There's trouble ahead for May if the Daily Mail are running articles questioning who is a JAM and finding some of them on £100K a year. If people self-identify like this, it will be most of the population and how on earth is May going to afford to make so many people better off?
The £100k a year people are NOT Jams. They can piss OFF.
One out of the four could be counted, rest are just greedy whingers.
Friends of ours are what I would call genuine JAMs; they have a reasonable lifestyle, but wonder whether they can afford to have and raise a second child. They do not have many savings and a heavyish mortgage. As he put it to me this week: "We're only one illness away from being in the sh*t."
They're not exactly conspicuous spenders, either.
Sure lots are but from those four sets and the choices they have made , only one could be considered JAMS. I have little savings , heavyish mortgage, wife does not work, etc but doubt anyone would have consider me a JAM given my income.
Yep, fair enough.
What annoys me is that our friends are strivers: she has a full-time job, whilst he looks after their son (I have to take part of the blame for that!) and does some contracting whilst their son naps. To make ends meet, they even take in lodgers in their spare rooms (usually students at language schools).
Yet they're still only just managing. Part of this is because they're in Cambridge, which can be an expensive place to live with a mortgage. But something's wrong when people work so hard and yet struggle to make progress.
for sure and it seems to be much more common in UK than others, something far wrong with the governing of this country.
There's trouble ahead for May if the Daily Mail are running articles questioning who is a JAM and finding some of them on £100K a year. If people self-identify like this, it will be most of the population and how on earth is May going to afford to make so many people better off?
The £100k a year people are NOT Jams. They can piss OFF.
One out of the four could be counted, rest are just greedy whingers.
Friends of ours are what I would call genuine JAMs; they have a reasonable lifestyle, but wonder whether they can afford to have and raise a second child. They do not have many savings and a heavyish mortgage. As he put it to me this week: "We're only one illness away from being in the sh*t."
They're not exactly conspicuous spenders, either.
Sure lots are but from those four sets and the choices they have made , only one could be considered JAMS. I have little savings , heavyish mortgage, wife does not work, etc but doubt anyone would have consider me a JAM given my income.
Yep, fair enough. What annoys me is that our friends are strivers: she has a full-time job, whilst he looks after their son (I have to take part of the blame for that!) and does some contracting whilst their son naps. To make ends meet, they even take in lodgers in their spare rooms (usually students at language schools). Yet they're still only just managing. Part of this is because they're in Cambridge, which can be an expensive place to live with a mortgage. But something's wrong when people work so hard and yet struggle to make progress.
Ever considered the impact of 300k young immigrants added to the UK each year, on housing costs and wage/salary rates?
Yes. The academic evidence as opposed to your bar room anec-bollocks, is: limited.
Sorry.
Anecdote on PB has been a better gauge of real life than academic studies and polls for the last few years. Dismiss it at your peril.
No it hasn't.
There's a greater tolerance for right wing dissent on here, for sure, which is helpful for questioning the soft left, elite consensus.
But I prefer fact to fiction, thanks, with the proviso that one is always open to new evidence.
There's trouble ahead for May if the Daily Mail are running articles questioning who is a JAM and finding some of them on £100K a year. If people self-identify like this, it will be most of the population and how on earth is May going to afford to make so many people better off?
The £100k a year people are NOT Jams. They can piss OFF.
One out of the four could be counted, rest are just greedy whingers.
Friends of ours are what I would call genuine JAMs; they have a reasonable lifestyle, but wonder whether they can afford to have and raise a second child. They do not have many savings and a heavyish mortgage. As he put it to me this week: "We're only one illness away from being in the sh*t."
They're not exactly conspicuous spenders, either.
Sure lots are but from those four sets and the choices they have made , only one could be considered JAMS. I have little savings , heavyish mortgage, wife does not work, etc but doubt anyone would have consider me a JAM given my income.
Yep, fair enough.
What annoys me is that our friends are strivers: she has a full-time job, whilst he looks after their son (I have to take part of the blame for that!) and does some contracting whilst their son naps. To make ends meet, they even take in lodgers in their spare rooms (usually students at language schools).
