Thanks for the achingly dull recommendations, although I accept my requirement is achingly dull.
So, do I buy or lease?
FWIW I buy and write it off. Probably not the cheapest, but I simply can't be arsed with leases and finance on cars and all the Delboy nonsense that goes with it.
Except that if you lease you tend to get better offers on the purchase price, and there are some very low interest (indeed a few zero per cent) offers around. If you can get a zero per cent lease offer, you don’t need to decide whether to buy the car until the three years are up, at no extra cost.
But be careful about your mileage. Buy gap insurance if you think your annual mileage might exceed the lease terms - otherwise you'll get a big bill at the end of the lease and lose the car.
I've only ever bought one car on a lease, and I expect it to be my last diesel.
My price was -25% on list, with a reasonable but not exceptional finance offer. Though I am sure others have done better.
Get them to match Carwow or similar.
I bought my car through Carwow. Saved £1,500 on the best price offered by my local dealer, at the cost of having to drive to Norfolk to collect it.
Well done. My dealer matched it. Then became very tightfisted indeed about giving me *anything* more.
In refusing to tell us who first paid that bill for overpriced wallpaper, or to give full details of who paid for his December 2019 holiday in Mustique, Johnson has offended the public trust.
Johnson’s Brexit protocol that put a border down the Irish sea, even after he’d vowed never to put a border down the Irish sea, thereby imperilling a union he swore blind he would protect. His proposal of an internal market bill that proudly declared its intention to break international law, prompting the UK’s top legal civil servant to quit – one of a disturbing number of mandarins driven to resignation on Johnson’s watch.
His illegal suspension of parliament, overturned as a violation of fundamental democratic practice by unanimous verdict of the supreme court. The lies that led to that moment: the £350m on the side of the bus or the scare story that Turkey was poised to join the EU and that Britain would be powerless to stop it. Siding with Vladimir Putin to suggest that the EU had provoked the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Scandals, all.
The real scandal lies with us, the electorate, still seduced by a tousled-hair rebel shtick and faux bonhomie that should have palled years ago. Americans got rid of their lying, self-serving, scandal-plagued charlatan 100 days ago. They did it at the first possible opportunity. Next week, polls suggest we’re poised to give ours a partial thumbs-up at the ballot box. For allowing this shameless man to keep riding high, some of the shame is on us.
Ah, the sweet sound of the penny dropping with a journalist that it's the voters, not the media, who get to decide what issues are actually important in this country.
A Nigerian qualifies for a UK state pension having worked in London for 30 years and has recently retired and moved to Edinburgh.
Scotland becomes independent.
Who pays his future pension liability?
Who pays if he then moves to New York?
That would depend entirely on his status if he became a Scottish citizen it would be Scotland , etc, etc
No, he's a Nigerian. Who is eligible for and receives a UK state pension due to his years of qualifying NIC payments. He is neither a Scottish nor British citizen.
Who pays his UK state pension?
As I said earlier, this is an obligation jointly assumed by all current UK citizens. The provenance going forward of jointly assumed obligations will no doubt be part of the complex divorce negotiations. It is naive to assume that all such jointly assumed obligations will be left entirely to rUK.
This is the crucial point. It's not the case that - if one part of the UK splits off - that it keeps its share of the assets but loses the liabilities.
The reality is that it would be a part of the negotiation, just as pensions for Eurocrats were part of the negotiations between the EU and the UK.
But the precedent is that the departing state took on the liabilities, which was fair. I don't see any scenario where the UK government continues to pay pensions for Scottish citizens after independence. It really does become their problem.
A Nigerian qualifies for a UK state pension having worked in London for 30 years and has recently retired and moved to Edinburgh.
Scotland becomes independent.
Who pays his future pension liability?
Who pays if he then moves to New York?
You know some of your fellow Nats, such as MalcolmG, have said if as part of the Scexit divorce deal Scotland doesn't get a fair deal in their eyes then an iScot are not taking on any liabilities, this is corollary of that.
The RUK will say well if you won't honour your debts then we won't honour our debts to you.
So you are going with the rUK stopping paying the Nigerian's pension then?
It is a risk for him but he can easily move back to the RUK and get his pension paid that way.
Scottish independence means Scottish independence.
You Scot Nats are like the Brexiteers, you think after the divorce the wife is still going to give you a blowjob every day after the divorce. Ain't happening.
So you are proposing the law is changed to not pay a pension to anyone who's address is in Scotland?
So if he moves to any other cpu try in the world he gets his UK state pension but not if he is in Scotland? Is that your proposed change?
No I'm saying if Scotland walks away without agreeing to take on its fair share of net liabilities the RUK will have to prioritise its money, the money we would pay for Scottish pensions will be likely used to pay the liabilities as in 2014 I expect the UK government to say it will honour all UK debt payments if an independent Scotland will not.
Those people in Scotland who aren't getting their pensions will have to take it up with the Scottish government.
An independent Scotland doesn't get to pick and choose which liabilities the UK pays if you won't honour your side of the liabilities as well.
How do you determine who you are not going to pay pensions to?
Are you currently resident in a country that has just walked away from their share of their UK net liabilties?
Yes - RUK isn't paying your pension
No - RUK will continue to pay your pension
This might sound sarcastic but genuinely thank you for being the only person who is clear in what you would do.
I think others on here have been clear too. The divorce settlement will apportion asset and liabilities in a manner that both sides can live with. What precisely that would mean for pensions, I don't know. But it is only part of a much larger pot.
Ministers have urged a family facing a devastating bill as part of the building safety crisis to contact the Samaritans if they want help with “feelings of distress or despair”.
In a move that sparked “disbelief” in the leaseholder involved, Jamie Robb, the response from an aide to the housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, to a plea for help with fire remediation works included the phone number for the suicide prevention service. It recommended its “free, anonymous, confidential and non-judgemental support”.
The Robb family wrote to Jenrick in November last year after Jamie Robb, 30, discovered he was facing a bill of up to £40,000 for fire safety repairs on his apartment in a Manchester high-rise.
The response arrived this week as the government pushed through fire safety legislation that leaves thousands of leaseholders facing bills of up to £75,000 each to fix apartment buildings found to be dangerous in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire. “The government is aware of the effect that ongoing building safety concerns may have on the mental health of residents … If you feel able to, you can discuss any difficulties with your GP who will be able to signpost you to suitable healthcare services, if appropriate. You can also access support from the Samaritans by calling freephone 116 123”.
(Update: Oh, it's the Graun. Nuff said.)
I think on this the Govt are damned regardless, because the main media interest is in 'outraged of anywhere', and the headlines than can be created.
More than 20% of leaseholders affected by the cladding scandal have had suicidal thoughts or felt compelled to self-harm, an exclusive survey for Inside Housing has revealed.
That's Inside Housing, which is hardly sensationalist.
If Sinn Fein top the next NI election, it is possible they will demand a border poll.
I presume though that they’d have no right to do so unilaterally.
Also, Sinn Fein themselves have been losing support to the SDLP and the Alliance.
The best thing for Northern Irish politics would be for the Alliance to top the next poll, and for the loons in the DUP to be trounced.
Agree. With caveat that SDLP topping the poll would also work, but less likely than Alliance on top of the greasy poll (the only one that really counts)?
Wonder IF there is possibility or even desireability (from centerist, non-sectarian perspective) for Alliance-SDLP electoral pact?
A Nigerian qualifies for a UK state pension having worked in London for 30 years and has recently retired and moved to Edinburgh.
Scotland becomes independent.
Who pays his future pension liability?
Who pays if he then moves to New York?
That would depend entirely on his status if he became a Scottish citizen it would be Scotland , etc, etc
No, he's a Nigerian. Who is eligible for and receives a UK state pension due to his years of qualifying NIC payments. He is neither a Scottish nor British citizen.
Who pays his UK state pension?
As I said earlier, this is an obligation jointly assumed by all current UK citizens. The provenance going forward of jointly assumed obligations will no doubt be part of the complex divorce negotiations. It is naive to assume that all such jointly assumed obligations will be left entirely to rUK.
Of course in reality there would be a negotiated settlement between rUK and Sco but there seems a great mant people on this board who don't understand how thr uk state pension works and don't realise that "being foreign" isn't a disqualifying criteria for receiving a UK state pension.
And say things had went nuclear and we were looking at a hard divorce I do t think anyone on this board has been able to suggest how the law would be changed to stop Scottish pensioners receibging the UK state pensions without also stopping other foreign nationals receivong their obligate doe sion payments.
Stop paying anyone paid from the Motherwell or Dundee Centres. Tell them to speak to the Scottish Government.
Seems simple enough to me.
Public sector pensions as well, which will be a big one. The UK government will pass that liability on to the Scottish government for sure, just as the UK took the liability of UK citizens working for the EU.
What the Nats don't see is that there's no votes in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for giving Scotland anything post independence. I mean they voted for independence so why should we? Just as the EU kept saying brexit means brexit (which I pointed out was fair at the time) indy means indy. There's no scenario where the UK treasury keeps these liabilities and pays pensions, grants or anything else post independence.
