It is a research paper which quite clearly next to the data says it records the voting intention of Scottish fishermen, no more, no less.
As I said, game, set and match
You, Sir, are either telling whacking fibs or unable to read a scientific paper.
Or are wilfully misuing the word "fisherman" to mean 'skipper' - but why would you do that when you are concerned with voters?
The first two sentences refer - the rest is also illuminating on the accuracy to be expected.
I'm off for lunch. So please don't bother replying to this.
"Methods
The data analysed for this paper was collected via an onlinesurvey that was distributed to skippers across the UK. Therefore, any reference to‘fishermen’in this paper is short-hand for‘skippers’. In order to get the online link into theemail inboxes of fishermen, representatives of fishermen’sassociations and producer organisations across the UK wereapproached and asked to distribute a link to their surveyamongst skippers who were members or affiliates of theirassociation. A number of producer organisations declined todistribute the survey because they wanted to maintain a polit-ically neutral position ahead of the EU referendum.Fishermen’s associations turned out to be the most willing todistribute the survey, although a number of them did not replyto emails. Whether or not they distributed the link to the sur-vey is therefore unknown. Significant barriers thereforeexisted when it came to getting the survey to fishermen, andit is well known that internet-based surveys are likely to resultin a lower completion rate than other data collection ap-proaches (Cobanoglu et al.2001; Kaplowitz et al.2004;Shih and Fan2008 ). In the absence of external funding forthis project, however, it was the only avenue open to theresearcher."
The focus of this paper is Scottish fishermen who skipperand/or own boats over 10 m. The reason that only boats over10 m was considered for the analysis is twofold. Firstly [...] Because such a sizeableproportion of the over 10-m Scottish fleet was collected (N=69, 12.4%), it allows us to generalise to the entire over 10-mpopulation with a fair amount of confidence and operate with areasonably small margin of error. It is almost certain that thereis a mismatch between the number of registered > 10-m boatsand the number of skippers and owners, but these are the bestestimates available. Therefore, the error in the sample is esti-mated to be somewhere in the region of 7 to 9%. Furthermore,the existence of sample bias may well be present in the sampleof skippers that was collected given that the survey was dis-tributed online and may well be more easily accessible toyounger respondents. However, the fact that the internet isnow easily accessible on most modern vessels and the use ofonline technology at sea for communication purposes, the ex-istence of a significant amount of bias is not envisaged.Clearly, this sample does not represent every fisherman thatworks in the industry as deckhands have not been surveyed atall. This was outside the scope of this particular research pro-ject due to financial and logistical constraints."
There’s zero prospect of the triple lock surviving Covid, it’s all just about the stage management.
Rishi is dead right on the principle, Boris is probably right politically to delay the timing of the announcement.
There's a thing anyway about any V-shaped rebound - the triple lock means that if wages plummet by 10% during Covid the pensioners are unaffected, and if they then rebound by 10% they join in. That can't possibly be fair.
Pensions really should be frozen and controlled. This gap here has not been paid for. Shocking.
That's misleading in that it uses generalised stats to skim over particular questions.
That the next person jumps to "pensions should be frozen" says it all.
"Freezing pensions" can only be applied to State Pensions, and will proportionally hit people whom that is all their income - that is the group who are most likely to be in poverty - far harder.
"Hitting the poor people because the rich people have lifted the overall average" is a really silly policy.
Means testing the State Pension would be more sensible, or a different income tax rate for better off pensioners.
Better off pensioners pay the same tax rates as workers, why would you ask them to pay more than workers. Means testing sounds really crazy , someone works and contributes for 50 years for a miserly pension but you suggest if they have saved they get nothing but someone who has sat on their butt for 50 years and contributed zero gets a state pension, mental.
Pensioners don’t pay NI on any of their income & these days NI is just another tax regardless of how it was originally structured. (If employed, their employer still pays employers NI on their income though.)
It is a research paper which quite clearly next to the data says it records the voting intention of Scottish fishermen, no more, no less.
As I said, game, set and match
You, Sir, are either telling whacking fibs or unable to read a scientific paper.
Or are wilfully misuing the word "fisherman" to mean 'skipper' - but why would you do that when you are concerned with voters?
The first two sentences refer - the rest is also illuminating on the accuracy to be expected.
I'm off for lunch. So please don't bother replying to this.
"Methods
The data analysed for this paper was collected via an onlinesurvey that was distributed to skippers across the UK. Therefore, any reference to‘fishermen’in this paper is short-hand for‘skippers’. In order to get the online link into theemail inboxes of fishermen, representatives of fishermen’sassociations and producer organisations across the UK wereapproached and asked to distribute a link to their surveyamongst skippers who were members or affiliates of theirassociation. A number of producer organisations declined todistribute the survey because they wanted to maintain a polit-ically neutral position ahead of the EU referendum.Fishermen’s associations turned out to be the most willing todistribute the survey, although a number of them did not replyto emails. Whether or not they distributed the link to the sur-vey is therefore unknown. Significant barriers thereforeexisted when it came to getting the survey to fishermen, andit is well known that internet-based surveys are likely to resultin a lower completion rate than other data collection ap-proaches (Cobanoglu et al.2001; Kaplowitz et al.2004;Shih and Fan2008 ). In the absence of external funding forthis project, however, it was the only avenue open to theresearcher."
The focus of this paper is Scottish fishermen who skipperand/or own boats over 10 m. The reason that only boats over10 m was considered for the analysis is twofold. Firstly [...] Because such a sizeableproportion of the over 10-m Scottish fleet was collected (N=69, 12.4%), it allows us to generalise to the entire over 10-mpopulation with a fair amount of confidence and operate with areasonably small margin of error. It is almost certain that thereis a mismatch between the number of registered > 10-m boatsand the number of skippers and owners, but these are the bestestimates available. Therefore, the error in the sample is esti-mated to be somewhere in the region of 7 to 9%. Furthermore,the existence of sample bias may well be present in the sampleof skippers that was collected given that the survey was dis-tributed online and may well be more easily accessible toyounger respondents. However, the fact that the internet isnow easily accessible on most modern vessels and the use ofonline technology at sea for communication purposes, the ex-istence of a significant amount of bias is not envisaged.Clearly, this sample does not represent every fisherman thatworks in the industry as deckhands have not been surveyed atall. This was outside the scope of this particular research pro-ject due to financial and logistical constraints."
So what every poll does not sample every voter but you asked for a survey of Scottish fishermens voting intention, I gave it to you. In any case those who fish and are not skippers are often casual and then do other jobs as well.
You have still not given any evidence to the contrary to my evidence that most Scottish fishermen voted Tory, so as I said, game, set and match
Pensions really should be frozen and controlled. This gap here has not been paid for. Shocking.
That's misleading in that it uses generalised stats to skim over particular questions.
That the next person jumps to "pensions should be frozen" says it all.
"Freezing pensions" can only be applied to State Pensions, and will proportionally hit people whom that is all their income - that is the group who are most likely to be in poverty - far harder.
"Hitting the poor people because the rich people have lifted the overall average" is a really silly policy.
Means testing the State Pension would be more sensible, or a different income tax rate for better off pensioners.
Better off pensioners pay the same tax rates as workers, why would you ask them to pay more than workers. Means testing sounds really crazy , someone works and contributes for 50 years for a miserly pension but you suggest if they have saved they get nothing but someone who has sat on their butt for 50 years and contributed zero gets a state pension, mental.
Pensioners don’t pay NI on any of their income & these days NI is just another tax regardless of how it was originally structured. (If employed, their employer still pays employers NI on their income though.)
So you think it is a tax even though it was not ever counted as a tax but an insurance policy for pensions etc. Misuse of the insurance money doe snot change its original purpose. Still green cheese, far better to concentrate earning your own money than enviously wanting to get someone else's hard earned money.
Pensions really should be frozen and controlled. This gap here has not been paid for. Shocking.
That's misleading in that it uses generalised stats to skim over particular questions.
That the next person jumps to "pensions should be frozen" says it all.
"Freezing pensions" can only be applied to State Pensions, and will proportionally hit people whom that is all their income - that is the group who are most likely to be in poverty - far harder.
"Hitting the poor people because the rich people have lifted the overall average" is a really silly policy.
Means testing the State Pension would be more sensible, or a different income tax rate for better off pensioners.
Better off pensioners pay the same tax rates as workers, why would you ask them to pay more than workers. Means testing sounds really crazy , someone works and contributes for 50 years for a miserly pension but you suggest if they have saved they get nothing but someone who has sat on their butt for 50 years and contributed zero gets a state pension, mental.
35 years. Not 50.
What's the "sat on their butt" thing about? Bus drivers ?
Pensions really should be frozen and controlled. This gap here has not been paid for. Shocking.
That's misleading in that it uses generalised stats to skim over particular questions.
That the next person jumps to "pensions should be frozen" says it all.
"Freezing pensions" can only be applied to State Pensions, and will proportionally hit people whom that is all their income - that is the group who are most likely to be in poverty - far harder.
"Hitting the poor people because the rich people have lifted the overall average" is a really silly policy.
Means testing the State Pension would be more sensible, or a different income tax rate for better off pensioners.
Better off pensioners pay the same tax rates as workers, why would you ask them to pay more than workers. Means testing sounds really crazy , someone works and contributes for 50 years for a miserly pension but you suggest if they have saved they get nothing but someone who has sat on their butt for 50 years and contributed zero gets a state pension, mental.
Pensioners don’t pay NI on any of their income & these days NI is just another tax regardless of how it was originally structured. (If employed, their employer still pays employers NI on their income though.)
So you think it is a tax even though it was not ever counted as a tax but an insurance policy for pensions etc. Misuse of the insurance money doe snot change its original purpose. Still green cheese, far better to concentrate earning your own money than enviously wanting to get someone else's hard earned money.
It's original purpose was to pay for the previous generations pensions.
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.
I support ending the triple lock. I support each section of society paying a reasonable proportion of their income in taxes. I do not support the idea, suggested by the comment I responded to, that pesnioners should be penalised for both Covid 19 [presumably because they suffer disproportionately from it] or that they should be penalised for Brexit because some pensioners voted for it. Both suggestions are anti-democratic and stem from sore loser syndrome.
Pensioners don’t pay NI on any of their income & these days NI is just another tax regardless of how it was originally structured. (If employed, their employer still pays employers NI on their income though.)
So you think it is a tax even though it was not ever counted as a tax but an insurance policy for pensions etc. Misuse of the insurance money doe snot change its original purpose. Still green cheese, far better to concentrate earning your own money than enviously wanting to get someone else's hard earned money.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck & eats like a duck, then it’s probably a duck.
NI is an income tax. The government forces you to pay it, it’s calculated as a percentage of your income in a range chosen by the government, you don’t get any say in the matter & the government decides what benefits to pay you, sometimes using the number of years you made NI payments as an input to that calculation, but not how much you actually paid.
"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.
Good to see average income increasing for All Britons on average under the Tories there from where Labour left it in 2010
Average incomes are meant to go up over the time, thanks to productivity growth. The last decade has seen one of the worst ever performances. The triple lock is the most blatant piece of political bribery with taxpayers' money that the UK has ever seen. Certainly the most expensive. It's an absolute disgrace, and all courtesy of the party of so-called sound finances.
