That may well be true. But if austerity has meant the nurse's wages were frozen it was not unreasonable of her to link her circumstancrs to austerity.
My point being that austerity or no her salary is a good one and should be enough to live on. As it is also very secure work, she should also be able to access short term credit at good rates. (Also you just explained it in terms of her family circumstances - not austerity.)
If therefore she cannot live on it there are underlying issues for her personally and it would be better to sort them out so she can manage without help than have her complain that somehow austerity forces her to attend food banks. Such action would also allow food to go to those who genuinely have no other options.
Quite apart from anything else, such statements must have infuriated those workers at Honda, at Port Talbot, at Falkirk, at Monarch, at Sports Direct, at any others you care to name whose wages, pensions and job security are either under brutal attack or non-existent. I got a lot of grief from parents over that recent pensions demonstration about how we in the public sector don't know we're born.
The gap's becoming worrying - it's almost as though we're splitting into two economies, one public one private, and there is no crossover between them. Which is a bigger worry as one pays for the other.
I have to go. I hope this discussion has been of interest (and I hope France is living up to expectations).
Have a good morning.
Cheers. I get where you're coming from and I tend to agree. My point is that I can see how nurses might end up using food banks, not that they all have to because they're not paid enough.
It is a feature of life on the margin. Many Britons have no savings and are maxed out on debt. It may well be their own fault in poor financial planning, but it doesn't take much to tip them into crisis.
Snip
The poor performance of Leicester's Emergency dept is down to impossibility to recruit and retain ward nurses for example. The problem is the backdoor to the department rather than the front door..
As you will see above, I have experience of life on the financial margin.
Nurses are not on it. Not by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. That is in no way to suggest that they are feather-bedded or have easy lives, but their salaries should be enough to live on. As mine is.
While I see the problems about recruitment and retention are an issue for you in your work, I'm also struggling to see how the fact that they can earn more money either overtime or working elsewhere is germane to this discussion.
What about a nurse living as a single mother with several young children, paying off loans, getting no financial help from the father and having trouble accessing financial support from the state? It's not a hugely unlikely scenario.
Snip
Hasn't austerity involved pay freezes in the public sector?
Yes - and no. Salaries have increased by the official rate of inflation at lower levels (although that's somewhat below the actual real-world level of inflation).
However that follows years of inflation busting increases. So for example a teacher's salary is still around 30% higher in real terms than it was in 1995. And it is also still at or above average pay.
So yes, it has not been sunlight and roses. However when there have been savage actual cuts elsewhere - the Honda workforce in Swindon at one point had a 70% cut in pay - I can't help but feel if we bleat about how badly off we are, we'll make ourselves unpopular.
That 30% statistic is quite stark. The problem is we had increases in public spending greater than economic growth for such a sustained period that public sector managers thought it was normal.
I'm sorry to say it but teachers do have a reputation of whinging about their work. I think a lot of the blame sits with those teachers who have been doing the job for years, have essentially given up and insist on sharing their negativity with all their bright-eyed and bushy-tailed colleagues who are full of enthusiasm.
@ydoethur what are you playing as a voluntary this morning? Improvisation indicates a hangover
The SNP is turning into Scotland's Fianna Fail - a mildly nationalistic party, rhetorically standing up for Scotland, that does more patronage than ideology or policy. There are worse things it could be.
The party isn't interested in policy because the SNP is the broadest of churches, containing right wing adherents like our Malcolm as well as unreconstructed communists, who have nothing in common except the desire to see Scotland take its place in the pantheon of independent states. And also because policy for things like pensions is tricky and unrewarding. It isn't what motivates its adherents who are just looking for a new dawn.
As you will see above, I have experience of life on the financial margin.
Nurses are not on it. Not by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. That is in no way to suggest that they are feather-bedded or have easy lives, but their salaries should be enough to live on. As mine is.
While I see the problems about recruitment and retention are an issue for you in your work, I'm also struggling to see how the fact that they can earn more money either overtime or working elsewhere is germane to this discussion.
What about a nurse living as a single mother with several young children, paying off loans, getting no financial help from the father and having trouble accessing financial support from the state? It's not a hugely unlikely scenario.
Yes, agreed that is possible, although I am surprised if child benefit is that hard to access (but as I have no children of my own I don't know).
However, isn't that rather distinct from the question of whether or not her salary is at the right level as a general concept? This one was blaming austerity.
Hasn't austerity involved pay freezes in the public sector?
Yes - and no. Salaries have increased by the official rate of inflation at lower levels (although that's somewhat below the actual real-world level of inflation).
However that follows years of inflation busting increases. So for example a teacher's salary is still around 30% higher in real terms than it was in 1995. And it is also still at or above average pay.
So yes, it has not been sunlight and roses. However when there have been savage actual cuts elsewhere - the Honda workforce in Swindon at one point had a 70% cut in pay - I can't help but feel if we bleat about how badly off we are, we'll make ourselves unpopular.
That’s a very fair and honest comment from a teacher - you’ll never make union rep with that attitude!
You’re right that ordinary taxpayers earning an average of around £23k don’t like it when considerably better remunerated public sector workers in much more secure jobs go on about pay and hardship.
The Honda workforce agreement in 2009 was a fantastic example of unions and managers working together, they managed to avoid thousands of temporary layoffs by reducing working hours for a year or so as demand dropped.
Good article, benevolence and philanthropy are virtues. I'm a life long Spurs fan who hopes we sign Messi and Ronaldo this week.
Still have no idea what Huddersfield Town has to do with nurses needing foodbanks.
The clue is in the phrase non-pecuniary intangibles - which might lead you back to the point I made lower down, an hour ago, rebutting the premise of the ridiculous article you posted.
Are you calling either myself or my friend a liar?
Nope. That's the kind of thing you do. I am merely pointing out anecdote is not evidence.
As part of your caring liberal/socialist persona you could always volunteer at a food bank and report back.
I could. Or I could stick with the charities I am currently involved with and I could carry on donating to food banks.
Or you could vote for a government that doesn't leave welfare to charity.
Do you think that there will ever be a system where *some* welfare will not need to be left to charity? Where the state is so comprehensive at detecting and dealing with problems in a timely manner that there is no welfare work for charities?
Because I don't. I'm not defending the status quo; just saying that the idea that charities will never have a place wrt welfare seems a tad optimistic. They'll often be able to react in a much quicker and effective manner than the state.
In fact, it might even lead the other way. If charities providing welfare are seen as a sign the system is not working, the 'easy' answer is to close down the charities. The Soviet Union was now known for having a brilliant level of equality, and yet it also frowned upon charities. The people who suffered were not the ideologues in charge, but the poor.
Are you calling either myself or my friend a liar?
Nope. That's the kind of thing you do. I am merely pointing out anecdote is not evidence.
As part of your caring liberal/socialist persona you could always volunteer at a food bank and report back.
I could. Or I could stick with the charities I am currently involved with and I could carry on donating to food banks.
Or you could vote for a government that doesn't leave welfare to charity.
Do you think that there will ever be a system where *some* welfare will not need to be left to charity? Where the state is so comprehensive at detecting and dealing with problems in a timely manner that there is no welfare work for charities?
Because I don't. I'm not defending the status quo; just saying that the idea that charities will never have a place wrt welfare seems a tad optimistic. They'll often be able to react in a much quicker and effective manner than the state.
In fact, it might even lead the other way. If charities providing welfare are seen as a sign the system is not working, the 'easy' answer is to close down the charities. The Soviet Union was now known for having a brilliant level of equality, and yet it also frowned upon charities. The people who suffered were not the ideologues in charge, but the poor.
IMO charities are for things like cats and overseas projects . The optional things in life. Not solving major domestic economic failures.
Are you calling either myself or my friend a liar?
Nope. That's the kind of thing you do. I am merely pointing out anecdote is not evidence.
As part of your caring liberal/socialist persona you could always volunteer at a food bank and report back.
I could. Or I could stick with the charities I am currently involved with and I could carry on donating to food banks.
Or you could vote for a government that doesn't leave welfare to charity.
Do you think that there will ever be a system where *some* welfare will not need to be left to charity? Where the state is so comprehensive at detecting and dealing with problems in a timely manner that there is no welfare work for charities?
Because I don't. I'm not defending the status quo; just saying that the idea that charities will never have a place wrt welfare seems a tad optimistic. They'll often be able to react in a much quicker and effective manner than the state.
In fact, it might even lead the other way. If charities providing welfare are seen as a sign the system is not working, the 'easy' answer is to close down the charities. The Soviet Union was now known for having a brilliant level of equality, and yet it also frowned upon charities. The people who suffered were not the ideologues in charge, but the poor.
IMO charities are for things like cats and overseas projects . The optional things in life. Not solving major domestic economic failures.
Then you are condemning many needy to penury, for I cannot foresee a governmental system where people do not fall through the cracks.
The idea that private sector is a model of prudence, personal sacrifice and efficiency is absurd.
The private sector is to prudence etc like democracy in Churchill's famous quotation.
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…
Are you calling either myself or my friend a liar?
Nope. That's the kind of thing you do. I am merely pointing out anecdote is not evidence.
As part of your caring liberal/socialist persona you could always volunteer at a food bank and report back.
I could. Or I could stick with the charities I am currently involved with and I could carry on donating to food banks.
Or you could vote for a government that doesn't leave welfare to charity.
Do you think that there will ever be a system where *some* welfare will not need to be left to charity? Where the state is so comprehensive at detecting and dealing with problems in a timely manner that there is no welfare work for charities?
