Gavin Williamson is a lucky man. In any ordinary government he would have been sacked over the exams fiasco this month, ex-Chief Whip’s book or not.
So the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh governments have all sacked his equivalent who'd all made the same decisions - along similar timelines too - to him? Or are they not ordinary either?
I agree, fishing is non negotiable, both as the Tories won so many fishing ports at GE19 and as they are targeting fishing port constituencies at Holyrood next year like Moray and Banffshire and Buchan Coast currently held by the SNP but which the Tories hold at Westminster.
Compromise may be possible on the LPA and regulatory alignment though as that would still allow the UK to do a FTA that ends free movement and allows us to do our own trade deals
Its obvious it needs suspending just from the maths but pensioners need to share a lot of the burden for covid-19 and Brexit anyway
I do not see that the share of the burden ought to be excessively shared by pensioners for either of these things - that would be undemocratic. Collective decisions made by the people have consequences that should be shared equally regardless of how a group may have voted. I am a pensioner who voted remain - do I get an exemption? On Covid 19 why should pensioners get a bigger share of the burden? Are you saying parents with sick children should pay more tax because they use the health system more or because they use the schools? Utter nonsense.
pensioners have on average lot of the wealth of the country - that needs to be used first - when they die why should it be left as a random inheritance to their kids when others get none. the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population and so inequality in inheritance is going to get worse. An ideal excuse to get rid of a ruinous triple pension lock that given most pensioners voted for the economy reducing brexit
typical greedy layabout thinking. I am a lazy no good git and so people who have toiled all their lives should have their savings taken off them and given to me so I can layabout some more. get out and earn your own money you greedy blood sucking leech.
I think you are holding back there Malcolm. Tell us what you really think.
In terms of a compromise to seal the deal, I think the UK would accept greater ties on a level-playing (beyond what's normal for usual free trade agreements) in exchange for greater access to EU markets * provided* it's not under the oversight of EU institutions, like the ECJ. The EU, in turn, needs to be persuaded that the UK’s domestic enforcement will be sufficient to maintain fair competition.
I wonder if the weakness of this current proposal is the current issue?
However, the bigger issue may be dynamic alignment: if the EU want the UK to dynamically align with all future EU competition and state aid rules, and expect the UK Competition and Markets Authority to defer to the Commission on state aid decisions, then I can see how that would be a roadblock.
One way of unlocking it might be to give the UK the right to sit in on such discussions as a non-voting member, or observer, similar to Norway, so it can give its views - and/ or agree a mechanism of equivalence.
It's long been my position on here that Brexit was being vastly overstated in its importance and that the economic consequences would prove to be relatively minor no matter what sort of a deal we do with the EU. Of course when I was saying that I had no idea that a pandemic was coming that was going to turn our economy on its head.
The economic consequences of Covid will be hundreds of times more significant than those of Brexit and show beyond any rational doubt that it is the economic policies of our own government that determine our progress or lack of it, not some technicalities of a level playing field. So far we seem to be bouncing back strongly but the debt overhangs, the unwinding of furlough, the transformation of retail and the consequences for our town centres are all massive challenges where there are risks of things going seriously wrong with devastating consequences for the economic future of a generation.
I get exasperated about people still wittering on about Brexit. We will get a deal, it will probably not be perfect but so what? We need to focus on the real challenges, we have wasted far too much time and energy on this already.
There's a lot of hysteria about the importance of the Single Market to the UK. According to the EU's own study, it was only worth about 2.2% of GDP - that's three years' foreign aid or four years' net contributions. Even that probably overstates it, as it was an EU-wide number, while we do less trade with other EU countries all other European nations, and so benefit from the single market less.
Compared to the costs of shutting much of our economy down for a virus with a 99.7% recovery rate, we won't even notice it once we've got through the one-off disruption.
I agree, fishing is non negotiable, both as the Tories won so many fishing ports at GE19 and as they are targeting fishing port constituencies at Holyrood next year like Moray currently held by the SNP.
Compromise may be possible on the LPA and regulatory alignment though as that would still allow the UK to do a FTA that ends free movement and allows us to do our own trade deals
Should the priority be the country or the Conservative party?
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
Yes, after a lifetime of a combination of hard work and good luck I have assets. I'm happy to share with people who have been less lucky or haven't yet had the chance to accumulate them, on the understanding that they will be expected to do the same. A cursory glance at my own life and my contemporaries suggests that good and bad fortune play a huge part - the idea that the successful did it all by their intrinsic genius is false.
It used to be different - pensioner poverty was a major issue, and I remember pensioners really struggling to have both food and heating. That is now rare.
Yes, while the successful tend to attribute their good fortune to intrinsic talent and hard work, to an external observer that is far from obvious. Good luck, parental inheritance of both money and connections and help from the state all have their part to play.
I am extremely fortunate that I had achieved all my ambitions by the age of forty. Everything since has been a bonus, but am fully aware that it is not all my own doing, even though financially I have inherited only £2000 in total.
In terms of a compromise to seal the deal, I think the UK would accept greater ties on a level-playing (beyond what's normal for usual free trade agreements) in exchange for greater access to EU markets * provided* it's not under the oversight of EU institutions, like the ECJ. The EU, in turn, needs to be persuaded that the UK’s domestic enforcement will be sufficient to maintain fair competition.
I wonder if the weakness of this current proposal is the current issue?
However, the bigger issue may be dynamic alignment: if the EU want the UK to dynamically align with all future EU competition and state aid rules, and expect the UK Competition and Markets Authority to defer to the Commission on state aid decisions, then I can see how that would be a roadblock.
One way of unlocking it might be to give the UK the right to sit in on such discussions as a non-voting member, or observer, similar to Norway, so it can give its views - and/ or agree a mechanism of equivalence.
Of course the ultimate, logical, solution would be to build new European institutional architecture to cover all these level-playing rules where the UK had a vote, that included the EU but was outside it.
Brexit shmexit... other than the extremists and obsessives, people are just tired of it all by now. Without movement on fish then WTO it shall be. Which will prove at a macro level to be a storm in a teacup. Still time for a compromise if Mutti steps in but at this point I’m not sure anyone much cares either way.
That sounds about right. It's old news, and there's not going to be a deal because the relatively loose relationship on the table isn't worth either side compromising its objectives. The EU demands close alignment (to stop the UK competing against it effectively, to assert the form of control that it expects across the whole continent, and because a successful Brexit would provide an exit plan for other members that might grow restive in future to follow,) and the UK Government has been elected under such terms that not only does it not want to give in, it couldn't yield even if it did.
Thus the Northern Ireland protocols survive - because the Government doesn't want to stir the hornet's nest on the peace process, the province is of peripheral value to it, and a hard border would wreck its relationship with the Americans - but beyond that there's not much else left to be discussed.
This is just the logical conclusion to everything that's happened since Cameron tried to negotiate a new relationship with the EU from within, and came away with nothing. At every stage the EU raises the hand and expects the UK to cave, but in the end the UK (other than in the special case of the Irish border, where it has sufficient motivation to give in) ends up not doing so, and is therefore pushed further and further away. And so, having started out basically wanting some modest tweaks to migration policy, Britain has ultimately ended up outside all of the EU's structures, whilst the EU has seen its north-western flank fall into the sea, taking its largest city and one of its key member states with it, and its project to unite the continent has been destroyed.
I would say that the moral of this story is all about the damage that inflexibility and an unwillingness to compromise can do, but then again the UK Government keeps throwing money and powers at Scotland and a fat lot of good that's done it. Perhaps, instead, the real story here is about the inevitable fate of those political structures that attempt to bring nations together? Sooner or later, either those nations have to merge into one seamless and virtually homogeneous whole - how many people still identify as Prussian, let alone favour secession from Germany? - or tensions between them will eventually break the whole structure apart. As with England and the EU, so with Scotland and the UK - once popular opinion in one state concludes that the centre of power is remote and acts in a manner inimical to its interests, then interest in and loyalty to the wider structure collapses and secession becomes a matter of when, not if.
Once the number of people who viewed the EU as poison, or at the very least a tedious burden that we could manage perfectly well without, passed a critical threshold then Brexit became inevitable.
The point that Brexiteers and Scottish Nationalists both miss is that Scotland did endorse the Union in 2014 by some margin. Brexit and Johnson have turned that support into antipathy so independence is now the majority opinion. No-one who voted Leave genuinely cares about the Union.
The point is we were lied to , they stole victory with lies about federalism , treating Scotland fairly , etc and then shafted us and continue to take back powers and rub our noses in it. People will not be fooled another time , only supporters left are over 65's and they are dwindling fast. Those fooled by these cheats the last time should hang their heads in shame at being so stupid to think it would be any different than previous lies.
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
Yes, after a lifetime of a combination of hard work and good luck I have assets. I'm happy to share with people who have been less lucky or haven't yet had the chance to accumulate them, on the understanding that they will be expected to do the same. A cursory glance at my own life and my contemporaries suggests that good and bad fortune play a huge part - the idea that the successful did it all by their intrinsic genius is false.
It used to be different - pensioner poverty was a major issue, and I remember pensioners really struggling to have both food and heating. That is now rare.
It's probably as good a time to be a pensioner as Britain has ever known. My wife and I often think that, apart from having spent our childhood during first the war and then during austerity, we've been very lucky.
However, there are lot of much younger people who are having a dreadful time!
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
Yes, after a lifetime of a combination of hard work and good luck I have assets. I'm happy to share with people who have been less lucky or haven't yet had the chance to accumulate them, on the understanding that they will be expected to do the same. A cursory glance at my own life and my contemporaries suggests that good and bad fortune play a huge part - the idea that the successful did it all by their intrinsic genius is false.
It used to be different - pensioner poverty was a major issue, and I remember pensioners really struggling to have both food and heating. That is now rare.
I think a double-lock makes sense for pensions in the long-term, but not a triple-one.
The latter was designed to achieve rapid increases in the state pension to bring it up to par, which has now been achieved.
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
and they need to share them given they have voted for brexit more than any section of the population
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
So was Cathcart (my theme for this morning, it seems). With Cummings as the nasty Colonel Korn, who will be Yossarian?
@Dura_Ace is the PB pet fly-boy, but perhaps not so reluctant as Yossarian.
One thing that Joseph Heller anticipated well was the corporatisation and privatisation of state functions, such as when Milo contracted with the Germans a deal including bombing his own airbase.
C22 was obviously highly autobiographical. I remember reading it at boarding school (greatly taken with the scenes involving Nately's whore at age 13!) and thinking it some sort of exaggerated parody of what going to war was like. Then, when I went to war, I realised Heller was somewhat understating the organisational and individual descents into insanity.
I agree, fishing is non negotiable, both as the Tories won so many fishing ports at GE19 and as they are targeting fishing port constituencies at Holyrood next year like Moray currently held by the SNP.
Compromise may be possible on the LPA and regulatory alignment though as that would still allow the UK to do a FTA that ends free movement and allows us to do our own trade deals
Should the priority be the country or the Conservative party?
The country voted to Leave the EU, had the country voted Remain Cameron might still be PM and we would have never left the EU.
The country also gave the Tories a majority last year on a manifesto of hard Brexit
LOL @ Boris camping in a farmer's field without asking permission!
From a government that wants to criminalise trespass.
One area where Scotland has it right in that i thought you can wild camp in Scotland without owners permission. Something we should of course have in England
You also have right to walk anywhere as long as you cause no damage.
Leaving the remains of a fire lying about may or may not constitute damage.
Dragging two dining chairs all the way from the house in order to climb over a barbed wire fence, rather than walk round and use the gate to the field, reveals a certain lack of common sense.
I would expect no less from the over privileged Bozo, though I expect he had flunkeys carry the chairs.
I agree, fishing is non negotiable, both as the Tories won so many fishing ports at GE19 and as they are targeting fishing port constituencies at Holyrood next year like Moray currently held by the SNP.
Compromise may be possible on the LPA and regulatory alignment though as that would still allow the UK to do a FTA that ends free movement and allows us to do our own trade deals
Should the priority be the country or the Conservative party?
Is there a difference?
The country overwhelmingly elected the Conservative Party. If the country wants a different parties principles then they can elect a different one at the next election.
In terms of a compromise to seal the deal, I think the UK would accept greater ties on a level-playing (beyond what's normal for usual free trade agreements) in exchange for greater access to EU markets * provided* it's not under the oversight of EU institutions, like the ECJ. The EU, in turn, needs to be persuaded that the UK’s domestic enforcement will be sufficient to maintain fair competition.
I wonder if the weakness of this current proposal is the current issue?
However, the bigger issue may be dynamic alignment: if the EU want the UK to dynamically align with all future EU competition and state aid rules, and expect the UK Competition and Markets Authority to defer to the Commission on state aid decisions, then I can see how that would be a roadblock.