Yet they're still only just managing. Part of this is because they're in Cambridge, which can be an expensive place to live with a mortgage. But something's wrong when people work so hard and yet struggle to make progress.
for sure and it seems to be much more common in UK than others, something far wrong with the governing of this country.
Those people in the daily mail on 100k per year or with a buy to let AND holiday home in the Dordogne should stop whinging. They are by definition in the top 10% of earners and the problem is with the lifestyle choices they made.
Our own income is modest, less than the national average household income. I calculated last week - if everything remains equal - we will be able to move to a medium size detached house in a nice area, run a family car, and retire with assets of 500k in addition to the state pension and private pensions ( and that figure is before any inheritances are factored in).
The problem is that people have no access to the home ownership are basically stuck in a trap of feudal servitude. The number of these people is rising to over 50%, which is politically toxic. The only solution - which should have actually happened ten years ago - is a crash in housing prices.
Basically the problem is that people don't know how to live within their means.
The £100k a year people are NOT Jams. They can piss OFF.
One out of the four could be counted, rest are just greedy whingers.
Friends of ours are what I would call genuine JAMs; they have a reasonable lifestyle, but wonder whether they can afford to have and raise a second child. They do not have many savings and a heavyish mortgage. As he put it to me this week: "We're only one illness away from being in the sh*t."
They're not exactly conspicuous spenders, either.
Sure lots are but from those four sets and the choices they have made , only one could be considered JAMS. I have little savings , heavyish mortgage, wife does not work, etc but doubt anyone would have consider me a JAM given my income.
Yep, fair enough. What annoys me is that our friends are strivers: she has a full-time job, whilst he looks after their son (I have to take part of the blame for that!) and does some contracting whilst their son naps. To make ends meet, they even take in lodgers in their spare rooms (usually students at language schools). Yet they're still only just managing. Part of this is because they're in Cambridge, which can be an expensive place to live with a mortgage. But something's wrong when people work so hard and yet struggle to make progress.
Ever considered the impact of 300k young immigrants added to the UK each year, on housing costs and wage/salary rates?
Yes. The academic evidence as opposed to your bar room anec-bollocks, is: limited.
Sorry.
Anecdote on PB has been a better gauge of real life than academic studies and polls for the last few years. Dismiss it at your peril.
No it hasn't.
There's a greater tolerance for right wing dissent on here, for sure, which is helpful for questioning the soft left, elite consensus.
But I prefer fact to fiction, thanks, with the proviso that one is always open to new evidence.
The arrogance of posts like this are exactly why I am pleased we haven't gone down the 'evidence based policy technocracy' that a good mate of mine keeps whining about.
The £100k a year people are NOT Jams. They can piss OFF.
One out of the four could be counted, rest are just greedy whingers.
Friends of ours are what I would call genuine JAMs; they have a reasonable lifestyle, but wonder whether they can afford to have and raise a second child. They do not have many savings and a heavyish mortgage. As he put it to me this week: "We're only one illness away from being in the sh*t."
They're not exactly conspicuous spenders, either.
Sure lots are but from those four sets and the choices they have made , only one could be considered JAMS. I have little savings , heavyish mortgage, wife does not work, etc but doubt anyone would have consider me a JAM given my income.
Yep, fair enough. What annoys me is that our friends are strivers: she has a full-time job, whilst he looks after their son (I have to take part of the blame for that!) and does some contracting whilst their son naps. To make ends meet, they even take in lodgers in their spare rooms (usually students at language schools). Yet they're still only just managing. Part of this is because they're in Cambridge, which can be an expensive place to live with a mortgage. But something's wrong when people work so hard and yet struggle to make progress.
Ever considered the impact of 300k young immigrants added to the UK each year, on housing costs and wage/salary rates?
Yes. The academic evidence as opposed to your bar room anec-bollocks, is: limited.
Sorry.
Anecdote on PB has been a better gauge of real life than academic studies and polls for the last few years. Dismiss it at your peril.
No it hasn't.
There's a greater tolerance for right wing dissent on here, for sure, which is helpful for questioning the soft left, elite consensus.