Good to see average income increasing for All Britons on average under the Tories there from where Labour left it in 2010
Average incomes are meant to go up over the time, thanks to productivity growth. The last decade has seen one of the worst ever performances. The triple lock is the most blatant piece of political bribery with taxpayers' money that the UK has ever seen. Certainly the most expensive. It's an absolute disgrace, and all courtesy of the party of so-called sound finances.
Pensioners are the Tories core vote and have paid in all their life to the system.
If Labour wants to ignore pensioners fine, the Tories will not ignore their base
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.
Minority of votes no majority support within the country, lucky to have been up against corbyn, lucky to be up against a party still seriously damaged by corbyn. A privileged position that should not be abused to benefit one group of people or one view point.
Really if you don't understand the working of our electoral system by now you never will. I doubt we'd hear a peep from you if Labour had the most seats after a GE.
"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 you’re well off & have a nice little consulting sideline going then you get a double bung from the government when you reach retirement age - you get to pay less tax /and/ you get to draw your state pension!
It is a research paper which quite clearly next to the data says it records the voting intention of Scottish fishermen, no more, no less.
As I said, game, set and match
You, Sir, are either telling whacking fibs or unable to read a scientific paper.
Or are wilfully misuing the word "fisherman" to mean 'skipper' - but why would you do that when you are concerned with voters?
The first two sentences refer - the rest is also illuminating on the accuracy to be expected.
I'm off for lunch. So please don't bother replying to this.
"Methods
The data analysed for this paper was collected via an onlinesurvey that was distributed to skippers across the UK. Therefore, any reference to‘fishermen’in this paper is short-hand for‘skippers’. In order to get the online link into theemail inboxes of fishermen, representatives of fishermen’sassociations and producer organisations across the UK wereapproached and asked to distribute a link to their surveyamongst skippers who were members or affiliates of theirassociation. A number of producer organisations declined todistribute the survey because they wanted to maintain a polit-ically neutral position ahead of the EU referendum.Fishermen’s associations turned out to be the most willing todistribute the survey, although a number of them did not replyto emails. Whether or not they distributed the link to the sur-vey is therefore unknown. Significant barriers thereforeexisted when it came to getting the survey to fishermen, andit is well known that internet-based surveys are likely to resultin a lower completion rate than other data collection ap-proaches (Cobanoglu et al.2001; Kaplowitz et al.2004;Shih and Fan2008 ). In the absence of external funding forthis project, however, it was the only avenue open to theresearcher."
The focus of this paper is Scottish fishermen who skipperand/or own boats over 10 m. The reason that only boats over10 m was considered for the analysis is twofold. Firstly [...] Because such a sizeableproportion of the over 10-m Scottish fleet was collected (N=69, 12.4%), it allows us to generalise to the entire over 10-mpopulation with a fair amount of confidence and operate with areasonably small margin of error. It is almost certain that thereis a mismatch between the number of registered > 10-m boatsand the number of skippers and owners, but these are the bestestimates available. Therefore, the error in the sample is esti-mated to be somewhere in the region of 7 to 9%. Furthermore,the existence of sample bias may well be present in the sampleof skippers that was collected given that the survey was dis-tributed online and may well be more easily accessible toyounger respondents. However, the fact that the internet isnow easily accessible on most modern vessels and the use ofonline technology at sea for communication purposes, the ex-istence of a significant amount of bias is not envisaged.Clearly, this sample does not represent every fisherman thatworks in the industry as deckhands have not been surveyed atall. This was outside the scope of this particular research pro-ject due to financial and logistical constraints."
So what every poll does not sample every voter but you asked for a survey of Scottish fishermens voting intention, I gave it to you. In any case those who fish and are not skippers are often casual and then do other jobs as well.
You have still not given any evidence to the contrary to my evidence that most Scottish fishermen voted Tory, so as I said, game, set and match
Your approach to polls is cavalier at the best of times. This is one of your more risible efforts.
Good to see average income increasing for All Britons on average under the Tories there from where Labour left it in 2010
Average incomes are meant to go up over the time, thanks to productivity growth. The last decade has seen one of the worst ever performances. The triple lock is the most blatant piece of political bribery with taxpayers' money that the UK has ever seen. Certainly the most expensive. It's an absolute disgrace, and all courtesy of the party of so-called sound finances.
Pensioners are the Tories core vote and have paid in all their life to the system.
If Labour wants to ignore pensioners fine, the Tories will not ignore their base
This is the great myth - that people have "paid in" and therefore deserve almost any amount back out again. Surely there are limits, even under this (mistaken) "I paid up, so I should get it back now" interpretation?
In reality, the money was spent when it was taxed in the first place & always has been. That’s how the retirement benefit is structured: current earners pay for current retirees.
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.
Minority of votes no majority support within the country, lucky to have been up against corbyn, lucky to be up against a party still seriously damaged by corbyn. A privileged position that should not be abused to benefit one group of people or one view point.
Really if you don't understand the working of our electoral system by now you never will. I doubt we'd hear a peep from you if Labour had the most seats after a GE.
Many Labour voters were unhappy that Labour did not fulfil its 1997 manifesto commitment to change the voting system.
Do not project your own hypocrisy onto others please.
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.
Minority of votes no majority support within the country, lucky to have been up against corbyn, lucky to be up against a party still seriously damaged by corbyn. A privileged position that should not be abused to benefit one group of people or one view point.
Really if you don't understand the working of our electoral system by now you never will. I doubt we'd hear a peep from you if Labour had the most seats after a GE.
Indeed, if we had pure PR the LDs would have held the balance of power at every general election in my lifetime apart from 2015 when UKIP would have held the balance of power, so we would still have had an EU referendum. Neither the Tories nor Labour have ever got over 50% of the vote.
In 2019 the LDs and the SNP and Greens would have held the balance of power, though the LDs ruled out backing Corbyn
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.
Minority of votes no majority support within the country, lucky to have been up against corbyn, lucky to be up against a party still seriously damaged by corbyn. A privileged position that should not be abused to benefit one group of people or one view point.
Really if you don't understand the working of our electoral system by now you never will. I doubt we'd hear a peep from you if Labour had the most seats after a GE.
Indeed, if we had pure PR the LDs would have held the balance of power at every general election in my lifetime apart from 2015 when UKIP would have held the balance of power, so we would still have had an EU referendum. Neither the Tories nor Labour have ever got over 50% of the vote.
In 2019 the LDs and the SNP and Greens would have held the balance of power, though the LDs ruled out backing Corbyn
Good to see average income increasing for All Britons on average under the Tories there from where Labour left it in 2010
Average incomes are meant to go up over the time, thanks to productivity growth. The last decade has seen one of the worst ever performances. The triple lock is the most blatant piece of political bribery with taxpayers' money that the UK has ever seen. Certainly the most expensive. It's an absolute disgrace, and all courtesy of the party of so-called sound finances.
Pensioners are the Tories core vote and have paid in all their life to the system.
If Labour wants to ignore pensioners fine, the Tories will not ignore their base
This is the great myth - that people have "paid in" and therefore deserve almost any amount back out again. Surely there are limits, even under this (mistaken) "I paid up, so I should get it back now" interpretation?
In reality, the money was spent when it was taxed in the first place & always has been. That’s how the retirement benefit is structured: current earners pay for current retirees.
Good to see average income increasing for All Britons on average under the Tories there from where Labour left it in 2010
Average incomes are meant to go up over the time, thanks to productivity growth. The last decade has seen one of the worst ever performances. The triple lock is the most blatant piece of political bribery with taxpayers' money that the UK has ever seen. Certainly the most expensive. It's an absolute disgrace, and all courtesy of the party of so-called sound finances.
Pensioners are the Tories core vote and have paid in all their life to the system.
If Labour wants to ignore pensioners fine, the Tories will not ignore their base
This is the great myth - that people have "paid in" and therefore deserve almost any amount back out again. Surely there are limits, even under this (mistaken) "I paid up, so I should get it back now" interpretation?
In reality, the money was spent when it was taxed in the first place & always has been. That’s how the retirement benefit is structured: current earners pay for current retirees.
National Insurance was set up to fund pensions
And Income Tax was set up to fund the Napoleonic Wars.
Good to see average income increasing for All Britons on average under the Tories there from where Labour left it in 2010
Average incomes are meant to go up over the time, thanks to productivity growth. The last decade has seen one of the worst ever performances. The triple lock is the most blatant piece of political bribery with taxpayers' money that the UK has ever seen. Certainly the most expensive. It's an absolute disgrace, and all courtesy of the party of so-called sound finances.
Pensioners are the Tories core vote and have paid in all their life to the system.
If Labour wants to ignore pensioners fine, the Tories will not ignore their base
This is an absurd line to take and belies concerning mathematical illiteracy.
"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.
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.
Minority of votes no majority support within the country, lucky to have been up against corbyn, lucky to be up against a party still seriously damaged by corbyn. A privileged position that should not be abused to benefit one group of people or one view point.
Really if you don't understand the working of our electoral system by now you never will. I doubt we'd hear a peep from you if Labour had the most seats after a GE.
Many Labour voters were unhappy that Labour did not fulfil its 1997 manifesto commitment to change the voting system.
Do not project your own hypocrisy onto others please.
And a very considerable part of the Labour party (and their voters) did not want to change the system. Which was why Blair dropped it like a hot stone, the moment he realised that he didn't need the LibDems to form a government.
I see that @HYUFD is claiming that voters at the last election voted for a hard Brexit.
Not so.
The Tory manifesto says this: “We will negotiate a trade agreement next year - one that strengthens our Union....”. Page 5 if anyone is interested.
Those who voted Tory did not vote for a hard Brexit ie an exit without any trade agreement with the EU.
That is if they believed a word the Tories told them, which given their record might be a tad foolish.
'We will keep the UK out of the single market, out of any form of customs union, and end the role of the European Court of Justice.
This future relationship will be one that allows us to: Take back control of our laws. Take back control of our money. Control our own trade policy. Introduce an Australian-style points based immigration system. Raise standards in areas like workers’ rights, animal welfare, agriculture and the environment. Ensure we are in full control of our fishing waters.
...and we will not extend the implementation period beyond December 2020.'
I see after pretending Boris was in Scotland for weeks we now are getting dross from the Daily Mail that after 3 days , scared for his security he has fled back to England and supposedly in the mail's sick fantasy land it was an SNP MP who gave them the location. All reported by the guy who jut happens to be the spurned ex boyfriend of Boris's latest squeeze. You could not make it up. Unionists are really wetting their pants, pretendy stories falling to pieces, what a bunch of losers.
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.
Minority of votes no majority support within the country, lucky to have been up against corbyn, lucky to be up against a party still seriously damaged by corbyn. A privileged position that should not be abused to benefit one group of people or one view point.
Really if you don't understand the working of our electoral system by now you never will. I doubt we'd hear a peep from you if Labour had the most seats after a GE.
Many Labour voters were unhappy that Labour did not fulfil its 1997 manifesto commitment to change the voting system.
Do not project your own hypocrisy onto others please.
And a very considerable part of the Labour party (and their voters) did not want to change the system. Which was why Blair dropped it like a hot stone, the moment he realised that he didn't need the LibDems to form a government.
Oh without a doubt. I don't pretend there are not hypocrites on all sides.
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.
Minority of votes no majority support within the country, lucky to have been up against corbyn, lucky to be up against a party still seriously damaged by corbyn. A privileged position that should not be abused to benefit one group of people or one view point.
Really if you don't understand the working of our electoral system by now you never will. I doubt we'd hear a peep from you if Labour had the most seats after a GE.