One way of unlocking it might be to give the UK the right to sit in on such discussions as a non-voting member, or observer, similar to Norway, so it can give its views - and/ or agree a mechanism of equivalence.
Of course the ultimate, logical, solution would be to build new European institutional architecture to cover all these level-playing rules where the UK had a vote, that included the EU but was outside it.
LOL @ Boris camping in a farmer's field without asking permission!
From a government that wants to criminalise trespass.
One area where Scotland has it right in that i thought you can wild camp in Scotland without owners permission. Something we should of course have in England
You also have right to walk anywhere as long as you cause no damage.
Leaving the remains of a fire lying about may or may not constitute damage.
Dragging two dining chairs all the way from the house in order to climb over a barbed wire fence, rather than walk round and use the gate to the field, reveals a certain lack of common sense.
I would expect no less from the over privileged Bozo, though I expect he had flunkeys carry the chairs.
They didn't leave it lying about - the goons cleared it.
Its obvious it needs suspending just from the maths but pensioners need to share a lot of the burden for covid-19 and Brexit anyway
I do not see that the share of the burden ought to be excessively shared by pensioners for either of these things - that would be undemocratic. Collective decisions made by the people have consequences that should be shared equally regardless of how a group may have voted. I am a pensioner who voted remain - do I get an exemption? On Covid 19 why should pensioners get a bigger share of the burden? Are you saying parents with sick children should pay more tax because they use the health system more or because they use the schools? Utter nonsense.
For those arguing against Sunak, forget the mechanism for a second. How much do you think pensions should go up in 2022?
2-3%?
Or 10%+?
The triple lock will lead to the latter due to technicalities with how it is calculated that were never envisaged when it was agreed it to. So for those who think it should be 10%+, why? Do they approve of all state benefits increasing by this amount in 2022? State paid jobs? Taxes?
Sunak is obviously right for those with any understanding of maths and fairness.
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
and they need to share them given they have voted for brexit more than any section of the population
What a nutter
the words pot ,kettle ,black and look in a mirror spring to mind
Its obvious it needs suspending just from the maths but pensioners need to share a lot of the burden for covid-19 and Brexit anyway
I do not see that the share of the burden ought to be excessively shared by pensioners for either of these things - that would be undemocratic. Collective decisions made by the people have consequences that should be shared equally regardless of how a group may have voted. I am a pensioner who voted remain - do I get an exemption? On Covid 19 why should pensioners get a bigger share of the burden? Are you saying parents with sick children should pay more tax because they use the health system more or because they use the schools? Utter nonsense.
pensioners have on average lot of the wealth of the country - that needs to be used first - when they die why should it be left as a random inheritance to their kids when others get none. the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population and so inequality in inheritance is going to get worse. An ideal excuse to get rid of a ruinous triple pension lock that given most pensioners voted for the economy reducing brexit
typical greedy layabout thinking. I am a lazy no good git and so people who have toiled all their lives should have their savings taken off them and given to me so I can layabout some more. get out and earn your own money you greedy blood sucking leech.
So you're with Boris on this one Malc?
I am certainly against lazy good for nothing arses wanting to rob people who have worked all their lives. I am against all greedy layabouts who want something for nothing. They ought to get out and day a days work and earn their own money. I have worked all my life and never asked or wanted a penny of someone else's money.
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
On average, pensioner households in the UK have higher weekly income after direct taxation (income, council tax etc, but not VAT) than working households (see latest ONS release) - pity the working household unable to access mortgage credit & therefore forced to grind without even the carrot of being able to retire having paid off a mortgage!
(Working age household incoming was hammered in the 2008-13 recession, whereas retired people’s income was mostly either index linked pensions or index linked benefits.)
We are in a situation as a country where we have a retired people’s party who have a massive vested interest in keeping up the incomes of their voters at the expense of a working population who not only must pay taxes to counter the inflationary consequences of the older generation’s benefits but are also must pay them rent in return for the right to a roof over their heads.
You can see why certain parts of the younger generation might be a tad tetchy about this.
One point I don't hear being made is that the government's position on Ireland seriously undermines the Union between England and Scotland. Why? The most obvious argument against Scottish independence is the creation of a border post at Berwick - but since the UK government believes it can leave the EU without re-creating a border in Ireland - why should an independent Scotland that then chose to be in the EU, or customs and single market - need a border either?
There will be a border with Ireland if we leave with no deal, so obviously there would also be a border with an Independent Scotland and customs posts along the Scottish borders too
No-one who voted Leave genuinely cares about the Union.
That statement, when you stop to think about it for a moment, encapsulates the fundamental structural problem with multi-national confederacies, and it applies equally to the UK and to the EU itself.
In the EU, the largest and most economically and politically dominant power is Germany. Germany is the centre of gravity, the centre of influence, and it writes the cheques.
The smooth functioning of the EU is therefore predicated upon constant self-denial by the Germans. Whenever a conflict arises between their desires and interests and those of their smaller neighbours, the tail must wag the dog. The single currency is a shambles because the German taxpayer likes the upsides for Germany - having entered into it at a competitive exchange rate and then cleaned up through, for example, property speculation in Spain and laying waste to chunks of Italian manufacturing - but won't open its collective wallet and fork out for transfer payments to its poorer allies and the mutualisation of debt. Whenever Germany acts in its own interest, the outraged howling and the finger pointing begin and things stop working properly.
And thus, in the same fashion, we are told that the Brexit backing majority in England couldn't possibly give two hoots about the Union, because otherwise it would've listened to the mood music coming from Scotland and voted against its own inclinations just to keep its smaller partner happy. The existence of asymmetric devolution, the Barnett formula, mutual defence and any other possible benefits of the Union ultimately count for nothing because Scotland wants to entirely control its own destiny, and can therefore only be appeased by sovereign independence or by England bending to its wishes 100% of the time. On every occasion that the latter fails to be offered, the attraction of the former grows stronger: the long-term survival of the structure is, therefore, ultimately dependent upon the eternal self-denial of the strongest member.
England voted to leave the EU because it felt consistently marginalised, ignored and dominated and wanted to do its own thing. Scotland will leave the UK for precisely the same reasons. It is what happens to political arrangements like the EU and the UK, and it's the same fate as befell Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union before them - unless the constituent parts merge seamlessly into a single people with a single culture, then there will come a point in time when some disagreement between them becomes so serious that their bond is unable to withstand the tension, and it collapses.
The UK and the EU are both doomed to ultimate failure. It's just a matter of time.
I don't agree with your (I think) premise that unions are meaningless and doomed. I do believe a whole can be greater than the sum of the parts. I do however suspect the UK is doomed thanks to Brexit and Johnson.
Also, I don't suggest that Leavers should value the Union; I am saying, in fact, they don't value it, despite professions of love from many, including from Johnson himself.
Unions aren't necessarily doomed, but they do need to be united by a sufficient degree of common culture and common purpose to survive. The United States is the textbook example of this. It collapsed in 1861 because the original federation was relatively loose and the Northern and Southern states progressively grew apart, due to their different socio-economic models and their divergent attitudes to slavery. The South was also less populous than the North and feared domination. The whole thing had to be completely reconstructed, with the result that nobody serious talks nowadays about whether or not Wyoming should become an independent country.
The assertion that Leavers cannot possibly care about the Union is baseless. The practical effect of Brexit may well be to hasten its demise, but it is also entirely consistent to believe that being in the British Union is something desirable but that being in the European Union isn't. Presenting people with those beliefs with a choice between keeping the UK but at the price of staying in the EU, or vice versa, is rather like someone kidnapping the family cat and dog, strapping both of them into guillotines and then demanding that the owner choose who lives and who dies. If Fido is released at the price of Mister Whiskers' head ending up in a basket then it doesn't automatically follow that nobody cared about the fate of the latter.
In terms of a compromise to seal the deal, I think the UK would accept greater ties on a level-playing (beyond what's normal for usual free trade agreements) in exchange for greater access to EU markets * provided* it's not under the oversight of EU institutions, like the ECJ. The EU, in turn, needs to be persuaded that the UK’s domestic enforcement will be sufficient to maintain fair competition.
I wonder if the weakness of this current proposal is the current issue?
However, the bigger issue may be dynamic alignment: if the EU want the UK to dynamically align with all future EU competition and state aid rules, and expect the UK Competition and Markets Authority to defer to the Commission on state aid decisions, then I can see how that would be a roadblock.
One way of unlocking it might be to give the UK the right to sit in on such discussions as a non-voting member, or observer, similar to Norway, so it can give its views - and/ or agree a mechanism of equivalence.
Of course the ultimate, logical, solution would be to build new European institutional architecture to cover all these level-playing rules where the UK had a vote, that included the EU but was outside it.
A European free trade council.
Yeah right.
The EU will decide what terms we get and what rules we have to follow to get those terms.
The we hold all the carders lied and some people believed them.
Me I voted BREXIT from a sovereignty standpoint and always knew that a soft BREXIT was in both parties interests, Never thought the Tories would be so incompetent to get us to WTO though.
Brexit shmexit... other than the extremists and obsessives, people are just tired of it all by now. Without movement on fish then WTO it shall be. Which will prove at a macro level to be a storm in a teacup. Still time for a compromise if Mutti steps in but at this point I’m not sure anyone much cares either way.
That sounds about right. It's old news, and there's not going to be a deal because the relatively loose relationship on the table isn't worth either side compromising its objectives. The EU demands close alignment (to stop the UK competing against it effectively, to assert the form of control that it expects across the whole continent, and because a successful Brexit would provide an exit plan for other members that might grow restive in future to follow,) and the UK Government has been elected under such terms that not only does it not want to give in, it couldn't yield even if it did.
Thus the Northern Ireland protocols survive - because the Government doesn't want to stir the hornet's nest on the peace process, the province is of peripheral value to it, and a hard border would wreck its relationship with the Americans - but beyond that there's not much else left to be discussed.
This is just the logical conclusion to everything that's happened since Cameron tried to negotiate a new relationship with the EU from within, and came away with nothing. At every stage the EU raises the hand and expects the UK to cave, but in the end the UK (other than in the special case of the Irish border, where it has sufficient motivation to give in) ends up not doing so, and is therefore pushed further and further away. And so, having started out basically wanting some modest tweaks to migration policy, Britain has ultimately ended up outside all of the EU's structures, whilst the EU has seen its north-western flank fall into the sea, taking its largest city and one of its key member states with it, and its project to unite the continent has been destroyed.
I would say that the moral of this story is all about the damage that inflexibility and an unwillingness to compromise can do, but then again the UK Government keeps throwing money and powers at Scotland and a fat lot of good that's done it. Perhaps, instead, the real story here is about the inevitable fate of those political structures that attempt to bring nations together? Sooner or later, either those nations have to merge into one seamless and virtually homogeneous whole - how many people still identify as Prussian, let alone favour secession from Germany? - or tensions between them will eventually break the whole structure apart. As with England and the EU, so with Scotland and the UK - once popular opinion in one state concludes that the centre of power is remote and acts in a manner inimical to its interests, then interest in and loyalty to the wider structure collapses and secession becomes a matter of when, not if.
Once the number of people who viewed the EU as poison, or at the very least a tedious burden that we could manage perfectly well without, passed a critical threshold then Brexit became inevitable.
The point that Brexiteers and Scottish Nationalists both miss is that Scotland did endorse the Union in 2014 by some margin. Brexit and Johnson have turned that support into antipathy so independence is now the majority opinion. No-one who voted Leave genuinely cares about the Union.
The point is we were lied to , they stole victory with lies about federalism , treating Scotland fairly , etc and then shafted us and continue to take back powers and rub our noses in it. People will not be fooled another time , only supporters left are over 65's and they are dwindling fast. Those fooled by these cheats the last time should hang their heads in shame at being so stupid to think it would be any different than previous lies.
Which powers have been taken back? A list, please.
Brexit shmexit... other than the extremists and obsessives, people are just tired of it all by now. Without movement on fish then WTO it shall be. Which will prove at a macro level to be a storm in a teacup. Still time for a compromise if Mutti steps in but at this point I’m not sure anyone much cares either way.
That sounds about right. It's old news, and there's not going to be a deal because the relatively loose relationship on the table isn't worth either side compromising its objectives. The EU demands close alignment (to stop the UK competing against it effectively, to assert the form of control that it expects across the whole continent, and because a successful Brexit would provide an exit plan for other members that might grow restive in future to follow,) and the UK Government has been elected under such terms that not only does it not want to give in, it couldn't yield even if it did.
Thus the Northern Ireland protocols survive - because the Government doesn't want to stir the hornet's nest on the peace process, the province is of peripheral value to it, and a hard border would wreck its relationship with the Americans - but beyond that there's not much else left to be discussed.