Because I don't. I'm not defending the status quo; just saying that the idea that charities will never have a place wrt welfare seems a tad optimistic. They'll often be able to react in a much quicker and effective manner than the state.
In fact, it might even lead the other way. If charities providing welfare are seen as a sign the system is not working, the 'easy' answer is to close down the charities. The Soviet Union was now known for having a brilliant level of equality, and yet it also frowned upon charities. The people who suffered were not the ideologues in charge, but the poor.
IMO charities are for things like cats and overseas projects . The optional things in life. Not solving major domestic economic failures.
If the government set up a food bank, they’d have a procurement department, an IT department and an HR department, not forgetting the Director of Equality and Diversity on an £80k salary to ensure the ‘correct’ ethnic mix of the workforce. Those handing out the food would need a degree, be paid £30k a year and have a final salary pension.
Sometimes a small charity can do things much better than the state, food banks are a great example.
Are you calling either myself or my friend a liar?
Nope. That's the kind of thing you do. I am merely pointing out anecdote is not evidence.
As part of your caring liberal/socialist persona you could always volunteer at a food bank and report back.
I could. Or I could stick with the charities I am currently involved with and I could carry on donating to food banks.
Or you could vote for a government that doesn't leave welfare to charity.
Do you think that there will ever be a system where *some* welfare will not need to be left to charity? Where the state is so comprehensive at detecting and dealing with problems in a timely manner that there is no welfare work for charities?
Because I don't. I'm not defending the status quo; just saying that the idea that charities will never have a place wrt welfare seems a tad optimistic. They'll often be able to react in a much quicker and effective manner than the state.
In fact, it might even lead the other way. If charities providing welfare are seen as a sign the system is not working, the 'easy' answer is to close down the charities. The Soviet Union was now known for having a brilliant level of equality, and yet it also frowned upon charities. The people who suffered were not the ideologues in charge, but the poor.
IMO charities are for things like cats and overseas projects . The optional things in life. Not solving major domestic economic failures.
Then you are condemning many needy to penury, for I cannot foresee a governmental system where people do not fall through the cracks.
"They constantly try to escape From the darkness outside and within By dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good."
The idea that private sector is a model of prudence, personal sacrifice and efficiency is absurd.
The private sector is to prudence etc like democracy in Churchill's famous quotation.
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…
In my experience private companies are run on an almost feudal basis. Less like a democracy more like a cult. Hugely inefficient. What the man says goes.
Just had a quick skim of this morning's thread and postings. Very educational all round...
Great article from Alastair, really on the mark imo. Plus, a new word for me (zeugma) to use in my daily scrabble battles with Mrs BP (should the tiles ever align).
Also... useful to find out I have a personality disorder, having read the article from the Ludwig von Mises Centre (motto: "For Freedon and Property", Honorary President: Godfery Bloom). It must be right because it was posted by someone whose moniker is without prejudice.
Right, I'm off to go and force some people to use our local food bank.
Are you calling either myself or my friend a liar?
Nope. That's the kind of thing you do. I am merely pointing out anecdote is not evidence.
As part of your caring liberal/socialist persona you could always volunteer at a food bank and report back.
Maybe you could do the same?
I've done similar work but not directly with foodbanks. Most people who use food banks suffer from drug related issues and mental health problems, they find day to day living a struggle, I've had lots of experience with such people.
They should be the priority, not regular wage earners with warped priorities.
The idea that private sector is a model of prudence, personal sacrifice and efficiency is absurd.
The private sector is to prudence etc like democracy in Churchill's famous quotation.
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…
In my experience private companies are run on an almost feudal basis. Less like a democracy more like a cult. Hugely inefficient. What the man says goes.
In 25 years as a lawyer, I have come across precisely one private company like that.
The idea that private sector is a model of prudence, personal sacrifice and efficiency is absurd.
The private sector is to prudence etc like democracy in Churchill's famous quotation.
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…
In my experience private companies are run on an almost feudal basis. Less like a democracy more like a cult. Hugely inefficient. What the man says goes.
Are you calling either myself or my friend a liar?
Nope. That's the kind of thing you do. I am merely pointing out anecdote is not evidence.
As part of your caring liberal/socialist persona you could always volunteer at a food bank and report back.
I could. Or I could stick with the charities I am currently involved with and I could carry on donating to food banks.
Or you could vote for a government that doesn't leave welfare to charity.
Do you think that there will ever be a system where *some* welfare will not need to be left to charity? Where the state is so comprehensive at detecting and dealing with problems in a timely manner that there is no welfare work for charities?
Because I don't. I'm not defending the status quo; just saying that the idea that charities will never have a place wrt welfare seems a tad optimistic. They'll often be able to react in a much quicker and effective manner than the state.
In fact, it might even lead the other way. If charities providing welfare are seen as a sign the system is not working, the 'easy' answer is to close down the charities. The Soviet Union was now known for having a brilliant level of equality, and yet it also frowned upon charities. The people who suffered were not the ideologues in charge, but the poor.
IMO charities are for things like cats and overseas projects . The optional things in life. Not solving major domestic economic failures.
If the government set up a food bank, they’d have a procurement department, an IT department and an HR department, not forgetting the Director of Equality and Diversity on an £80k salary to ensure the ‘correct’ ethnic mix of the workforce. Those handing out the food would need a degree, be paid £30k a year and have a final salary pension.
Sometimes a small charity can do things much better than the state, food banks are a great example.
FFS charities 'did things' before the state got involved. Or rather, failed to do things adequately. Hence the post-war welfare state, supported by One Nation Tories and Old Labour alike. Also the old age pension, which came in rather earlier.
Excellent article thanks, Alastair. And I have to agree bout the campaign being wrong-headed.
It is absolute Little Englander bollox. SNP are already spending hundreds of millions alleviating the dire Tory policies, they cannot fund every Tory cut. People know what a dire deal we are getting , the sheeple will soon see the even worse results coming of being serfs of England.
Just had a quick skim of this morning's thread and postings. Very educational all round...
Great article from Alastair, really on the mark imo. Plus, a new word for me (zeugma) to use in my daily scrabble battles with Mrs BP (should the tiles ever align).
Also... useful to find out I have a personality disorder, having read the article from the Ludwig von Mises Centre (motto: "For Freedon and Property", Honorary President: Godfery Bloom). It must be right because it was posted by someone whose moniker is without prejudice.
Right, I'm off to go and force some people to use our local food bank.
I often try to use one unusual word or distinctive phrase in my thread headers that I mentally associate with that thread so that I can google quickly for my own article if the need ever arises in future. For the previous article referred to in this one, the word was tectonic.
Are you calling either myself or my friend a liar?
Nope. That's the kind of thing you do. I am merely pointing out anecdote is not evidence.
As part of your caring liberal/socialist persona you could always volunteer at a food bank and report back.
I could. Or I could stick with the charities I am currently involved with and I could carry on donating to food banks.
Or you could vote for a government that doesn't leave welfare to charity.
Do you think that there will ever be a system where *some* welfare will not need to be left to charity? Where the state is so comprehensive at detecting and dealing with problems in a timely manner that there is no welfare work for charities?
Because I don't. I'm not defending the status quo; just saying that the idea that charities will never have a place wrt welfare seems a tad optimistic. They'll often be able to react in a much quicker and effective manner than the state.
In fact, it might even lead the other way. If charities providing welfare are seen as a sign the system is not working, the 'easy' answer is to close down the charities. The Soviet Union was now known for having a brilliant level of equality, and yet it also frowned upon charities. The people who suffered were not the ideologues in charge, but the poor.
IMO charities are for things like cats and overseas projects . The optional things in life. Not solving major domestic economic failures.
Without charities doing things like operating lifeboats, helping people sleeping rough, making sure that mentally ill people take their medication, maintaining historic buildings, helping people with addictions, or who are down on their luck, I think our society would be a much more unpleasant place.
Excellent article thanks, Alastair. And I have to agree bout the campaign being wrong-headed.
It is absolute Little Englander bollox. SNP are already spending hundreds of millions alleviating the dire Tory policies, they cannot fund every Tory cut. People know what a dire deal we are getting , the sheeple will soon see the even worse results coming of being serfs of England.
The SNP first claimed they couldn't help here, then admitted that they wouldn't. They were caught out good and proper, and it's entirely of a piece with a strategy that is no longer working.
It is a feature of life on the margin. Many Britons have no savings and are maxed out on debt. It may well be their own fault in poor financial planning, but it doesn't take much to tip them into crisis.
I don't think nurses are more vulnerable than others, and the tens of thousands of nursing vacancies in the land make agency or bank work freely available if outside commitments like carers responsibilities make this possible.
The poor performance of Leicester's Emergency dept is down to impossibility to recruit and retain ward nurses for example. The problem is the backdoor to the department rather than the front door..
As you will see above, I have experience of life on the financial margin.
Nurses are not on it. Not by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. That is in no way to suggest that they are feather-bedded or have easy lives, but their salaries should be enough to live on. As mine is.
While I see the problems about recruitment and retention are an issue for you in your work, I'm also struggling to see how the fact that they can earn more money either overtime or working elsewhere is germane to this discussion.
What about a nurse living as a single mother with several young children, paying off loans, getting no financial help from the father and having trouble accessing financial support from the state? It's not a hugely unlikely scenario.
Yes, agreed that is possible, although I am surprised if child benefit is that hard to access (but as I have no children of my own I don't know).