But I prefer fact to fiction, thanks, with the proviso that one is always open to new evidence.
The arrogance of posts like this are exactly why I am pleased we haven't gone down the 'evidence based policy technocracy' that a good mate of mine keeps whining about.
So you prefer "non-evidence based policy idiocracy" ?
There's trouble ahead for May if the Daily Mail are running articles questioning who is a JAM and finding some of them on £100K a year. If people self-identify like this, it will be most of the population and how on earth is May going to afford to make so many people better off?
The £100k a year people are NOT Jams. They can piss OFF.
One out of the four could be counted, rest are just greedy whingers.
Friends of ours are what I would call genuine JAMs; they have a reasonable lifestyle, but wonder whether they can afford to have and raise a second child. They do not have many savings and a heavyish mortgage. As he put it to me this week: "We're only one illness away from being in the sh*t."
They're not exactly conspicuous spenders, either.
Sure lots are but from those four sets and the choices they have made , only one could be considered JAMS. I have little savings , heavyish mortgage, wife does not work, etc but doubt anyone would have consider me a JAM given my income.
Yep, fair enough.
What annoys me is that our friends are strivers: she has a full-time job, whilst he looks after their son (I have to take part of the blame for that!) and does some contracting whilst their son naps. To make ends meet, they even take in lodgers in their spare rooms (usually students at language schools).
Yet they're still only just managing. Part of this is because they're in Cambridge, which can be an expensive place to live with a mortgage. But something's wrong when people work so hard and yet struggle to make progress.
for sure and it seems to be much more common in UK than others, something far wrong with the governing of this country.
See my post above.
Housing. Childcare. Commuting.
The U.K. triple whammy.
Interesting discussion. My original point was not so much - are these really JAMs? But the fact that they self-identify as such, which will be bad news for May. If being only one illness away from penury is one of the criteria, then huge swathes of the population fall into this one (although I note that the 100K people in DM article had illness income protection).
As another aside it seemed incredible to me that it cost them £1400 for a week's camping in Cornwall. It's been a few years since I camped, but that seems astonishing. Yuppie yurts?
The £100k a year people are NOT Jams. They can piss OFF.
One out of the four could be counted, rest are just greedy whingers.
Friends of ours are what I would call genuine JAMs; they have a reasonable lifestyle, but wonder whether they can afford to have and raise a second child. They do not have many savings and a heavyish mortgage. As he put it to me this week: "We're only one illness away from being in the sh*t."
They're not exactly conspicuous spenders, either.
Sure lots are but from those four sets and the choices they have made , only one could be considered JAMS. I have little savings , heavyish mortgage, wife does not work, etc but doubt anyone would have consider me a JAM given my income.
Yep, fair enough. What annoys me is that our friends are strivers: she has a full-time job, whilst he looks after their son (I have to take part of the blame for that!) and does some contracting whilst their son naps. To make ends meet, they even take in lodgers in their spare rooms (usually students at language schools). Yet they're still only just managing. Part of this is because they're in Cambridge, which can be an expensive place to live with a mortgage. But something's wrong when people work so hard and yet struggle to make progress.
Ever considered the impact of 300k young immigrants added to the UK each year, on housing costs and wage/salary rates?
Yes. The academic evidence as opposed to your bar room anec-bollocks, is: limited.
Sorry.
Anecdote on PB has been a better gauge of real life than academic studies and polls for the last few years. Dismiss it at your peril.
No it hasn't.
There's a greater tolerance for right wing dissent on here, for sure, which is helpful for questioning the soft left, elite consensus.
But I prefer fact to fiction, thanks, with the proviso that one is always open to new evidence.
The arrogance of posts like this are exactly why I am pleased we haven't gone down the 'evidence based policy technocracy' that a good mate of mine keeps whining about.
Perhaps your mate is just sick of hearing your prejudice based mewlings.
There's a greater tolerance for right wing dissent on here, for sure, which is helpful for questioning the soft left, elite consensus.
But I prefer fact to fiction, thanks, with the proviso that one is always open to new evidence.