This is just the logical conclusion to everything that's happened since Cameron tried to negotiate a new relationship with the EU from within, and came away with nothing. At every stage the EU raises the hand and expects the UK to cave, but in the end the UK (other than in the special case of the Irish border, where it has sufficient motivation to give in) ends up not doing so, and is therefore pushed further and further away. And so, having started out basically wanting some modest tweaks to migration policy, Britain has ultimately ended up outside all of the EU's structures, whilst the EU has seen its north-western flank fall into the sea, taking its largest city and one of its key member states with it, and its project to unite the continent has been destroyed.
I would say that the moral of this story is all about the damage that inflexibility and an unwillingness to compromise can do, but then again the UK Government keeps throwing money and powers at Scotland and a fat lot of good that's done it. Perhaps, instead, the real story here is about the inevitable fate of those political structures that attempt to bring nations together? Sooner or later, either those nations have to merge into one seamless and virtually homogeneous whole - how many people still identify as Prussian, let alone favour secession from Germany? - or tensions between them will eventually break the whole structure apart. As with England and the EU, so with Scotland and the UK - once popular opinion in one state concludes that the centre of power is remote and acts in a manner inimical to its interests, then interest in and loyalty to the wider structure collapses and secession becomes a matter of when, not if.
Once the number of people who viewed the EU as poison, or at the very least a tedious burden that we could manage perfectly well without, passed a critical threshold then Brexit became inevitable.
The point that Brexiteers and Scottish Nationalists both miss is that Scotland did endorse the Union in 2014 by some margin. Brexit and Johnson have turned that support into antipathy so independence is now the majority opinion. No-one who voted Leave genuinely cares about the Union.
62% voted Remain in Scotland, if Brexit was the be all and end all for the Union Yes should comfortably now be over 60% given we have left the EU.
Instead it is hovering around 50% including Don't Knows
I agree, fishing is non negotiable, both as the Tories won so many fishing ports at GE19 and as they are targeting fishing port constituencies at Holyrood next year like Moray currently held by the SNP.
Compromise may be possible on the LPA and regulatory alignment though as that would still allow the UK to do a FTA that ends free movement and allows us to do our own trade deals
Should the priority be the country or the Conservative party?
The country voted to Leave the EU, had the country voted Remain Cameron might still be PM and we would have never left the EU.
The country also gave the Tories a majority last year on a manifesto of hard Brexit
Yep. But that is not what I was challenging. Read your post. 1st para. Everything you sai was for the Conservative party not the country.
On topic, maybe I'm in a minority, but I can't for the life of me understand what the big deal is about State Aid. I can about fish.
On social and environmental protection, and workers rights, the UK is always going to have similar or better standards than the rest of the EU. We aren't going to allow industries to dump raw sewage into rivers to allow them to produce things more cheaply, and nor are we going to cut annual leave entitlements to zero, so I think it's a non-issue.
On competition and state aid (or subsidies for business) this only seems to happen in emergency situations - in normal times, it's a complete waste of money. I can understand Corbyn being unhappy about it, but not the Tories.
I'd have thought the bigger issue in a level-playing field would be taxation, where the rates we set are a matter for domestic debate and the Treasury, but strangely that doesn't seem to have come up.
To me the issue with State Aid is Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who guards the guards?
I have no qualms with agreeing a principle of mutually recognising that each side will not do unfair practices in a way that is done in normal Free Trade Agreements like CETA etc
But I am categorically and in no circumstances OK with the EU determining decisions unilaterally. Lets say hypothetically that the government were to want to put in competitive tax structures to attract Tesla and similar to invest in the UK - like Ireland have done with Apple etc and the Germans have done themselves with Tesla too. What do we do if the EU rules that the UK's structures are illegal state aid (like the EU did with Ireland but lost the case on appeal) while similarly ruling that Ireland and Germany's aid is acceptable. What do we do then?
We should agree the principles but we must be the ones to make the decisions and enforce it on our side.
It's long been my position on here that Brexit was being vastly overstated in its importance and that the economic consequences would prove to be relatively minor no matter what sort of a deal we do with the EU. Of course when I was saying that I had no idea that a pandemic was coming that was going to turn our economy on its head.
The economic consequences of Covid will be hundreds of times more significant than those of Brexit and show beyond any rational doubt that it is the economic policies of our own government that determine our progress or lack of it, not some technicalities of a level playing field. So far we seem to be bouncing back strongly but the debt overhangs, the unwinding of furlough, the transformation of retail and the consequences for our town centres are all massive challenges where there are risks of things going seriously wrong with devastating consequences for the economic future of a generation.
I get exasperated about people still wittering on about Brexit. We will get a deal, it will probably not be perfect but so what? We need to focus on the real challenges, we have wasted far too much time and energy on this already.
It will be similar to the border that is supposedly not really a border but actually is a border.
Yes ,as can be seen in the apparrant intervention below of Boris in trying to keep an unfair and illogical pension triple lock i am not sure Boris changing his management style to a more dictatorial or controlling one is good news. The one thing people like about Boris is that is is not seemingly a control freak
Brexit shmexit... other than the extremists and obsessives, people are just tired of it all by now. Without movement on fish then WTO it shall be. Which will prove at a macro level to be a storm in a teacup. Still time for a compromise if Mutti steps in but at this point I’m not sure anyone much cares either way.
That sounds about right. It's old news, and there's not going to be a deal because the relatively loose relationship on the table isn't worth either side compromising its objectives. The EU demands close alignment (to stop the UK competing against it effectively, to assert the form of control that it expects across the whole continent, and because a successful Brexit would provide an exit plan for other members that might grow restive in future to follow,) and the UK Government has been elected under such terms that not only does it not want to give in, it couldn't yield even if it did.
Thus the Northern Ireland protocols survive - because the Government doesn't want to stir the hornet's nest on the peace process, the province is of peripheral value to it, and a hard border would wreck its relationship with the Americans - but beyond that there's not much else left to be discussed.
This is just the logical conclusion to everything that's happened since Cameron tried to negotiate a new relationship with the EU from within, and came away with nothing. At every stage the EU raises the hand and expects the UK to cave, but in the end the UK (other than in the special case of the Irish border, where it has sufficient motivation to give in) ends up not doing so, and is therefore pushed further and further away. And so, having started out basically wanting some modest tweaks to migration policy, Britain has ultimately ended up outside all of the EU's structures, whilst the EU has seen its north-western flank fall into the sea, taking its largest city and one of its key member states with it, and its project to unite the continent has been destroyed.
I would say that the moral of this story is all about the damage that inflexibility and an unwillingness to compromise can do, but then again the UK Government keeps throwing money and powers at Scotland and a fat lot of good that's done it. Perhaps, instead, the real story here is about the inevitable fate of those political structures that attempt to bring nations together? Sooner or later, either those nations have to merge into one seamless and virtually homogeneous whole - how many people still identify as Prussian, let alone favour secession from Germany? - or tensions between them will eventually break the whole structure apart. As with England and the EU, so with Scotland and the UK - once popular opinion in one state concludes that the centre of power is remote and acts in a manner inimical to its interests, then interest in and loyalty to the wider structure collapses and secession becomes a matter of when, not if.
Once the number of people who viewed the EU as poison, or at the very least a tedious burden that we could manage perfectly well without, passed a critical threshold then Brexit became inevitable.
The point that Brexiteers and Scottish Nationalists both miss is that Scotland did endorse the Union in 2014 by some margin. Brexit and Johnson have turned that support into antipathy so independence is now the majority opinion. No-one who voted Leave genuinely cares about the Union.
The point is we were lied to , they stole victory with lies about federalism , treating Scotland fairly , etc and then shafted us and continue to take back powers and rub our noses in it. People will not be fooled another time , only supporters left are over 65's and they are dwindling fast. Those fooled by these cheats the last time should hang their heads in shame at being so stupid to think it would be any different than previous lies.
Which powers have been taken back? A list, please.
These immediate quarantine orders will destroy confidence in going anywhere abroad. They are not even needed given the low levels in these countries. We cannot play whack-a-mole for ever .
One point I don't hear being made is that the government's position on Ireland seriously undermines the Union between England and Scotland. Why? The most obvious argument against Scottish independence is the creation of a border post at Berwick - but since the UK government believes it can leave the EU without re-creating a border in Ireland - why should an independent Scotland that then chose to be in the EU, or customs and single market - need a border either?
There will be a border with Ireland if we leave with no deal, so obviously there would also be a border with an Independent Scotland and customs posts along the Scottish borders too
Its obvious it needs suspending just from the maths but pensioners need to share a lot of the burden for covid-19 and Brexit anyway
I do not see that the share of the burden ought to be excessively shared by pensioners for either of these things - that would be undemocratic. Collective decisions made by the people have consequences that should be shared equally regardless of how a group may have voted. I am a pensioner who voted remain - do I get an exemption? On Covid 19 why should pensioners get a bigger share of the burden? Are you saying parents with sick children should pay more tax because they use the health system more or because they use the schools? Utter nonsense.
pensioners have on average lot of the wealth of the country - that needs to be used first - when they die why should it be left as a random inheritance to their kids when others get none. the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population and so inequality in inheritance is going to get worse. An ideal excuse to get rid of a ruinous triple pension lock that given most pensioners voted for the economy reducing brexit
typical greedy layabout thinking. I am a lazy no good git and so people who have toiled all their lives should have their savings taken off them and given to me so I can layabout some more. get out and earn your own money you greedy blood sucking leech.
So you're with Boris on this one Malc?
I am certainly against lazy good for nothing arses wanting to rob people who have worked all their lives. I am against all greedy layabouts who want something for nothing. They ought to get out and day a days work and earn their own money. I have worked all my life and never asked or wanted a penny of someone else's money.
You should refuse your state pension on principle then: that’s entirely funded by other people’s money. Put your money where your mouth is & all that.
No-one who voted Leave genuinely cares about the Union.
That statement, when you stop to think about it for a moment, encapsulates the fundamental structural problem with multi-national confederacies, and it applies equally to the UK and to the EU itself.
In the EU, the largest and most economically and politically dominant power is Germany. Germany is the centre of gravity, the centre of influence, and it writes the cheques.
The smooth functioning of the EU is therefore predicated upon constant self-denial by the Germans. Whenever a conflict arises between their desires and interests and those of their smaller neighbours, the tail must wag the dog. The single currency is a shambles because the German taxpayer likes the upsides for Germany - having entered into it at a competitive exchange rate and then cleaned up through, for example, property speculation in Spain and laying waste to chunks of Italian manufacturing - but won't open its collective wallet and fork out for transfer payments to its poorer allies and the mutualisation of debt. Whenever Germany acts in its own interest, the outraged howling and the finger pointing begin and things stop working properly.
And thus, in the same fashion, we are told that the Brexit backing majority in England couldn't possibly give two hoots about the Union, because otherwise it would've listened to the mood music coming from Scotland and voted against its own inclinations just to keep its smaller partner happy. The existence of asymmetric devolution, the Barnett formula, mutual defence and any other possible benefits of the Union ultimately count for nothing because Scotland wants to entirely control its own destiny, and can therefore only be appeased by sovereign independence or by England bending to its wishes 100% of the time. On every occasion that the latter fails to be offered, the attraction of the former grows stronger: the long-term survival of the structure is, therefore, ultimately dependent upon the eternal self-denial of the strongest member.
England voted to leave the EU because it felt consistently marginalised, ignored and dominated and wanted to do its own thing. Scotland will leave the UK for precisely the same reasons. It is what happens to political arrangements like the EU and the UK, and it's the same fate as befell Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union before them - unless the constituent parts merge seamlessly into a single people with a single culture, then there will come a point in time when some disagreement between them becomes so serious that their bond is unable to withstand the tension, and it collapses.
The UK and the EU are both doomed to ultimate failure. It's just a matter of time.
I don't agree with your (I think) premise that unions are meaningless and doomed. I do believe a whole can be greater than the sum of the parts. I do however suspect the UK is doomed thanks to Brexit and Johnson.
Also, I don't suggest that Leavers should value the Union; I am saying, in fact, they don't value it, despite professions of love from many, including from Johnson himself.
Unions aren't necessarily doomed, but they do need to be united by a sufficient degree of common culture and common purpose to survive. The United States is the textbook example of this. It collapsed in 1861 because the original federation was relatively loose and the Northern and Southern states progressively grew apart, due to their different socio-economic models and their divergent attitudes to slavery. The South was also less populous than the North and feared domination. The whole thing had to be completely reconstructed, with the result that nobody serious talks nowadays about whether or not Wyoming should become an independent country.