However, isn't that rather distinct from the question of whether or not her salary is at the right level as a general concept? This one was blaming austerity.
Hasn't austerity involved pay freezes in the public sector?
Yes - and no. Salaries have increased by the official rate of inflation at lower levels (although that's somewhat below the actual real-world level of inflation).
However that follows years of inflation busting increases. So for example a teacher's salary is still around 30% higher in real terms than it was in 1995. And it is also still at or above average pay.
So yes, it has not been sunlight and roses. However when there have been savage actual cuts elsewhere - the Honda workforce in Swindon at one point had a 70% cut in pay - I can't help but feel if we bleat about how badly off we are, we'll make ourselves unpopular.
Do you have any figures to support that 70% cut number. Hard to believe.
The idea that private sector is a model of prudence, personal sacrifice and efficiency is absurd.
The private sector is to prudence etc like democracy in Churchill's famous quotation.
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…
In my experience private companies are run on an almost feudal basis. Less like a democracy more like a cult. Hugely inefficient. What the man says goes.
In 25 years as a lawyer, I have come across precisely one private company like that.
Apple?
10 years dealing with startups. My goodness the egos! 10 years in corporate nonsense. My goodness, the meetings!
Watch Office Space for a perfect description of the private sector.
The idea that private sector is a model of prudence, personal sacrifice and efficiency is absurd.
The private sector is to prudence etc like democracy in Churchill's famous quotation.
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…
In my experience private companies are run on an almost feudal basis. Less like a democracy more like a cult. Hugely inefficient. What the man says goes.
You are looking at it backwards. The private sector != a private company. The private sector is the sum of all private companies and is efficient based on competition. A private company run well has a greater chance succeed and thrive, a private company run badly has a greater chance of failing and being replaced with a better ran competitor.
In a small environment especially where small businesses operate running like you describe can be efficient. If "the man" knows what he is doing and is able to react to challenges and opportunities with agility and ability then that can be more efficient than bureaucratic planning by committees.
Re Foodbanks: to what extent are people using them because they are not yet being paid money to which they are entitled, i.e. the problem is a delay and the food bank acts to tide you over?
I forget who said it but this has always seeme a good piece of advice: The Government is like luck: you can't ignore it but you would be foolish to rely on it.
It is all down to them dumping people off with made up excuses and leaving them with nothing for 12 weeks , making them prove they are due benefits again, nice Tory ploy. Easy to say do not rely on Government when you are in your position , not quite so good when you are on benefits and at the mercy of them.
Just had a quick skim of this morning's thread and postings. Very educational all round...
Great article from Alastair, really on the mark imo. Plus, a new word for me (zeugma) to use in my daily scrabble battles with Mrs BP (should the tiles ever align).
Also... useful to find out I have a personality disorder, having read the article from the Ludwig von Mises Centre (motto: "For Freedon and Property", Honorary President: Godfery Bloom). It must be right because it was posted by someone whose moniker is without prejudice.
Right, I'm off to go and force some people to use our local food bank.
I often try to use one unusual word or distinctive phrase in my thread headers that I mentally associate with that thread so that I can google quickly for my own article if the need ever arises in future. For the previous article referred to in this one, the word was tectonic.
Nice idea! I will look out for each 'search word' in future articles
Re Foodbanks: to what extent are people using them because they are not yet being paid money to which they are entitled, i.e. the problem is a delay and the food bank acts to tide you over?
I forget who said it but this has always seeme a good piece of advice: The Government is like luck: you can't ignore it but you would be foolish to rely on it.
Research by the food bank organisations showed the vast majority were at a food bank for exactly this reason ie their situation had changed, they hadnt made provisions for this and there now was a delay in receiving benefits.
Why are these women so anxious to keep their pensions at 60?
They live longer than men on average.
They spend less time in the workforce on average.
More of them have to have NI topped up by their husbands/men of equal distinction than the other way around.
If we are talking about true pension equality, shouldn't they get it later?
This isn't meant to be taken altogether seriously BTW but they do look to me like a load of sexist muppets who want to have their cake and eat it.
Whole point is they had planned their lives on retiring at 60 and had the rug pulled from under them at very short notice and with no time to mitigate the sudden change.
Interesting thread. As I recall the theory (roughly) was that devolution might strengthen the union by giving Scots the chance to make some of their own decisions and forcing them to stop moaning about Westminster.
I admit I doubted that when the independence campaign came so close. But maybe that was the high watermark in Scotland, and now the SNP have been given enough power to make themselves unpopular.
they have little to no powers, and it will become ever more apparent. Only an imbecile thinks being able to alter income tax is powers.
Why are these women so anxious to keep their pensions at 60?
They live longer than men on average.
They spend less time in the workforce on average.
More of them have to have NI topped up by their husbands/men of equal distinction than the other way around.
If we are talking about true pension equality, shouldn't they get it later?
This isn't meant to be taken altogether seriously BTW but they do look to me like a load of sexist muppets who want to have their cake and eat it.
Whole point is they had planned their lives on retiring at 60 and had the rug pulled from under them at very short notice and with no time to mitigate the sudden change.
The law was changed 22 years ago and that's "short notice"?
It is a feature of life on the margin. Many Britons have no savings and are maxed out on debt. It may well be their own fault in poor financial planning, but it doesn't take much to tip them into crisis.
I don't think nurses are more vulnerable than others, and the tens of thousands of nursing vacancies in the land make agency or bank work freely available if outside commitments like carers responsibilities make this possible.
The poor performance of Leicester's Emergency dept is down to impossibility to recruit and retain ward nurses for example. The problem is the backdoor to the department rather than the front door..
As you will see above, I have experience of life on the financial margin.
Nurses are not on it. Not by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. That is in no way to suggest that they are feather-bedded or have easy lives, but their salaries should be enough to live on. As mine is.
While I see the problems about recruitment and retention are an issue for you in your work, I'm also struggling to see how the fact that they can earn more money either overtime or working elsewhere is germane to this discussion.
What about a nurse living as a single mother with several young children, paying off loans, getting no financial help from the father and having trouble accessing financial support from the state? It's not a hugely unlikely scenario.
Yes, agreed that is possible, although I am surprised if child benefit is that hard to access (but as I have no children of my own I don't know).
However, isn't that rather distinct from the question of whether or not her salary is at the right level as a general concept? This one was blaming austerity.
Hasn't austerity involved pay freezes in the public sector?
Yes - and no. Salaries have increased by the official rate of inflation at lower levels (although that's somewhat below the actual real-world level of inflation).
However that follows years of inflation busting increases. So for example a teacher's salary is still around 30% higher in real terms than it was in 1995. And it is also still at or above average pay.
So yes, it has not been sunlight and roses. However when there have been savage actual cuts elsewhere - the Honda workforce in Swindon at one point had a 70% cut in pay - I can't help but feel if we bleat about how badly off we are, we'll make ourselves unpopular.
Do you have any figures to support that 70% cut number. Hard to believe.
Ydoethur is a born-again Tory. There word is unchallengeable !
Why are these women so anxious to keep their pensions at 60?
They live longer than men on average.
They spend less time in the workforce on average.
More of them have to have NI topped up by their husbands/men of equal distinction than the other way around.
If we are talking about true pension equality, shouldn't they get it later?
This isn't meant to be taken altogether seriously BTW but they do look to me like a load of sexist muppets who want to have their cake and eat it.
Whole point is they had planned their lives on retiring at 60 and had the rug pulled from under them at very short notice and with no time to mitigate the sudden change.
The change was in 1995. How is that short notice pulling the rug from under their feet?
Interesting thread. As I recall the theory (roughly) was that devolution might strengthen the union by giving Scots the chance to make some of their own decisions and forcing them to stop moaning about Westminster.
I admit I doubted that when the independence campaign came so close. But maybe that was the high watermark in Scotland, and now the SNP have been given enough power to make themselves unpopular.
they have little to no powers, and it will become ever more apparent. Only an imbecile thinks being able to alter income tax is powers.
It is a power many states and even some cities in the USA use. If you genuinely believe in higher tax and higher spend why not raise taxes and spend the extra revenues you'll get?
Interesting thread. As I recall the theory (roughly) was that devolution might strengthen the union by giving Scots the chance to make some of their own decisions and forcing them to stop moaning about Westminster.
I admit I doubted that when the independence campaign came so close. But maybe that was the high watermark in Scotland, and now the SNP have been given enough power to make themselves unpopular.
they have little to no powers, and it will become ever more apparent. Only an imbecile thinks being able to alter income tax is powers.
It is a power many states and even some cities in the USA use. If you genuinely believe in higher tax and higher spend why not raise taxes and spend the extra revenues you'll get?
Or don't you really believe in that?
Because if they did that, they’d have to take responsibility for it rather than just blame the English.
The SNP is turning into Scotland's Fianna Fail - a mildly nationalistic party, rhetorically standing up for Scotland, that does more patronage than ideology or policy. There are worse things it could be.
The party isn't interested in policy because the SNP is the broadest of churches, containing right wing adherents like our Malcolm as well as unreconstructed communists, who have nothing in common except the desire to see Scotland take its place in the pantheon of independent states. And also because policy for things like pensions is tricky and unrewarding. It isn't what motivates its adherents who are just looking for a new dawn.