Or indeed post a vote for independence. I expect an emergency budget diverting Scotland's Barnett consequentials to the poorer regions of rUK.
I notice that Arlene is going to resign her DUP membership after stepping down from the leadership, because she is unhappy with the direction the party has been taking. Under her own leadership. Truly bizarre.
Don’t forget that Arlene was originally UUP.
It’s possible that this means that she expects the extremist Presbyterian nutters to effect a recapture of the party, something she doesn’t personally back and which is likely to be electorally suicidal.
Pretty sure Arlene was aligned with the extremist Presbyterian nutters when she jumped the UUP ship, I suspect she may have mellowed (if such a thing can be imagined) over the years. That’s the thing about leopard-eating-face parties, they tend not to be too discriminating about whose faces get eaten.
Ministers have urged a family facing a devastating bill as part of the building safety crisis to contact the Samaritans if they want help with “feelings of distress or despair”.
In a move that sparked “disbelief” in the leaseholder involved, Jamie Robb, the response from an aide to the housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, to a plea for help with fire remediation works included the phone number for the suicide prevention service. It recommended its “free, anonymous, confidential and non-judgemental support”.
The Robb family wrote to Jenrick in November last year after Jamie Robb, 30, discovered he was facing a bill of up to £40,000 for fire safety repairs on his apartment in a Manchester high-rise.
The response arrived this week as the government pushed through fire safety legislation that leaves thousands of leaseholders facing bills of up to £75,000 each to fix apartment buildings found to be dangerous in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire. “The government is aware of the effect that ongoing building safety concerns may have on the mental health of residents … If you feel able to, you can discuss any difficulties with your GP who will be able to signpost you to suitable healthcare services, if appropriate. You can also access support from the Samaritans by calling freephone 116 123”.
Seems like a good sensitive thing to do if people are having mental health issues.
A Nigerian qualifies for a UK state pension having worked in London for 30 years and has recently retired and moved to Edinburgh.
Scotland becomes independent.
Who pays his future pension liability?
Who pays if he then moves to New York?
That would depend entirely on his status if he became a Scottish citizen it would be Scotland , etc, etc
No, he's a Nigerian. Who is eligible for and receives a UK state pension due to his years of qualifying NIC payments. He is neither a Scottish nor British citizen.
Who pays his UK state pension?
As I said earlier, this is an obligation jointly assumed by all current UK citizens. The provenance going forward of jointly assumed obligations will no doubt be part of the complex divorce negotiations. It is naive to assume that all such jointly assumed obligations will be left entirely to rUK.
This is the crucial point. It's not the case that - if one part of the UK splits off - that it keeps its share of the assets but loses the liabilities.
The reality is that it would be a part of the negotiation, just as pensions for Eurocrats were part of the negotiations between the EU and the UK.
But the precedent is that the departing state took on the liabilities, which was fair. I don't see any scenario where the UK government continues to pay pensions for Scottish citizens after independence. It really does become their problem.
Unless the pensioner has dual nationality, though that would be limited to people with an English parent I imagine.
A Nigerian qualifies for a UK state pension having worked in London for 30 years and has recently retired and moved to Edinburgh.
Scotland becomes independent.
Who pays his future pension liability?
Who pays if he then moves to New York?
That would depend entirely on his status if he became a Scottish citizen it would be Scotland , etc, etc
No, he's a Nigerian. Who is eligible for and receives a UK state pension due to his years of qualifying NIC payments. He is neither a Scottish nor British citizen.
Who pays his UK state pension?
As I said earlier, this is an obligation jointly assumed by all current UK citizens. The provenance going forward of jointly assumed obligations will no doubt be part of the complex divorce negotiations. It is naive to assume that all such jointly assumed obligations will be left entirely to rUK.
This is the crucial point. It's not the case that - if one part of the UK splits off - that it keeps its share of the assets but loses the liabilities.
The reality is that it would be a part of the negotiation, just as pensions for Eurocrats were part of the negotiations between the EU and the UK.
But the precedent is that the departing state took on the liabilities, which was fair. I don't see any scenario where the UK government continues to pay pensions for Scottish citizens after independence. It really does become their problem.
The point is there is no meaningful pot of assets built up specifically to pay future pensions. It's an issue where there are basically only liabilities (and the amount involved is gargantuan), because the NI that "should" have been put aside for them was instead spent on paying pensions at the time they were collected. Also, it's a much bigger issue on its own than the British Eurocrats ever were.
So while I agree it will have to be part of the wider negotiations, I really don't see any scenario where the UK Government would ever agree to ongoing commitments to Scottish pensioners. There's just no logic why they would, and it would be hugely unpopular. Pro-independence voices are completely delusional if they think differently.
Ministers have urged a family facing a devastating bill as part of the building safety crisis to contact the Samaritans if they want help with “feelings of distress or despair”.
In a move that sparked “disbelief” in the leaseholder involved, Jamie Robb, the response from an aide to the housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, to a plea for help with fire remediation works included the phone number for the suicide prevention service. It recommended its “free, anonymous, confidential and non-judgemental support”.
The Robb family wrote to Jenrick in November last year after Jamie Robb, 30, discovered he was facing a bill of up to £40,000 for fire safety repairs on his apartment in a Manchester high-rise.
The response arrived this week as the government pushed through fire safety legislation that leaves thousands of leaseholders facing bills of up to £75,000 each to fix apartment buildings found to be dangerous in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire. “The government is aware of the effect that ongoing building safety concerns may have on the mental health of residents … If you feel able to, you can discuss any difficulties with your GP who will be able to signpost you to suitable healthcare services, if appropriate. You can also access support from the Samaritans by calling freephone 116 123”.
Seems like a good sensitive thing to do if people are having mental health issues.
I think I'd have a severe mental health issue if I was facing a 40 grand bill out the blue.
A Nigerian qualifies for a UK state pension having worked in London for 30 years and has recently retired and moved to Edinburgh.
Scotland becomes independent.
Who pays his future pension liability?
Who pays if he then moves to New York?
That would depend entirely on his status if he became a Scottish citizen it would be Scotland , etc, etc
No, he's a Nigerian. Who is eligible for and receives a UK state pension due to his years of qualifying NIC payments. He is neither a Scottish nor British citizen.
Who pays his UK state pension?
As I said earlier, this is an obligation jointly assumed by all current UK citizens. The provenance going forward of jointly assumed obligations will no doubt be part of the complex divorce negotiations. It is naive to assume that all such jointly assumed obligations will be left entirely to rUK.
This is the crucial point. It's not the case that - if one part of the UK splits off - that it keeps its share of the assets but loses the liabilities.
The reality is that it would be a part of the negotiation, just as pensions for Eurocrats were part of the negotiations between the EU and the UK.
But the precedent is that the departing state took on the liabilities, which was fair. I don't see any scenario where the UK government continues to pay pensions for Scottish citizens after independence. It really does become their problem.
Unless the pensioner has dual nationality, though that would be limited to people with an English parent I imagine.
Even then, I expect dual national to need England/Wales/NI residency to qualify. I think anyone voting for independence should come to terms with these simple facts. You should still do it anyway, but don't vote to leave the UK on the basis that the UK will continue to fund and independent Scotland in any way. Any party that proposes this will simply get voted out and any party which promises to end any legacy payments immediately and permanently will win.
I notice that Arlene is going to resign her DUP membership after stepping down from the leadership, because she is unhappy with the direction the party has been taking. Under her own leadership. Truly bizarre.
Don’t forget that Arlene was originally UUP.
It’s possible that this means that she expects the extremist Presbyterian nutters to effect a recapture of the party, something she doesn’t personally back and which is likely to be electorally suicidal.
Pretty sure Arlene was aligned with the extremist Presbyterian nutters when she jumped the UUP ship, I suspect she may have mellowed (if such a thing can be imagined) over the years. That’s the thing about leopard-eating-face parties, they tend not to be too discriminating about whose faces get eaten.
Foster quit due to flack from her (relative) right. But how did she play / is she playing with more moderate Unionists?
Which yours truly is NOT. But did appreciate what I thought was her (again relative) restraint in the wake of Brexit.
However, am an Anglo-Fenian with roots on both side of the keep-the-peace wall (but mostly with the Taigs) multiple generations and 4,400 miles removed.
In refusing to tell us who first paid that bill for overpriced wallpaper, or to give full details of who paid for his December 2019 holiday in Mustique, Johnson has offended the public trust.
Johnson’s Brexit protocol that put a border down the Irish sea, even after he’d vowed never to put a border down the Irish sea, thereby imperilling a union he swore blind he would protect. His proposal of an internal market bill that proudly declared its intention to break international law, prompting the UK’s top legal civil servant to quit – one of a disturbing number of mandarins driven to resignation on Johnson’s watch.