The assertion that Leavers cannot possibly care about the Union is baseless. The practical effect of Brexit may well be to hasten its demise, but it is also entirely consistent to believe that being in the British Union is something desirable but that being in the European Union isn't. Presenting people with those beliefs with a choice between keeping the UK but at the price of staying in the EU, or vice versa, is rather like someone kidnapping the family cat and dog, strapping both of them into guillotines and then demanding that the owner choose who lives and who dies. If Fido is released at the price of Mister Whiskers' head ending up in a basket then it doesn't automatically follow that nobody cared about the fate of the latter.
I am not sure about the whole pet analogy but yes it is perfectly possible to be pro Brexit and pro Union. But like everyone else, their political desires may not come true. We have entered a political vortex, where rather than taking back control, no-one has much control any more.
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
So we can trade the fish, export those that we catch and import those that others catch. But the fish in our waters are our natural resource - countries should determine how they exploit their own natural resources.
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
On average, pensioner households in the UK have higher weekly income after direct taxation (income, council tax etc, but not VAT) than working households (see latest ONS release) - pity the working household unable to access mortgage credit & therefore forced to grind without even the carrot of being able to retire having paid off a mortgage!
(Working age household incoming was hammered in the 2008-13 recession, whereas retired people’s income was mostly either index linked pensions or index linked benefits.)
We are in a situation as a country where we have a retired people’s party who have a massive vested interest in keeping up the incomes of their voters at the expense of a working population who not only must pay taxes to counter the inflationary consequences of the older generation’s benefits but are also must pay them rent in return for the right to a roof over their heads.
You can see why certain parts of the younger generation might be a tad tetchy about this.
what utter bollox. How much tax have they paid in their lives compared to average. Another greedy grasping lazy git pops up. Go and earn your own money and stop trying to leech of people who have worked for their money.
In terms of a compromise to seal the deal, I think the UK would accept greater ties on a level-playing (beyond what's normal for usual free trade agreements) in exchange for greater access to EU markets * provided* it's not under the oversight of EU institutions, like the ECJ. The EU, in turn, needs to be persuaded that the UK’s domestic enforcement will be sufficient to maintain fair competition.
I wonder if the weakness of this current proposal is the current issue?
However, the bigger issue may be dynamic alignment: if the EU want the UK to dynamically align with all future EU competition and state aid rules, and expect the UK Competition and Markets Authority to defer to the Commission on state aid decisions, then I can see how that would be a roadblock.
One way of unlocking it might be to give the UK the right to sit in on such discussions as a non-voting member, or observer, similar to Norway, so it can give its views - and/ or agree a mechanism of equivalence.
Of course the ultimate, logical, solution would be to build new European institutional architecture to cover all these level-playing rules where the UK had a vote, that included the EU but was outside it.
A European free trade council.
We could call it the European Union and set up some institutions including a council and courts to adjudicate. Why did no one think of that?
I hope it is a very painful No Deal totally owned by this government and its supporters, but I suspect that Cummings won't allow that.
Cummings is not a magician, if the public buys what he sells that is on them.
I meant that Cummings won't allow a No Deal. That's why he fell out with Farage et al. My prediction is a cave in promoted as a great victory.
The political paradox is that the government needs Brexit to Be Done (partly because they promised it, partly because the status quo is a mess) and In Peril (because it holds the team together). They can't allow no deal, or emaciated deal, because the short term shock hasn't been prepared for.
So, the temptation will still be a "Not an extension honest" deal, ending in, say, 2025...
I agree, fishing is non negotiable, both as the Tories won so many fishing ports at GE19 and as they are targeting fishing port constituencies at Holyrood next year like Moray currently held by the SNP.
Compromise may be possible on the LPA and regulatory alignment though as that would still allow the UK to do a FTA that ends free movement and allows us to do our own trade deals
Should the priority be the country or the Conservative party?
Is there a difference?
The country overwhelmingly elected the Conservative Party. If the country wants a different parties principles then they can elect a different one at the next election.
You are correct from Conservative prospective and that is reasonable, but that is not what HYUFD said. His entire justification was to win/defend Conservative seat and nothing else and regardless of its virtue.
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
On average, pensioner households in the UK have higher weekly income after direct taxation (income, council tax etc, but not VAT) than working households (see latest ONS release) - pity the working household unable to access mortgage credit & therefore forced to grind without even the carrot of being able to retire having paid off a mortgage!
(Working age household incoming was hammered in the 2008-13 recession, whereas retired people’s income was mostly either index linked pensions or index linked benefits.)
We are in a situation as a country where we have a retired people’s party who have a massive vested interest in keeping up the incomes of their voters at the expense of a working population who not only must pay taxes to counter the inflationary consequences of the older generation’s benefits but are also must pay them rent in return for the right to a roof over their heads.
You can see why certain parts of the younger generation might be a tad tetchy about this.
Well yes, I broadly agree with your sentiments. What's to be done about it? One thing is surely to make house ownership easier for young people. Engineering a general fall in house prices would be desirable from that standpoint. The supply of housing could be increased by relaxing restrictive planning rules.
In terms of a compromise to seal the deal, I think the UK would accept greater ties on a level-playing (beyond what's normal for usual free trade agreements) in exchange for greater access to EU markets * provided* it's not under the oversight of EU institutions, like the ECJ. The EU, in turn, needs to be persuaded that the UK’s domestic enforcement will be sufficient to maintain fair competition.
I wonder if the weakness of this current proposal is the current issue?
However, the bigger issue may be dynamic alignment: if the EU want the UK to dynamically align with all future EU competition and state aid rules, and expect the UK Competition and Markets Authority to defer to the Commission on state aid decisions, then I can see how that would be a roadblock.
One way of unlocking it might be to give the UK the right to sit in on such discussions as a non-voting member, or observer, similar to Norway, so it can give its views - and/ or agree a mechanism of equivalence.
Of course the ultimate, logical, solution would be to build new European institutional architecture to cover all these level-playing rules where the UK had a vote, that included the EU but was outside it.
A European free trade council.
We could call it the European Union and set up some institutions including a council and courts to adjudicate. Why did no one think of that?
No, because that's a political union seeking to becoming a federal state, as you well know.
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
On average, pensioner households in the UK have higher weekly income after direct taxation (income, council tax etc, but not VAT) than working households (see latest ONS release) - pity the working household unable to access mortgage credit & therefore forced to grind without even the carrot of being able to retire having paid off a mortgage!
(Working age household incoming was hammered in the 2008-13 recession, whereas retired people’s income was mostly either index linked pensions or index linked benefits.)
We are in a situation as a country where we have a retired people’s party who have a massive vested interest in keeping up the incomes of their voters at the expense of a working population who not only must pay taxes to counter the inflationary consequences of the older generation’s benefits but are also must pay them rent in return for the right to a roof over their heads.
You can see why certain parts of the younger generation might be a tad tetchy about this.
what utter bollox. How much tax have they paid in their lives compared to average. Another greedy grasping lazy git pops up. Go and earn your own money and stop trying to leech of people who have worked for their money.
Says the man supporting a 10%+ annual rise in pensioner state "benefits".
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
These immediate quarantine orders will destroy confidence in going anywhere abroad. They are not even needed given the low levels in these countries. We cannot play whack-a-mole for ever .
We won't play whack-a-mole forever. Nothing is forever. Eventually there will be either a vaccine (looking likely) or a treatment or herd immunity. One way or another this will end.
But in the short-term if its a choice between playing whack-a-mole with foreign travel, or doing so with domestic restrictions then I'd rather it happens overseas. Better that than going back into a domestic lockdown.
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
On average, pensioner households in the UK have higher weekly income after direct taxation (income, council tax etc, but not VAT) than working households (see latest ONS release) - pity the working household unable to access mortgage credit & therefore forced to grind without even the carrot of being able to retire having paid off a mortgage!
(Working age household incoming was hammered in the 2008-13 recession, whereas retired people’s income was mostly either index linked pensions or index linked benefits.)
We are in a situation as a country where we have a retired people’s party who have a massive vested interest in keeping up the incomes of their voters at the expense of a working population who not only must pay taxes to counter the inflationary consequences of the older generation’s benefits but are also must pay them rent in return for the right to a roof over their heads.
You can see why certain parts of the younger generation might be a tad tetchy about this.
You are right, but by no means all pensioners are wealthy. Many still have to live off the relatively low state pension (£134.25 a week is not a lot of money), or the state pension plus a small occupational pension. Very few, if any, poorer pensioners seem to be active on PB.
So the triple lock helps the poorer pensioners keep up, as it benefits the state pension. Rather than abandon it, surely the equitable solution is to use taxation (both on income and assets, on inheritance) to raise more money from those pensioners that can afford it, while protecting those at the bottom of the heap.
I agree, fishing is non negotiable, both as the Tories won so many fishing ports at GE19 and as they are targeting fishing port constituencies at Holyrood next year like Moray currently held by the SNP.
Compromise may be possible on the LPA and regulatory alignment though as that would still allow the UK to do a FTA that ends free movement and allows us to do our own trade deals
Should the priority be the country or the Conservative party?
Is there a difference?
The country overwhelmingly elected the Conservative Party. If the country wants a different parties principles then they can elect a different one at the next election.
You are correct from Conservative prospective and that is reasonable, but that is not what HYUFD said. His entire justification was to win/defend Conservative seat and nothing else and regardless of its virtue.
It is the football team supporter mentality once more.
On topic, maybe I'm in a minority, but I can't for the life of me understand what the big deal is about State Aid. I can about fish.
On social and environmental protection, and workers rights, the UK is always going to have similar or better standards than the rest of the EU. We aren't going to allow industries to dump raw sewage into rivers to allow them to produce things more cheaply, and nor are we going to cut annual leave entitlements to zero, so I think it's a non-issue.
On competition and state aid (or subsidies for business) this only seems to happen in emergency situations - in normal times, it's a complete waste of money. I can understand Corbyn being unhappy about it, but not the Tories.
I'd have thought the bigger issue in a level-playing field would be taxation, where the rates we set are a matter for domestic debate and the Treasury, but strangely that doesn't seem to have come up.
To me the issue with State Aid is Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who guards the guards?
I have no qualms with agreeing a principle of mutually recognising that each side will not do unfair practices in a way that is done in normal Free Trade Agreements like CETA etc
But I am categorically and in no circumstances OK with the EU determining decisions unilaterally. Lets say hypothetically that the government were to want to put in competitive tax structures to attract Tesla and similar to invest in the UK - like Ireland have done with Apple etc and the Germans have done themselves with Tesla too. What do we do if the EU rules that the UK's structures are illegal state aid (like the EU did with Ireland but lost the case on appeal) while similarly ruling that Ireland and Germany's aid is acceptable. What do we do then?
We should agree the principles but we must be the ones to make the decisions and enforce it on our side.
If the EU rules allow it for Ireland and Germany, inside the EU obeying EU rules, then they should do the same for the UK outwith too, if the ask is that we all follow the same rules.
I suspect the devil's in the detail, which I haven't seen.
One point I don't hear being made is that the government's position on Ireland seriously undermines the Union between England and Scotland. Why? The most obvious argument against Scottish independence is the creation of a border post at Berwick - but since the UK government believes it can leave the EU without re-creating a border in Ireland - why should an independent Scotland that then chose to be in the EU, or customs and single market - need a border either?
BiB - Is that really the most obvious argument? I doubt we'd build a (new) wall!
Surely the question of the currency is the biggest obstacle to Scottish independence - it's on another level to Brexit.
Keep hoping , why should currency be an issue , 200+ other countries manage it , why should Scotland be the only country in the world unable to have a currency? Please explain.
I think we went through the options open to i-Scotland last week? Of course Scotland can have its own currency. In my view it’s the only realistic route to take if independence is implemented. But leaving a well embedded currency union does not come without significant challenges, affecting variously the value of people’s savings, the financial stability of the banking sector, the cost of servicing the budget deficit, inflation and employment.
It’s a really massive exercise to undertake to get to the end state. Far far more so than Brexit. Compounded by the apparent desire of the first likely independent government to also leave the British single market and customs union, which is far more important to Scotland than the European one is to the UK.
If Scotland’s identity drift away from the UK is sufficiently strong then so be it but the difficulty in getting from A to B shouldn’t be underestimated. The 2014 flavour of Project Fear never needed to interrogate the currency debate too deeply because there was more politically fertile ground for them to mine first. But it’s going to be the major part of any second referendum debate, purely because the vote is closer at the outset. I don’t personally think it’s a great basis to maintain a political union by the way, your average Greek would have been happier today if they’d never joined the Euro and likely a more willing participant in the EU project. But we start from where are.
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
On average, pensioner households in the UK have higher weekly income after direct taxation (income, council tax etc, but not VAT) than working households (see latest ONS release) - pity the working household unable to access mortgage credit & therefore forced to grind without even the carrot of being able to retire having paid off a mortgage!
(Working age household incoming was hammered in the 2008-13 recession, whereas retired people’s income was mostly either index linked pensions or index linked benefits.)