I’m no labour supporter, equally in hoc to their paymasters as the tories and part of the buggins turn conspiracy. The system needs changing particularly for local government elections to avoid one party fiefdoms. I fully understand how the UK election system works which is why I advocate changing it so people aren’t lumbered with an MP chosen by a small group of party members and large sections of the electorate go unrepresented.
Good to see average income increasing for All Britons on average under the Tories there from where Labour left it in 2010
Average incomes are meant to go up over the time, thanks to productivity growth. The last decade has seen one of the worst ever performances. The triple lock is the most blatant piece of political bribery with taxpayers' money that the UK has ever seen. Certainly the most expensive. It's an absolute disgrace, and all courtesy of the party of so-called sound finances.
Pensioners are the Tories core vote and have paid in all their life to the system.
If Labour wants to ignore pensioners fine, the Tories will not ignore their base
The purpose of government is to govern in the national interest, not funnel other people's money to their favoured voters in order to buy their sylupport. I pity you, you have such an impoverished view of the purpose of government.
And a very considerable part of the Labour party (and their voters) did not want to change the system. Which was why Blair dropped it like a hot stone, the moment he realised that he didn't need the LibDems to form a government.
I remember being in the audience of a Billy Bragg concert back in 1996 or early 97. He was exhorting the crowd to vote Labour & his primary argument was that Blair was promising to bring in PR which would lead to fair representation for socialists at the ballot box.
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.
Remain lost, get over it.
That’s all Brexiteers have. We won. That’s it.
No articulation of any benefits of Brexit, no adaptation to the current circumstances. No attempt to win anyone over or find a positive case.
Just we won, we will do it, to hell with the consequences and damn the rest of you.
I see the r rate for Remainerdepression is back on the rise.
He has a point. What's it all for? Other than fish obviously.
Who are we going to sell the fish to? We are closing off our main market for goods.
we can always eat more of it ourselves.
It will vary our diet from eating grass.
Brits do not like fish all that much. It is why we sell our fish.
Now, if we could develop a wild McDonalds burger that could be harvested (ideally living in a clamshell style bap) then no doubt we would eat every single one...
Actually Brits love fish but they only like a resticted range. A bit of education would do wonders to widening what we like.
They tried that in the war. Brexiters ought to be forcefed on snoek and rock salmon for the rest of their lives.
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.
The only flaw in that argument being that, if one arrives in a new dispensation in which trade is disrupted for some years, the economy will reconfigure to adapt to it. Less trade with continental Europe, more with the rest of the world. It's certainly what one would expect in an area like food imports, once the UK no longer has to apply the EU's common external tariffs.
Once the economy has changed shape and adapted then the incentive to strike a closer partnership becomes even weaker. Moreover, the longer that the UK is separated from the EU's structures, the more the degree of divergence on important matters such as the regulation of the digital economy and genetically modified foodstuffs.
The dynamic of the situation is not that the UK will feel compelled to move closer to the EU again, and the EU certainly won't compromise its desire for control to make a rapprochement easier. It's that both parties will move further and further apart.
I see little reason for divergence, merely trade barriers. If anything the polling supports stronger food, agricultural and environmental protections.
I expect we will be in the EEA within a decade, with a view to EU membership.
We are not going to rejoin the EU now we have left, EEA/EFTA at most, in 10 years the EU will be a Federal superstate with all members in the Euro, with its own army, an even more powerful ECJ and European President and Parliament etc. Its members will basically be regions not countries
An ideal outcome for them leaving the UK isolated offshore and insignificant.
The UK would still be in the top 10 economies in the world, the G7, the G20 and a permanent member of the UN Security Council hardly isolated and insignificant.
France however might ultimately have to give up its UN Security Council seat to the EU and France, Germany and Italy give up their G7 and G20 memberships fully to the EU if that is where it is heading to be a Federal Superstate. Their choice, we chose different and to ensure we stayed an independent nation and to leave
How do you know where any economy will be in 10 years time?
Forecasts from PWC etc but regardless of where our economy is better to run it as an Independent nation than have it run for us as a region of a Federal EU
Though, if you think that, and you think that the EU is going to superstate in a decade, why did you vote remain in 2016?
Pensions really should be frozen and controlled. This gap here has not been paid for. Shocking.
That's misleading in that it uses generalised stats to skim over particular questions.
That the next person jumps to "pensions should be frozen" says it all.
"Freezing pensions" can only be applied to State Pensions, and will proportionally hit people whom that is all their income - that is the group who are most likely to be in poverty - far harder.
"Hitting the poor people because the rich people have lifted the overall average" is a really silly policy.
Means testing the State Pension would be more sensible, or a different income tax rate for better off pensioners.
Better off pensioners pay the same tax rates as workers, why would you ask them to pay more than workers. Means testing sounds really crazy , someone works and contributes for 50 years for a miserly pension but you suggest if they have saved they get nothing but someone who has sat on their butt for 50 years and contributed zero gets a state pension, mental.
35 years. Not 50.
What's the "sat on their butt" thing about? Bus drivers ?
Many will have worked from age 16 and not get pension till 66, ie 50 years. They do not stop your contributions after you have paid for 35 years. The "sat on their butt" is the liklihood that anyone mealy mouthed enough to be whinging that they want a share of pensioners savings is unlikely to b ea hard working person , more like to be a sponging no user who would rather whinge than actually go out and work hard to earn their own money rather than coveting other hard workers money.
"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.
Eh? Of course plenty to do, Corbyn wanted to be PM as a pensioner, he wouldnt have paid any NI.
Which brings us to an interesting issue.
When pensions were setup, the idea was that, on reaching an age when hard manual labour* was no longer possible, working class people would have enough money to live.
The nature of work has changed - there are vastly fewer (as a proportion) jobs that have such an onerous physical element.
At the same time, health and fitness means there are many who are capable of work longer.
In addition, there are more and more part time jobs, or ones that are flexible hours. For example, the mother of a friend is a retried accountant - she puts in some hours, helping with the accounts of companies she used to work for. Which pays for the holidays each year...
The idea that we all work till the age of X and then stop suddenly is as out of date as everyone dressing in pinstripe & bowler hat and catching 7:15 to Charing Cross each morning.
Pensions really should be frozen and controlled. This gap here has not been paid for. Shocking.
That's misleading in that it uses generalised stats to skim over particular questions.
That the next person jumps to "pensions should be frozen" says it all.
"Freezing pensions" can only be applied to State Pensions, and will proportionally hit people whom that is all their income - that is the group who are most likely to be in poverty - far harder.
"Hitting the poor people because the rich people have lifted the overall average" is a really silly policy.
Means testing the State Pension would be more sensible, or a different income tax rate for better off pensioners.
Better off pensioners pay the same tax rates as workers, why would you ask them to pay more than workers. Means testing sounds really crazy , someone works and contributes for 50 years for a miserly pension but you suggest if they have saved they get nothing but someone who has sat on their butt for 50 years and contributed zero gets a state pension, mental.
35 years. Not 50.
What's the "sat on their butt" thing about? Bus drivers ?
Many will have worked from age 16 and not get pension till 66, ie 50 years. They do not stop your contributions after you have paid for 35 years. The "sat on their butt" is the liklihood that anyone mealy mouthed enough to be whinging that they want a share of pensioners savings is unlikely to b ea hard working person , more like to be a sponging no user who would rather whinge than actually go out and work hard to earn their own money rather than coveting other hard workers money.
Id be pretty confident most pb-ers of any voting persuasion are reasonably well off and net tax payers rather than receivers. That you think everyone votes with their wallet explains a lot.
Good to see average income increasing for All Britons on average under the Tories there from where Labour left it in 2010
Average incomes are meant to go up over the time, thanks to productivity growth. The last decade has seen one of the worst ever performances. The triple lock is the most blatant piece of political bribery with taxpayers' money that the UK has ever seen. Certainly the most expensive. It's an absolute disgrace, and all courtesy of the party of so-called sound finances.
Pensioners are the Tories core vote and have paid in all their life to the system.
If Labour wants to ignore pensioners fine, the Tories will not ignore their base
This is the great myth - that people have "paid in" and therefore deserve almost any amount back out again. Surely there are limits, even under this (mistaken) "I paid up, so I should get it back now" interpretation?
In reality, the money was spent when it was taxed in the first place & always has been. That’s how the retirement benefit is structured: current earners pay for current retirees.
When you pay into a pension scheme and get an annuity , you get it till you die, most get much less than they paid in , a lucky few live till a ripe old age and get back more than they paid in. We have the lowest pension by a large margin in the developed world.
Good to see average income increasing for All Britons on average under the Tories there from where Labour left it in 2010
Average incomes are meant to go up over the time, thanks to productivity growth. The last decade has seen one of the worst ever performances. The triple lock is the most blatant piece of political bribery with taxpayers' money that the UK has ever seen. Certainly the most expensive. It's an absolute disgrace, and all courtesy of the party of so-called sound finances.
Pensioners are the Tories core vote and have paid in all their life to the system.
If Labour wants to ignore pensioners fine, the Tories will not ignore their base
The purpose of government is to govern in the national interest, not funnel other people's money to their favoured voters in order to buy their sylupport. I pity you, you have such an impoverished view of the purpose of government.
The purpose of government is to get elected and then deliver your manifesto.
Do you think Corbyn Labour would be going out of its way to appease Tory voters had it won GE19? Of course not
I see that @HYUFD is claiming that voters at the last election voted for a hard Brexit.
Not so.
The Tory manifesto says this: “We will negotiate a trade agreement next year - one that strengthens our Union....”. Page 5 if anyone is interested.
Those who voted Tory did not vote for a hard Brexit ie an exit without any trade agreement with the EU.
That is if they believed a word the Tories told them, which given their record might be a tad foolish.
Don't forget that @HYUFD also claims that North East England Tory and BXP voters voted for the closure of the Nissan factory.
Nissan is in Sunderland where every MP is Labour still
So?
You're not going to embarrass yourself again like last night, are you?
So it did not vote Tory anyway
So? The allegation was that you claim that North East England Tory and BXP voters voted with the expectation and/or acceptance that the Nissan factory may close.
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.
Remain lost, get over it.
That’s all Brexiteers have. We won. That’s it.
No articulation of any benefits of Brexit, no adaptation to the current circumstances. No attempt to win anyone over or find a positive case.
Just we won, we will do it, to hell with the consequences and damn the rest of you.
I see the r rate for Remainerdepression is back on the rise.
He has a point. What's it all for? Other than fish obviously.
Who are we going to sell the fish to? We are closing off our main market for goods.
we can always eat more of it ourselves.
It will vary our diet from eating grass.
Brits do not like fish all that much. It is why we sell our fish.
Now, if we could develop a wild McDonalds burger that could be harvested (ideally living in a clamshell style bap) then no doubt we would eat every single one...
Actually Brits love fish but they only like a resticted range. A bit of education would do wonders to widening what we like.
They tried that in the war. Brexiters ought to be forcefed on snoek and rock salmon for the rest of their lives.
"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 you’re well off & have a nice little consulting sideline going then you get a double bung from the government when you reach retirement age - you get to pay less tax /and/ you get to draw your state pension!
A handful of people make some cash so you would impoverish millions, great thinking.
And a very considerable part of the Labour party (and their voters) did not want to change the system. Which was why Blair dropped it like a hot stone, the moment he realised that he didn't need the LibDems to form a government.