His illegal suspension of parliament, overturned as a violation of fundamental democratic practice by unanimous verdict of the supreme court. The lies that led to that moment: the £350m on the side of the bus or the scare story that Turkey was poised to join the EU and that Britain would be powerless to stop it. Siding with Vladimir Putin to suggest that the EU had provoked the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Scandals, all.
The real scandal lies with us, the electorate, still seduced by a tousled-hair rebel shtick and faux bonhomie that should have palled years ago. Americans got rid of their lying, self-serving, scandal-plagued charlatan 100 days ago. They did it at the first possible opportunity. Next week, polls suggest we’re poised to give ours a partial thumbs-up at the ballot box. For allowing this shameless man to keep riding high, some of the shame is on us.
Ah, the sweet sound of the penny dropping with a journalist that it's the voters, not the media, who get to decide what issues are actually important in this country.
And theyre angry about it. It should be a wake up call for the government to not feel the need to be shaped by journalists and metropolitanistas. Unfortunately they are though, they crave to be liked.
Ministers have urged a family facing a devastating bill as part of the building safety crisis to contact the Samaritans if they want help with “feelings of distress or despair”.
In a move that sparked “disbelief” in the leaseholder involved, Jamie Robb, the response from an aide to the housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, to a plea for help with fire remediation works included the phone number for the suicide prevention service. It recommended its “free, anonymous, confidential and non-judgemental support”.
The Robb family wrote to Jenrick in November last year after Jamie Robb, 30, discovered he was facing a bill of up to £40,000 for fire safety repairs on his apartment in a Manchester high-rise.
The response arrived this week as the government pushed through fire safety legislation that leaves thousands of leaseholders facing bills of up to £75,000 each to fix apartment buildings found to be dangerous in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire. “The government is aware of the effect that ongoing building safety concerns may have on the mental health of residents … If you feel able to, you can discuss any difficulties with your GP who will be able to signpost you to suitable healthcare services, if appropriate. You can also access support from the Samaritans by calling freephone 116 123”.
Seems like a good sensitive thing to do if people are having mental health issues.
I think I'd have a severe mental health issue if I was facing a 40 grand bill out the blue.
Why? Just ask the next person who phones your mobile to set up a blind trust to pay for it. Without expectations of any future favours of course.
A Nigerian qualifies for a UK state pension having worked in London for 30 years and has recently retired and moved to Edinburgh.
Scotland becomes independent.
Who pays his future pension liability?
Who pays if he then moves to New York?
That would depend entirely on his status if he became a Scottish citizen it would be Scotland , etc, etc
No, he's a Nigerian. Who is eligible for and receives a UK state pension due to his years of qualifying NIC payments. He is neither a Scottish nor British citizen.
Who pays his UK state pension?
As I said earlier, this is an obligation jointly assumed by all current UK citizens. The provenance going forward of jointly assumed obligations will no doubt be part of the complex divorce negotiations. It is naive to assume that all such jointly assumed obligations will be left entirely to rUK.
This is the crucial point. It's not the case that - if one part of the UK splits off - that it keeps its share of the assets but loses the liabilities.
The reality is that it would be a part of the negotiation, just as pensions for Eurocrats were part of the negotiations between the EU and the UK.
But the precedent is that the departing state took on the liabilities, which was fair. I don't see any scenario where the UK government continues to pay pensions for Scottish citizens after independence. It really does become their problem.
The point is there is no meaningful pot of assets built up specifically to pay future pensions. It's an issue where there are basically only liabilities (and the amount involved is gargantuan), because the NI that "should" have been put aside for them was instead spent on paying pensions at the time they were collected. Also, it's a much bigger issue on its own than the British Eurocrats ever were.
So while I agree it will have to be part of the wider negotiations, I really don't see any scenario where the UK Government would ever agree to ongoing commitments to Scottish pensioners. There's just no logic why they would, and it would be hugely unpopular. Pro-independence voices are completely delusional if they think differently.
Indeed, these phantom "assets" that the UK government holds that people like Malc want a share of are simply debt, debt and more debt. The UK as a nation is heavily indebted and lives essentially hand to mouth, much like the rest of west.
Ministers have urged a family facing a devastating bill as part of the building safety crisis to contact the Samaritans if they want help with “feelings of distress or despair”.
In a move that sparked “disbelief” in the leaseholder involved, Jamie Robb, the response from an aide to the housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, to a plea for help with fire remediation works included the phone number for the suicide prevention service. It recommended its “free, anonymous, confidential and non-judgemental support”.
The Robb family wrote to Jenrick in November last year after Jamie Robb, 30, discovered he was facing a bill of up to £40,000 for fire safety repairs on his apartment in a Manchester high-rise.
The response arrived this week as the government pushed through fire safety legislation that leaves thousands of leaseholders facing bills of up to £75,000 each to fix apartment buildings found to be dangerous in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire. “The government is aware of the effect that ongoing building safety concerns may have on the mental health of residents … If you feel able to, you can discuss any difficulties with your GP who will be able to signpost you to suitable healthcare services, if appropriate. You can also access support from the Samaritans by calling freephone 116 123”.
Seems like a good sensitive thing to do if people are having mental health issues.
I think I'd have a severe mental health issue if I was facing a 40 grand bill out the blue.
And yet Boris can wave off twice the amount with insouciance. Truly an inspiration to the rest of us.
Ministers have urged a family facing a devastating bill as part of the building safety crisis to contact the Samaritans if they want help with “feelings of distress or despair”.
In a move that sparked “disbelief” in the leaseholder involved, Jamie Robb, the response from an aide to the housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, to a plea for help with fire remediation works included the phone number for the suicide prevention service. It recommended its “free, anonymous, confidential and non-judgemental support”.
The Robb family wrote to Jenrick in November last year after Jamie Robb, 30, discovered he was facing a bill of up to £40,000 for fire safety repairs on his apartment in a Manchester high-rise.
The response arrived this week as the government pushed through fire safety legislation that leaves thousands of leaseholders facing bills of up to £75,000 each to fix apartment buildings found to be dangerous in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire. “The government is aware of the effect that ongoing building safety concerns may have on the mental health of residents … If you feel able to, you can discuss any difficulties with your GP who will be able to signpost you to suitable healthcare services, if appropriate. You can also access support from the Samaritans by calling freephone 116 123”.
Seems like a good sensitive thing to do if people are having mental health issues.
Sometimes your crass right wing comments are so stupid they are funny. This one is not. Just crass, just stupid.
https://twitter.com/RoyChaudhuri/status/1388093905854418945 I know nothing about cricket, but had a fantastic time watching a Test at Edgbaston. It's mainly an excuse to sit in the sunshine and drink all day. Also, the people sat next to us offered us some pâté, which never happens at the football...
In refusing to tell us who first paid that bill for overpriced wallpaper, or to give full details of who paid for his December 2019 holiday in Mustique, Johnson has offended the public trust.
Johnson’s Brexit protocol that put a border down the Irish sea, even after he’d vowed never to put a border down the Irish sea, thereby imperilling a union he swore blind he would protect. His proposal of an internal market bill that proudly declared its intention to break international law, prompting the UK’s top legal civil servant to quit – one of a disturbing number of mandarins driven to resignation on Johnson’s watch.
His illegal suspension of parliament, overturned as a violation of fundamental democratic practice by unanimous verdict of the supreme court. The lies that led to that moment: the £350m on the side of the bus or the scare story that Turkey was poised to join the EU and that Britain would be powerless to stop it. Siding with Vladimir Putin to suggest that the EU had provoked the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Scandals, all.
The real scandal lies with us, the electorate, still seduced by a tousled-hair rebel shtick and faux bonhomie that should have palled years ago. Americans got rid of their lying, self-serving, scandal-plagued charlatan 100 days ago. They did it at the first possible opportunity. Next week, polls suggest we’re poised to give ours a partial thumbs-up at the ballot box. For allowing this shameless man to keep riding high, some of the shame is on us.
Ah, the sweet sound of the penny dropping with a journalist that it's the voters, not the media, who get to decide what issues are actually important in this country.
And theyre angry about it. It should be a wake up call for the government to not feel the need to be shaped by journalists and metropolitanistas. Unfortunately they are though, they crave to be liked.
Yep, it seems like it's at least once a year that the media goes into full toddler-meltdown mode, wailing and stamping their feet and crying that we're not listening to their oh-so-important political judgements and priorities. Then they eventually get over it, and the cycle begins anew...
State pensions are funded from current taxation. There is no pot built up as there is with an Abrdn or Ryl Lndn fund - which are paid to wherever in the world the pensioner lives. After independence, state pensions should be paid by whichever jurisdiction the pensioner lives in when the pension is first paid. That country pays their pension, from current taxation, for as long the person lives, and wherever they live. If someone in Scotland retires, the Scottish Government pays their pension whether they remain in Scotland or move to rUk, France, Australia or wherever. The same principle applies to someone retiring in rUk, whether they remain in rUk or move to Scotland, France, Australia or wherever. It will be up to each government to decide whose pensions are index linked or not; the same as now. Tax on the pensions will be paid to the person’s current country of residence. Any other system would be as a result of politics or racism, which should not be allowed to interfere with the payment of pensions.