We are in a situation as a country where we have a retired people’s party who have a massive vested interest in keeping up the incomes of their voters at the expense of a working population who not only must pay taxes to counter the inflationary consequences of the older generation’s benefits but are also must pay them rent in return for the right to a roof over their heads.
You can see why certain parts of the younger generation might be a tad tetchy about this.
You are right, but by no means all pensioners are wealthy. Many still have to live off the relatively low state pension (£134.25 a week is not a lot of money), or the state pension plus a small occupational pension. Very few, if any, poorer pensioners seem to be active on PB.
So the triple lock helps the poorer pensioners keep up, as it benefits the state pension. Rather than abandon it, surely the equitable solution is to use taxation (both on income and assets, on inheritance) to raise more money from those pensioners that can afford it, while protecting those at the bottom of the heap.
The triple lock give pensioners 2.5% when inflation is 1% it is completely unfair
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
On average, pensioner households in the UK have higher weekly income after direct taxation (income, council tax etc, but not VAT) than working households (see latest ONS release) - pity the working household unable to access mortgage credit & therefore forced to grind without even the carrot of being able to retire having paid off a mortgage!
(Working age household incoming was hammered in the 2008-13 recession, whereas retired people’s income was mostly either index linked pensions or index linked benefits.)
We are in a situation as a country where we have a retired people’s party who have a massive vested interest in keeping up the incomes of their voters at the expense of a working population who not only must pay taxes to counter the inflationary consequences of the older generation’s benefits but are also must pay them rent in return for the right to a roof over their heads.
You can see why certain parts of the younger generation might be a tad tetchy about this.
You are right, but by no means all pensioners are wealthy. Many still have to live off the relatively low state pension (£134.25 a week is not a lot of money), or the state pension plus a small occupational pension. Very few, if any, poorer pensioners seem to be active on PB.
So the triple lock helps the poorer pensioners keep up, as it benefits the state pension. Rather than abandon it, surely the equitable solution is to use taxation (both on income and assets, on inheritance) to raise more money from those pensioners that can afford it, while protecting those at the bottom of the heap.
The 2022 increase would very likely be 10%+, this report is suggesting its 18%!
I hope it is a very painful No Deal totally owned by this government and its supporters, but I suspect that Cummings won't allow that.
Cummings is not a magician, if the public buys what he sells that is on them.
I meant that Cummings won't allow a No Deal. That's why he fell out with Farage et al. My prediction is a cave in promoted as a great victory.
The political paradox is that the government needs Brexit to Be Done (partly because they promised it, partly because the status quo is a mess) and In Peril (because it holds the team together). They can't allow no deal, or emaciated deal, because the short term shock hasn't been prepared for.
So, the temptation will still be a "Not an extension honest" deal, ending in, say, 2025...
What shock?
COVID is a shock. Brexit, even a No Deal Brexit will be inconsequential in comparison.
In terms of a compromise to seal the deal, I think the UK would accept greater ties on a level-playing (beyond what's normal for usual free trade agreements) in exchange for greater access to EU markets * provided* it's not under the oversight of EU institutions, like the ECJ. The EU, in turn, needs to be persuaded that the UK’s domestic enforcement will be sufficient to maintain fair competition.
I wonder if the weakness of this current proposal is the current issue?
However, the bigger issue may be dynamic alignment: if the EU want the UK to dynamically align with all future EU competition and state aid rules, and expect the UK Competition and Markets Authority to defer to the Commission on state aid decisions, then I can see how that would be a roadblock.
One way of unlocking it might be to give the UK the right to sit in on such discussions as a non-voting member, or observer, similar to Norway, so it can give its views - and/ or agree a mechanism of equivalence.
Of course the ultimate, logical, solution would be to build new European institutional architecture to cover all these level-playing rules where the UK had a vote, that included the EU but was outside it.
A European free trade council.
Yeah right.
The EU will decide what terms we get and what rules we have to follow to get those terms.
The we hold all the carders lied and some people believed them.
Me I voted BREXIT from a sovereignty standpoint and always knew that a soft BREXIT was in both parties interests, Never thought the Tories would be so incompetent to get us to WTO though.
I'm not arguing this will be agreed *now*. I'm saying in the long-term it's the obvious political solution that would be stable and make sense to both parties.
The UK wants to be in a common free-trade area with the rest of Europe, and even a common market, but not a political union.
At the moment, Europe's political structures make it a black and white choice.
Brexit shmexit... other than the extremists and obsessives, people are just tired of it all by now. Without movement on fish then WTO it shall be. Which will prove at a macro level to be a storm in a teacup. Still time for a compromise if Mutti steps in but at this point I’m not sure anyone much cares either way.
That sounds about right. It's old news, and there's not going to be a deal because the relatively loose relationship on the table isn't worth either side compromising its objectives. The EU demands close alignment (to stop the UK competing against it effectively, to assert the form of control that it expects across the whole continent, and because a successful Brexit would provide an exit plan for other members that might grow restive in future to follow,) and the UK Government has been elected under such terms that not only does it not want to give in, it couldn't yield even if it did.
Thus the Northern Ireland protocols survive - because the Government doesn't want to stir the hornet's nest on the peace process, the province is of peripheral value to it, and a hard border would wreck its relationship with the Americans - but beyond that there's not much else left to be discussed.
This is just the logical conclusion to everything that's happened since Cameron tried to negotiate a new relationship with the EU from within, and came away with nothing. At every stage the EU raises the hand and expects the UK to cave, but in the end the UK (other than in the special case of the Irish border, where it has sufficient motivation to give in) ends up not doing so, and is therefore pushed further and further away. And so, having started out basically wanting some modest tweaks to migration policy, Britain has ultimately ended up outside all of the EU's structures, whilst the EU has seen its north-western flank fall into the sea, taking its largest city and one of its key member states with it, and its project to unite the continent has been destroyed.
I would say that the moral of this story is all about the damage that inflexibility and an unwillingness to compromise can do, but then again the UK Government keeps throwing money and powers at Scotland and a fat lot of good that's done it. Perhaps, instead, the real story here is about the inevitable fate of those political structures that attempt to bring nations together? Sooner or later, either those nations have to merge into one seamless and virtually homogeneous whole - how many people still identify as Prussian, let alone favour secession from Germany? - or tensions between them will eventually break the whole structure apart. As with England and the EU, so with Scotland and the UK - once popular opinion in one state concludes that the centre of power is remote and acts in a manner inimical to its interests, then interest in and loyalty to the wider structure collapses and secession becomes a matter of when, not if.
Once the number of people who viewed the EU as poison, or at the very least a tedious burden that we could manage perfectly well without, passed a critical threshold then Brexit became inevitable.
The point that Brexiteers and Scottish Nationalists both miss is that Scotland did endorse the Union in 2014 by some margin. Brexit and Johnson have turned that support into antipathy so independence is now the majority opinion. No-one who voted Leave genuinely cares about the Union.
The point is we were lied to , they stole victory with lies about federalism , treating Scotland fairly , etc and then shafted us and continue to take back powers and rub our noses in it. People will not be fooled another time , only supporters left are over 65's and they are dwindling fast. Those fooled by these cheats the last time should hang their heads in shame at being so stupid to think it would be any different than previous lies.
Which powers have been taken back? A list, please.
This obsession with trying to find new means for that portion of the population that still has spare cash to go abroad, blow it all there, and then come back and re-seed parts of this country that are virtually Covid-free with the Plague surpasses my understanding.
Like working from home, axing foreign holidays is one of the easiest, cheapest, least damaging and most effective mechanisms we have for squashing Covid. It doesn't involve, for example, mass closures of non-essential retail, forcing kids to miss out on their education, or shutting gyms and swimming pools and thus making it more likely that people get fat. It's relatively easy and painless, flopping about on a sweltering Mediterranean beach is essential to precisely nobody, and one imagines that both the economic and political cost of having to deal with all these hokey-cokey travel restrictions, the attempted enforcement of quarantine rules and the potential consequences of their violation is greater than that of bunging an extra few hundred million quid at travel agents and tour operators, simply to mothball them until things have calmed down a bit.
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
I agree, fishing is non negotiable, both as the Tories won so many fishing ports at GE19 and as they are targeting fishing port constituencies at Holyrood next year like Moray currently held by the SNP.
Compromise may be possible on the LPA and regulatory alignment though as that would still allow the UK to do a FTA that ends free movement and allows us to do our own trade deals
Should the priority be the country or the Conservative party?
Is there a difference?
The country overwhelmingly elected the Conservative Party. If the country wants a different parties principles then they can elect a different one at the next election.
The country didn’t overwhelmingly elect a conservative government, it got less than50% of the vote so is a minority administration. It was also elected to look after the interests of all its residents as far as is possible and has a responsibility to seek fairness. This government does not try to do anything but look after those who pay the piper (And I don’t mean the average tax payer) knowing it can get away with it And will continue to do so. So much for democracy.
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
On average, pensioner households in the UK have higher weekly income after direct taxation (income, council tax etc, but not VAT) than working households (see latest ONS release) - pity the working household unable to access mortgage credit & therefore forced to grind without even the carrot of being able to retire having paid off a mortgage!
(Working age household incoming was hammered in the 2008-13 recession, whereas retired people’s income was mostly either index linked pensions or index linked benefits.)
We are in a situation as a country where we have a retired people’s party who have a massive vested interest in keeping up the incomes of their voters at the expense of a working population who not only must pay taxes to counter the inflationary consequences of the older generation’s benefits but are also must pay them rent in return for the right to a roof over their heads.
You can see why certain parts of the younger generation might be a tad tetchy about this.
You are right, but by no means all pensioners are wealthy. Many still have to live off the relatively low state pension (£134.25 a week is not a lot of money), or the state pension plus a small occupational pension. Very few, if any, poorer pensioners seem to be active on PB.
So the triple lock helps the poorer pensioners keep up, as it benefits the state pension. Rather than abandon it, surely the equitable solution is to use taxation (both on income and assets, on inheritance) to raise more money from those pensioners that can afford it, while protecting those at the bottom of the heap.
Surely pensioners are taxed the same as anyone else, if they earn more than their tax allowance then they get taxed on it. They do not get any special tax treatment.
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
On average, pensioner households in the UK have higher weekly income after direct taxation (income, council tax etc, but not VAT) than working households (see latest ONS release) - pity the working household unable to access mortgage credit & therefore forced to grind without even the carrot of being able to retire having paid off a mortgage!
(Working age household incoming was hammered in the 2008-13 recession, whereas retired people’s income was mostly either index linked pensions or index linked benefits.)
We are in a situation as a country where we have a retired people’s party who have a massive vested interest in keeping up the incomes of their voters at the expense of a working population who not only must pay taxes to counter the inflationary consequences of the older generation’s benefits but are also must pay them rent in return for the right to a roof over their heads.
You can see why certain parts of the younger generation might be a tad tetchy about this.
You are right, but by no means all pensioners are wealthy. Many still have to live off the relatively low state pension (£134.25 a week is not a lot of money), or the state pension plus a small occupational pension. Very few, if any, poorer pensioners seem to be active on PB.
So the triple lock helps the poorer pensioners keep up, as it benefits the state pension. Rather than abandon it, surely the equitable solution is to use taxation (both on income and assets, on inheritance) to raise more money from those pensioners that can afford it, while protecting those at the bottom of the heap.
The triple lock give pensioners 2.5% when inflation is 1% it is completely unfair
Thats the long term problem but not what Sunak is talking about. He knows that it will give a 10%+ increase when inflation is 0-3% in 2022.
This obsession with trying to find new means for that portion of the population that still has spare cash to go abroad, blow it all there, and then come back and re-seed parts of this country that are virtually Covid-free with the Plague surpasses my understanding.
Like working from home, axing foreign holidays is one of the easiest, cheapest, least damaging and most effective mechanisms we have for squashing Covid. It doesn't involve, for example, mass closures of non-essential retail, forcing kids to miss out on their education, or shutting gyms and swimming pools and thus making it more likely that people get fat. It's relatively easy and painless, flopping about on a sweltering Mediterranean beach is essential to precisely nobody, and one imagines that both the economic and political cost of having to deal with all these hokey-cokey travel restrictions, the attempted enforcement of quarantine rules and the potential consequences of their violation is greater than that of bunging an extra few hundred million quid at travel agents and tour operators, simply to mothball them until things have calmed down a bit.
On topic, maybe I'm in a minority, but I can't for the life of me understand what the big deal is about State Aid. I can about fish.
On social and environmental protection, and workers rights, the UK is always going to have similar or better standards than the rest of the EU. We aren't going to allow industries to dump raw sewage into rivers to allow them to produce things more cheaply, and nor are we going to cut annual leave entitlements to zero, so I think it's a non-issue.