I remember being in the audience of a Billy Bragg concert back in 1996 or early 97. He was exhorting the crowd to vote Labour & his primary argument was that Blair was promising to bring in PR which would lead to fair representation for socialists at the ballot box.
The future was not kind to that prediction!
Corbyn got far closer to becoming PM and a Labour majority government under FPTP, certainly in 2017, than he ever would have done with PR
"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.
Eh? Of course plenty to do, Corbyn wanted to be PM as a pensioner, he wouldnt have paid any NI.
Which brings us to an interesting issue.
When pensions were setup, the idea was that, on reaching an age when hard manual labour* was no longer possible, working class people would have enough money to live.
The nature of work has changed - there are vastly fewer (as a proportion) jobs that have such an onerous physical element.
At the same time, health and fitness means there are many who are capable of work longer.
In addition, there are more and more part time jobs, or ones that are flexible hours. For example, the mother of a friend is a retried accountant - she puts in some hours, helping with the accounts of companies she used to work for. Which pays for the holidays each year...
The idea that we all work till the age of X and then stop suddenly is as out of date as everyone dressing in pinstripe & bowler hat and catching 7:15 to Charing Cross each morning.
*Skilled or otherwise
Indeed, and with a potential move away from the office these trends will continue, creating more jobs for experienced older people who can comfortably and effectively work from home and fewer opportunities for those leaving education who need training and interaction that is hard to do remotely.
Pensioners don’t pay NI on any of their income & these days NI is just another tax regardless of how it was originally structured. (If employed, their employer still pays employers NI on their income though.)
So you think it is a tax even though it was not ever counted as a tax but an insurance policy for pensions etc. Misuse of the insurance money doe snot change its original purpose. Still green cheese, far better to concentrate earning your own money than enviously wanting to get someone else's hard earned money.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck & eats like a duck, then it’s probably a duck.
NI is an income tax. The government forces you to pay it, it’s calculated as a percentage of your income in a range chosen by the government, you don’t get any say in the matter & the government decides what benefits to pay you, sometimes using the number of years you made NI payments as an input to that calculation, but not how much you actually paid.
How exactly is NI not a tax? Do enlighten me.
It has a defined lifespan as decided by the government and always has had. Call it what you like, it is still intended to pay for pensions and majority of people above pension age will be retired. Perhaps as younger people in general pay less tax than older people they should have to pay increased NI contributions till they are paying the median contribution of older workers on income tax, make tax all round fairer.
I see that @HYUFD is claiming that voters at the last election voted for a hard Brexit.
Not so.
The Tory manifesto says this: “We will negotiate a trade agreement next year - one that strengthens our Union....”. Page 5 if anyone is interested.
Those who voted Tory did not vote for a hard Brexit ie an exit without any trade agreement with the EU.
That is if they believed a word the Tories told them, which given their record might be a tad foolish.
'We will keep the UK out of the single market, out of any form of customs union, and end the role of the European Court of Justice.
This future relationship will be one that allows us to: Take back control of our laws. Take back control of our money. Control our own trade policy. Introduce an Australian-style points based immigration system. Raise standards in areas like workers’ rights, animal welfare, agriculture and the environment. Ensure we are in full control of our fishing waters.
...and we will not extend the implementation period beyond December 2020.'
So we can have a trade deal but only provided the EU agrees to allow the UK to do all it wants to do in the future relationship
I’ve read page 5 in full. Indeed, I’ve read the entire manifesto in full. It categorically does not promise a Hard Brexit, which is what you claimed. Anyone reading this - and believing it - did not vote for a Hard Brexit.
The Hard Brexiteers have consistently lied about what their ultimate destination was, from 2016 onwards. As you must have doubtless realised, since you voted Remain. The fact that they are lying now is no surprise.
I see that @HYUFD is claiming that voters at the last election voted for a hard Brexit.
Not so.
The Tory manifesto says this: “We will negotiate a trade agreement next year - one that strengthens our Union....”. Page 5 if anyone is interested.
Those who voted Tory did not vote for a hard Brexit ie an exit without any trade agreement with the EU.
That is if they believed a word the Tories told them, which given their record might be a tad foolish.
Don't forget that @HYUFD also claims that North East England Tory and BXP voters voted for the closure of the Nissan factory.
Nissan is in Sunderland where every MP is Labour still
So?
You're not going to embarrass yourself again like last night, are you?
So it did not vote Tory anyway
So? The allegation was that you claim that North East England Tory and BXP voters voted with the expectation and/or acceptance that the Nissan factory may close.
Do you agree or not?
Tory voters in seats that voted Tory in 2019 in the North East voted Tory in the expectation that free movement would end, ECJ jurisidiction would end, we would regain control of our money and our fishing waters and do our own trade deals as per the 2019 Tory manifesto.
Sunderland was not a seat that voted for the Tories nor for the 2019 Tory manifesto and there was nothing in the Tory manifesto about protecting Nissan. Yes ideally Nissan will stay but that was not a Tory manifesto commitment unlike controlling our borders and controlling our own laws
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.
The only flaw in that argument being that, if one arrives in a new dispensation in which trade is disrupted for some years, the economy will reconfigure to adapt to it. Less trade with continental Europe, more with the rest of the world. It's certainly what one would expect in an area like food imports, once the UK no longer has to apply the EU's common external tariffs.
Once the economy has changed shape and adapted then the incentive to strike a closer partnership becomes even weaker. Moreover, the longer that the UK is separated from the EU's structures, the more the degree of divergence on important matters such as the regulation of the digital economy and genetically modified foodstuffs.
The dynamic of the situation is not that the UK will feel compelled to move closer to the EU again, and the EU certainly won't compromise its desire for control to make a rapprochement easier. It's that both parties will move further and further apart.
I see little reason for divergence, merely trade barriers. If anything the polling supports stronger food, agricultural and environmental protections.
I expect we will be in the EEA within a decade, with a view to EU membership.
We are not going to rejoin the EU now we have left, EEA/EFTA at most, in 10 years the EU will be a Federal superstate with all members in the Euro, with its own army, an even more powerful ECJ and European President and Parliament etc. Its members will basically be regions not countries
An ideal outcome for them leaving the UK isolated offshore and insignificant.
The UK would still be in the top 10 economies in the world, the G7, the G20 and a permanent member of the UN Security Council hardly isolated and insignificant.
France however might ultimately have to give up its UN Security Council seat to the EU and France, Germany and Italy give up their G7 and G20 memberships fully to the EU if that is where it is heading to be a Federal Superstate. Their choice, we chose different and to ensure we stayed an independent nation and to leave
How do you know where any economy will be in 10 years time?
Forecasts from PWC etc but regardless of where our economy is better to run it as an Independent nation than have it run for us as a region of a Federal EU
Though, if you think that, and you think that the EU is going to superstate in a decade, why did you vote remain in 2016?
As at the time we had an opt out from the Euro etc, had we been required to join the Euro I would have voted to Leave and if we had to rejoin now joining the Euro would likely be a requirement, hence it is no longer realistic.
The UK was the biggest block to an EU Federal Superstate, now we have left it will move ahead at pace to that and I expect non Eurozone nations like Sweden and Denmark to also leave the EU in due course and return to EFTA
Good to see average income increasing for All Britons on average under the Tories there from where Labour left it in 2010
Average incomes are meant to go up over the time, thanks to productivity growth. The last decade has seen one of the worst ever performances. The triple lock is the most blatant piece of political bribery with taxpayers' money that the UK has ever seen. Certainly the most expensive. It's an absolute disgrace, and all courtesy of the party of so-called sound finances.
Yes, it was totally incongruous with everything else the coalition were saying: They said they needed austerity to stabilize government spending, but this was through a period of basically zero interest rates, so there was no problem funding *short-term* public spending - the markets would lend them money for free. If there was a problem to solve it was long-term, and if that's the goal then you definitely shouldn't be creating inflexible spending entitlements of unlimited duration, for a gradually increasing demographic.
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.
I was working in Edinburgh at the time of the vote (by the way I didn't vote). The feeling I got (and this is purely anecdotal) amongst those who I believe were non-aligned but probably voted 'no', was not one of happiness or even relief. It was a sort of sharpness and almost guilt, like really they wished they'd had more bottle. It never felt like the end of the argument, because it was not people really feeling at home in the union.
That is a clear eyed and somewhat gloomy depiction of 2014 for someone who's invariably pro Union. Can I ask (without any intention to troll), can you see the current crop of Unionists managing to increase that sense of comfort within the Union? Sunak alone seems to have some meager positive currency, as it were, but Gove, BJ, Galloway(!) etc seem to inspire large dollops of amused contempt.
Many will have worked from age 16 and not get pension till 66, ie 50 years. They do not stop your contributions after you have paid for 35 years. The "sat on their butt" is the liklihood that anyone mealy mouthed enough to be whinging that they want a share of pensioners savings is unlikely to b ea hard working person , more like to be a sponging no user who would rather whinge than actually go out and work hard to earn their own money rather than coveting other hard workers money.
Currently, you’d need about £250k to buy an annuity that matches the state pension. If your bus driver had paid the maximum possible NI (which would have required a high income - some bus driver!) for their entire lives & the money had been invested to keep pace with earnings, my BOTE calculation says that they still wouldn’t have "saved" 250k in NI contributions. Oh, and if we take NI as "insurance" instead of a tax as you suggest then we need to knock off the other things that NI was supposed to pay for as well before we "invest" anything: unemployment payments, the portion of NI that goes to the NHS and so on. Remember that NI was only 5-6% of earnings up to the upper limit in the 70s.
Your 50 year working bus driver is getting far more out of the system than they ever paid in malcolmg. As a nation this is something we can afford to pay, but current retirees are getting out far more than they paid in - that is the reality.
"‘This is an unfolding disaster. My advice? Don’t get cancer in 2020’
A misplaced obsession with Covid-19 fuelled by vested interests is killing tens of thousands, the leading oncologist Karol Sikora tells Rhys Blakely" (£)
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.
Minority of votes no majority support within the country, lucky to have been up against corbyn, lucky to be up against a party still seriously damaged by corbyn. A privileged position that should not be abused to benefit one group of people or one view point.
Really if you don't understand the working of our electoral system by now you never will. I doubt we'd hear a peep from you if Labour had the most seats after a GE.
Many Labour voters were unhappy that Labour did not fulfil its 1997 manifesto commitment to change the voting system.
Do not project your own hypocrisy onto others please.
How is it hypocrisy - I support the current system win or lose. You should speak to Mr Blair about hypocrisy. Or yourself about your 'crocodile tears' of unhappiness.
I see that @HYUFD is claiming that voters at the last election voted for a hard Brexit.
Not so.
The Tory manifesto says this: “We will negotiate a trade agreement next year - one that strengthens our Union....”. Page 5 if anyone is interested.
Those who voted Tory did not vote for a hard Brexit ie an exit without any trade agreement with the EU.
That is if they believed a word the Tories told them, which given their record might be a tad foolish.
Don't forget that @HYUFD also claims that North East England Tory and BXP voters voted for the closure of the Nissan factory.
Nissan is in Sunderland where every MP is Labour still
So?
You're not going to embarrass yourself again like last night, are you?
So it did not vote Tory anyway
So? The allegation was that you claim that North East England Tory and BXP voters voted with the expectation and/or acceptance that the Nissan factory may close.
Do you agree or not?