Ministers have urged a family facing a devastating bill as part of the building safety crisis to contact the Samaritans if they want help with “feelings of distress or despair”.
In a move that sparked “disbelief” in the leaseholder involved, Jamie Robb, the response from an aide to the housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, to a plea for help with fire remediation works included the phone number for the suicide prevention service. It recommended its “free, anonymous, confidential and non-judgemental support”.
The Robb family wrote to Jenrick in November last year after Jamie Robb, 30, discovered he was facing a bill of up to £40,000 for fire safety repairs on his apartment in a Manchester high-rise.
The response arrived this week as the government pushed through fire safety legislation that leaves thousands of leaseholders facing bills of up to £75,000 each to fix apartment buildings found to be dangerous in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire. “The government is aware of the effect that ongoing building safety concerns may have on the mental health of residents … If you feel able to, you can discuss any difficulties with your GP who will be able to signpost you to suitable healthcare services, if appropriate. You can also access support from the Samaritans by calling freephone 116 123”.
Seems like a good sensitive thing to do if people are having mental health issues.
I think I'd have a severe mental health issue if I was facing a 40 grand bill out the blue.
And yet Boris can wave off twice the amount with insouciance. Truly an inspiration to the rest of us.
A Nigerian qualifies for a UK state pension having worked in London for 30 years and has recently retired and moved to Edinburgh.
Scotland becomes independent.
Who pays his future pension liability?
Who pays if he then moves to New York?
That would depend entirely on his status if he became a Scottish citizen it would be Scotland , etc, etc
No, he's a Nigerian. Who is eligible for and receives a UK state pension due to his years of qualifying NIC payments. He is neither a Scottish nor British citizen.
Who pays his UK state pension?
As I said earlier, this is an obligation jointly assumed by all current UK citizens. The provenance going forward of jointly assumed obligations will no doubt be part of the complex divorce negotiations. It is naive to assume that all such jointly assumed obligations will be left entirely to rUK.
Of course in reality there would be a negotiated settlement between rUK and Sco but there seems a great mant people on this board who don't understand how thr uk state pension works and don't realise that "being foreign" isn't a disqualifying criteria for receiving a UK state pension.
And say things had went nuclear and we were looking at a hard divorce I do t think anyone on this board has been able to suggest how the law would be changed to stop Scottish pensioners receibging the UK state pensions without also stopping other foreign nationals receivong their obligate doe sion payments.
Stop paying anyone paid from the Motherwell or Dundee Centres. Tell them to speak to the Scottish Government.
Seems simple enough to me.
Public sector pensions as well, which will be a big one. The UK government will pass that liability on to the Scottish government for sure, just as the UK took the liability of UK citizens working for the EU.
What the Nats don't see is that there's no votes in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for giving Scotland anything post independence. I mean they voted for independence so why should we? Just as the EU kept saying brexit means brexit (which I pointed out was fair at the time) indy means indy. There's no scenario where the UK treasury keeps these liabilities and pays pensions, grants or anything else post independence.
Public sector pensions are already separate for local government, police, fire, NHS, etc. It's the civil service pension scheme proper that is still a UK thing.
Local Government pensions are fully funded by the employee and the employer (substantially more the latter than the former).
Ministers have urged a family facing a devastating bill as part of the building safety crisis to contact the Samaritans if they want help with “feelings of distress or despair”.
In a move that sparked “disbelief” in the leaseholder involved, Jamie Robb, the response from an aide to the housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, to a plea for help with fire remediation works included the phone number for the suicide prevention service. It recommended its “free, anonymous, confidential and non-judgemental support”.
The Robb family wrote to Jenrick in November last year after Jamie Robb, 30, discovered he was facing a bill of up to £40,000 for fire safety repairs on his apartment in a Manchester high-rise.
The response arrived this week as the government pushed through fire safety legislation that leaves thousands of leaseholders facing bills of up to £75,000 each to fix apartment buildings found to be dangerous in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire. “The government is aware of the effect that ongoing building safety concerns may have on the mental health of residents … If you feel able to, you can discuss any difficulties with your GP who will be able to signpost you to suitable healthcare services, if appropriate. You can also access support from the Samaritans by calling freephone 116 123”.
Wow. This is feeling like the dog days of John Major's government - nastiness, sleaze and incompetence wherever you look. The difference is that Boris is actually riding high in the polls. What gives? My theory is that it's all down to the emotion of Brexit. In that divisive saga, Boris is still regarded as a saint by a huge chunk of the 52%; they'll excuse him anything. So Boris has half the nation for whom he can literally do no wrong. That's an awesome political situation to be in.
State pensions are funded from current taxation. There is no pot built up as there is with an Abrdn or Ryl Lndn fund - which are paid to wherever in the world the pensioner lives. After independence, state pensions should be paid by whichever jurisdiction the pensioner lives in when the pension is first paid. That country pays their pension, from current taxation, for as long the person lives, and wherever they live. If someone in Scotland retires, the Scottish Government pays their pension whether they remain in Scotland or move to rUk, France, Australia or wherever. The same principle applies to someone retiring in rUk, whether they remain in rUk or move to Scotland, France, Australia or wherever. It will be up to each government to decide whose pensions are index linked or not; the same as now. Tax on the pensions will be paid to the person’s current country of residence. Any other system would be as a result of politics or racism, which should not be allowed to interfere with the payment of pensions.
Yes, this is the only way it makes sense with the Scottish government taking on the liability of defined benefit civil service and other public sector pensions as the UK did in the brexit process wrt UK citizen/resident Eurocrats.
The government’s behaviour over cladding is an utter disgrace. It’s very simple. If the government wants to makes people’s homes illegal, then the taxpayer needs to pick up the tab for making them legal.
Ministers have urged a family facing a devastating bill as part of the building safety crisis to contact the Samaritans if they want help with “feelings of distress or despair”.
In a move that sparked “disbelief” in the leaseholder involved, Jamie Robb, the response from an aide to the housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, to a plea for help with fire remediation works included the phone number for the suicide prevention service. It recommended its “free, anonymous, confidential and non-judgemental support”.
The Robb family wrote to Jenrick in November last year after Jamie Robb, 30, discovered he was facing a bill of up to £40,000 for fire safety repairs on his apartment in a Manchester high-rise.
The response arrived this week as the government pushed through fire safety legislation that leaves thousands of leaseholders facing bills of up to £75,000 each to fix apartment buildings found to be dangerous in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire. “The government is aware of the effect that ongoing building safety concerns may have on the mental health of residents … If you feel able to, you can discuss any difficulties with your GP who will be able to signpost you to suitable healthcare services, if appropriate. You can also access support from the Samaritans by calling freephone 116 123”.
Wow. This is feeling like the dog days of John Major's government - nastiness, sleaze and incompetence wherever you look. The difference is that Boris is actually riding high in the polls. What gives? My theory is that it's all down to the emotion of Brexit. In that divisive saga, Boris is still regarded as a saint by a huge chunk of the 52%; they'll excuse him anything. So Boris has half the nation for whom he can literally do no wrong. That's an awesome political situation to be in.
One day, a dramatist is gonna juxtapose Carrie Antoinette and the cladding victims.
https://twitter.com/RoyChaudhuri/status/1388093905854418945 I know nothing about cricket, but had a fantastic time watching a Test at Edgbaston. It's mainly an excuse to sit in the sunshine and drink all day. Also, the people sat next to us offered us some pâté, which never happens at the football...
"the people sat next to us offered us some pâté, which never happens at the football..."
Check out the tailgating in the parking lots of US football stadiums. Esp. college football in the South and other places where the locals are SERIOUS about their cooking.
Personally recommend LSU games at Tiger Stadium, Baton Rouge.
You may have to bring your own pâté, but guarantee you can swap it for some andouille!
The government’s behaviour over cladding is an utter disgrace. It’s very simple. If the government wants to makes people’s homes illegal, then the taxpayer needs to pick up the tab for making them legal.
I'd suggest developers and freeholders should take the hit without being able to pass the cost on to leaseholders. Freehold investors are another class of parasite that need to be taxed out of existence.
The government’s behaviour over cladding is an utter disgrace. It’s very simple. If the government wants to makes people’s homes illegal, then the taxpayer needs to pick up the tab for making them legal.
The taxpayer IS picking up the tab for >18m and has capped <18m at £50/month per leaseholder.
I agree the situation re: regulation was a disgrace that can be laid at the feet of the “bonfire of the regulations” brigade, but I’m not sure taxpayers should be expected to contribute much more.
Go after the cladding company, the builders and the people who signed it off.
A Court has rejected an appeal by campaigner Martin Keatings seeking a decision on whether Scotland can hold a second independence referendum without Westminster’s consent.