On competition and state aid (or subsidies for business) this only seems to happen in emergency situations - in normal times, it's a complete waste of money. I can understand Corbyn being unhappy about it, but not the Tories.
I'd have thought the bigger issue in a level-playing field would be taxation, where the rates we set are a matter for domestic debate and the Treasury, but strangely that doesn't seem to have come up.
To me the issue with State Aid is Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who guards the guards?
I have no qualms with agreeing a principle of mutually recognising that each side will not do unfair practices in a way that is done in normal Free Trade Agreements like CETA etc
But I am categorically and in no circumstances OK with the EU determining decisions unilaterally. Lets say hypothetically that the government were to want to put in competitive tax structures to attract Tesla and similar to invest in the UK - like Ireland have done with Apple etc and the Germans have done themselves with Tesla too. What do we do if the EU rules that the UK's structures are illegal state aid (like the EU did with Ireland but lost the case on appeal) while similarly ruling that Ireland and Germany's aid is acceptable. What do we do then?
We should agree the principles but we must be the ones to make the decisions and enforce it on our side.
If the EU rules allow it for Ireland and Germany, inside the EU obeying EU rules, then they should do the same for the UK outwith too, if the ask is that we all follow the same rules.
I suspect the devil's in the detail, which I haven't seen.
The problem is who determines it though. The rules aren't and never have been black and white, they require interpretation.
Every country does different things that need interpretation - and quite often countries apply for and get consent to do something despite the rules.
Can we put ourselves in the position where the EU are interpreting what is OK for its own members while simultaneously interpreting what is OK for us? That's not OK to me, if the EU is interpreting what is OK for its members then we must interpret what is OK for us . . . or we must have an independent arbitration panel that they can't unilaterally control.
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
Yes, after a lifetime of a combination of hard work and good luck I have assets. I'm happy to share with people who have been less lucky or haven't yet had the chance to accumulate them, on the understanding that they will be expected to do the same. A cursory glance at my own life and my contemporaries suggests that good and bad fortune play a huge part - the idea that the successful did it all by their intrinsic genius is false.
It used to be different - pensioner poverty was a major issue, and I remember pensioners really struggling to have both food and heating. That is now rare.
I think pensioner poverty is still perhaps significant. There was a big reduction in 1997-2005, then a plateau, then a slow increase. Perhaps that indicates that we need to look beyond the simple existence or not of the triple lock. These are Age UK numbers.
That is certainly a signicant reduction on this measure of say 40%. But there is a big chunk still there.
Is it fair to suggest you need to add "in the public sector" to that first sentence? I've had to recast my long-term pension arrangements twice now in response to major changes - the latest being the collapse in annuity rates in the 2000-2010 period and since.
I see a similar cleavage in Corona impact.
In my circles people in "essential services" - mainly public sector but also food supply chain etc have kept full salaries and perhaps overtime, whilst furloughed people are down 20-30% on income and will need 1-2 years to recover.
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
On average, pensioner households in the UK have higher weekly income after direct taxation (income, council tax etc, but not VAT) than working households (see latest ONS release) - pity the working household unable to access mortgage credit & therefore forced to grind without even the carrot of being able to retire having paid off a mortgage!
(Working age household incoming was hammered in the 2008-13 recession, whereas retired people’s income was mostly either index linked pensions or index linked benefits.)
We are in a situation as a country where we have a retired people’s party who have a massive vested interest in keeping up the incomes of their voters at the expense of a working population who not only must pay taxes to counter the inflationary consequences of the older generation’s benefits but are also must pay them rent in return for the right to a roof over their heads.
You can see why certain parts of the younger generation might be a tad tetchy about this.
what utter bollox. How much tax have they paid in their lives compared to average. Another greedy grasping lazy git pops up. Go and earn your own money and stop trying to leech of people who have worked for their money.
Says the man supporting a 10%+ annual rise in pensioner state "benefits".
I find it hard to believe pensions are going up by 10%+ per annum and anyone earning over the tax allowance pays tax the same as every "Working" person. I would agree that benefits should be taxable income and if anyone exceeds their tax allowance then they should pay tax on it. I am looking forward to being a rich pensioner with 10%+ rises every year in future now though.
I agree, fishing is non negotiable, both as the Tories won so many fishing ports at GE19 and as they are targeting fishing port constituencies at Holyrood next year like Moray currently held by the SNP.
Compromise may be possible on the LPA and regulatory alignment though as that would still allow the UK to do a FTA that ends free movement and allows us to do our own trade deals
Should the priority be the country or the Conservative party?
Is there a difference?
The country overwhelmingly elected the Conservative Party. If the country wants a different parties principles then they can elect a different one at the next election.
The country didn’t overwhelmingly elect a conservative government, it got less than50% of the vote so is a minority administration. It was also elected to look after the interests of all its residents as far as is possible and has a responsibility to seek fairness. This government does not try to do anything but look after those who pay the piper (And I don’t mean the average tax payer) knowing it can get away with it And will continue to do so. So much for democracy.
It is a majority administration elected under the standard voting system used by billions of people across the globe, an order of magnitude more people than any other voting system at all.
The party got millions more votes than any other party. Don't be a sore loser.
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
Yes, after a lifetime of a combination of hard work and good luck I have assets. I'm happy to share with people who have been less lucky or haven't yet had the chance to accumulate them, on the understanding that they will be expected to do the same. A cursory glance at my own life and my contemporaries suggests that good and bad fortune play a huge part - the idea that the successful did it all by their intrinsic genius is false.
It used to be different - pensioner poverty was a major issue, and I remember pensioners really struggling to have both food and heating. That is now rare.
I think a double-lock makes sense for pensions in the long-term, but not a triple-one.
The latter was designed to achieve rapid increases in the state pension to bring it up to par, which has now been achieved.
The difficulty is that each of the "locks" is strongly justified in differing circumstances & pensioners understandably believe that any abandonment is done to stuff them again.
Originally, the 2.5% was in place to redress the historic under-raising of benefits in previous higher-inflationary times, whilst the earnings and inflationary locks notionally prevent the government from either simply paying government employees a lot more, or printing a great pile of currency in order to pay benefits. Either would result in a loss in pensioner income.
The problem comes when the country goes through a deflationary economic contraction: the consequence of the triple lock is that pensioner income goes up whilst working incomes collapse. This is clearly untenable during any kind of protracted contraction, yet at the same time it is politically very difficult for a party dependent on older voters to ditch the triple lock.
So here we are: logically pensioners who, as outlined in the ONS stats, earn more than working households surely ought to have their incomes reduced by the effects of Covid-19 and/or Brexit on the UK economy just as much as everyone else, yet they screech and wail about even the mention of the possibility of a threat to their (as they see them) god-given right to the privileged position they currently hold.
Frankly, the working population has sacrificed their income in order to protect the lives of pensioners from Covid-19. The least the older generation can do is accept a small loss of income in order to protect the livelihoods of those who have given up so much. I note the older generation have likewise voted for Brexit in far greater numbers whilst notionally insulated from the economic consequences. Likewise, a little sharing of outcomes would seem politic.
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
On average, pensioner households in the UK have higher weekly income after direct taxation (income, council tax etc, but not VAT) than working households (see latest ONS release) - pity the working household unable to access mortgage credit & therefore forced to grind without even the carrot of being able to retire having paid off a mortgage!
(Working age household incoming was hammered in the 2008-13 recession, whereas retired people’s income was mostly either index linked pensions or index linked benefits.)
We are in a situation as a country where we have a retired people’s party who have a massive vested interest in keeping up the incomes of their voters at the expense of a working population who not only must pay taxes to counter the inflationary consequences of the older generation’s benefits but are also must pay them rent in return for the right to a roof over their heads.
You can see why certain parts of the younger generation might be a tad tetchy about this.
You are right, but by no means all pensioners are wealthy. Many still have to live off the relatively low state pension (£134.25 a week is not a lot of money), or the state pension plus a small occupational pension. Very few, if any, poorer pensioners seem to be active on PB.
So the triple lock helps the poorer pensioners keep up, as it benefits the state pension. Rather than abandon it, surely the equitable solution is to use taxation (both on income and assets, on inheritance) to raise more money from those pensioners that can afford it, while protecting those at the bottom of the heap.
Surely pensioners are taxed the same as anyone else, if they earn more than their tax allowance then they get taxed on it. They do not get any special tax treatment.
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
The east coast barons are all rapacious Tories, boats rammed with overseas workers to enhance profits etc, Tories will not want to upset the large donations.
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
On average, pensioner households in the UK have higher weekly income after direct taxation (income, council tax etc, but not VAT) than working households (see latest ONS release) - pity the working household unable to access mortgage credit & therefore forced to grind without even the carrot of being able to retire having paid off a mortgage!
(Working age household incoming was hammered in the 2008-13 recession, whereas retired people’s income was mostly either index linked pensions or index linked benefits.)
We are in a situation as a country where we have a retired people’s party who have a massive vested interest in keeping up the incomes of their voters at the expense of a working population who not only must pay taxes to counter the inflationary consequences of the older generation’s benefits but are also must pay them rent in return for the right to a roof over their heads.
You can see why certain parts of the younger generation might be a tad tetchy about this.
You are right, but by no means all pensioners are wealthy. Many still have to live off the relatively low state pension (£134.25 a week is not a lot of money), or the state pension plus a small occupational pension. Very few, if any, poorer pensioners seem to be active on PB.
So the triple lock helps the poorer pensioners keep up, as it benefits the state pension. Rather than abandon it, surely the equitable solution is to use taxation (both on income and assets, on inheritance) to raise more money from those pensioners that can afford it, while protecting those at the bottom of the heap.
Surely pensioners are taxed the same as anyone else, if they earn more than their tax allowance then they get taxed on it. They do not get any special tax treatment.
They don't pay NI, even if they're still earning extra money, as I understand it. But basically I'm in favour of increasing taxes anyway (including on myself, I hasten to add).
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
On average, pensioner households in the UK have higher weekly income after direct taxation (income, council tax etc, but not VAT) than working households (see latest ONS release) - pity the working household unable to access mortgage credit & therefore forced to grind without even the carrot of being able to retire having paid off a mortgage!
(Working age household incoming was hammered in the 2008-13 recession, whereas retired people’s income was mostly either index linked pensions or index linked benefits.)
We are in a situation as a country where we have a retired people’s party who have a massive vested interest in keeping up the incomes of their voters at the expense of a working population who not only must pay taxes to counter the inflationary consequences of the older generation’s benefits but are also must pay them rent in return for the right to a roof over their heads.
You can see why certain parts of the younger generation might be a tad tetchy about this.
You are right, but by no means all pensioners are wealthy. Many still have to live off the relatively low state pension (£134.25 a week is not a lot of money), or the state pension plus a small occupational pension. Very few, if any, poorer pensioners seem to be active on PB.
So the triple lock helps the poorer pensioners keep up, as it benefits the state pension. Rather than abandon it, surely the equitable solution is to use taxation (both on income and assets, on inheritance) to raise more money from those pensioners that can afford it, while protecting those at the bottom of the heap.
Very few, if any, poorer people are active on PB. Some may think they are but I doubt they are living on UC as sole source of income, although that may well change in the coming months.
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
Then why did most Scottish fishermen and most Scottish fishing ports vote Tory even in 2019? They want control of their own waters
I hope it is a very painful No Deal totally owned by this government and its supporters, but I suspect that Cummings won't allow that.
Cummings is not a magician, if the public buys what he sells that is on them.
I meant that Cummings won't allow a No Deal. That's why he fell out with Farage et al. My prediction is a cave in promoted as a great victory.
The political paradox is that the government needs Brexit to Be Done (partly because they promised it, partly because the status quo is a mess) and In Peril (because it holds the team together). They can't allow no deal, or emaciated deal, because the short term shock hasn't been prepared for.
So, the temptation will still be a "Not an extension honest" deal, ending in, say, 2025...
Yes, WTO terms is indeed purgatory.
No Trade Deal is a way point, not an endpoint. It would merely mean disruption for some years while a new relationship was negotiated, by this government or the next.
One point I don't hear being made is that the government's position on Ireland seriously undermines the Union between England and Scotland. Why? The most obvious argument against Scottish independence is the creation of a border post at Berwick - but since the UK government believes it can leave the EU without re-creating a border in Ireland - why should an independent Scotland that then chose to be in the EU, or customs and single market - need a border either?
There will be a border with Ireland if we leave with no deal, so obviously there would also be a border with an Independent Scotland and customs posts along the Scottish borders too
Why would that be a problem
Well if you are happy with tariffs on Scottish exports to England then fine
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
On average, pensioner households in the UK have higher weekly income after direct taxation (income, council tax etc, but not VAT) than working households (see latest ONS release) - pity the working household unable to access mortgage credit & therefore forced to grind without even the carrot of being able to retire having paid off a mortgage!