Well said , it has to tread a fine line given the breadth of its make up. However this mild blip is no big deal. We already see the Tories have no clothes on , their feeble 13 have no policies, just muppets picked from rotary club , led by the big windbag who is publicly asking people to send her ideas for when she is FM ( LOL ). Labour don't have a policy for more than a day either and the Lib Dems are just lying cheating rats. Normal service and ,march to independence will continue soon.
Why are these women so anxious to keep their pensions at 60?
They live longer than men on average.
They spend less time in the workforce on average.
More of them have to have NI topped up by their husbands/men of equal distinction than the other way around.
If we are talking about true pension equality, shouldn't they get it later?
This isn't meant to be taken altogether seriously BTW but they do look to me like a load of sexist muppets who want to have their cake and eat it.
Whole point is they had planned their lives on retiring at 60 and had the rug pulled from under them at very short notice and with no time to mitigate the sudden change.
The law was changed 22 years ago and that's "short notice"?
Actually, I support the government on this. Sufficient notice was given. It's no point bleating about it today, when they could have raised the point 15-20 years ago.
The retirement age at 65 is indefensible. 65 was chosen by Bevan because the expected life of a man in 1948 was 65 years and 8 months !
The pension age has to be increased to 70 as soon as practicable. Who will be paying the pension ? The working people, of course ! Their numbers are shrinking as a percentage of the overall population. The recent increase in the employed has lots to do with immigrants. If they are forced to leave , one way or another, the number of taxpayers will go down.
The average life expectancy is now closer to 80 years !
Are you calling either myself or my friend a liar?
Nope. That's the kind of thing you do. I am merely pointing out anecdote is not evidence.
As part of your caring liberal/socialist persona you could always volunteer at a food bank and report back.
I could. Or I could stick with the charities I am currently involved with and I could carry on donating to food banks.
Or you could vote for a government that doesn't leave welfare to charity.
Do you think that there will ever be a system where *some* welfare will not need to be left to charity? Where the state is so comprehensive at detecting and dealing with problems in a timely manner that there is no welfare work for charities?
Because I don't. I'm not defending the status quo; just saying that the idea that charities will never have a place wrt welfare seems a tad optimistic. They'll often be able to react in a much quicker and effective manner than the state.
In fact, it might even lead the other way. If charities providing welfare are seen as a sign the system is not working, the 'easy' answer is to close down the charities. The Soviet Union was now known for having a brilliant level of equality, and yet it also frowned upon charities. The people who suffered were not the ideologues in charge, but the poor.
IMO charities are for things like cats and overseas projects . The optional things in life. Not solving major domestic economic failures.
If the government set up a food bank, they’d have a procurement department, an IT department and an HR department, not forgetting the Director of Equality and Diversity on an £80k salary to ensure the ‘correct’ ethnic mix of the workforce. Those handing out the food would need a degree, be paid £30k a year and have a final salary pension.
Sometimes a small charity can do things much better than the state, food banks are a great example.
They prefer to fund a chum , who runs the charity and makes plenty out of it.
Why are these women so anxious to keep their pensions at 60?
They live longer than men on average.
They spend less time in the workforce on average.
More of them have to have NI topped up by their husbands/men of equal distinction than the other way around.
If we are talking about true pension equality, shouldn't they get it later?
This isn't meant to be taken altogether seriously BTW but they do look to me like a load of sexist muppets who want to have their cake and eat it.
Whole point is they had planned their lives on retiring at 60 and had the rug pulled from under them at very short notice and with no time to mitigate the sudden change.
The law was changed 22 years ago and that's "short notice"?
Actually, I support the government on this. Sufficient notice was given. It's no point bleating about it today, when they could have raised the point 15-20 years ago.
The retirement age at 65 is indefensible. 65 was chosen by Bevan because the expected life of a man in 1948 was 65 years and 8 months !
The pension age has to be increased to 70 as soon as practicable. Who will be paying the pension ? The working people, of course ! Their numbers are shrinking as a percentage of the overall population. The recent increase in the employed has lots to do with immigrants. If they are forced to leave , one way or another, the number of taxpayers will go down.
The average life expectancy is now closer to 80 years !
Why are these women so anxious to keep their pensions at 60?
They live longer than men on average.
They spend less time in the workforce on average.
More of them have to have NI topped up by their husbands/men of equal distinction than the other way around.
If we are talking about true pension equality, shouldn't they get it later?
This isn't meant to be taken altogether seriously BTW but they do look to me like a load of sexist muppets who want to have their cake and eat it.
Whole point is they had planned their lives on retiring at 60 and had the rug pulled from under them at very short notice and with no time to mitigate the sudden change.
The law was changed 22 years ago and that's "short notice"?
Many of them were close to or in run up 60 when it changed dunderheid. Their plans were wrecked , no time to cover the shortfall and they have ended up in poverty rather than enjoying retirement.
Are you calling either myself or my friend a liar?
Nope. That's the kind of thing you do. I am merely pointing out anecdote is not evidence.
As part of your caring liberal/socialist persona you could always volunteer at a food bank and report back.
I could. Or I could stick with the charities I am currently involved with and I could carry on donating to food banks.
Or you could vote for a government that doesn't leave welfare to charity.
Do you think that there will ever be a system where *some* welfare will not need to be left to charity? Where the state is so comprehensive at detecting and dealing with problems in a timely manner that there is no welfare work for charities?
Because I don't. I'm not defending the status quo; just saying that the idea that charities will never have a place wrt welfare seems a tad optimistic. They'll often be able to react in a much quicker and effective manner than the state.
In fact, it might even lead the other way. If charities providing welfare are seen as a sign the system is not working, the 'easy' answer is to close down the charities. The Soviet Union was now known for having a brilliant level of equality, and yet it also frowned upon charities. The people who suffered were not the ideologues in charge, but the poor.
IMO charities are for things like cats and overseas projects . The optional things in life. Not solving major domestic economic failures.
Without charities doing things like operating lifeboats, helping people sleeping rough, making sure that mentally ill people take their medication, maintaining historic buildings, helping people with addictions, or who are down on their luck, I think our society would be a much more unpleasant place.
+1 for that. There should always be a place for charities in parallel with state provision in many areas. Often charities start up when people want to see a problem and a way to improve it, and we should never discourage that.
Are you calling either myself or my friend a liar?
Nope. That's the kind of thing you do. I am merely pointing out anecdote is not evidence.
As part of your caring liberal/socialist persona you could always volunteer at a food bank and report back.
I could. Or I could stick with the charities I am currently involved with and I could carry on donating to food banks.
Or you could vote for a government that doesn't leave welfare to charity.
Do you think that there will ever be a system where *some* welfare will not need to be left to charity? Where the state is so comprehensive at detecting and dealing with problems in a timely manner that there is no welfare work for charities?
Because I don't. I'm not defending the status quo; just saying that the idea that charities will never have a place wrt welfare seems a tad optimistic. They'll often be able to react in a much quicker and effective manner than the state.
In fact, it might even lead the other way. If charities providing welfare are seen as a sign the system is not working, the 'easy' answer is to close down the charities. The Soviet Union was now known for having a brilliant level of equality, and yet it also frowned upon charities. The people who suffered were not the ideologues in charge, but the poor.
IMO charities are for things like cats and overseas projects . The optional things in life. Not solving major domestic economic failures.
Without charities doing things like operating lifeboats, helping people sleeping rough, making sure that mentally ill people take their medication, maintaining historic buildings, helping people with addictions, or who are down on their luck, I think our society would be a much more unpleasant place.
Up to 1,000 jihadists are thought to have been smuggled back to Morocco and Tunisia from the battlefields of Islamic State’s now crumbling caliphate. About 300 are thought to have returned to Morocco, from where six of the 12 terrorists who carried out the attacks in Catalonia are believed to have hailed.
Are you calling either myself or my friend a liar?
Nope. That's the kind of thing you do. I am merely pointing out anecdote is not evidence.
As part of your caring liberal/socialist persona you could always volunteer at a food bank and report back.
I could. Or I could stick with the charities I am currently involved with and I could carry on donating to food banks.
Or you could vote for a government that doesn't leave welfare to charity.
Do you think that there will ever be a system where *some* welfare will not need to be left to charity? Where the state is so comprehensive at detecting and dealing with problems in a timely manner that there is no welfare work for charities?
Because I don't. I'm not defending the status quo; just saying that the idea that charities will never have a place wrt welfare seems a tad optimistic. They'll often be able to react in a much quicker and effective manner than the state.
In fact, it might even lead the other way. If charities providing welfare are seen as a sign the system is not working, the 'easy' answer is to close down the charities. The Soviet Union was now known for having a brilliant level of equality, and yet it also frowned upon charities. The people who suffered were not the ideologues in charge, but the poor.
IMO charities are for things like cats and overseas projects . The optional things in life. Not solving major domestic economic failures.
If the government set up a food bank, they’d have a procurement department, an IT department and an HR department, not forgetting the Director of Equality and Diversity on an £80k salary to ensure the ‘correct’ ethnic mix of the workforce. Those handing out the food would need a degree, be paid £30k a year and have a final salary pension.
Sometimes a small charity can do things much better than the state, food banks are a great example.
They prefer to fund a chum , who runs the charity and makes plenty out of it.
Why are these women so anxious to keep their pensions at 60?
They live longer than men on average.
They spend less time in the workforce on average.
More of them have to have NI topped up by their husbands/men of equal distinction than the other way around.
If we are talking about true pension equality, shouldn't they get it later?
This isn't meant to be taken altogether seriously BTW but they do look to me like a load of sexist muppets who want to have their cake and eat it.