Tory voters in seats that voted Tory in 2019 in the North East voted Tory in the expectation that free movement would end, ECJ jurisidiction would end, we would regain control of our money and our fishing waters and do our own trade deals as per the 2019 Tory manifesto.
Sunderland was not a seat that voted for the Tories nor for the 2019 Tory manifesto and there was nothing in the Tory manifesto about protecting Nissan. Yes ideally Nissan will stay but that was not a Tory manifesto commitment unlike controlling our borders and controlling our own laws
You can keep talking about irrelevant nonsense if you want, it makes no difference to me.
The fact is, you're wrong. North East Brexit voters DID NOT vote for Nissan to close. There's no any other way to spell it out to you.
They voted for Brexit for a variety of different reasons, and expect a better life as a result.
They did not vote for a massive unemployment shock across the whole region.
"‘This is an unfolding disaster. My advice? Don’t get cancer in 2020’
A misplaced obsession with Covid-19 fuelled by vested interests is killing tens of thousands, the leading oncologist Karol Sikora tells Rhys Blakely" (£)
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.
Minority of votes no majority support within the country, lucky to have been up against corbyn, lucky to be up against a party still seriously damaged by corbyn. A privileged position that should not be abused to benefit one group of people or one view point.
Really if you don't understand the working of our electoral system by now you never will. I doubt we'd hear a peep from you if Labour had the most seats after a GE.
Many Labour voters were unhappy that Labour did not fulfil its 1997 manifesto commitment to change the voting system.
Do not project your own hypocrisy onto others please.
How is it hypocrisy - I support the current system win or lose. You should speak to Mr Blair about hypocrisy. Or yourself about your 'crocodile tears' of unhappiness.
You suggested that Labour voters magically decided they liked FPTP after 1997. That is a projection and simply isn't true.
Pensions really should be frozen and controlled. This gap here has not been paid for. Shocking.
That's misleading in that it uses generalised stats to skim over particular questions.
That the next person jumps to "pensions should be frozen" says it all.
"Freezing pensions" can only be applied to State Pensions, and will proportionally hit people whom that is all their income - that is the group who are most likely to be in poverty - far harder.
"Hitting the poor people because the rich people have lifted the overall average" is a really silly policy.
Means testing the State Pension would be more sensible, or a different income tax rate for better off pensioners.
Better off pensioners pay the same tax rates as workers, why would you ask them to pay more than workers. Means testing sounds really crazy , someone works and contributes for 50 years for a miserly pension but you suggest if they have saved they get nothing but someone who has sat on their butt for 50 years and contributed zero gets a state pension, mental.
35 years. Not 50.
What's the "sat on their butt" thing about? Bus drivers ?
Many will have worked from age 16 and not get pension till 66, ie 50 years. They do not stop your contributions after you have paid for 35 years. The "sat on their butt" is the liklihood that anyone mealy mouthed enough to be whinging that they want a share of pensioners savings is unlikely to b ea hard working person , more like to be a sponging no user who would rather whinge than actually go out and work hard to earn their own money rather than coveting other hard workers money.
Id be pretty confident most pb-ers of any voting persuasion are reasonably well off and net tax payers rather than receivers. That you think everyone votes with their wallet explains a lot.
I think the overwhelming evidence is that the majority tend to do that. Politicians who want to win need to be aware of that. The alternative is permanent raging against the machine.
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.
Minority of votes no majority support within the country, lucky to have been up against corbyn, lucky to be up against a party still seriously damaged by corbyn. A privileged position that should not be abused to benefit one group of people or one view point.
Really if you don't understand the working of our electoral system by now you never will. I doubt we'd hear a peep from you if Labour had the most seats after a GE.
Many Labour voters were unhappy that Labour did not fulfil its 1997 manifesto commitment to change the voting system.
Do not project your own hypocrisy onto others please.
How is it hypocrisy - I support the current system win or lose. You should speak to Mr Blair about hypocrisy. Or yourself about your 'crocodile tears' of unhappiness.
You suggested that Labour voters magically decided they liked FPTP after 1997. That is a projection and simply isn't true.
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.
Minority of votes no majority support within the country, lucky to have been up against corbyn, lucky to be up against a party still seriously damaged by corbyn. A privileged position that should not be abused to benefit one group of people or one view point.
Really if you don't understand the working of our electoral system by now you never will. I doubt we'd hear a peep from you if Labour had the most seats after a GE.
Many Labour voters were unhappy that Labour did not fulfil its 1997 manifesto commitment to change the voting system.
Do not project your own hypocrisy onto others please.
How is it hypocrisy - I support the current system win or lose. You should speak to Mr Blair about hypocrisy. Or yourself about your 'crocodile tears' of unhappiness.
You suggested that Labour voters magically decided they liked FPTP after 1997. That is a projection and simply isn't true.
I see that @HYUFD is claiming that voters at the last election voted for a hard Brexit.
Not so.
The Tory manifesto says this: “We will negotiate a trade agreement next year - one that strengthens our Union....”. Page 5 if anyone is interested.
Those who voted Tory did not vote for a hard Brexit ie an exit without any trade agreement with the EU.
That is if they believed a word the Tories told them, which given their record might be a tad foolish.
'We will keep the UK out of the single market, out of any form of customs union, and end the role of the European Court of Justice.
This future relationship will be one that allows us to: Take back control of our laws. Take back control of our money. Control our own trade policy. Introduce an Australian-style points based immigration system. Raise standards in areas like workers’ rights, animal welfare, agriculture and the environment. Ensure we are in full control of our fishing waters.
...and we will not extend the implementation period beyond December 2020.'
So we can have a trade deal but only provided the EU agrees to allow the UK to do all it wants to do in the future relationship
I’ve read page 5 in full. Indeed, I’ve read the entire manifesto in full. It categorically does not promise a Hard Brexit, which is what you claimed. Anyone reading this - and believing it - did not vote for a Hard Brexit.
The Hard Brexiteers have consistently lied about what their ultimate destination was, from 2016 onwards. As you must have doubtless realised, since you voted Remain. The fact that they are lying now is no surprise.
Wrong. A hard Brexit by definition means leaving the single market and customs union which was precisely what the 2019 Tory manifesto promised.
The manifesto also said we could still do a trade deal with the EU true but also promised, for instance, to regain full control of our fishing waters, which is something the EU is refusing to budge on. If so the manifesto also promised no extension of the implementation period beyond December deal or no deal.
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.
Minority of votes no majority support within the country, lucky to have been up against corbyn, lucky to be up against a party still seriously damaged by corbyn. A privileged position that should not be abused to benefit one group of people or one view point.
It got a minority of votes but that doesn't make it a minority administration. It is by definition a majority one.
If the government does a bad job it can be kicked out next time, using the same voting system we used last time - and used by billions of people in democracies worldwide.
With yet again elected with minority support and millions of votes entirely irrelevant, just because other countries use a corrupt voting system to sustain corrupt political parties doesn’t make it right. But posting here changes nothing, not even opinion so it’s really a waste of electrons, just like those millions of votes.
The voting system is not corrupt. Millions of votes aren't irrelevant, every vote is counted - just because millions lose doesn't make them irrelevant.
If the millions of votes attract millions more so that they win instead of losing then the politics will transform. You win by getting more votes than the opposition, not by changing the voting system.
The logic would seem to be that every Tory candidate should be opposed by just one non-Tory candidate. I have a feeling that, if this were dne, the Conservatives would be annihilated. But if that is what you Conservatives would like to see, I expect the country could learn to live without a Conservative Party.
That would probably mean a Labour Government and a Lib Dem Opposition.
How do you figure that out?
You make the timeless mistake of believing for some twisted and perverted reason that anyone who didn't vote for the Tories can be added up together as a "non-Tory" and then somehow marshalled into voting for a single non-Tory candidate.
Reality couldn't be further from that. If there were a boolean forced choice then the non-Tories would need to unite behind a single policy platform, a single candidate for PM, a single choice . . . and that would drive away some people who currently vote for disparate "non-Tory" parties into either not voting at all . . . or voting for the Tories instead.
If every Tory candidate was opposed by just one non-Tory candidate then the Tory share of the vote would go UP not down as a result. That is inevitable and has been demonstrated time and again in the real world. In 2019 if the choice had been Tory or a single unified non-Tory opposition I expect the Tories would have received an absolute majority of the votes and not just seats.
Many will have worked from age 16 and not get pension till 66, ie 50 years. They do not stop your contributions after you have paid for 35 years. The "sat on their butt" is the liklihood that anyone mealy mouthed enough to be whinging that they want a share of pensioners savings is unlikely to b ea hard working person , more like to be a sponging no user who would rather whinge than actually go out and work hard to earn their own money rather than coveting other hard workers money.
Currently, you’d need about £250k to buy an annuity that matches the state pension. If your bus driver had paid the maximum possible NI (which would have required a high income - some bus driver!) for their entire lives & the money had been invested to keep pace with earnings, my BOTE calculation says that they still wouldn’t have "saved" 250k in NI contributions. Oh, and if we take NI as "insurance" instead of a tax as you suggest then we need to knock off the other things that NI was supposed to pay for as well before we "invest" anything: unemployment payments, the portion of NI that goes to the NHS and so on. Remember that NI was only 5-6% of earnings up to the upper limit in the 70s.
Your 50 year working bus driver is getting far more out of the system than they ever paid in malcolmg. As a nation this is something we can afford to pay, but current retirees are getting out far more than they paid in - that is the reality.
Did you include the interest if it was invested like any other pension. I paid less to my pension pot than NI over the years I bet, and yet it is multiple times your annuity value. Far better to have NO NI and let people pay into a real pension scheme, they would get significantly better pension and it would cost the state little to nothing.
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.
Remain lost, get over it.
That’s all Brexiteers have. We won. That’s it.
No articulation of any benefits of Brexit, no adaptation to the current circumstances. No attempt to win anyone over or find a positive case.
Just we won, we will do it, to hell with the consequences and damn the rest of you.
I see the r rate for Remainerdepression is back on the rise.
He has a point. What's it all for? Other than fish obviously.
Who are we going to sell the fish to? We are closing off our main market for goods.
we can always eat more of it ourselves.
It will vary our diet from eating grass.
Brits do not like fish all that much. It is why we sell our fish.
Now, if we could develop a wild McDonalds burger that could be harvested (ideally living in a clamshell style bap) then no doubt we would eat every single one...
Actually Brits love fish but they only like a resticted range. A bit of education would do wonders to widening what we like.
They tried that in the war. Brexiters ought to be forcefed on snoek and rock salmon for the rest of their lives.
"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.
Eh? Of course plenty to do, Corbyn wanted to be PM as a pensioner, he wouldnt have paid any NI.
Which brings us to an interesting issue.
When pensions were setup, the idea was that, on reaching an age when hard manual labour* was no longer possible, working class people would have enough money to live.
The nature of work has changed - there are vastly fewer (as a proportion) jobs that have such an onerous physical element.
At the same time, health and fitness means there are many who are capable of work longer.
In addition, there are more and more part time jobs, or ones that are flexible hours. For example, the mother of a friend is a retried accountant - she puts in some hours, helping with the accounts of companies she used to work for. Which pays for the holidays each year...
The idea that we all work till the age of X and then stop suddenly is as out of date as everyone dressing in pinstripe & bowler hat and catching 7:15 to Charing Cross each morning.
*Skilled or otherwise
Indeed, and with a potential move away from the office these trends will continue, creating more jobs for experienced older people who can comfortably and effectively work from home and fewer opportunities for those leaving education who need training and interaction that is hard to do remotely.