The PB consensus got the Con win (though as a minority) in 2015, it got EUref closer and a lot of us made a lot of money on Trump winning because we knew on some level he had a decent shot, much better than the average 5.5 I got in the end.
When the academics are part of the soft left elite, is their "evidence" really worth anything?
Those people in the daily mail on 100k per year or with a buy to let AND holiday home in the Dordogne should stop whinging. They are by definition in the top 10% of earners and the problem is with the lifestyle choices they made.
Our own income is modest, less than the national average household income. I calculated last week - if everything remains equal - we will be able to move to a medium size detached house in a nice area, run a family car, and retire with assets of 500k in addition to the state pension and private pensions ( and that figure is before any inheritances are factored in).
The problem is that people have no access to the home ownership are basically stuck in a trap of feudal servitude. The number of these people is rising to over 50%, which is politically toxic. The only solution - which should have actually happened ten years ago - is a crash in housing prices.
Basically the problem is that people don't know how to live within their means.
Some of this is bascially, first world sh*t, to be honest. "Oh darling, we can barely afford a gardener for our property in the south of france now the pound has dropped."
Interesting discussion. My original point was not so much - are these really JAMs? But the fact that they self-identify as such, which will be bad news for May. If being only one illness away from penury is one of the criteria, then huge swathes of the population fall into this one (although I note that the 100K people in DM article had illness income protection).
As another aside it seemed incredible to me that it cost them £1400 for a week's camping in Cornwall. It's been a few years since I camped, but that seems astonishing. Yuppie yurts?
Almost certainly. Remember, people will charge whatever idiots/fools are willing to spend.
Those people in the daily mail on 100k per year or with a buy to let AND holiday home in the Dordogne should stop whinging. They are by definition in the top 10% of earners and the problem is with the lifestyle choices they made.
Our own income is modest, less than the national average household income. I calculated last week - if everything remains equal - we will be able to move to a medium size detached house in a nice area, run a family car, and retire with assets of 500k in addition to the state pension and private pensions ( and that figure is before any inheritances are factored in).
The problem is that people have no access to the home ownership are basically stuck in a trap of feudal servitude. The number of these people is rising to over 50%, which is politically toxic. The only solution - which should have actually happened ten years ago - is a crash in housing prices.
Basically the problem is that people don't know how to live within their means.
You contradict yourself.
You say that people are losing access to home ownership (a major indicator of financial security) and then you gripe that people don't know how to live within their means.
The £100k a year people are NOT Jams. They can piss OFF.
One out of the four could be counted, rest are just greedy whingers.
Friends of ours are what I would call genuine JAMs; they have a reasonable lifestyle, but wonder whether they can afford to have and raise a second child. They do not have many savings and a heavyish mortgage. As he put it to me this week: "We're only one illness away from being in the sh*t."
They're not exactly conspicuous spenders, either.
Sure lots are but from those four sets and the choices they have made , only one could be considered JAMS. I have little savings , heavyish mortgage, wife does not work, etc but doubt anyone would have consider me a JAM given my income.
Yep, fair enough. What annoys me is that our friends are strivers: she has a full-time job, whilst he looks after their son (I have to take part of the blame for that!) and does some contracting whilst their son naps. To make ends meet, they even take in lodgers in their spare rooms (usually students at language schools). Yet they're still only just managing. Part of this is because they're in Cambridge, which can be an expensive place to live with a mortgage. But something's wrong when people work so hard and yet struggle to make progress.
Ever considered the impact of 300k young immigrants added to the UK each year, on housing costs and wage/salary rates?
Yes. The academic evidence as opposed to your bar room anec-bollocks, is: limited.
Sorry.
Anecdote on PB has been a better gauge of real life than academic studies and polls for the last few years. Dismiss it at your peril.
No it hasn't.
There's a greater tolerance for right wing dissent on here, for sure, which is helpful for questioning the soft left, elite consensus.
But I prefer fact to fiction, thanks, with the proviso that one is always open to new evidence.
The arrogance of posts like this are exactly why I am pleased we haven't gone down the 'evidence based policy technocracy' that a good mate of mine keeps whining about.