Appeal court judges have said it would be “premature, hypothetical and academic” to rule on the matter when the result of the Holyrood election is not known and there is no independence Bill before the Scottish Parliament.
In refusing to tell us who first paid that bill for overpriced wallpaper, or to give full details of who paid for his December 2019 holiday in Mustique, Johnson has offended the public trust.
Johnson’s Brexit protocol that put a border down the Irish sea, even after he’d vowed never to put a border down the Irish sea, thereby imperilling a union he swore blind he would protect. His proposal of an internal market bill that proudly declared its intention to break international law, prompting the UK’s top legal civil servant to quit – one of a disturbing number of mandarins driven to resignation on Johnson’s watch.
His illegal suspension of parliament, overturned as a violation of fundamental democratic practice by unanimous verdict of the supreme court. The lies that led to that moment: the £350m on the side of the bus or the scare story that Turkey was poised to join the EU and that Britain would be powerless to stop it. Siding with Vladimir Putin to suggest that the EU had provoked the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Scandals, all.
The real scandal lies with us, the electorate, still seduced by a tousled-hair rebel shtick and faux bonhomie that should have palled years ago. Americans got rid of their lying, self-serving, scandal-plagued charlatan 100 days ago. They did it at the first possible opportunity. Next week, polls suggest we’re poised to give ours a partial thumbs-up at the ballot box. For allowing this shameless man to keep riding high, some of the shame is on us.
Ah, the sweet sound of the penny dropping with a journalist that it's the voters, not the media, who get to decide what issues are actually important in this country.
And theyre angry about it. It should be a wake up call for the government to not feel the need to be shaped by journalists and metropolitanistas. Unfortunately they are though, they crave to be liked.
Yes, the government should "trust the people" and really let rip on the corruption front. Show some true backbone.
In refusing to tell us who first paid that bill for overpriced wallpaper, or to give full details of who paid for his December 2019 holiday in Mustique, Johnson has offended the public trust.
Johnson’s Brexit protocol that put a border down the Irish sea, even after he’d vowed never to put a border down the Irish sea, thereby imperilling a union he swore blind he would protect. His proposal of an internal market bill that proudly declared its intention to break international law, prompting the UK’s top legal civil servant to quit – one of a disturbing number of mandarins driven to resignation on Johnson’s watch.
His illegal suspension of parliament, overturned as a violation of fundamental democratic practice by unanimous verdict of the supreme court. The lies that led to that moment: the £350m on the side of the bus or the scare story that Turkey was poised to join the EU and that Britain would be powerless to stop it. Siding with Vladimir Putin to suggest that the EU had provoked the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Scandals, all.
The real scandal lies with us, the electorate, still seduced by a tousled-hair rebel shtick and faux bonhomie that should have palled years ago. Americans got rid of their lying, self-serving, scandal-plagued charlatan 100 days ago. They did it at the first possible opportunity. Next week, polls suggest we’re poised to give ours a partial thumbs-up at the ballot box. For allowing this shameless man to keep riding high, some of the shame is on us.
Ah, the sweet sound of the penny dropping with a journalist that it's the voters, not the media, who get to decide what issues are actually important in this country.
Again failing to understand the difference between what the voters are happy to accept and doing the right thing. There are plenty examples in history of this being the case. Even if the conservatives win every seat in the upcoming elections it doesn't justify why he just wont answer the simple question repeatedly put to him. Do you not wonder why not? I mean really?
Ministers have urged a family facing a devastating bill as part of the building safety crisis to contact the Samaritans if they want help with “feelings of distress or despair”.
In a move that sparked “disbelief” in the leaseholder involved, Jamie Robb, the response from an aide to the housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, to a plea for help with fire remediation works included the phone number for the suicide prevention service. It recommended its “free, anonymous, confidential and non-judgemental support”.
The Robb family wrote to Jenrick in November last year after Jamie Robb, 30, discovered he was facing a bill of up to £40,000 for fire safety repairs on his apartment in a Manchester high-rise.
The response arrived this week as the government pushed through fire safety legislation that leaves thousands of leaseholders facing bills of up to £75,000 each to fix apartment buildings found to be dangerous in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire. “The government is aware of the effect that ongoing building safety concerns may have on the mental health of residents … If you feel able to, you can discuss any difficulties with your GP who will be able to signpost you to suitable healthcare services, if appropriate. You can also access support from the Samaritans by calling freephone 116 123”.
Wow. This is feeling like the dog days of John Major's government - nastiness, sleaze and incompetence wherever you look. The difference is that Boris is actually riding high in the polls. What gives? My theory is that it's all down to the emotion of Brexit. In that divisive saga, Boris is still regarded as a saint by a huge chunk of the 52%; they'll excuse him anything. So Boris has half the nation for whom he can literally do no wrong. That's an awesome political situation to be in.
One day, a dramatist is gonna juxtapose Carrie Antoinette and the cladding victims.
The government’s behaviour over cladding is an utter disgrace. It’s very simple. If the government wants to makes people’s homes illegal, then the taxpayer needs to pick up the tab for making them legal.
I'd suggest developers and freeholders should take the hit without being able to pass the cost on to leaseholders. Freehold investors are another class of parasite that need to be taxed out of existence.
I don’t know the precise details, but if the developers knowingly constructed illegal flats, then I agree that they should be picking up the cost. But I have a feeling that the cladding has only been banned post-Grenfell.
The government’s behaviour over cladding is an utter disgrace. It’s very simple. If the government wants to makes people’s homes illegal, then the taxpayer needs to pick up the tab for making them legal.
I'd suggest developers and freeholders should take the hit without being able to pass the cost on to leaseholders. Freehold investors are another class of parasite that need to be taxed out of existence.
This Poots guy may well have the traits and views ascribed by Green Machine. Plenty do. BUT. He is also a Young Earth Creationist. He literally believes the Earth is barely 6 000 years old. What a shining example of a dynamic, forward looking UK that would be were he to be First Minister.
State pensions are funded from current taxation. There is no pot built up as there is with an Abrdn or Ryl Lndn fund - which are paid to wherever in the world the pensioner lives. After independence, state pensions should be paid by whichever jurisdiction the pensioner lives in when the pension is first paid. That country pays their pension, from current taxation, for as long the person lives, and wherever they live. If someone in Scotland retires, the Scottish Government pays their pension whether they remain in Scotland or move to rUk, France, Australia or wherever. The same principle applies to someone retiring in rUk, whether they remain in rUk or move to Scotland, France, Australia or wherever. It will be up to each government to decide whose pensions are index linked or not; the same as now. Tax on the pensions will be paid to the person’s current country of residence. Any other system would be as a result of politics or racism, which should not be allowed to interfere with the payment of pensions.
This Poots guy may well have the traits and views ascribed by Green Machine. Plenty do. BUT. He is also a Young Earth Creationist. He literally believes the Earth is barely 6 000 years old. What a shining example of a dynamic, forward looking UK that would be were he to be First Minister.
FYI Poots shares the same view on creation as Sir Isaac Newton. Just three centuries later.
I presume we've commented on the YouGov poll from Germany which has the Greens ahead of the Union 25-24. Still a long way to go but a very real possibility of a fundamental change in German politics which will impact the EU.
Over here, yes, elections next Thursday - democracy, don't you just love it? As far as my neck of the woods is concerned, I'm not expecting any surprises in the Mayoral or East Ham Central by-election or GLA results but the Newham Governance Referendum is a very different matter.
Part of this is an internal Labour issue - part is a genuine belief a Committee system will be more accountable and transparent (not sure I'm convinced when one Party has all the seats and all the votes). The pro-Committee groupings are a mix of anti-Labour groupings and pro-Momentum elements within Labour which some might consider an unholy alliance (though a poor choice of words in an area where those without faith are a small minority).
Generally, the set of elections will be as they are usually - there will be good news for all, it'll just be a question of how you define "good" and how hard you have to look to find it.
Re cladding, the leaseholders take 100% of the benefit from the improvements, so why should they not contribute?
I don’t think the government should have the right to make someone’s home worthless.
No one’s home has been made worthless by the government. If your flat does not comply with current safety standards, you’ll have to cut the price on sale, in order to find a buyer. That’s a risk that is inherent in property ownership.
The government’s behaviour over cladding is an utter disgrace. It’s very simple. If the government wants to makes people’s homes illegal, then the taxpayer needs to pick up the tab for making them legal.
Spot on. We have a collective responsibility to make sure a tragedy like Grenfell never happens again, and that will cost money. But it should not cost 'innocent' leaseholders money; either taxpayers or developers should pay. It will be a drop in the ocean compared to the amount we've spent, rightly, on saving lives from Covid. For Jenrick (it doesn't matter that it wasn't him personally) to helpfully include the Samaritans number in a response to a worried leaseholder beggars belief.