It isnt a zero sum game. Older employed people employ younger ones.
The age limit on NI should go alongside the compulsory retirement age. Both are obsolete in the modern world.
Many will have worked from age 16 and not get pension till 66, ie 50 years. They do not stop your contributions after you have paid for 35 years. The "sat on their butt" is the liklihood that anyone mealy mouthed enough to be whinging that they want a share of pensioners savings is unlikely to b ea hard working person , more like to be a sponging no user who would rather whinge than actually go out and work hard to earn their own money rather than coveting other hard workers money.
Currently, you’d need about £250k to buy an annuity that matches the state pension. If your bus driver had paid the maximum possible NI (which would have required a high income - some bus driver!) for their entire lives & the money had been invested to keep pace with earnings, my BOTE calculation says that they still wouldn’t have "saved" 250k in NI contributions. Oh, and if we take NI as "insurance" instead of a tax as you suggest then we need to knock off the other things that NI was supposed to pay for as well before we "invest" anything: unemployment payments, the portion of NI that goes to the NHS and so on. Remember that NI was only 5-6% of earnings up to the upper limit in the 70s.
Your 50 year working bus driver is getting far more out of the system than they ever paid in malcolmg. As a nation this is something we can afford to pay, but current retirees are getting out far more than they paid in - that is the reality.
Did you include the interest if it was invested like any other pension. I paid less to my pension pot than NI over the years I bet, and yet it is multiple times your annuity value. Far better to have NO NI and let people pay into a real pension scheme, they would get significantly better pension and it would cost the state little to nothing.
Why would it cost the state nothing? I assume the state would still provide a pension for those without a sufficient private pension, so what would be different?
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.
Minority of votes no majority support within the country, lucky to have been up against corbyn, lucky to be up against a party still seriously damaged by corbyn. A privileged position that should not be abused to benefit one group of people or one view point.
It got a minority of votes but that doesn't make it a minority administration. It is by definition a majority one.
If the government does a bad job it can be kicked out next time, using the same voting system we used last time - and used by billions of people in democracies worldwide.
With yet again elected with minority support and millions of votes entirely irrelevant, just because other countries use a corrupt voting system to sustain corrupt political parties doesn’t make it right. But posting here changes nothing, not even opinion so it’s really a waste of electrons, just like those millions of votes.
The voting system is not corrupt. Millions of votes aren't irrelevant, every vote is counted - just because millions lose doesn't make them irrelevant.
If the millions of votes attract millions more so that they win instead of losing then the politics will transform. You win by getting more votes than the opposition, not by changing the voting system.
The logic would seem to be that every Tory candidate should be opposed by just one non-Tory candidate. I have a feeling that, if this were dne, the Conservatives would be annihilated. But if that is what you Conservatives would like to see, I expect the country could learn to live without a Conservative Party.
That would probably mean a Labour Government and a Lib Dem Opposition.
How do you figure that out?
You make the timeless mistake of believing for some twisted and perverted reason that anyone who didn't vote for the Tories can be added up together as a "non-Tory" and then somehow marshalled into voting for a single non-Tory candidate.
Reality couldn't be further from that. If there were a boolean forced choice then the non-Tories would need to unite behind a single policy platform, a single candidate for PM, a single choice . . . and that would drive away some people who currently vote for disparate "non-Tory" parties into either not voting at all . . . or voting for the Tories instead.
If every Tory candidate was opposed by just one non-Tory candidate then the Tory share of the vote would go UP not down as a result. That is inevitable and has been demonstrated time and again in the real world. In 2019 if the choice had been Tory or a single unified non-Tory opposition I expect the Tories would have received an absolute majority of the votes and not just seats.
I call it the SpareLabour Fallacy - the belief that all other parties are a self indulgent "stealing of votes" from the One True Party.
"‘This is an unfolding disaster. My advice? Don’t get cancer in 2020’
A misplaced obsession with Covid-19 fuelled by vested interests is killing tens of thousands, the leading oncologist Karol Sikora tells Rhys Blakely" (£)
another example of where our disproportionate response to virus is now doing real harm.
Thank goodness I’m in Spain where my diagnosis was in the first few weeks of The outbreak and my treatment has proceeded without delay, apart from the hospitalization after the first dose of chemo. I think if you’re waiting for a new hip you may have had to wait but most treatments Appear to be progressing as normal.
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.
Minority of votes no majority support within the country, lucky to have been up against corbyn, lucky to be up against a party still seriously damaged by corbyn. A privileged position that should not be abused to benefit one group of people or one view point.
It got a minority of votes but that doesn't make it a minority administration. It is by definition a majority one.
If the government does a bad job it can be kicked out next time, using the same voting system we used last time - and used by billions of people in democracies worldwide.
With yet again elected with minority support and millions of votes entirely irrelevant, just because other countries use a corrupt voting system to sustain corrupt political parties doesn’t make it right. But posting here changes nothing, not even opinion so it’s really a waste of electrons, just like those millions of votes.
The voting system is not corrupt. Millions of votes aren't irrelevant, every vote is counted - just because millions lose doesn't make them irrelevant.
If the millions of votes attract millions more so that they win instead of losing then the politics will transform. You win by getting more votes than the opposition, not by changing the voting system.
The logic would seem to be that every Tory candidate should be opposed by just one non-Tory candidate. I have a feeling that, if this were dne, the Conservatives would be annihilated. But if that is what you Conservatives would like to see, I expect the country could learn to live without a Conservative Party.
That would probably mean a Labour Government and a Lib Dem Opposition.
How do you figure that out?
You make the timeless mistake of believing for some twisted and perverted reason that anyone who didn't vote for the Tories can be added up together as a "non-Tory" and then somehow marshalled into voting for a single non-Tory candidate.
Reality couldn't be further from that. If there were a boolean forced choice then the non-Tories would need to unite behind a single policy platform, a single candidate for PM, a single choice . . . and that would drive away some people who currently vote for disparate "non-Tory" parties into either not voting at all . . . or voting for the Tories instead.
If every Tory candidate was opposed by just one non-Tory candidate then the Tory share of the vote would go UP not down as a result. That is inevitable and has been demonstrated time and again in the real world. In 2019 if the choice had been Tory or a single unified non-Tory opposition I expect the Tories would have received an absolute majority of the votes and not just seats.
Indeed, there were also 280 seats the Tories won outright at GE19 with over 50% of the vote anyway
Many will have worked from age 16 and not get pension till 66, ie 50 years. They do not stop your contributions after you have paid for 35 years. The "sat on their butt" is the liklihood that anyone mealy mouthed enough to be whinging that they want a share of pensioners savings is unlikely to b ea hard working person , more like to be a sponging no user who would rather whinge than actually go out and work hard to earn their own money rather than coveting other hard workers money.
Currently, you’d need about £250k to buy an annuity that matches the state pension. If your bus driver had paid the maximum possible NI (which would have required a high income - some bus driver!) for their entire lives & the money had been invested to keep pace with earnings, my BOTE calculation says that they still wouldn’t have "saved" 250k in NI contributions. Oh, and if we take NI as "insurance" instead of a tax as you suggest then we need to knock off the other things that NI was supposed to pay for as well before we "invest" anything: unemployment payments, the portion of NI that goes to the NHS and so on. Remember that NI was only 5-6% of earnings up to the upper limit in the 70s.
Your 50 year working bus driver is getting far more out of the system than they ever paid in malcolmg. As a nation this is something we can afford to pay, but current retirees are getting out far more than they paid in - that is the reality.
Did you include the interest if it was invested like any other pension. I paid less to my pension pot than NI over the years I bet, and yet it is multiple times your annuity value. Far better to have NO NI and let people pay into a real pension scheme, they would get significantly better pension and it would cost the state little to nothing.
It might be but NI doesn't pay for pensions, it pays for the NHS and other things too.
Why pensioners should not be contributing to the NHS is beyond me, NI should be merged with income tax and have everyone treated the same.
Many will have worked from age 16 and not get pension till 66, ie 50 years. They do not stop your contributions after you have paid for 35 years. The "sat on their butt" is the liklihood that anyone mealy mouthed enough to be whinging that they want a share of pensioners savings is unlikely to b ea hard working person , more like to be a sponging no user who would rather whinge than actually go out and work hard to earn their own money rather than coveting other hard workers money.
Currently, you’d need about £250k to buy an annuity that matches the state pension. If your bus driver had paid the maximum possible NI (which would have required a high income - some bus driver!) for their entire lives & the money had been invested to keep pace with earnings, my BOTE calculation says that they still wouldn’t have "saved" 250k in NI contributions. Oh, and if we take NI as "insurance" instead of a tax as you suggest then we need to knock off the other things that NI was supposed to pay for as well before we "invest" anything: unemployment payments, the portion of NI that goes to the NHS and so on. Remember that NI was only 5-6% of earnings up to the upper limit in the 70s.
Your 50 year working bus driver is getting far more out of the system than they ever paid in malcolmg. As a nation this is something we can afford to pay, but current retirees are getting out far more than they paid in - that is the reality.
Did you include the interest if it was invested like any other pension. I paid less to my pension pot than NI over the years I bet, and yet it is multiple times your annuity value. Far better to have NO NI and let people pay into a real pension scheme, they would get significantly better pension and it would cost the state little to nothing.
It might be but NI doesn't pay for pensions, it pays for the NHS and other things too.
Why pensioners should not be contributing to the NHS is beyond me, NI should be merged with income tax and have everyone treated the same.
"‘This is an unfolding disaster. My advice? Don’t get cancer in 2020’
A misplaced obsession with Covid-19 fuelled by vested interests is killing tens of thousands, the leading oncologist Karol Sikora tells Rhys Blakely" (£)
another example of where our disproportionate response to virus is now doing real harm.
Thank goodness I’m in Spain where my diagnosis was in the first few weeks of The outbreak and my treatment has proceeded without delay, apart from the hospitalization after the first dose of chemo. I think if you’re waiting for a new hip you may have had to wait but most treatments Appear to be progressing as normal.
A friend of my dad's is still receiving his cancer treatment - though that's been going on since pre-COVID-19, but this issue should be very high on the government's priority list.
I see that @HYUFD is claiming that voters at the last election voted for a hard Brexit.
Not so.
The Tory manifesto says this: “We will negotiate a trade agreement next year - one that strengthens our Union....”. Page 5 if anyone is interested.
Those who voted Tory did not vote for a hard Brexit ie an exit without any trade agreement with the EU.
That is if they believed a word the Tories told them, which given their record might be a tad foolish.
'We will keep the UK out of the single market, out of any form of customs union, and end the role of the European Court of Justice.
This future relationship will be one that allows us to: Take back control of our laws. Take back control of our money. Control our own trade policy. Introduce an Australian-style points based immigration system. Raise standards in areas like workers’ rights, animal welfare, agriculture and the environment. Ensure we are in full control of our fishing waters.
...and we will not extend the implementation period beyond December 2020.'
So we can have a trade deal but only provided the EU agrees to allow the UK to do all it wants to do in the future relationship
I’ve read page 5 in full. Indeed, I’ve read the entire manifesto in full. It categorically does not promise a Hard Brexit, which is what you claimed. Anyone reading this - and believing it - did not vote for a Hard Brexit.