Whole point is they had planned their lives on retiring at 60 and had the rug pulled from under them at very short notice and with no time to mitigate the sudden change.
The law was changed 22 years ago and that's "short notice"?
Many of them were close to or in run up 60 when it changed dunderheid. Their plans were wrecked , no time to cover the shortfall and they have ended up in poverty rather than enjoying retirement.
In 1995 they were close to 60? That's fine, they'll have reached 60 by now and not been affected then.
Excellent article thanks, Alastair. And I have to agree bout the campaign being wrong-headed.
It is absolute Little Englander bollox. SNP are already spending hundreds of millions alleviating the dire Tory policies, they cannot fund every Tory cut. People know what a dire deal we are getting , the sheeple will soon see the even worse results coming of being serfs of England.
The SNP first claimed they couldn't help here, then admitted that they wouldn't. They were caught out good and proper, and it's entirely of a piece with a strategy that is no longer working.
No it is not. They have had constant budget cuts year on year , they cannot fund all Tory cuts set at Westminster. Only someone out of touch and living in London could come up with such a position. The point of devolution was not to fund Tory budget cuts at Westminster.
Why are these women so anxious to keep their pensions at 60?
They live longer than men on average.
They spend less time in the workforce on average.
More of them have to have NI topped up by their husbands/men of equal distinction than the other way around.
If we are talking about true pension equality, shouldn't they get it later?
This isn't meant to be taken altogether seriously BTW but they do look to me like a load of sexist muppets who want to have their cake and eat it.
Whole point is they had planned their lives on retiring at 60 and had the rug pulled from under them at very short notice and with no time to mitigate the sudden change.
The law was changed 22 years ago and that's "short notice"?
Actually, I support the government on this. Sufficient notice was given. It's no point bleating about it today, when they could have raised the point 15-20 years ago.
The retirement age at 65 is indefensible. 65 was chosen by Bevan because the expected life of a man in 1948 was 65 years and 8 months !
The pension age has to be increased to 70 as soon as practicable. Who will be paying the pension ? The working people, of course ! Their numbers are shrinking as a percentage of the overall population. The recent increase in the employed has lots to do with immigrants. If they are forced to leave , one way or another, the number of taxpayers will go down.
The average life expectancy is now closer to 80 years !
I remember being in a meeting with a senior board member of a pension company (also a respected actuary), and he said in all seriousness, that the first person to live until they were 150 has already been born.....
Why are these women so anxious to keep their pensions at 60?
They live longer than men on average.
They spend less time in the workforce on average.
More of them have to have NI topped up by their husbands/men of equal distinction than the other way around.
If we are talking about true pension equality, shouldn't they get it later?
This isn't meant to be taken altogether seriously BTW but they do look to me like a load of sexist muppets who want to have their cake and eat it.
Whole point is they had planned their lives on retiring at 60 and had the rug pulled from under them at very short notice and with no time to mitigate the sudden change.
The law was changed 22 years ago and that's "short notice"?
Actually, I support the government on this. Sufficient notice was given. It's no point bleating about it today, when they could have raised the point 15-20 years ago.
The retirement age at 65 is indefensible. 65 was chosen by Bevan because the expected life of a man in 1948 was 65 years and 8 months !
The pension age has to be increased to 70 as soon as practicable. Who will be paying the pension ? The working people, of course ! Their numbers are shrinking as a percentage of the overall population. The recent increase in the employed has lots to do with immigrants. If they are forced to leave , one way or another, the number of taxpayers will go down.
The average life expectancy is now closer to 80 years !
Higher: 81.6 years.
On its way back down now mind you. Tories will get us back to 1948 soon.
Excellent article thanks, Alastair. And I have to agree bout the campaign being wrong-headed.
It is absolute Little Englander bollox. SNP are already spending hundreds of millions alleviating the dire Tory policies, they cannot fund every Tory cut. People know what a dire deal we are getting , the sheeple will soon see the even worse results coming of being serfs of England.
The SNP first claimed they couldn't help here, then admitted that they wouldn't. They were caught out good and proper, and it's entirely of a piece with a strategy that is no longer working.
No it is not. They have had constant budget cuts year on year , they cannot fund all Tory cuts set at Westminster. Only someone out of touch and living in London could come up with such a position. The point of devolution was not to fund Tory budget cuts at Westminster.
Actually that is PRECISELY the point, to allow you to different things to Westminster. If Westminster isn't taxing enough or spending enough then you can raise your taxes and spend the extra revenues however you want.
If Westminster is taxing enough already then don't complain about budget cuts. Especially when Westminster is running a budget deficit so your budget is actually more than what it should be if it was based on balanced tax revenues alone.
Why are these women so anxious to keep their pensions at 60?
They live longer than men on average.
They spend less time in the workforce on average.
More of them have to have NI topped up by their husbands/men of equal distinction than the other way around.
If we are talking about true pension equality, shouldn't they get it later?
This isn't meant to be taken altogether seriously BTW but they do look to me like a load of sexist muppets who want to have their cake and eat it.
Whole point is they had planned their lives on retiring at 60 and had the rug pulled from under them at very short notice and with no time to mitigate the sudden change.
The law was changed 22 years ago and that's "short notice"?
Many of them were close to or in run up 60 when it changed dunderheid. Their plans were wrecked , no time to cover the shortfall and they have ended up in poverty rather than enjoying retirement.
I have to say my wife and I must be stupid as we didn't realise the change would impact us. It is possible we were too busy fighting an election and bringing up three kids to notice back in April 95. Whilst the pension would have been nice we have had to continue our health insurance for four years longer than we had planned at significant cost.
Why are these women so anxious to keep their pensions at 60?
They live longer than men on average.
They spend less time in the workforce on average.
More of them have to have NI topped up by their husbands/men of equal distinction than the other way around.
If we are talking about true pension equality, shouldn't they get it later?
This isn't meant to be taken altogether seriously BTW but they do look to me like a load of sexist muppets who want to have their cake and eat it.
Whole point is they had planned their lives on retiring at 60 and had the rug pulled from under them at very short notice and with no time to mitigate the sudden change.
The law was changed 22 years ago and that's "short notice"?
Actually, I support the government on this. Sufficient notice was given. It's no point bleating about it today, when they could have raised the point 15-20 years ago.
The retirement age at 65 is indefensible. 65 was chosen by Bevan because the expected life of a man in 1948 was 65 years and 8 months !
The pension age has to be increased to 70 as soon as practicable. Who will be paying the pension ? The working people, of course ! Their numbers are shrinking as a percentage of the overall population. The recent increase in the employed has lots to do with immigrants. If they are forced to leave , one way or another, the number of taxpayers will go down.
The average life expectancy is now closer to 80 years !
You pay in for the meagre pension amount for 50 years. It is a bad enough ponzi scheme as it is without making you die before you get anything back on your 50 years of cash paid in. Perhaps they should let people invest their own money and get a huge pension rather than robbed.
Are you calling either myself or my friend a liar?
Nope. That's the kind of thing you do. I am merely pointing out anecdote is not evidence.
As part of your caring liberal/socialist persona you could always volunteer at a food bank and report back.
I could. Or I could stick with the charities I am currently involved with and I could carry on donating to food banks.
Or you could vote for a government that doesn't leave welfare to charity.
Do you think that there will ever be a system where *some* welfare will not need to be left to charity? Where the state is so comprehensive at detecting and dealing with problems in a timely manner that there is no welfare work for charities?
Because I don't. I'm not defending the status quo; just saying that the idea that charities will never have a place wrt welfare seems a tad optimistic. They'll often be able to react in a much quicker and effective manner than the state.
In fact, it might even lead the other way. If charities providing welfare are seen as a sign the system is not working, the 'easy' answer is to close down the charities. The Soviet Union was now known for having a brilliant level of equality, and yet it also frowned upon charities. The people who suffered were not the ideologues in charge, but the poor.
IMO charities are for things like cats and overseas projects . The optional things in life. Not solving major domestic economic failures.
Sometimes a small charity can do things much better than the state, food banks are a great example.
They prefer to fund a chum , who runs the charity and makes plenty out of it.
I see you have to rely on 1 spurious claim from 18 months ago. Can you post teh subsequent proof that anything was amiss and it was not just Tory lies. Find me any material supporting your pathetic article. Surely they must have done follow ups when she was convicted or proven to have done something wrong. I await with bated breath , LOL.
Why are these women so anxious to keep their pensions at 60?
They live longer than men on average.
They spend less time in the workforce on average.
More of them have to have NI topped up by their husbands/men of equal distinction than the other way around.
If we are talking about true pension equality, shouldn't they get it later?
This isn't meant to be taken altogether seriously BTW but they do look to me like a load of sexist muppets who want to have their cake and eat it.
Whole point is they had planned their lives on retiring at 60 and had the rug pulled from under them at very short notice and with no time to mitigate the sudden change.
The law was changed 22 years ago and that's "short notice"?
Many of them were close to or in run up 60 when it changed dunderheid. Their plans were wrecked , no time to cover the shortfall and they have ended up in poverty rather than enjoying retirement.
In 1995 they were close to 60? That's fine, they'll have reached 60 by now and not been affected then.
Anyone 60 in 1995 is 82 now.....safely past the issue.
Ironic that the campaign complains of Inequality when its equality with men that's driven the change!
Why are these women so anxious to keep their pensions at 60?
They live longer than men on average.
They spend less time in the workforce on average.
More of them have to have NI topped up by their husbands/men of equal distinction than the other way around.