Professor JohnCurtice (for it is He) says that whilst SNP support is slipping, the Greens are romping along, so a majority of MSPs will support independence. Strap yourselves in - when HYUFD explodes as a result of Boris doing what he has endlessly said he won't do, it will be messy.
Although I support Scottish independence, I think the funniest result "for the bantz" would be SNP minority, majority with Greens, second referendum occurs, second referendum goes No.
That is actually my expected result - the issue needs to be laid to bed and the only way to do that is for the Scottish to see how much they are subsidised by the rest of the UK.
Which I know is something that MalcolmG is going to argue isn't the case but the reality is the oil has gone and Scotland has little else...
Don’t forget as well, rUK will be paying Scottish pensions in the event of indy
More garbage, Scotland will pay its own pensions like normal countries, England will pay the debts it owes for the money people paid into their pension scam scheme or perhaps welch on their commitments.
There are no such 'debts' owed by England other than to english people. The OAP doesn't work that way. Current Scots would pay Scottish pensions , etc
The UK government guarantees to pay a state pension to anyone, UK citizen or not, that has made sufficient qualifying contributions.
The clown just talks through his posterior. They are so ignorant due to their bigotry that they cannot even rationalise that if you have paid someone for a pension they cannot just dump you, pathetic.
Except they're not dumping you, if you vote for independence then you're voting to dump them. Since pensions are PAYG, in the future Scottish taxes and Scottish pensions would be the responsibility of the Scottish state.
Otherwise are you expecting to still be paying taxes to Westminster in the future?
The British state currently, right this second, pays non-uk citizens who are not resident in the UK a British state pension.
That's because the law says that anyone who has qualified for a state pension gets a state pension.
These are people who are currently no contributing a single penny of tax to the UK exchequer.
Now, non-residents do not get the annual _increases_ to the state pension - they get the pension at the level it was first awarded to them but that is the setup.
Law? Which law? I mean this is really basic. Scotland would be outside of the UK for jurisdictional purposes. There's simply no way that and independent Scotland could count on the UK treasury for anything at all.
The one's covering state pension eligibility? Based on how many years of qualifying NICs you have made?
I mean this is really basic.
Literally anyone in the world who has made sufficient NICs gets a UK state pen sion if they want one.
Under what jurisdiction? UK law will no longer apply.
So upon Scottish independence all British laws are rendered void?
This is an exciting frontier of lawlessness we approach.
In Scotland, yes. You wouldn't be in the UK any more. It's the whole point of independence.
Cool, so we've established the UK government would still pay state pensions to Scottish people then as directed by the law.
Bonza.
No? You can lie to yourself about what independence entails if you want. Maybe it helps you sleep at night. The facts are that the UK government isn't going to be paying out for Scotland once it becomes independent. Pensions are part of that responsibility of being independent. If you don't like it maybe you've wasted the last 20 years of your life campaigning for it.
Please describe the change in law the UK government would need to implement to stop paying uk state pensions to scots without also stopping paying the UK state pension to other foreign nationals.
"If citizen is dual national Scotland/UK and was resident in Scotland at the time of independence they can no longer receive the state pension of the UK". I mean I do logic based querying all day, it's really not difficult.
Again, you're voting for independence, what do you expect to happen? That the UK will continue to find Scotland forever and a day? Do you not realise what a vote loser that would be in England, Wales and NI for whichever party proposed that idea? Politically it would be impossible for either party to keep paying for Scotland post independence, therefore a solution such as the above will be implemented and anyone living in Scotland will be paid their pension in McPounds by Holyrood. It's not like they're not going to get a pension, it will just be funded by NI contributions in Scotland and paid for by the government of Scotland.
What would happen to someone like me? I worked for more than a decade paying NI in England, and I've only been living in Scotland for about five years.
Surely I'd be entitled to 14 years of an English pension, five years of a Scottish pension, and then whatever else from wherever else I go next?
Re cladding, the leaseholders take 100% of the benefit from the improvements, so why should they not contribute?
I don’t think the government should have the right to make someone’s home worthless.
No one’s home has been made worthless by the government. If your flat does not comply with current safety standards, you’ll have to cut the price on sale, in order to find a buyer. That’s a risk that is inherent in property ownership.
I am with you on this one. Sure there are some unfortunate leaseholders, but many will be btl speculators, and for them I have zero sympathy.
I think that government funding with a share of equity until the loan redeemed is the way forward.
The government’s behaviour over cladding is an utter disgrace. It’s very simple. If the government wants to makes people’s homes illegal, then the taxpayer needs to pick up the tab for making them legal.
I'd suggest developers and freeholders should take the hit without being able to pass the cost on to leaseholders. Freehold investors are another class of parasite that need to be taxed out of existence.
I don’t know the precise details, but if the developers knowingly constructed illegal flats, then I agree that they should be picking up the cost. But I have a feeling that the cladding has only been banned post-Grenfell.
Max needs to be precise, otherwise it is just ideological wibble, alongside his 'hate the landlords' stuff.
Who is a "developer" - should people building houses (extreme example: self-builder building their own home) contribute? What about a local developer who builds 10 a year? Or a self-builder who builds one for themselves and one to sell?
What where the place is like Grenfell - 50 years old say - and the developer no longer exists?
What about big blocks of flat where the leaseholders (or some of the leaseholders) have exercised their right to purchase the freehold?
What about where the freeholder is the Council? Why should the local people who fund the Council not contribute?
AIUI there is relatively little value in freehold investment, anyway. Especially as ground rents have been / are being slugged.
The government’s behaviour over cladding is an utter disgrace. It’s very simple. If the government wants to makes people’s homes illegal, then the taxpayer needs to pick up the tab for making them legal.
Spot on. We have a collective responsibility to make sure a tragedy like Grenfell never happens again, and that will cost money. But it should not cost 'innocent' leaseholders money; either taxpayers or developers should pay. It will be a drop in the ocean compared to the amount we've spent, rightly, on saving lives from Covid. For Jenrick (it doesn't matter that it wasn't him personally) to helpfully include the Samaritans number in a response to a worried leaseholder beggars belief.
If the government is to pay, then the government should be entitled to take a charge over the flats in question, repayable on sale. To do otherwise is to nationalise risk, while privatising profit.
Re cladding, the leaseholders take 100% of the benefit from the improvements, so why should they not contribute?
They're not really improvements though, are they? They are work necessary to make the flats habitable and safe, the leaseholders having been assured that they were habitable and safe when they bought them. They are having to spend money to put themselves in the position they thought they were in on purchase.
The reason is because the developers and builders did not comply with the rules - or the rules set by the government were inadequate - or council officers authorised the buildings despite the construction being unsafe.
It was not the fault of the leaseholders that they are in this position and if they don't have the money or can't raise it, they will lose their home and/or face bankruptcy. Meanwhile those primarily responsible walk away.
We cannot have a situation where people are living in unsafe flats. What if there is another fire?
The government should stump up the cash to make the flats safe now and then seek to recover from the developers, builders, manufacturers of the unsafe cladding etc, and the leaseholders on sale of the property eg a percentage of capital gain, say.
Instead we have a building scandal where materials known to be unsafe were used in construction and leaseholders who could not be expected to have known this or even found out about it are left with the liability.
Developers and the construction industry deserve to be hauled over the coals for this. Shoddy workmanship, cutting corners, mis-selling, a lack of care. As does the government, which wholly failed in its regulatory obligations.
Professor JohnCurtice (for it is He) says that whilst SNP support is slipping, the Greens are romping along, so a majority of MSPs will support independence. Strap yourselves in - when HYUFD explodes as a result of Boris doing what he has endlessly said he won't do, it will be messy.
Although I support Scottish independence, I think the funniest result "for the bantz" would be SNP minority, majority with Greens, second referendum occurs, second referendum goes No.
That is actually my expected result - the issue needs to be laid to bed and the only way to do that is for the Scottish to see how much they are subsidised by the rest of the UK.
Which I know is something that MalcolmG is going to argue isn't the case but the reality is the oil has gone and Scotland has little else...
Don’t forget as well, rUK will be paying Scottish pensions in the event of indy
More garbage, Scotland will pay its own pensions like normal countries, England will pay the debts it owes for the money people paid into their pension scam scheme or perhaps welch on their commitments.
There are no such 'debts' owed by England other than to english people. The OAP doesn't work that way. Current Scots would pay Scottish pensions , etc
The UK government guarantees to pay a state pension to anyone, UK citizen or not, that has made sufficient qualifying contributions.
The clown just talks through his posterior. They are so ignorant due to their bigotry that they cannot even rationalise that if you have paid someone for a pension they cannot just dump you, pathetic.
Except they're not dumping you, if you vote for independence then you're voting to dump them. Since pensions are PAYG, in the future Scottish taxes and Scottish pensions would be the responsibility of the Scottish state.
Otherwise are you expecting to still be paying taxes to Westminster in the future?
The British state currently, right this second, pays non-uk citizens who are not resident in the UK a British state pension.
That's because the law says that anyone who has qualified for a state pension gets a state pension.