The Hard Brexiteers have consistently lied about what their ultimate destination was, from 2016 onwards. As you must have doubtless realised, since you voted Remain. The fact that they are lying now is no surprise.
Wrong. A hard Brexit by definition means leaving the single market and customs union which was precisely what the 2019 Tory manifesto promised.
The manifesto also said we could still do a trade deal with the EU true but also promised, for instance, to regain full control of our fishing waters, which is something the EU is refusing to budge on. If so the manifesto also promised no extension of the implementation period beyond December deal or no deal.
No. A Hard Brexit is leaving without any sort of trade deal with the EU, which is what the Tory party explicitly promised in its manifesto it would get.
That is the promise it made to those who voted for it. We’ll see whether this government sticks to its very clear promise of a trade deal with the EU which will strengthen the Union.
Many will have worked from age 16 and not get pension till 66, ie 50 years. They do not stop your contributions after you have paid for 35 years. The "sat on their butt" is the liklihood that anyone mealy mouthed enough to be whinging that they want a share of pensioners savings is unlikely to b ea hard working person , more like to be a sponging no user who would rather whinge than actually go out and work hard to earn their own money rather than coveting other hard workers money.
Currently, you’d need about £250k to buy an annuity that matches the state pension. If your bus driver had paid the maximum possible NI (which would have required a high income - some bus driver!) for their entire lives & the money had been invested to keep pace with earnings, my BOTE calculation says that they still wouldn’t have "saved" 250k in NI contributions. Oh, and if we take NI as "insurance" instead of a tax as you suggest then we need to knock off the other things that NI was supposed to pay for as well before we "invest" anything: unemployment payments, the portion of NI that goes to the NHS and so on. Remember that NI was only 5-6% of earnings up to the upper limit in the 70s.
Your 50 year working bus driver is getting far more out of the system than they ever paid in malcolmg. As a nation this is something we can afford to pay, but current retirees are getting out far more than they paid in - that is the reality.
Did you include the interest if it was invested like any other pension. I paid less to my pension pot than NI over the years I bet, and yet it is multiple times your annuity value. Far better to have NO NI and let people pay into a real pension scheme, they would get significantly better pension and it would cost the state little to nothing.
It might be but NI doesn't pay for pensions, it pays for the NHS and other things too.
Why pensioners should not be contributing to the NHS is beyond me, NI should be merged with income tax and have everyone treated the same.
Anyway enough fun, I must be off, wonder where Bozo will pop up next, been hiding for weeks now and even he cannot be on holiday forever. For sure it will be unlikely to be Scotland , his 3 days in hiding was too much for him and he had to phone the Daily Mail and reveal his location.
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.
Minority of votes no majority support within the country, lucky to have been up against corbyn, lucky to be up against a party still seriously damaged by corbyn. A privileged position that should not be abused to benefit one group of people or one view point.
Really if you don't understand the working of our electoral system by now you never will. I doubt we'd hear a peep from you if Labour had the most seats after a GE.
Many Labour voters were unhappy that Labour did not fulfil its 1997 manifesto commitment to change the voting system.
Do not project your own hypocrisy onto others please.
How is it hypocrisy - I support the current system win or lose. You should speak to Mr Blair about hypocrisy. Or yourself about your 'crocodile tears' of unhappiness.
You suggested that Labour voters magically decided they liked FPTP after 1997. That is a projection and simply isn't true.
I referred only to the person I responded to who was not a Labour voter apparently. However, can you recall the demonstrations of outraged former Labour voters on the strets for PR after 1997?. I must have missed them drowned out by the noise of 'things...can only get better....
Many will have worked from age 16 and not get pension till 66, ie 50 years. They do not stop your contributions after you have paid for 35 years. The "sat on their butt" is the liklihood that anyone mealy mouthed enough to be whinging that they want a share of pensioners savings is unlikely to b ea hard working person , more like to be a sponging no user who would rather whinge than actually go out and work hard to earn their own money rather than coveting other hard workers money.
Currently, you’d need about £250k to buy an annuity that matches the state pension. If your bus driver had paid the maximum possible NI (which would have required a high income - some bus driver!) for their entire lives & the money had been invested to keep pace with earnings, my BOTE calculation says that they still wouldn’t have "saved" 250k in NI contributions. Oh, and if we take NI as "insurance" instead of a tax as you suggest then we need to knock off the other things that NI was supposed to pay for as well before we "invest" anything: unemployment payments, the portion of NI that goes to the NHS and so on. Remember that NI was only 5-6% of earnings up to the upper limit in the 70s.
Your 50 year working bus driver is getting far more out of the system than they ever paid in malcolmg. As a nation this is something we can afford to pay, but current retirees are getting out far more than they paid in - that is the reality.
Are you using current annuity rates? They were much higher in the past, not sure what pot you would need for £8000 year pension though
"‘This is an unfolding disaster. My advice? Don’t get cancer in 2020’
A misplaced obsession with Covid-19 fuelled by vested interests is killing tens of thousands, the leading oncologist Karol Sikora tells Rhys Blakely" (£)
another example of where our disproportionate response to virus is now doing real harm.
Thank goodness I’m in Spain where my diagnosis was in the first few weeks of The outbreak and my treatment has proceeded without delay, apart from the hospitalization after the first dose of chemo. I think if you’re waiting for a new hip you may have had to wait but most treatments Appear to be progressing as normal.
I believe even in the UK cancer treatment is still prioritised, it is elective surgery that has been pushed back by Covid patients
I see that @HYUFD is claiming that voters at the last election voted for a hard Brexit.
Not so.
The Tory manifesto says this: “We will negotiate a trade agreement next year - one that strengthens our Union....”. Page 5 if anyone is interested.
Those who voted Tory did not vote for a hard Brexit ie an exit without any trade agreement with the EU.
That is if they believed a word the Tories told them, which given their record might be a tad foolish.
'We will keep the UK out of the single market, out of any form of customs union, and end the role of the European Court of Justice.
This future relationship will be one that allows us to: Take back control of our laws. Take back control of our money. Control our own trade policy. Introduce an Australian-style points based immigration system. Raise standards in areas like workers’ rights, animal welfare, agriculture and the environment. Ensure we are in full control of our fishing waters.
...and we will not extend the implementation period beyond December 2020.'
So we can have a trade deal but only provided the EU agrees to allow the UK to do all it wants to do in the future relationship
I’ve read page 5 in full. Indeed, I’ve read the entire manifesto in full. It categorically does not promise a Hard Brexit, which is what you claimed. Anyone reading this - and believing it - did not vote for a Hard Brexit.
The Hard Brexiteers have consistently lied about what their ultimate destination was, from 2016 onwards. As you must have doubtless realised, since you voted Remain. The fact that they are lying now is no surprise.
Wrong. A hard Brexit by definition means leaving the single market and customs union which was precisely what the 2019 Tory manifesto promised.
The manifesto also said we could still do a trade deal with the EU true but also promised, for instance, to regain full control of our fishing waters, which is something the EU is refusing to budge on. If so the manifesto also promised no extension of the implementation period beyond December deal or no deal.
I agree that the Tory manifesto promised to have cake and eat it, promising a trade agreement yet setting criteria that make that impossible.
A WTO Brexit is the inevitable consequence of Brexit, anything softer was always a chimera, used by the Brexiteers to get over the line. If no European rules are to be applied there can be no Trade Deal. No leading Brexiteer has advocated anything like a soft Brexit since June 2016.
Many will have worked from age 16 and not get pension till 66, ie 50 years. They do not stop your contributions after you have paid for 35 years. The "sat on their butt" is the liklihood that anyone mealy mouthed enough to be whinging that they want a share of pensioners savings is unlikely to b ea hard working person , more like to be a sponging no user who would rather whinge than actually go out and work hard to earn their own money rather than coveting other hard workers money.
Currently, you’d need about £250k to buy an annuity that matches the state pension. If your bus driver had paid the maximum possible NI (which would have required a high income - some bus driver!) for their entire lives & the money had been invested to keep pace with earnings, my BOTE calculation says that they still wouldn’t have "saved" 250k in NI contributions. Oh, and if we take NI as "insurance" instead of a tax as you suggest then we need to knock off the other things that NI was supposed to pay for as well before we "invest" anything: unemployment payments, the portion of NI that goes to the NHS and so on. Remember that NI was only 5-6% of earnings up to the upper limit in the 70s.
Your 50 year working bus driver is getting far more out of the system than they ever paid in malcolmg. As a nation this is something we can afford to pay, but current retirees are getting out far more than they paid in - that is the reality.
Did you include the interest if it was invested like any other pension. I paid less to my pension pot than NI over the years I bet, and yet it is multiple times your annuity value. Far better to have NO NI and let people pay into a real pension scheme, they would get significantly better pension and it would cost the state little to nothing.
Why would it cost the state nothing? I assume the state would still provide a pension for those without a sufficient private pension, so what would be different?
They could still retain a portion of employers contributions and in UK case would certainly steal some of employee contributions.
Many will have worked from age 16 and not get pension till 66, ie 50 years. They do not stop your contributions after you have paid for 35 years. The "sat on their butt" is the liklihood that anyone mealy mouthed enough to be whinging that they want a share of pensioners savings is unlikely to b ea hard working person , more like to be a sponging no user who would rather whinge than actually go out and work hard to earn their own money rather than coveting other hard workers money.
Currently, you’d need about £250k to buy an annuity that matches the state pension. If your bus driver had paid the maximum possible NI (which would have required a high income - some bus driver!) for their entire lives & the money had been invested to keep pace with earnings, my BOTE calculation says that they still wouldn’t have "saved" 250k in NI contributions. Oh, and if we take NI as "insurance" instead of a tax as you suggest then we need to knock off the other things that NI was supposed to pay for as well before we "invest" anything: unemployment payments, the portion of NI that goes to the NHS and so on. Remember that NI was only 5-6% of earnings up to the upper limit in the 70s.
Your 50 year working bus driver is getting far more out of the system than they ever paid in malcolmg. As a nation this is something we can afford to pay, but current retirees are getting out far more than they paid in - that is the reality.
Did you include the interest if it was invested like any other pension. I paid less to my pension pot than NI over the years I bet, and yet it is multiple times your annuity value. Far better to have NO NI and let people pay into a real pension scheme, they would get significantly better pension and it would cost the state little to nothing.
Why would it cost the state nothing? I assume the state would still provide a pension for those without a sufficient private pension, so what would be different?
They could still retain a portion of employers contributions and in UK case would certainly steal some of employee contributions.
The only way that the pensionsNI stuff will ever get sorted out, is through the introduction of a UBI.
"‘This is an unfolding disaster. My advice? Don’t get cancer in 2020’
A misplaced obsession with Covid-19 fuelled by vested interests is killing tens of thousands, the leading oncologist Karol Sikora tells Rhys Blakely" (£)
another example of where our disproportionate response to virus is now doing real harm.
Thank goodness I’m in Spain where my diagnosis was in the first few weeks of The outbreak and my treatment has proceeded without delay, apart from the hospitalization after the first dose of chemo. I think if you’re waiting for a new hip you may have had to wait but most treatments Appear to be progressing as normal.
I believe even in the UK cancer treatment is still prioritised, it is elective surgery that has been pushed back by Covid patients
Cancer targets are unchanged, albeit often missed. Cancer referrals are down by 50% though.