If we are talking about true pension equality, shouldn't they get it later?
This isn't meant to be taken altogether seriously BTW but they do look to me like a load of sexist muppets who want to have their cake and eat it.
Whole point is they had planned their lives on retiring at 60 and had the rug pulled from under them at very short notice and with no time to mitigate the sudden change.
The law was changed 22 years ago and that's "short notice"?
Actually, I support the government on this. Sufficient notice was given. It's no point bleating about it today, when they could have raised the point 15-20 years ago.
The retirement age at 65 is indefensible. 65 was chosen by Bevan because the expected life of a man in 1948 was 65 years and 8 months !
The pension age has to be increased to 70 as soon as practicable. Who will be paying the pension ? The working people, of course ! Their numbers are shrinking as a percentage of the overall population. The recent increase in the employed has lots to do with immigrants. If they are forced to leave , one way or another, the number of taxpayers will go down.
The average life expectancy is now closer to 80 years !
I remember being in a meeting with a senior board member of a pension company (also a respected actuary), and he said in all seriousness, that the first person to live until they were 150 has already been born.....
Sounds about right for a pensions company expert, an absolute stupid halfwitted moronic imbecile. It has already stalled and will be heading downwards soon.
Why are these women so anxious to keep their pensions at 60?
They live longer than men on average.
They spend less time in the workforce on average.
More of them have to have NI topped up by their husbands/men of equal distinction than the other way around.
If we are talking about true pension equality, shouldn't they get it later?
This isn't meant to be taken altogether seriously BTW but they do look to me like a load of sexist muppets who want to have their cake and eat it.
Whole point is they had planned their lives on retiring at 60 and had the rug pulled from under them at very short notice and with no time to mitigate the sudden change.
The law was changed 22 years ago and that's "short notice"?
Actually, I support the government on this. Sufficient notice was given. It's no point bleating about it today, when they could have raised the point 15-20 years ago.
The retirement age at 65 is indefensible. 65 was chosen by Bevan because the expected life of a man in 1948 was 65 years and 8 months !
The pension age has to be increased to 70 as soon as practicable. Who will be paying the pension ? The working people, of course ! Their numbers are shrinking as a percentage of the overall population. The recent increase in the employed has lots to do with immigrants. If they are forced to leave , one way or another, the number of taxpayers will go down.
The average life expectancy is now closer to 80 years !
I remember being in a meeting with a senior board member of a pension company (also a respected actuary), and he said in all seriousness, that the first person to live until they were 150 has already been born.....
Aubrey De Grey reckons 1000. There's an article about him in the FT this weekend. He's either mad or brilliant or both.
Why are these women so anxious to keep their pensions at 60?
They live longer than men on average.
They spend less time in the workforce on average.
More of them have to have NI topped up by their husbands/men of equal distinction than the other way around.
If we are talking about true pension equality, shouldn't they get it later?
This isn't meant to be taken altogether seriously BTW but they do look to me like a load of sexist muppets who want to have their cake and eat it.
Whole point is they had planned their lives on retiring at 60 and had the rug pulled from under them at very short notice and with no time to mitigate the sudden change.
The law was changed 22 years ago and that's "short notice"?
Many of them were close to or in run up 60 when it changed dunderheid. Their plans were wrecked , no time to cover the shortfall and they have ended up in poverty rather than enjoying retirement.
I have to say my wife and I must be stupid as we didn't realise the change would impact us. It is possible we were too busy fighting an election and bringing up three kids to notice back in April 95. Whilst the pension would have been nice we have had to continue our health insurance for four years longer than we had planned at significant cost.
They said as little about it as possible, as they always do with the bad stuff, hoping that people like you do not see it.
Why are these women so anxious to keep their pensions at 60?
They live longer than men on average.
They spend less time in the workforce on average.
More of them have to have NI topped up by their husbands/men of equal distinction than the other way around.
If we are talking about true pension equality, shouldn't they get it later?
This isn't meant to be taken altogether seriously BTW but they do look to me like a load of sexist muppets who want to have their cake and eat it.
Whole point is they had planned their lives on retiring at 60 and had the rug pulled from under them at very short notice and with no time to mitigate the sudden change.
The law was changed 22 years ago and that's "short notice"?
Actually, I support the government on this. Sufficient notice was given. It's no point bleating about it today, when they could have raised the point 15-20 years ago.
The retirement age at 65 is indefensible. 65 was chosen by Bevan because the expected life of a man in 1948 was 65 years and 8 months !
The pension age has to be increased to 70 as soon as practicable. Who will be paying the pension ? The working people, of course ! Their numbers are shrinking as a percentage of the overall population. The recent increase in the employed has lots to do with immigrants. If they are forced to leave , one way or another, the number of taxpayers will go down.
The average life expectancy is now closer to 80 years !
I remember being in a meeting with a senior board member of a pension company (also a respected actuary), and he said in all seriousness, that the first person to live until they were 150 has already been born.....
Sounds about right for a pensions company expert, an absolute stupid halfwitted moronic imbecile. It has already stalled and will be heading downwards soon.
No Chicken Little unless we some reason lose the accumulated science and research from the last 70 years it won't head down.
Re Foodbanks: to what extent are people using them because they are not yet being paid money to which they are entitled, i.e. the problem is a delay and the food bank acts to tide you over?
I forget who said it but this has always seeme a good piece of advice: The Government is like luck: you can't ignore it but you would be foolish to rely on it.
It is all down to them dumping people off with made up excuses and leaving them with nothing for 12 weeks , making them prove they are due benefits again, nice Tory ploy. Easy to say do not rely on Government when you are in your position , not quite so good when you are on benefits and at the mercy of them.
About as efficient as the Scottish Government are at paying farmers then?
Why are these women so anxious to keep their pensions at 60?
They live longer than men on average.
They spend less time in the workforce on average.
More of them have to have NI topped up by their husbands/men of equal distinction than the other way around.
If we are talking about true pension equality, shouldn't they get it later?
This isn't meant to be taken altogether seriously BTW but they do look to me like a load of sexist muppets who want to have their cake and eat it.
Whole point is they had planned their lives on retiring at 60 and had the rug pulled from under them at very short notice and with no time to mitigate the sudden change.
The law was changed 22 years ago and that's "short notice"?
Many of them were close to or in run up 60 when it changed dunderheid. Their plans were wrecked , no time to cover the shortfall and they have ended up in poverty rather than enjoying retirement.
In 1995 they were close to 60? That's fine, they'll have reached 60 by now and not been affected then.
Anyone 60 in 1995 is 82 now.....safely past the issue.
Ironic that the campaign complains of Inequality when its equality with men that's driven the change!
Why are these women so anxious to keep their pensions at 60?
They live longer than men on average.
They spend less time in the workforce on average.
More of them have to have NI topped up by their husbands/men of equal distinction than the other way around.
If we are talking about true pension equality, shouldn't they get it later?
This isn't meant to be taken altogether seriously BTW but they do look to me like a load of sexist muppets who want to have their cake and eat it.
Whole point is they had planned their lives on retiring at 60 and had the rug pulled from under them at very short notice and with no time to mitigate the sudden change.
The law was changed 22 years ago and that's "short notice"?
Actually, I support the government on this. Sufficient notice was given. It's no point bleating about it today, when they could have raised the point 15-20 years ago.
The retirement age at 65 is indefensible. 65 was chosen by Bevan because the expected life of a man in 1948 was 65 years and 8 months !
The pension age has to be increased to 70 as soon as practicable. Who will be paying the pension ? The working people, of course ! Their numbers are shrinking as a percentage of the overall population. The recent increase in the employed has lots to do with immigrants. If they are forced to leave , one way or another, the number of taxpayers will go down.
The average life expectancy is now closer to 80 years !
I remember being in a meeting with a senior board member of a pension company (also a respected actuary), and he said in all seriousness, that the first person to live until they were 150 has already been born.....
Maybe a touch too optimistic. But the numbers living beyond 100 is increasing rapidly.
But there are problems with this too ! My father lived until the age of 90. His last 10 years were effectively a write-off. The final 2/3 years were like a 1 year old baby. Everything had to be done for him. He could not recognise no one apart from my mother who herself was only 5 years younger than him.
As we found in the last 100 years, people were expected to live until the age of 45. As nutrition and medicines improved, people started living longer. But teaching the body to last longer takes many generations of evolution.
First, your eyesight begins to go. Alright, glasses. Then hearing goes. Hearing aid. Hips, knees etc. begins to go.
Now the brain. Dementia, Alzheimer's .... We will push back those boundaries also. But we are living longer, quicker than our bodies can adapt to.
Are you calling either myself or my friend a liar?
Nope. That's the kind of thing you do. I am merely pointing out anecdote is not evidence.
As part of your caring liberal/socialist persona you could always volunteer at a food bank and report back.
I could. Or I could stick with the charities I am currently involved with and I could carry on donating to food banks.
Or you could vote for a government that doesn't leave welfare to charity.
Do you think that there will ever be a system where *some* welfare will not need to be left to charity? Where the state is so comprehensive at detecting and dealing with problems in a timely manner that there is no welfare work for charities?
Because I don't. I'm not defending the status quo; just saying that the idea that charities will never have a place wrt welfare seems a tad optimistic. They'll often be able to react in a much quicker and effective manner than the state.
In fact, it might even lead the other way. If charities providing welfare are seen as a sign the system is not working, the 'easy' answer is to close down the charities. The Soviet Union was now known for having a brilliant level of equality, and yet it also frowned upon charities. The people who suffered were not the ideologues in charge, but the poor.