So you prefer "non-evidence based policy idiocracy" ?
No, I prefer democracy where views are respected. Not shouted down and definitely not shut out.
There's a greater tolerance for right wing dissent on here, for sure, which is helpful for questioning the soft left, elite consensus.
But I prefer fact to fiction, thanks, with the proviso that one is always open to new evidence.
The PB consensus got the Con win (though as a minority) in 2015, it got EUref closer and a lot of us made a lot of money on Trump winning because we knew on some level he had a decent shot, much better than the average 5.5 I got in the end.
When the academics are part of the soft left elite, is their "evidence" really worth anything?
Whoever sets the agenda, or helps set policy, will be part of the elite (whether soft left or not).
Interesting discussion. My original point was not so much - are these really JAMs? But the fact that they self-identify as such, which will be bad news for May. If being only one illness away from penury is one of the criteria, then huge swathes of the population fall into this one (although I note that the 100K people in DM article had illness income protection).
As another aside it seemed incredible to me that it cost them £1400 for a week's camping in Cornwall. It's been a few years since I camped, but that seems astonishing. Yuppie yurts?
Interesting discussion. My original point was not so much - are these really JAMs? But the fact that they self-identify as such, which will be bad news for May. If being only one illness away from penury is one of the criteria, then huge swathes of the population fall into this one (although I note that the 100K people in DM article had illness income protection).
As another aside it seemed incredible to me that it cost them £1400 for a week's camping in Cornwall. It's been a few years since I camped, but that seems astonishing. Yuppie yurts?
£1400 for a week of camping is bloody expensive.
Last time I went, about eight years ago, it was £8 a night somewhere in Wales.
There's a greater tolerance for right wing dissent on here, for sure, which is helpful for questioning the soft left, elite consensus.
But I prefer fact to fiction, thanks, with the proviso that one is always open to new evidence.
The PB consensus got the Con win (though as a minority) in 2015, it got EUref closer and a lot of us made a lot of money on Trump winning because we knew on some level he had a decent shot, much better than the average 5.5 I got in the end.
When the academics are part of the soft left elite, is their "evidence" really worth anything?
Whoever sets the agenda, or helps set policy, will be part of the elite (whether soft left or not).
Which is my point. The same people who have been denying the downsides of globalisation are also denying the downsides of unskilled immigration.
There's a greater tolerance for right wing dissent on here, for sure, which is helpful for questioning the soft left, elite consensus.
But I prefer fact to fiction, thanks, with the proviso that one is always open to new evidence.
The PB consensus got the Con win (though as a minority) in 2015, it got EUref closer and a lot of us made a lot of money on Trump winning because we knew on some level he had a decent shot, much better than the average 5.5 I got in the end.
When the academics are part of the soft left elite, is their "evidence" really worth anything?
Another one for post truth. And an engineer, too, I think? Sad.
Comments
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3972832/So-really-Just-Managing-Struggling-JAMS-government-priority-just-interviews-thinks-label-applies-them.html
Also their take home appears quite low, given that pensions contributions come out afterwards.
rUK government decides to slash pensions.
What can Scottish voters do about it?
Vote out the Scottish government......
:first-official-endorsement-by-the-jockanese-clown-collective?:
No 2 AV 68%
Yes 2 AV 32%
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/abu-dhabi-pre-qualifying-2016.html
A few months ago there was a discussion about test flights for new planes, and whether the crew wore suits and ties. Well, the latest video from Airbus about their latest plane - the stretched A350 - has some rather heavy evidence that they wear full safety equipment.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/25/airbus_flies_new_plane_for_the_first_time/
But either way, I can't see how pensions and benefits wouldn't be the responsibility of the relevant successor state (with pension funds transferred as appropriate too).
I suspect it won't be too surprising, though we'll see how Ferrari can do after good pace in P3.
http://bloga350.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/emergency-scape-for-test-crew-located.html
First flight is fully choreographed. Pilots follow the exact manoeuvres in sequence that have already been tested on ground. Later on you test extreme conditions and that's when you are most likely to have accidents.