Many will have worked from age 16 and not get pension till 66, ie 50 years. They do not stop your contributions after you have paid for 35 years. The "sat on their butt" is the liklihood that anyone mealy mouthed enough to be whinging that they want a share of pensioners savings is unlikely to b ea hard working person , more like to be a sponging no user who would rather whinge than actually go out and work hard to earn their own money rather than coveting other hard workers money.
Currently, you’d need about £250k to buy an annuity that matches the state pension. If your bus driver had paid the maximum possible NI (which would have required a high income - some bus driver!) for their entire lives & the money had been invested to keep pace with earnings, my BOTE calculation says that they still wouldn’t have "saved" 250k in NI contributions. Oh, and if we take NI as "insurance" instead of a tax as you suggest then we need to knock off the other things that NI was supposed to pay for as well before we "invest" anything: unemployment payments, the portion of NI that goes to the NHS and so on. Remember that NI was only 5-6% of earnings up to the upper limit in the 70s.
Your 50 year working bus driver is getting far more out of the system than they ever paid in malcolmg. As a nation this is something we can afford to pay, but current retirees are getting out far more than they paid in - that is the reality.
Did you include the interest if it was invested like any other pension. I paid less to my pension pot than NI over the years I bet, and yet it is multiple times your annuity value. Far better to have NO NI and let people pay into a real pension scheme, they would get significantly better pension and it would cost the state little to nothing.
It might be but NI doesn't pay for pensions, it pays for the NHS and other things too.
Why pensioners should not be contributing to the NHS is beyond me, NI should be merged with income tax and have everyone treated the same.
They have contributed all their lives and will still do so if they earn above their tax allowance. The only thing they do not pay is NI and that was intended for pensions.
"‘This is an unfolding disaster. My advice? Don’t get cancer in 2020’
A misplaced obsession with Covid-19 fuelled by vested interests is killing tens of thousands, the leading oncologist Karol Sikora tells Rhys Blakely" (£)
another example of where our disproportionate response to virus is now doing real harm.
Thank goodness I’m in Spain where my diagnosis was in the first few weeks of The outbreak and my treatment has proceeded without delay, apart from the hospitalization after the first dose of chemo. I think if you’re waiting for a new hip you may have had to wait but most treatments Appear to be progressing as normal.
I believe even in the UK cancer treatment is still prioritised, it is elective surgery that has been pushed back by Covid patients
Comments
However deaths per day continues to explode upwards.
I'm old enough to remember when Georgia was the go to example that nothing bad would happen if we opened up immediately without restrictions.
Or are wilfully misuing the word "fisherman" to mean 'skipper' - but why would you do that when you are concerned with voters?
The first two sentences refer - the rest is also illuminating on the accuracy to be expected.
I'm off for lunch. So please don't bother replying to this.
"Methods
The data analysed for this paper was collected via an onlinesurvey that was distributed to skippers across the UK. Therefore, any reference to‘fishermen’in this paper is short-hand for‘skippers’. In order to get the online link into theemail inboxes of fishermen, representatives of fishermen’sassociations and producer organisations across the UK wereapproached and asked to distribute a link to their surveyamongst skippers who were members or affiliates of theirassociation. A number of producer organisations declined todistribute the survey because they wanted to maintain a polit-ically neutral position ahead of the EU referendum.Fishermen’s associations turned out to be the most willing todistribute the survey, although a number of them did not replyto emails. Whether or not they distributed the link to the sur-vey is therefore unknown. Significant barriers thereforeexisted when it came to getting the survey to fishermen, andit is well known that internet-based surveys are likely to resultin a lower completion rate than other data collection ap-proaches (Cobanoglu et al.2001; Kaplowitz et al.2004;Shih and Fan2008 ). In the absence of external funding forthis project, however, it was the only avenue open to theresearcher."
The focus of this paper is Scottish fishermen who skipperand/or own boats over 10 m. The reason that only boats over10 m was considered for the analysis is twofold. Firstly [...] Because such a sizeableproportion of the over 10-m Scottish fleet was collected (N=69, 12.4%), it allows us to generalise to the entire over 10-mpopulation with a fair amount of confidence and operate with areasonably small margin of error. It is almost certain that thereis a mismatch between the number of registered > 10-m boatsand the number of skippers and owners, but these are the bestestimates available. Therefore, the error in the sample is esti-mated to be somewhere in the region of 7 to 9%. Furthermore,the existence of sample bias may well be present in the sampleof skippers that was collected given that the survey was dis-tributed online and may well be more easily accessible toyounger respondents. However, the fact that the internet isnow easily accessible on most modern vessels and the use ofonline technology at sea for communication purposes, the ex-istence of a significant amount of bias is not envisaged.Clearly, this sample does not represent every fisherman thatworks in the industry as deckhands have not been surveyed atall. This was outside the scope of this particular research pro-ject due to financial and logistical constraints."
You have still not given any evidence to the contrary to my evidence that most Scottish fishermen voted Tory, so as I said, game, set and match
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1297134567409831938?s=20
The symptoms sound reminiscent of the Salisbury poisoning
What's the "sat on their butt" thing about? Bus drivers
So pensioners income has gone up, the young down.
NI is an income tax. The government forces you to pay it, it’s calculated as a percentage of your income in a range chosen by the government, you don’t get any say in the matter & the government decides what benefits to pay you, sometimes using the number of years you made NI payments as an input to that calculation, but not how much you actually paid.
How exactly is NI not a tax? Do enlighten me.
The triple lock is the most blatant piece of political bribery with taxpayers' money that the UK has ever seen. Certainly the most expensive. It's an absolute disgrace, and all courtesy of the party of so-called sound finances.
If Labour wants to ignore pensioners fine, the Tories will not ignore their base
If you’re well off & have a nice little consulting sideline going then you get a double bung from the government when you reach retirement age - you get to pay less tax /and/ you get to draw your state pension!
This is one of your more risible efforts.
Not so.
The Tory manifesto says this: “We will negotiate a trade agreement next year - one that strengthens our Union....”. Page 5 if anyone is interested.
Those who voted Tory did not vote for a hard Brexit ie an exit without any trade agreement with the EU.
That is if they believed a word the Tories told them, which given their record might be a tad foolish.
In reality, the money was spent when it was taxed in the first place & always has been. That’s how the retirement benefit is structured: current earners pay for current retirees.
Do not project your own hypocrisy onto others please.
In 2019 the LDs and the SNP and Greens would have held the balance of power, though the LDs ruled out backing Corbyn
This future relationship will be one that
allows us to:
Take back control of our laws.
Take back control of our money.
Control our own trade policy.
Introduce an Australian-style points based immigration system.
Raise standards in areas like workers’ rights, animal welfare, agriculture and the environment.
Ensure we are in full control of our fishing waters.
...and we will not extend the implementation period beyond December 2020.'
Also page 5
https://assets-global.website-files.com/5da42e2cae7ebd3f8bde353c/5dda924905da587992a064ba_Conservative 2019 Manifesto.pdf
So we can have a trade deal but only provided the EU agrees to allow the UK to do all it wants to do in the future relationship
You could not make it up. Unionists are really wetting their pants, pretendy stories falling to pieces, what a bunch of losers.
The future was not kind to that prediction!
You're not going to embarrass yourself again like last night, are you?
The "sat on their butt" is the liklihood that anyone mealy mouthed enough to be whinging that they want a share of pensioners savings is unlikely to b ea hard working person , more like to be a sponging no user who would rather whinge than actually go out and work hard to earn their own money rather than coveting other hard workers money.
When pensions were setup, the idea was that, on reaching an age when hard manual labour* was no longer possible, working class people would have enough money to live.
The nature of work has changed - there are vastly fewer (as a proportion) jobs that have such an onerous physical element.
At the same time, health and fitness means there are many who are capable of work longer.
In addition, there are more and more part time jobs, or ones that are flexible hours. For example, the mother of a friend is a retried accountant - she puts in some hours, helping with the accounts of companies she used to work for. Which pays for the holidays each year...
The idea that we all work till the age of X and then stop suddenly is as out of date as everyone dressing in pinstripe & bowler hat and catching 7:15 to Charing Cross each morning.
*Skilled or otherwise
Do you think Corbyn Labour would be going out of its way to appease Tory voters had it won GE19? Of course not
Do you agree or not?
The Hard Brexiteers have consistently lied about what their ultimate destination was, from 2016 onwards. As you must have doubtless realised, since you voted Remain. The fact that they are lying now is no surprise.
Sunderland was not a seat that voted for the Tories nor for the 2019 Tory manifesto and there was nothing in the Tory manifesto about protecting Nissan. Yes ideally Nissan will stay but that was not a Tory manifesto commitment unlike controlling our borders and controlling our own laws
The UK was the biggest block to an EU Federal Superstate, now we have left it will move ahead at pace to that and I expect non Eurozone nations like Sweden and Denmark to also leave the EU in due course and return to EFTA
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/08/21/didnt-vote-conservative-government/
Well Douglas, that's what happens if you let the entire government be run by one person who isn't even a conservative.
Your 50 year working bus driver is getting far more out of the system than they ever paid in malcolmg. As a nation this is something we can afford to pay, but current retirees are getting out far more than they paid in - that is the reality.
A misplaced obsession with Covid-19 fuelled by vested interests is killing tens of thousands, the leading oncologist Karol Sikora tells Rhys Blakely" (£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/saturday-interview-karol-sikora-zr3qxsn6f
The fact is, you're wrong. North East Brexit voters DID NOT vote for Nissan to close. There's no any other way to spell it out to you.
They voted for Brexit for a variety of different reasons, and expect a better life as a result.
They did not vote for a massive unemployment shock across the whole region.
The manifesto also said we could still do a trade deal with the EU true but also promised, for instance, to regain full control of our fishing waters, which is something the EU is refusing to budge on. If so the manifesto also promised no extension of the implementation period beyond December deal or no deal.
You make the timeless mistake of believing for some twisted and perverted reason that anyone who didn't vote for the Tories can be added up together as a "non-Tory" and then somehow marshalled into voting for a single non-Tory candidate.
Reality couldn't be further from that. If there were a boolean forced choice then the non-Tories would need to unite behind a single policy platform, a single candidate for PM, a single choice . . . and that would drive away some people who currently vote for disparate "non-Tory" parties into either not voting at all . . . or voting for the Tories instead.
If every Tory candidate was opposed by just one non-Tory candidate then the Tory share of the vote would go UP not down as a result. That is inevitable and has been demonstrated time and again in the real world. In 2019 if the choice had been Tory or a single unified non-Tory opposition I expect the Tories would have received an absolute majority of the votes and not just seats.
Fact.
The age limit on NI should go alongside the compulsory retirement age. Both are obsolete in the modern world.
For example, when I liquidate
file:///home/chronos/u-a4ac0077cff3dec12ab65f91af1476ea4829487c/MyFiles/Downloads/CBP-8749.pdf
Why pensioners should not be contributing to the NHS is beyond me, NI should be merged with income tax and have everyone treated the same.
That is the promise it made to those who voted for it. We’ll see whether this government sticks to its very clear promise of a trade deal with the EU which will strengthen the Union.
I have my doubts but we’ll see.
A WTO Brexit is the inevitable consequence of Brexit, anything softer was always a chimera, used by the Brexiteers to get over the line. If no European rules are to be applied there can be no Trade Deal. No leading Brexiteer has advocated anything like a soft Brexit since June 2016.
Which eliminates the state pension...
"I agree that the Tory manifesto promised to have cake and eat it.."
That is pretty much the definition of all election manifestos and why they all fail.