IMO charities are for things like cats and overseas projects . The optional things in life. Not solving major domestic economic failures.
Without charities doing things like operating lifeboats, helping people sleeping rough, making sure that mentally ill people take their medication, maintaining historic buildings, helping people with addictions, or who are down on their luck, I think our society would be a much more unpleasant place.
+1 for that. There should always be a place for charities in parallel with state provision in many areas. Often charities start up when people want to see a problem and a way to improve it, and we should never discourage that.
The State can't cover everything, nor do people donate their time to the State.
Why are these women so anxious to keep their pensions at 60?
They live longer than men on average.
They spend less time in the workforce on average.
More of them have to have NI topped up by their husbands/men of equal distinction than the other way around.
If we are talking about true pension equality, shouldn't they get it later?
This isn't meant to be taken altogether seriously BTW but they do look to me like a load of sexist muppets who want to have their cake and eat it.
Whole point is they had planned their lives on retiring at 60 and had the rug pulled from under them at very short notice and with no time to mitigate the sudden change.
The law was changed 22 years ago and that's "short notice"?
Many of them were close to or in run up 60 when it changed dunderheid. Their plans were wrecked , no time to cover the shortfall and they have ended up in poverty rather than enjoying retirement.
In 1995 they were close to 60? That's fine, they'll have reached 60 by now and not been affected then.
Anyone 60 in 1995 is 82 now.....safely past the issue.
Ironic that the campaign complains of Inequality when its equality with men that's driven the change!
Obviously the women in 1995 who were 60 were not effected , I think you knew that but as usual were been obtuse.
Are you calling either myself or my friend a liar?
Nope. That's the kind of thing you do. I am merely pointing out anecdote is not evidence.
As part of your caring liberal/socialist persona you could always volunteer at a food bank and report back.
I could. Or I could stick with the charities I am currently involved with and I could carry on donating to food banks.
Or you could vote for a government that doesn't leave welfare to charity.
Do you think that there will ever be a system where *some* welfare will not need to be left to charity? Where the state is so comprehensive at detecting and dealing with problems in a timely manner that there is no welfare work for charities?
Because I don't. I'm not defending the status quo; just saying that the idea that charities will never have a place wrt welfare seems a tad optimistic. They'll often be able to react in a much quicker and effective manner than the state.
In fact, it might even lead the other way. If charities providing welfare are seen as a sign the system is not working, the 'easy' answer is to close down the charities. The Soviet Union was now known for having a brilliant level of equality, and yet it also frowned upon charities. The people who suffered were not the ideologues in charge, but the poor.
IMO charities are for things like cats and overseas projects . The optional things in life. Not solving major domestic economic failures.
Without charities doing things like operating lifeboats, helping people sleeping rough, making sure that mentally ill people take their medication, maintaining historic buildings, helping people with addictions, or who are down on their luck, I think our society would be a much more unpleasant place.
+1 for that. There should always be a place for charities in parallel with state provision in many areas. Often charities start up when people want to see a problem and a way to improve it, and we should never discourage that.
The State can't cover everything, nor do people donate their time to the State.
Well there are those serving at her majesty's pleasure but not willingly
Maybe a touch too optimistic. But the numbers living beyond 100 is increasing rapidly.
But there are problems with this too ! My father lived until the age of 90. His last 10 years were effectively a write-off. The final 2/3 years were like a 1 year old baby. Everything had to be done for him. He could not recognise no one apart from my mother who herself was only 5 years younger than him.
As we found in the last 100 years, people were expected to live until the age of 45. As nutrition and medicines improved, people started living longer. But teaching the body to last longer takes many generations of evolution.
First, your eyesight begins to go. Alright, glasses. Then hearing goes. Hearing aid. Hips, knees etc. begins to go.
Now the brain. Dementia, Alzheimer's .... We will push back those boundaries also. But we are living longer, quicker than our bodies can adapt to.
In the past two or three years three women have said to me, after burying their 80ish year old husbands, words to the effect of "I wish he'd died 10 years earlier" - not because their marriages weren't happy but because that was a decade they were fit and well enough to enjoy, but weren't able to because they were in effect full-time nurses of a man who wasn't enjoying it any more than they were.
Are you calling either myself or my friend a liar?
Nope. That's the kind of thing you do. I am merely pointing out anecdote is not evidence.
As part of your caring liberal/socialist persona you could always volunteer at a food bank and report back.
I could. Or I could stick with the charities I am currently involved with and I could carry on donating to food banks.
Or you could vote for a government that doesn't leave welfare to charity.
Do you think that there will ever be a system where *some* welfare will not need to be left to charity? Where the state is so comprehensive at detecting and dealing with problems in a timely manner that there is no welfare work for charities?
Because I don't. I'm not defending the status quo; just saying that the idea that charities will never have a place wrt welfare seems a tad optimistic. They'll often be able to react in a much quicker and effective manner than the state.
In fact, it might even lead the other way. If charities providing welfare are seen as a sign the system is not working, the 'easy' answer is to close down the charities. The Soviet Union was now known for having a brilliant level of equality, and yet it also frowned upon charities. The people who suffered were not the ideologues in charge, but the poor.
IMO charities are for things like cats and overseas projects . The optional things in life. Not solving major domestic economic failures.
Sometimes a small charity can do things much better than the state, food banks are a great example.
They prefer to fund a chum , who runs the charity and makes plenty out of it.
I see you have to rely on 1 spurious claim from 18 months ago. Can you post teh subsequent proof that anything was amiss and it was not just Tory lies. Find me any material supporting your pathetic article. Surely they must have done follow ups when she was convicted or proven to have done something wrong. I await with bated breath , LOL.
"By choosing instead to stay in the European Economic Area (EEA), we can leave the EU, make our own trade deals with non-EU countries, but stay in the single market. This (not the quite different Customs Union) is what allows us to have friction-free trade through the Channel Tunnel and across the Irish border. And no, it doesn't force us to accept 'free movement'.
EEA members are allowed to activate Article 112 of the EEA agreement, the so-called 'emergency brake'. Under this rule, tiny Liechtenstein has effectively managed to suspend 'freedom of movement' indefinitely, and operate its own quota system.
This is a precedent which Britain, with far more clout, can and should follow. The window is open."
Are you calling either myself or my friend a liar?
Nope. That's the kind of thing you do. I am merely pointing out anecdote is not evidence.
As part of your caring liberal/socialist persona you could always volunteer at a food bank and report back.
I could. Or I could stick with the charities I am currently involved with and I could carry on donating to food banks.
Or you could vote for a government that doesn't leave welfare to charity.
Do you think that there will ever be a system where *some* welfare will not need to be left to charity? Where the state is so comprehensive at detecting and dealing with problems in a timely manner that there is no welfare work for charities?
Because I don't. I'm not defending the status quo; just saying that the idea that charities will never have a place wrt welfare seems a tad optimistic. They'll often be able to react in a much quicker and effective manner than the state.
In fact, it might even lead the other way. If charities providing welfare are seen as a sign the system is not working, the 'easy' answer is to close down the charities. The Soviet Union was now known for having a brilliant level of equality, and yet it also frowned upon charities. The people who suffered were not the ideologues in charge, but the poor.
IMO charities are for things like cats and overseas projects . The optional things in life. Not solving major domestic economic failures.
If the government set up a food bank, they’d have a procurement department, an IT department and an HR department, not forgetting the Director of Equality and Diversity on an £80k salary to ensure the ‘correct’ ethnic mix of the workforce. Those handing out the food would need a degree, be paid £30k a year and have a final salary pension.
Sometimes a small charity can do things much better than the state, food banks are a great example.
A small charity could run one but not a national chain of foodbanks. A large charity could but then a large charity would also have HR and IT directors and pensions, like the government department in your example. Until some bold politician comes along pledging to cut bureaucracy -- and the civil servants get moved to a quango -- which a quango-cutting politician then farms out to a large national charity on a government grant.
"By choosing instead to stay in the European Economic Area (EEA), we can leave the EU, make our own trade deals with non-EU countries, but stay in the single market. This (not the quite different Customs Union) is what allows us to have friction-free trade through the Channel Tunnel and across the Irish border. And no, it doesn't force us to accept 'free movement'.
EEA members are allowed to activate Article 112 of the EEA agreement, the so-called 'emergency brake'. Under this rule, tiny Liechtenstein has effectively managed to suspend 'freedom of movement' indefinitely, and operate its own quota system.
This is a precedent which Britain, with far more clout, can and should follow. The window is open."
"By choosing instead to stay in the European Economic Area (EEA), we can leave the EU, make our own trade deals with non-EU countries, but stay in the single market. This (not the quite different Customs Union) is what allows us to have friction-free trade through the Channel Tunnel and across the Irish border. And no, it doesn't force us to accept 'free movement'.
EEA members are allowed to activate Article 112 of the EEA agreement, the so-called 'emergency brake'. Under this rule, tiny Liechtenstein has effectively managed to suspend 'freedom of movement' indefinitely, and operate its own quota system.
This is a precedent which Britain, with far more clout, can and should follow. The window is open."