(Working age household incoming was hammered in the 2008-13 recession, whereas retired people’s income was mostly either index linked pensions or index linked benefits.)
We are in a situation as a country where we have a retired people’s party who have a massive vested interest in keeping up the incomes of their voters at the expense of a working population who not only must pay taxes to counter the inflationary consequences of the older generation’s benefits but are also must pay them rent in return for the right to a roof over their heads.
You can see why certain parts of the younger generation might be a tad tetchy about this.
what utter bollox. How much tax have they paid in their lives compared to average. Another greedy grasping lazy git pops up. Go and earn your own money and stop trying to leech of people who have worked for their money.
Says the man supporting a 10%+ annual rise in pensioner state "benefits".
I find it hard to believe pensions are going up by 10%+ per annum and anyone earning over the tax allowance pays tax the same as every "Working" person. I would agree that benefits should be taxable income and if anyone exceeds their tax allowance then they should pay tax on it. I am looking forward to being a rich pensioner with 10%+ rises every year in future now though.
The triple lock means you are protected from the drop in wages that has happened this year as a consequence of Covid-10 (8% or so IIRC), but if the economy recovers next year, then the YoY change in wages will be +10% or so, which means that pensions will jump 10% in response.
This is clearly wildly unfair + probably unaffordable. But to prevent it happening means breaking the triple lock, hence all the wailing.
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
On average, pensioner households in the UK have higher weekly income after direct taxation (income, council tax etc, but not VAT) than working households (see latest ONS release) - pity the working household unable to access mortgage credit & therefore forced to grind without even the carrot of being able to retire having paid off a mortgage!
(Working age household incoming was hammered in the 2008-13 recession, whereas retired people’s income was mostly either index linked pensions or index linked benefits.)
We are in a situation as a country where we have a retired people’s party who have a massive vested interest in keeping up the incomes of their voters at the expense of a working population who not only must pay taxes to counter the inflationary consequences of the older generation’s benefits but are also must pay them rent in return for the right to a roof over their heads.
You can see why certain parts of the younger generation might be a tad tetchy about this.
what utter bollox. How much tax have they paid in their lives compared to average. Another greedy grasping lazy git pops up. Go and earn your own money and stop trying to leech of people who have worked for their money.
Says the man supporting a 10%+ annual rise in pensioner state "benefits".
I find it hard to believe pensions are going up by 10%+ per annum and anyone earning over the tax allowance pays tax the same as every "Working" person. I would agree that benefits should be taxable income and if anyone exceeds their tax allowance then they should pay tax on it. I am looking forward to being a rich pensioner with 10%+ rises every year in future now though.
It is not every year, its a one off in 2022, which then subsequently sets the base for 2023, etc. You are giving strong views but showing no understanding of why Sunak wants to "suspend" not stop the triple lock. He wants to suspend it because it would lead to a double digit increase in 2022, because incomes dropped massively in 2020, recover sharply in 2021, setting a completely unrealistic number for 2022.
I agree, fishing is non negotiable, both as the Tories won so many fishing ports at GE19 and as they are targeting fishing port constituencies at Holyrood next year like Moray currently held by the SNP.
Compromise may be possible on the LPA and regulatory alignment though as that would still allow the UK to do a FTA that ends free movement and allows us to do our own trade deals
Should the priority be the country or the Conservative party?
Is there a difference?
The country overwhelmingly elected the Conservative Party. If the country wants a different parties principles then they can elect a different one at the next election.
The country didn’t overwhelmingly elect a conservative government, it got less than50% of the vote so is a minority administration. It was also elected to look after the interests of all its residents as far as is possible and has a responsibility to seek fairness. This government does not try to do anything but look after those who pay the piper (And I don’t mean the average tax payer) knowing it can get away with it And will continue to do so. So much for democracy.
It is a majority administration elected under the standard voting system used by billions of people across the globe, an order of magnitude more people than any other voting system at all.
The party got millions more votes than any other party. Don't be a sore loser.
Still a minority administration governing (If you can call it that) in the interests of a very small group of people
I agree, fishing is non negotiable, both as the Tories won so many fishing ports at GE19 and as they are targeting fishing port constituencies at Holyrood next year like Moray currently held by the SNP.
Compromise may be possible on the LPA and regulatory alignment though as that would still allow the UK to do a FTA that ends free movement and allows us to do our own trade deals
Should the priority be the country or the Conservative party?
Is there a difference?
The country overwhelmingly elected the Conservative Party. If the country wants a different parties principles then they can elect a different one at the next election.
The country didn’t overwhelmingly elect a conservative government, it got less than50% of the vote so is a minority administration. It was also elected to look after the interests of all its residents as far as is possible and has a responsibility to seek fairness. This government does not try to do anything but look after those who pay the piper (And I don’t mean the average tax payer) knowing it can get away with it And will continue to do so. So much for democracy.
It is a majority administration elected under the standard voting system used by billions of people across the globe, an order of magnitude more people than any other voting system at all.
The party got millions more votes than any other party. Don't be a sore loser.
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
On average, pensioner households in the UK have higher weekly income after direct taxation (income, council tax etc, but not VAT) than working households (see latest ONS release) - pity the working household unable to access mortgage credit & therefore forced to grind without even the carrot of being able to retire having paid off a mortgage!
(Working age household incoming was hammered in the 2008-13 recession, whereas retired people’s income was mostly either index linked pensions or index linked benefits.)
We are in a situation as a country where we have a retired people’s party who have a massive vested interest in keeping up the incomes of their voters at the expense of a working population who not only must pay taxes to counter the inflationary consequences of the older generation’s benefits but are also must pay them rent in return for the right to a roof over their heads.
You can see why certain parts of the younger generation might be a tad tetchy about this.
You are right, but by no means all pensioners are wealthy. Many still have to live off the relatively low state pension (£134.25 a week is not a lot of money), or the state pension plus a small occupational pension. Very few, if any, poorer pensioners seem to be active on PB.
So the triple lock helps the poorer pensioners keep up, as it benefits the state pension. Rather than abandon it, surely the equitable solution is to use taxation (both on income and assets, on inheritance) to raise more money from those pensioners that can afford it, while protecting those at the bottom of the heap.
Surely pensioners are taxed the same as anyone else, if they earn more than their tax allowance then they get taxed on it. They do not get any special tax treatment.
They don't pay NI, even if they're still earning extra money, as I understand it. But basically I'm in favour of increasing taxes anyway (including on myself, I hasten to add).
They will have paid NI for 50 years, that should be sufficient I would have thought , but if still working then would not be a big deal. Thanks for reminding me though , means next year my almost 500 a month NI will stop and I will be getting a huge state pension with 10% + increases on top of my humungous salary. Happy days, pity about the 30K tax though, time they stopped income tax for pensioners..
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
Yes, after a lifetime of a combination of hard work and good luck I have assets. I'm happy to share with people who have been less lucky or haven't yet had the chance to accumulate them, on the understanding that they will be expected to do the same. A cursory glance at my own life and my contemporaries suggests that good and bad fortune play a huge part - the idea that the successful did it all by their intrinsic genius is false.
It used to be different - pensioner poverty was a major issue, and I remember pensioners really struggling to have both food and heating. That is now rare.
Yep, luck is such a huge part in it all. There are many more smart, hardworking people than there are lucky ones.
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
On average, pensioner households in the UK have higher weekly income after direct taxation (income, council tax etc, but not VAT) than working households (see latest ONS release) - pity the working household unable to access mortgage credit & therefore forced to grind without even the carrot of being able to retire having paid off a mortgage!
(Working age household incoming was hammered in the 2008-13 recession, whereas retired people’s income was mostly either index linked pensions or index linked benefits.)
We are in a situation as a country where we have a retired people’s party who have a massive vested interest in keeping up the incomes of their voters at the expense of a working population who not only must pay taxes to counter the inflationary consequences of the older generation’s benefits but are also must pay them rent in return for the right to a roof over their heads.
You can see why certain parts of the younger generation might be a tad tetchy about this.
You are right, but by no means all pensioners are wealthy. Many still have to live off the relatively low state pension (£134.25 a week is not a lot of money), or the state pension plus a small occupational pension. Very few, if any, poorer pensioners seem to be active on PB.
So the triple lock helps the poorer pensioners keep up, as it benefits the state pension. Rather than abandon it, surely the equitable solution is to use taxation (both on income and assets, on inheritance) to raise more money from those pensioners that can afford it, while protecting those at the bottom of the heap.
Surely pensioners are taxed the same as anyone else, if they earn more than their tax allowance then they get taxed on it. They do not get any special tax treatment.
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
Then why did most Scottish fishermen and most Scottish fishing ports vote Tory even in 2019? They want control of their own waters
Think that applies to the East Coast, not the West.
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
On average, pensioner households in the UK have higher weekly income after direct taxation (income, council tax etc, but not VAT) than working households (see latest ONS release) - pity the working household unable to access mortgage credit & therefore forced to grind without even the carrot of being able to retire having paid off a mortgage!
(Working age household incoming was hammered in the 2008-13 recession, whereas retired people’s income was mostly either index linked pensions or index linked benefits.)
We are in a situation as a country where we have a retired people’s party who have a massive vested interest in keeping up the incomes of their voters at the expense of a working population who not only must pay taxes to counter the inflationary consequences of the older generation’s benefits but are also must pay them rent in return for the right to a roof over their heads.
You can see why certain parts of the younger generation might be a tad tetchy about this.
what utter bollox. How much tax have they paid in their lives compared to average. Another greedy grasping lazy git pops up. Go and earn your own money and stop trying to leech of people who have worked for their money.
Says the man supporting a 10%+ annual rise in pensioner state "benefits".
I find it hard to believe pensions are going up by 10%+ per annum and anyone earning over the tax allowance pays tax the same as every "Working" person. I would agree that benefits should be taxable income and if anyone exceeds their tax allowance then they should pay tax on it. I am looking forward to being a rich pensioner with 10%+ rises every year in future now though.
The triple lock means you are protected from the drop in wages that has happened this year as a consequence of Covid-10 (8% or so IIRC), but if the economy recovers next year, then the YoY change in wages will be +10% or so, which means that pensions will jump 10% in response.
This is clearly wildly unfair + probably unaffordable. But to prevent it happening means breaking the triple lock, hence all the wailing.
Pensions are indexed to prices (CPI usually), not wages. But yes, the triple-lock needs to go, and aiui it is currently being looked at in the Treasury.
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
On average, pensioner households in the UK have higher weekly income after direct taxation (income, council tax etc, but not VAT) than working households (see latest ONS release) - pity the working household unable to access mortgage credit & therefore forced to grind without even the carrot of being able to retire having paid off a mortgage!
(Working age household incoming was hammered in the 2008-13 recession, whereas retired people’s income was mostly either index linked pensions or index linked benefits.)
We are in a situation as a country where we have a retired people’s party who have a massive vested interest in keeping up the incomes of their voters at the expense of a working population who not only must pay taxes to counter the inflationary consequences of the older generation’s benefits but are also must pay them rent in return for the right to a roof over their heads.
You can see why certain parts of the younger generation might be a tad tetchy about this.
You are right, but by no means all pensioners are wealthy. Many still have to live off the relatively low state pension (£134.25 a week is not a lot of money), or the state pension plus a small occupational pension. Very few, if any, poorer pensioners seem to be active on PB.
So the triple lock helps the poorer pensioners keep up, as it benefits the state pension. Rather than abandon it, surely the equitable solution is to use taxation (both on income and assets, on inheritance) to raise more money from those pensioners that can afford it, while protecting those at the bottom of the heap.
Surely pensioners are taxed the same as anyone else, if they earn more than their tax allowance then they get taxed on it. They do not get any special tax treatment.
They don't pay NI, even if they're still earning extra money, as I understand it. But basically I'm in favour of increasing taxes anyway (including on myself, I hasten to add).
They will have paid NI for 50 years, that should be sufficient I would have thought , but if still working then would not be a big deal. Thanks for reminding me though , means next year my almost 500 a month NI will stop and I will be getting a huge state pension with 10% + increases on top of my humungous salary. Happy days, pity about the 30K tax though, time they stopped income tax for pensioners..
I agree, fishing is non negotiable, both as the Tories won so many fishing ports at GE19 and as they are targeting fishing port constituencies at Holyrood next year like Moray currently held by the SNP.
Compromise may be possible on the LPA and regulatory alignment though as that would still allow the UK to do a FTA that ends free movement and allows us to do our own trade deals
Should the priority be the country or the Conservative party?
Is there a difference?
The country overwhelmingly elected the Conservative Party. If the country wants a different parties principles then they can elect a different one at the next election.