These are people who are currently no contributing a single penny of tax to the UK exchequer.
Now, non-residents do not get the annual _increases_ to the state pension - they get the pension at the level it was first awarded to them but that is the setup.
Law? Which law? I mean this is really basic. Scotland would be outside of the UK for jurisdictional purposes. There's simply no way that and independent Scotland could count on the UK treasury for anything at all.
The one's covering state pension eligibility? Based on how many years of qualifying NICs you have made?
I mean this is really basic.
Literally anyone in the world who has made sufficient NICs gets a UK state pen sion if they want one.
Under what jurisdiction? UK law will no longer apply.
So upon Scottish independence all British laws are rendered void?
This is an exciting frontier of lawlessness we approach.
In Scotland, yes. You wouldn't be in the UK any more. It's the whole point of independence.
Cool, so we've established the UK government would still pay state pensions to Scottish people then as directed by the law.
Bonza.
No? You can lie to yourself about what independence entails if you want. Maybe it helps you sleep at night. The facts are that the UK government isn't going to be paying out for Scotland once it becomes independent. Pensions are part of that responsibility of being independent. If you don't like it maybe you've wasted the last 20 years of your life campaigning for it.
Please describe the change in law the UK government would need to implement to stop paying uk state pensions to scots without also stopping paying the UK state pension to other foreign nationals.
"If citizen is dual national Scotland/UK and was resident in Scotland at the time of independence they can no longer receive the state pension of the UK". I mean I do logic based querying all day, it's really not difficult.
Again, you're voting for independence, what do you expect to happen? That the UK will continue to find Scotland forever and a day? Do you not realise what a vote loser that would be in England, Wales and NI for whichever party proposed that idea? Politically it would be impossible for either party to keep paying for Scotland post independence, therefore a solution such as the above will be implemented and anyone living in Scotland will be paid their pension in McPounds by Holyrood. It's not like they're not going to get a pension, it will just be funded by NI contributions in Scotland and paid for by the government of Scotland.
What would happen to someone like me? I worked for more than a decade paying NI in England, and I've only been living in Scotland for about five years.
Surely I'd be entitled to 14 years of an English pension, five years of a Scottish pension, and then whatever else from wherever else I go next?
When the full horror of leaving the EU became more evident, the lack of an upper hand, the divvying up of liabilities and assets. It did begin to feel like it was far far more trouble than it was worth, and if a relatively swift second referendum had happened i would have been tempted to unrub the lamp.
That would be nothing compared to unravelling a three hundred year union. It would be petty and vicious with both sides coming out of it much diminished.
Re cladding, the leaseholders take 100% of the benefit from the improvements, so why should they not contribute?
I don’t think the government should have the right to make someone’s home worthless.
No one’s home has been made worthless by the government. If your flat does not comply with current safety standards, you’ll have to cut the price on sale, in order to find a buyer. That’s a risk that is inherent in property ownership.
I am with you on this one. Sure there are some unfortunate leaseholders, but many will be btl speculators, and for them I have zero sympathy.
I think that government funding with a share of equity until the loan redeemed is the way forward.
I heard a story from a recent leaseholder, bought since grenfell. I am certain if she does indeed get stiffed for a huge bill, she would have a claim against the surveyer who reported that the flat was fine. I am all for caveat emptor, but there is a lot of blame to go round here.
State pensions are funded from current taxation. There is no pot built up as there is with an Abrdn or Ryl Lndn fund - which are paid to wherever in the world the pensioner lives. After independence, state pensions should be paid by whichever jurisdiction the pensioner lives in when the pension is first paid. That country pays their pension, from current taxation, for as long the person lives, and wherever they live. If someone in Scotland retires, the Scottish Government pays their pension whether they remain in Scotland or move to rUk, France, Australia or wherever. The same principle applies to someone retiring in rUk, whether they remain in rUk or move to Scotland, France, Australia or wherever. It will be up to each government to decide whose pensions are index linked or not; the same as now. Tax on the pensions will be paid to the person’s current country of residence. Any other system would be as a result of politics or racism, which should not be allowed to interfere with the payment of pensions.
The government’s behaviour over cladding is an utter disgrace. It’s very simple. If the government wants to makes people’s homes illegal, then the taxpayer needs to pick up the tab for making them legal.
Spot on. We have a collective responsibility to make sure a tragedy like Grenfell never happens again, and that will cost money. But it should not cost 'innocent' leaseholders money; either taxpayers or developers should pay. It will be a drop in the ocean compared to the amount we've spent, rightly, on saving lives from Covid. For Jenrick (it doesn't matter that it wasn't him personally) to helpfully include the Samaritans number in a response to a worried leaseholder beggars belief.
If the government is to pay, then the government should be entitled to take a charge over the flats in question, repayable on sale. To do otherwise is to nationalise risk, while privatising profit.
Alternatively, accept that there is flammable cladding on these flats and make sure no more of the stuff goes on new builds.
In refusing to tell us who first paid that bill for overpriced wallpaper, or to give full details of who paid for his December 2019 holiday in Mustique, Johnson has offended the public trust.
Johnson’s Brexit protocol that put a border down the Irish sea, even after he’d vowed never to put a border down the Irish sea, thereby imperilling a union he swore blind he would protect. His proposal of an internal market bill that proudly declared its intention to break international law, prompting the UK’s top legal civil servant to quit – one of a disturbing number of mandarins driven to resignation on Johnson’s watch.
His illegal suspension of parliament, overturned as a violation of fundamental democratic practice by unanimous verdict of the supreme court. The lies that led to that moment: the £350m on the side of the bus or the scare story that Turkey was poised to join the EU and that Britain would be powerless to stop it. Siding with Vladimir Putin to suggest that the EU had provoked the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Scandals, all.
The real scandal lies with us, the electorate, still seduced by a tousled-hair rebel shtick and faux bonhomie that should have palled years ago. Americans got rid of their lying, self-serving, scandal-plagued charlatan 100 days ago. They did it at the first possible opportunity. Next week, polls suggest we’re poised to give ours a partial thumbs-up at the ballot box. For allowing this shameless man to keep riding high, some of the shame is on us.
Ah, the sweet sound of the penny dropping with a journalist that it's the voters, not the media, who get to decide what issues are actually important in this country.
Again failing to understand the difference between what the voters are happy to accept and doing the right thing. There are plenty examples in history of this being the case. Even if the conservatives win every seat in the upcoming elections it doesn't justify why he just wont answer the simple question repeatedly put to him. Do you not wonder why not? I mean really?
Let me assure you, from the bottom of my heart, that I could not care less about it. On the contrary, the willingness and ability to defy stultifying, pusillanimous convention is one of the things I like best about Boris. I'd have little confidence that a politician who meekly obsesses about 'doing the right thing' all day would have the mettle to move the country in the direction I prefer. The medium, in this case, is a large part of the message.
Re cladding, the leaseholders take 100% of the benefit from the improvements, so why should they not contribute?
I don’t think the government should have the right to make someone’s home worthless.
No one’s home has been made worthless by the government. If your flat does not comply with current safety standards, you’ll have to cut the price on sale, in order to find a buyer. That’s a risk that is inherent in property ownership.
I am with you on this one. Sure there are some unfortunate leaseholders, but many will be btl speculators, and for them I have zero sympathy.
I think that government funding with a share of equity until the loan redeemed is the way forward.
I heard a story from a recent leaseholder, bought since grenfell. I am certain if she does indeed get stiffed for a huge bill, she would have a claim against the surveyer who reported that the flat was fine. I am all for caveat emptor, but there is a lot of blame to go round here.
The cladding wont be the first of a series of policies pursued for noble environmental reasons which have ended up costing many lives. The dash for diesel is another.
Re cladding, the leaseholders take 100% of the benefit from the improvements, so why should they not contribute?
I don’t think the government should have the right to make someone’s home worthless.
Why has the government made anyone's home worthless?
By determining the cladding to be illegal. It makes the home unsellable.
That happens when you own a property. If you're letting then your landlord needs to pay for changes, but if you own it then you do. You gain all the increases in your property value but you have to pay for whatever maintenance etc is required.
It sucks but a scheme has been done to ensure costs are capped at £50 per month which is very reasonable in the circumstances.
The government’s behaviour over cladding is an utter disgrace. It’s very simple. If the government wants to makes people’s homes illegal, then the taxpayer needs to pick up the tab for making them legal.
Spot on. We have a collective responsibility to make sure a tragedy like Grenfell never happens again, and that will cost money. But it should not cost 'innocent' leaseholders money; either taxpayers or developers should pay. It will be a drop in the ocean compared to the amount we've spent, rightly, on saving lives from Covid. For Jenrick (it doesn't matter that it wasn't him personally) to helpfully include the Samaritans number in a response to a worried leaseholder beggars belief.
If the government is to pay, then the government should be entitled to take a charge over the flats in question, repayable on sale. To do otherwise is to nationalise risk, while privatising profit.