"There is no reasonable case for joining the EEA, however. Membership of the EEA implies membership of the Single Market and, as such, would entail submission to Single Market requirements and its stifling regulations and anti-free-trade ‘Fortress Europe’ mentality. "
and
"The EEA option was also never politically realistic. One of the preconditions for EEA membership is free movement of people within the EEA region, and the government has made it clear that free movement will not be acceptable to the UK post Brexit. For its part, the EU has always insisted that free movement is not negotiable either. In any case, the EEA option is now moot as the UK has made it clear that it will be seeking a hard Brexit outside the Single Market."
Are you calling either myself or my friend a liar?
Nope. That's the kind of thing you do. I am merely pointing out anecdote is not evidence.
As part of your caring liberal/socialist persona you could always volunteer at a food bank and report back.
I could. Or I could stick with the charities I am currently involved with and I could carry on donating to food banks.
Or you could vote for a government that doesn't leave welfare to charity.
Do you think that there will ever be a system where *some* welfare will not need to be left to charity? Where the state is so comprehensive at detecting and dealing with problems in a timely manner that there is no welfare work for charities?
Because I don't. I'm not defending the status quo; just saying that the idea that charities will never have a place wrt welfare seems a tad optimistic. They'll often be able to react in a much quicker and effective manner than the state.
In fact, it might even lead the other way. If charities providing welfare are seen as a sign the system is not working, the 'easy' answer is to close down the charities. The Soviet Union was now known for having a brilliant level of equality, and yet it also frowned upon charities. The people who suffered were not the ideologues in charge, but the poor.
IMO charities are for things like cats and overseas projects . The optional things in life. Not solving major domestic economic failures.
Sometimes a small charity can do things much better than the state, food banks are a great example.
They prefer to fund a chum , who runs the charity and makes plenty out of it.
I see you have to rely on 1 spurious claim from 18 months ago. Can you post teh subsequent proof that anything was amiss and it was not just Tory lies. Find me any material supporting your pathetic article. Surely they must have done follow ups when she was convicted or proven to have done something wrong. I await with bated breath , LOL.
Now she has more time on her hands, maybe the charity will actually do some charitable things?
When she is not producing, obviously...
Your lack of answer speaks Tory volumes
Scott do you remember your lies about Michelle Thomson, I did not see you highlighting your folly and apologising when it was proven she was totally innocent and just a victim of Tory smears.
"By choosing instead to stay in the European Economic Area (EEA), we can leave the EU, make our own trade deals with non-EU countries, but stay in the single market. This (not the quite different Customs Union) is what allows us to have friction-free trade through the Channel Tunnel and across the Irish border. And no, it doesn't force us to accept 'free movement'.
EEA members are allowed to activate Article 112 of the EEA agreement, the so-called 'emergency brake'. Under this rule, tiny Liechtenstein has effectively managed to suspend 'freedom of movement' indefinitely, and operate its own quota system.
This is a precedent which Britain, with far more clout, can and should follow. The window is open."
I could. Or I could stick with the charities I am currently involved with and I could carry on donating to food banks.
Or you could vote for a government that doesn't leave welfare to charity.
Do you think that there will ever be a system where *some* welfare will not need to be left to charity? Where the state is so comprehensive at detecting and dealing with problems in a timely manner that there is no welfare work for charities?
Because I don't. I'm not defending the status quo; just saying that the idea that charities will never have a place wrt welfare seems a tad optimistic. They'll often be able to react in a much quicker and effective manner than the state.
In fact, it might even lead the other way. If charities providing welfare are seen as a sign the system is not working, the 'easy' answer is to close down the charities. The Soviet Union was now known for having a brilliant level of equality, and yet it also frowned upon charities. The people who suffered were not the ideologues in charge, but the poor.
IMO charities are for things like cats and overseas projects . The optional things in life. Not solving major domestic economic failures.
Sometimes a small charity can do things much better than the state, food banks are a great example.
They prefer to fund a chum , who runs the charity and makes plenty out of it.
I see you have to rely on 1 spurious claim from 18 months ago. Can you post teh subsequent proof that anything was amiss and it was not just Tory lies. Find me any material supporting your pathetic article. Surely they must have done follow ups when she was convicted or proven to have done something wrong. I await with bated breath , LOL.
Comments
I'm sorry to say it but teachers do have a reputation of whinging about their work. I think a lot of the blame sits with those teachers who have been doing the job for years, have essentially given up and insist on sharing their negativity with all their bright-eyed and bushy-tailed colleagues who are full of enthusiasm.
@ydoethur what are you playing as a voluntary this morning? Improvisation indicates a hangover
The party isn't interested in policy because the SNP is the broadest of churches, containing right wing adherents like our Malcolm as well as unreconstructed communists, who have nothing in common except the desire to see Scotland take its place in the pantheon of independent states. And also because policy for things like pensions is tricky and unrewarding. It isn't what motivates its adherents who are just looking for a new dawn.
You’re right that ordinary taxpayers earning an average of around £23k don’t like it when considerably better remunerated public sector workers in much more secure jobs go on about pay and hardship.
The Honda workforce agreement in 2009 was a fantastic example of unions and managers working together, they managed to avoid thousands of temporary layoffs by reducing working hours for a year or so as demand dropped.
Because I don't. I'm not defending the status quo; just saying that the idea that charities will never have a place wrt welfare seems a tad optimistic. They'll often be able to react in a much quicker and effective manner than the state.
In fact, it might even lead the other way. If charities providing welfare are seen as a sign the system is not working, the 'easy' answer is to close down the charities. The Soviet Union was now known for having a brilliant level of equality, and yet it also frowned upon charities. The people who suffered were not the ideologues in charge, but the poor.
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…
Sometimes a small charity can do things much better than the state, food banks are a great example.
From the darkness outside and within
By dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good."
Great article from Alastair, really on the mark imo. Plus, a new word for me (zeugma) to use in my daily scrabble battles with Mrs BP (should the tiles ever align).
Also... useful to find out I have a personality disorder, having read the article from the Ludwig von Mises Centre (motto: "For Freedon and Property", Honorary President: Godfery Bloom). It must be right because it was posted by someone whose moniker is without prejudice.
Right, I'm off to go and force some people to use our local food bank.
They should be the priority, not regular wage earners with warped priorities.
10 years dealing with startups. My goodness the egos!
10 years in corporate nonsense. My goodness, the meetings!
Watch Office Space for a perfect description of the private sector.
In a small environment especially where small businesses operate running like you describe can be efficient. If "the man" knows what he is doing and is able to react to challenges and opportunities with agility and ability then that can be more efficient than bureaucratic planning by committees.
Or don't you really believe in that?
The retirement age at 65 is indefensible. 65 was chosen by Bevan because the expected life of a man in 1948 was 65 years and 8 months !
The pension age has to be increased to 70 as soon as practicable. Who will be paying the pension ? The working people, of course ! Their numbers are shrinking as a percentage of the overall population. The recent increase in the employed has lots to do with immigrants. If they are forced to leave , one way or another, the number of taxpayers will go down.
The average life expectancy is now closer to 80 years !
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/20/spain-terror-attacks-isis-morocco
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14199506.SNP_MP_facing_questions_over_charity_s_paltry_donations_to_good_causes/
If Westminster is taxing enough already then don't complain about budget cuts. Especially when Westminster is running a budget deficit so your budget is actually more than what it should be if it was based on balanced tax revenues alone.
Waiter! Mr G would like Humble Pie - large slice please.
Ironic that the campaign complains of Inequality when its equality with men that's driven the change!
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/jan/09/state-pension-inequality-cost-women-20000-campaign
But there are problems with this too ! My father lived until the age of 90. His last 10 years were effectively a write-off. The final 2/3 years were like a 1 year old baby. Everything had to be done for him. He could not recognise no one apart from my mother who herself was only 5 years younger than him.
As we found in the last 100 years, people were expected to live until the age of 45. As nutrition and medicines improved, people started living longer. But teaching the body to last longer takes many generations of evolution.
First, your eyesight begins to go. Alright, glasses. Then hearing goes. Hearing aid. Hips, knees etc. begins to go.
Now the brain. Dementia, Alzheimer's .... We will push back those boundaries also. But we are living longer, quicker than our bodies can adapt to.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37505339
When she is not producing, obviously...
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-35302852
EEA members are allowed to activate Article 112 of the EEA agreement, the so-called 'emergency brake'. Under this rule, tiny Liechtenstein has effectively managed to suspend 'freedom of movement' indefinitely, and operate its own quota system.
This is a precedent which Britain, with far more clout, can and should follow. The window is open."
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk
where is the big windbag Tory these days, missing in action since the election. A real leader shows her how its done.
"There is no reasonable case for joining the EEA, however. Membership of the EEA implies membership of the Single Market and, as such, would entail submission to Single Market requirements and its stifling regulations and anti-free-trade ‘Fortress Europe’ mentality. "
and
"The EEA option was also never politically realistic. One of the preconditions for EEA membership is free movement of people within the EEA region, and the government has made it clear that free movement will not be acceptable to the UK post Brexit. For its part, the EU has always insisted that free movement is not negotiable either. In any case, the EEA option is now moot as the UK has made it clear that it will be seeking a hard Brexit outside the Single Market."
Kevin Dowd, A Trade Policy for a Brexited Britain, IEA, August 2017
https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/A-Trade-Policy-for-a-Brexited-Britain-D2.pdf
Why do you think Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein think the opposite?
https://twitter.com/VictoriaCoren/status/899196380656394240
More problems for Theresa. It is one thing to throw a bone at Brexiters, on the other hand,............
The charity had £25k in income, yet spent only £700 on what the money was supposed to have been raised for.
Regrets, I've had a few;