The country didn’t overwhelmingly elect a conservative government, it got less than50% of the vote so is a minority administration. It was also elected to look after the interests of all its residents as far as is possible and has a responsibility to seek fairness. This government does not try to do anything but look after those who pay the piper (And I don’t mean the average tax payer) knowing it can get away with it And will continue to do so. So much for democracy.
It is a majority administration elected under the standard voting system used by billions of people across the globe, an order of magnitude more people than any other voting system at all.
The party got millions more votes than any other party. Don't be a sore loser.
Still a minority administration governing (If you can call it that) in the interests of a very small group of people
364/650 is a majority. Its a majority administration by definition.
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
Yes, after a lifetime of a combination of hard work and good luck I have assets. I'm happy to share with people who have been less lucky or haven't yet had the chance to accumulate them, on the understanding that they will be expected to do the same. A cursory glance at my own life and my contemporaries suggests that good and bad fortune play a huge part - the idea that the successful did it all by their intrinsic genius is false.
It used to be different - pensioner poverty was a major issue, and I remember pensioners really struggling to have both food and heating. That is now rare.
I think a double-lock makes sense for pensions in the long-term, but not a triple-one.
The latter was designed to achieve rapid increases in the state pension to bring it up to par, which has now been achieved.
The difficulty is that each of the "locks" is strongly justified in differing circumstances & pensioners understandably believe that any abandonment is done to stuff them again.
Originally, the 2.5% was in place to redress the historic under-raising of benefits in previous higher-inflationary times, whilst the earnings and inflationary locks notionally prevent the government from either simply paying government employees a lot more, or printing a great pile of currency in order to pay benefits. Either would result in a loss in pensioner income.
The problem comes when the country goes through a deflationary economic contraction: the consequence of the triple lock is that pensioner income goes up whilst working incomes collapse. This is clearly untenable during any kind of protracted contraction, yet at the same time it is politically very difficult for a party dependent on older voters to ditch the triple lock.
So here we are: logically pensioners who, as outlined in the ONS stats, earn more than working households surely ought to have their incomes reduced by the effects of Covid-19 and/or Brexit on the UK economy just as much as everyone else, yet they screech and wail about even the mention of the possibility of a threat to their (as they see them) god-given right to the privileged position they currently hold.
Frankly, the working population has sacrificed their income in order to protect the lives of pensioners from Covid-19. The least the older generation can do is accept a small loss of income in order to protect the livelihoods of those who have given up so much. I note the older generation have likewise voted for Brexit in far greater numbers whilst notionally insulated from the economic consequences. Likewise, a little sharing of outcomes would seem politic.
All we get nowadays is greed and people desperate to get what other people having without wanting to work for it. Get out and work and make your own money and stop being envious of people who may be making a few quid. They probably spoent most of their life scrimping to have a few bob today whilst greedy gits like yourself would steal it from them having done little to earn anything. Shame on you and your greed.
Comments
So the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh governments have all sacked his equivalent who'd all made the same decisions - along similar timelines too - to him? Or are they not ordinary either?
Compromise may be possible on the LPA and regulatory alignment though as that would still allow the UK to do a FTA that ends free movement and allows us to do our own trade deals
I wonder if the weakness of this current proposal is the current issue?
However, the bigger issue may be dynamic alignment: if the EU want the UK to dynamically align with all future EU competition and state aid rules, and expect the UK Competition and Markets Authority to defer to the Commission on state aid decisions, then I can see how that would be a roadblock.
One way of unlocking it might be to give the UK the right to sit in on such discussions as a non-voting member, or observer, similar to Norway, so it can give its views - and/ or agree a mechanism of equivalence.
The economic consequences of Covid will be hundreds of times more significant than those of Brexit and show beyond any rational doubt that it is the economic policies of our own government that determine our progress or lack of it, not some technicalities of a level playing field. So far we seem to be bouncing back strongly but the debt overhangs, the unwinding of furlough, the transformation of retail and the consequences for our town centres are all massive challenges where there are risks of things going seriously wrong with devastating consequences for the economic future of a generation.
I get exasperated about people still wittering on about Brexit. We will get a deal, it will probably not be perfect but so what? We need to focus on the real challenges, we have wasted far too much time and energy on this already.
Compared to the costs of shutting much of our economy down for a virus with a 99.7% recovery rate, we won't even notice it once we've got through the one-off disruption.
I am extremely fortunate that I had achieved all my ambitions by the age of forty. Everything since has been a bonus, but am fully aware that it is not all my own doing, even though financially I have inherited only £2000 in total.
A European free trade council.
However, there are lot of much younger people who are having a dreadful time!
The latter was designed to achieve rapid increases in the state pension to bring it up to par, which has now been achieved.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
The country also gave the Tories a majority last year on a manifesto of hard Brexit
The country overwhelmingly elected the Conservative Party. If the country wants a different parties principles then they can elect a different one at the next election.
(Are we down a rabbithole here?)
2-3%?
Or 10%+?
The triple lock will lead to the latter due to technicalities with how it is calculated that were never envisaged when it was agreed it to. So for those who think it should be 10%+, why? Do they approve of all state benefits increasing by this amount in 2022? State paid jobs? Taxes?
Sunak is obviously right for those with any understanding of maths and fairness.
(Working age household incoming was hammered in the 2008-13 recession, whereas retired people’s income was mostly either index linked pensions or index linked benefits.)
We are in a situation as a country where we have a retired people’s party who have a massive vested interest in keeping up the incomes of their voters at the expense of a working population who not only must pay taxes to counter the inflationary consequences of the older generation’s benefits but are also must pay them rent in return for the right to a roof over their heads.
You can see why certain parts of the younger generation might be a tad tetchy about this.
The assertion that Leavers cannot possibly care about the Union is baseless. The practical effect of Brexit may well be to hasten its demise, but it is also entirely consistent to believe that being in the British Union is something desirable but that being in the European Union isn't. Presenting people with those beliefs with a choice between keeping the UK but at the price of staying in the EU, or vice versa, is rather like someone kidnapping the family cat and dog, strapping both of them into guillotines and then demanding that the owner choose who lives and who dies. If Fido is released at the price of Mister Whiskers' head ending up in a basket then it doesn't automatically follow that nobody cared about the fate of the latter.
The EU will decide what terms we get and what rules we have to follow to get those terms.
The we hold all the carders lied and some people believed them.
Me I voted BREXIT from a sovereignty standpoint and always knew that a soft BREXIT was in both parties interests, Never thought the Tories would be so incompetent to get us to WTO though.
Instead it is hovering around 50% including Don't Knows
I have no qualms with agreeing a principle of mutually recognising that each side will not do unfair practices in a way that is done in normal Free Trade Agreements like CETA etc
But I am categorically and in no circumstances OK with the EU determining decisions unilaterally. Lets say hypothetically that the government were to want to put in competitive tax structures to attract Tesla and similar to invest in the UK - like Ireland have done with Apple etc and the Germans have done themselves with Tesla too. What do we do if the EU rules that the UK's structures are illegal state aid (like the EU did with Ireland but lost the case on appeal) while similarly ruling that Ireland and Germany's aid is acceptable. What do we do then?
We should agree the principles but we must be the ones to make the decisions and enforce it on our side.
The one thing people like about Boris is that is is not seemingly a control freak
So, the temptation will still be a "Not an extension honest" deal, ending in, say, 2025...
Tough to imagine right now, but I'm going with 'worse.'
This is Boris Johnson in charge of something he doesn't fully understand:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asas49ZLa98&t=6s
But in the short-term if its a choice between playing whack-a-mole with foreign travel, or doing so with domestic restrictions then I'd rather it happens overseas. Better that than going back into a domestic lockdown.
So the triple lock helps the poorer pensioners keep up, as it benefits the state pension. Rather than abandon it, surely the equitable solution is to use taxation (both on income and assets, on inheritance) to raise more money from those pensioners that can afford it, while protecting those at the bottom of the heap.
I suspect the devil's in the detail, which I haven't seen.
It’s a really massive exercise to undertake to get to the end state. Far far more so than Brexit. Compounded by the apparent desire of the first likely independent government to also leave the British single market and customs union, which is far more important to Scotland than the European one is to the UK.
If Scotland’s identity drift away from the UK is sufficiently strong then so be it but the difficulty in getting from A to B shouldn’t be underestimated. The 2014 flavour of Project Fear never needed to interrogate the currency debate too deeply because there was more politically fertile ground for them to mine first. But it’s going to be the major part of any second referendum debate, purely because the vote is closer at the outset. I don’t personally think it’s a great basis to maintain a political union by the way, your average Greek would have been happier today if they’d never joined the Euro and likely a more willing participant in the EU project. But we start from where are.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2020/jun/19/mps-call-for-triple-lock-on-pensions-to-be-temporarily-suspended-2021
How much other state funding is going to be cut to make that happen? Not just that one year, but forever after once its taken hold.
COVID is a shock. Brexit, even a No Deal Brexit will be inconsequential in comparison.
The UK wants to be in a common free-trade area with the rest of Europe, and even a common market, but not a political union.
At the moment, Europe's political structures make it a black and white choice.
That's a recipe for instability.
https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,uk-government-publishes-list-of-24-devolved-powers-it-wants-to-keep-control-of-after-brexit_8454.htm
Like working from home, axing foreign holidays is one of the easiest, cheapest, least damaging and most effective mechanisms we have for squashing Covid. It doesn't involve, for example, mass closures of non-essential retail, forcing kids to miss out on their education, or shutting gyms and swimming pools and thus making it more likely that people get fat. It's relatively easy and painless, flopping about on a sweltering Mediterranean beach is essential to precisely nobody, and one imagines that both the economic and political cost of having to deal with all these hokey-cokey travel restrictions, the attempted enforcement of quarantine rules and the potential consequences of their violation is greater than that of bunging an extra few hundred million quid at travel agents and tour operators, simply to mothball them until things have calmed down a bit.
It all seems rather stupid.
Every country does different things that need interpretation - and quite often countries apply for and get consent to do something despite the rules.
Can we put ourselves in the position where the EU are interpreting what is OK for its own members while simultaneously interpreting what is OK for us? That's not OK to me, if the EU is interpreting what is OK for its members then we must interpret what is OK for us . . . or we must have an independent arbitration panel that they can't unilaterally control.
I think pensioner poverty is still perhaps significant. There was a big reduction in 1997-2005, then a plateau, then a slow increase. Perhaps that indicates that we need to look beyond the simple existence or not of the triple lock. These are Age UK numbers.
That is certainly a signicant reduction on this measure of say 40%. But there is a big chunk still there.
https://twitter.com/mattwardman/status/1297106599681687552
Is it fair to suggest you need to add "in the public sector" to that first sentence? I've had to recast my long-term pension arrangements twice now in response to major changes - the latest being the collapse in annuity rates in the 2000-2010 period and since.
I see a similar cleavage in Corona impact.
In my circles people in "essential services" - mainly public sector but also food supply chain etc have kept full salaries and perhaps overtime, whilst furloughed people are down 20-30% on income and will need 1-2 years to recover.
I would agree that benefits should be taxable income and if anyone exceeds their tax allowance then they should pay tax on it. I am looking forward to being a rich pensioner with 10%+ rises every year in future now though.
The party got millions more votes than any other party. Don't be a sore loser.
Originally, the 2.5% was in place to redress the historic under-raising of benefits in previous higher-inflationary times, whilst the earnings and inflationary locks notionally prevent the government from either simply paying government employees a lot more, or printing a great pile of currency in order to pay benefits. Either would result in a loss in pensioner income.
The problem comes when the country goes through a deflationary economic contraction: the consequence of the triple lock is that pensioner income goes up whilst working incomes collapse. This is clearly untenable during any kind of protracted contraction, yet at the same time it is politically very difficult for a party dependent on older voters to ditch the triple lock.
So here we are: logically pensioners who, as outlined in the ONS stats, earn more than working households surely ought to have their incomes reduced by the effects of Covid-19 and/or Brexit on the UK economy just as much as everyone else, yet they screech and wail about even the mention of the possibility of a threat to their (as they see them) god-given right to the privileged position they currently hold.
Frankly, the working population has sacrificed their income in order to protect the lives of pensioners from Covid-19. The least the older generation can do is accept a small loss of income in order to protect the livelihoods of those who have given up so much. I note the older generation have likewise voted for Brexit in far greater numbers whilst notionally insulated from the economic consequences. Likewise, a little sharing of outcomes would seem politic.
https://taxaid.org.uk/guides/information/an-introduction-to-income-tax-national-insurance-and-tax-credits/national-insurance/national-insurance-and-state-pension-age
No Trade Deal is a way point, not an endpoint. It would merely mean disruption for some years while a new relationship was negotiated, by this government or the next.
This is clearly wildly unfair + probably unaffordable. But to prevent it happening means breaking the triple lock, hence all the wailing.
But yes, the triple-lock needs to go, and aiui it is currently being looked at in the Treasury.