That awkward moment when you'd been fighting capitalism for your whole life and then you die on #blackfriday
Bye, Fidel Castro
What I'd like to see is a system that allows the candidate who's everybody's second favourite to win through, even if that person is no-one's first favourite.
Doesn't seem right to totally rule that candidate out just because of coming second. You end up with someone few people much want, and call it a majority.
Good morning, everyone.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-38114953
Hmmm...doesn't that describe every dictator?
£1000 for a tent !!!!! Somebody saw you coming.
Suppose the French system had been used in that Inverness election in 1992, when the result was:
LD 26.0
Lab 25.1
SNP 24.7
Con 22.6
Grn 1.5
Realistically, there's only one minor party there.
If you use FPTP then fine, it's a close-run thing but the LDs win. If, however, you use a majoritarian system then why use a method that would undoubtedly write off a great many SNP, Con and Grn voters who didn't pick which two of the four (or three, excluding their own party) would make the run-off, and consequently would be highly unlikely to prove the support of 50%+? Why not simply go through all the preferences and redistribute as necessary?
They're not exactly conspicuous spenders, either.
I have little savings , heavyish mortgage, wife does not work, etc but doubt anyone would have consider me a JAM given my income.
Very few people spend either the least or the most that they could spend.
If you take a prorata based on population which is still a guess , we get a fraction of the amount we contribute to military spending come back and be spent in Scotland.
What annoys me is that our friends are strivers: she has a full-time job, whilst he looks after their son (I have to take part of the blame for that!) and does some contracting whilst their son naps. To make ends meet, they even take in lodgers in their spare rooms (usually students at language schools).
Yet they're still only just managing. Part of this is because they're in Cambridge, which can be an expensive place to live with a mortgage. But something's wrong when people work so hard and yet struggle to make progress.
Its human nature. All three of us kids have tried to break that trend; one of us saves at least 10% of earnings, and often much more than that. I saved enough money to allow myself "luxuries" such as a year out walking.
It's an annoyance when you're young and not earning much; it's a boon later in life.
Mind, savings rates are so cr@p that in many ways saving seems stupid.
But this conversation just makes me realise how lucky I've been.
https://www.rt.com/business/368145-france-wealthy-leaving-country/
Your point is?
Conclusion: most families in this country are JAMs, if we are honest with ourselves.
The standard of living is terrible, unless you're a well off singleton, a pensioner, or a financier.
Sorry.
Don't want it to change, vote against Independence.
Jean Claude Junker
With the death of #FidelCastro, the world has lost a man who was a hero for many. https://t.co/u0ULZoG8Fl
There's a greater tolerance for right wing dissent on here, for sure, which is helpful for questioning the soft left, elite consensus.
But I prefer fact to fiction, thanks, with the proviso that one is always open to new evidence.
Housing.
Childcare.
Commuting.
The U.K. triple whammy.
Looking up the answer to my question it seems that was the choice for Czechs/Slovaks - a forced choice of one or the other.
Those people in the daily mail on 100k per year or with a buy to let AND holiday home in the Dordogne should stop whinging. They are by definition in the top 10% of earners and the problem is with the lifestyle choices they made.
Our own income is modest, less than the national average household income. I calculated last week - if everything remains equal - we will be able to move to a medium size detached house in a nice area, run a family car, and retire with assets of 500k in addition to the state pension and private pensions ( and that figure is before any inheritances are factored in).
The problem is that people have no access to the home ownership are basically stuck in a trap of feudal servitude. The number of these people is rising to over 50%, which is politically toxic. The only solution - which should have actually happened ten years ago - is a crash in housing prices.
Basically the problem is that people don't know how to live within their means.
As another aside it seemed incredible to me that it cost them £1400 for a week's camping in Cornwall. It's been a few years since I camped, but that seems astonishing. Yuppie yurts?
When the academics are part of the soft left elite, is their "evidence" really worth anything?
They're probably people who go 'glamping'.
You say that people are losing access to home ownership (a major indicator of financial security) and then you gripe that people don't know how to live within their means.
The two just may be connected?