But the leaseholders of these flats were not taking a risk. It was only after the Grenfell fire that it became apparent that developers and a whole range of subcontractors were getting away with cladding blocks with flammable materials by short-cutting or not interpreting health and safety regulations correctly. When the flats were bought, there was no apparent risk. If you bought a new car that transpired to be fundamentally unsafe, you wouldn't expect to have to pay for it to be remedied because you took a 'risk'.
The government’s behaviour over cladding is an utter disgrace. It’s very simple. If the government wants to makes people’s homes illegal, then the taxpayer needs to pick up the tab for making them legal.
Spot on. We have a collective responsibility to make sure a tragedy like Grenfell never happens again, and that will cost money. But it should not cost 'innocent' leaseholders money; either taxpayers or developers should pay. It will be a drop in the ocean compared to the amount we've spent, rightly, on saving lives from Covid. For Jenrick (it doesn't matter that it wasn't him personally) to helpfully include the Samaritans number in a response to a worried leaseholder beggars belief.
If the government is to pay, then the government should be entitled to take a charge over the flats in question, repayable on sale. To do otherwise is to nationalise risk, while privatising profit.
The profits have been privatised - by the developers who sold the flats. They should not be allowed to walk away from their responsibilities. They built and sold properties which were unsafe. They should not be allowed to keep those profits. No-one would have bought those properties if they had been told that they were effectively a fire trap.
Cladding - I don't think you can leave all the cost with the leaseholders. Too many personal horror stories from wholly blameless, impecunious citizens.
Government pensions are fiddly things when countries split. The Czech Republic and Slovakia are still having to sort theirs out thirty years after their countries split.
Re cladding, the leaseholders take 100% of the benefit from the improvements, so why should they not contribute?
They're not really improvements though, are they? They are work necessary to make the flats habitable and safe, the leaseholders having been assured that they were habitable and safe when they bought them. They are having to spend money to put themselves in the position they thought they were in on purchase.
The reason is because the developers and builders did not comply with the rules - or the rules set by the government were inadequate - or council officers authorised the buildings despite the construction being unsafe.
It was not the fault of the leaseholders that they are in this position and if they don't have the money or can't raise it, they will lose their home and/or face bankruptcy. Meanwhile those primarily responsible walk away.
We cannot have a situation where people are living in unsafe flats. What if there is another fire?
The government should stump up the cash to make the flats safe now and then seek to recover from the developers, builders, manufacturers of the unsafe cladding etc, and the leaseholders on sale of the property eg a percentage of capital gain, say.
Instead we have a building scandal where materials known to be unsafe were used in construction and leaseholders who could not be expected to have known this or even found out about it are left with the liability.
Developers and the construction industry deserve to be hauled over the coals for this. Shoddy workmanship, cutting corners, mis-selling, a lack of care. As does the government, which wholly failed in its regulatory obligations.
I think I would ask you the same question I asked Max.
Exactly who?
eg Should 10-a-year developers who never build high-rise with cladding be on the hook for this? Why?
The current leaseholders campaign is not because what they say is justified or logical, it is people with votes wanting a bailout.
Re cladding, the leaseholders take 100% of the benefit from the improvements, so why should they not contribute?
They're not really improvements though, are they? They are work necessary to make the flats habitable and safe, the leaseholders having been assured that they were habitable and safe when they bought them. They are having to spend money to put themselves in the position they thought they were in on purchase.
The reason is because the developers and builders did not comply with the rules - or the rules set by the government were inadequate - or council officers authorised the buildings despite the construction being unsafe.
It was not the fault of the leaseholders that they are in this position and if they don't have the money or can't raise it, they will lose their home and/or face bankruptcy. Meanwhile those primarily responsible walk away.
We cannot have a situation where people are living in unsafe flats. What if there is another fire?
The government should stump up the cash to make the flats safe now and then seek to recover from the developers, builders, manufacturers of the unsafe cladding etc, and the leaseholders on sale of the property eg a percentage of capital gain, say.
Instead we have a building scandal where materials known to be unsafe were used in construction and leaseholders who could not be expected to have known this or even found out about it are left with the liability.
Developers and the construction industry deserve to be hauled over the coals for this. Shoddy workmanship, cutting corners, mis-selling, a lack of care. As does the government, which wholly failed in its regulatory obligations.
Sensible post.
What I find rather alarming is that combustible cladding is STILL being installed;
The government’s behaviour over cladding is an utter disgrace. It’s very simple. If the government wants to makes people’s homes illegal, then the taxpayer needs to pick up the tab for making them legal.
Spot on. We have a collective responsibility to make sure a tragedy like Grenfell never happens again, and that will cost money. But it should not cost 'innocent' leaseholders money; either taxpayers or developers should pay. It will be a drop in the ocean compared to the amount we've spent, rightly, on saving lives from Covid. For Jenrick (it doesn't matter that it wasn't him personally) to helpfully include the Samaritans number in a response to a worried leaseholder beggars belief.
If the government is to pay, then the government should be entitled to take a charge over the flats in question, repayable on sale. To do otherwise is to nationalise risk, while privatising profit.
Alternatively, accept that there is flammable cladding on these flats and make sure no more of the stuff goes on new builds.
And hope no more of them catch light? Sorry, we need to remove it. Personally I would borrow the money in the way we are funding Covid, I.e. quantitative easing. The spend to remove and replace will be a huge stimulus to the industry. I’d also go after anyone who knowingly fitted the wrong product with the full force of the law.
India reports 401,911 new coronavirus cases, by far the biggest one-day increase on record, and 3,521 new deaths
The UK's worst figures for a single day were 67,928 cases and 1,823 deaths in January this year. If you scale that up to India's population, it would be 1.36 million cases and 36,500 deaths on a single day.
Re cladding, the leaseholders take 100% of the benefit from the improvements, so why should they not contribute?
They're not really improvements though, are they? They are work necessary to make the flats habitable and safe, the leaseholders having been assured that they were habitable and safe when they bought them. They are having to spend money to put themselves in the position they thought they were in on purchase.
The reason is because the developers and builders did not comply with the rules - or the rules set by the government were inadequate - or council officers authorised the buildings despite the construction being unsafe.
It was not the fault of the leaseholders that they are in this position and if they don't have the money or can't raise it, they will lose their home and/or face bankruptcy. Meanwhile those primarily responsible walk away.
We cannot have a situation where people are living in unsafe flats. What if there is another fire?
The government should stump up the cash to make the flats safe now and then seek to recover from the developers, builders, manufacturers of the unsafe cladding etc, and the leaseholders on sale of the property eg a percentage of capital gain, say.
Instead we have a building scandal where materials known to be unsafe were used in construction and leaseholders who could not be expected to have known this or even found out about it are left with the liability.
Developers and the construction industry deserve to be hauled over the coals for this. Shoddy workmanship, cutting corners, mis-selling, a lack of care. As does the government, which wholly failed in its regulatory obligations.
I think I would ask you the same question I asked Max.
Exactly who?
eg Should 10-a-year developers who never build high-rise with cladding be on the hook for this? Why?
The current leaseholders campaign is not because what they say is justified or logical, it is people with votes wanting a bailout.
The developers who actually built the shoddy flats?
Comments
It is due to the fact that they are living in the 1940s
Anti Gay, Racist etc.
When did the DUP arrive in the 20th Cent? Why weren't we told.... etc etc
Or is that a typo for 1740?
I think on this the Govt are damned regardless, because the main media interest is in 'outraged of anywhere', and the headlines than can be created.
Actually: https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/one-in-five-leaseholders-trapped-by-dangerous-cladding-have-thought-of-suicide-or-self-harm-survey-reveals-66735
One in five leaseholders trapped by dangerous cladding have thought of suicide or self-harm, survey reveals
More than 20% of leaseholders affected by the cladding scandal have had suicidal thoughts or felt compelled to self-harm, an exclusive survey for Inside Housing has revealed.
That's Inside Housing, which is hardly sensationalist.
Wonder IF there is possibility or even desireability (from centerist, non-sectarian perspective) for Alliance-SDLP electoral pact?
So while I agree it will have to be part of the wider negotiations, I really don't see any scenario where the UK Government would ever agree to ongoing commitments to Scottish pensioners. There's just no logic why they would, and it would be hugely unpopular. Pro-independence voices are completely delusional if they think differently.
Which yours truly is NOT. But did appreciate what I thought was her (again relative) restraint in the wake of Brexit.
However, am an Anglo-Fenian with roots on both side of the keep-the-peace wall (but mostly with the Taigs) multiple generations and 4,400 miles removed.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1388167400160440323?s=19
Truly an inspiration to the rest of us.
https://twitter.com/RoyChaudhuri/status/1388093905854418945
I know nothing about cricket, but had a fantastic time watching a Test at Edgbaston. It's mainly an excuse to sit in the sunshine and drink all day. Also, the people sat next to us offered us some pâté, which never happens at the football...
After independence, state pensions should be paid by whichever jurisdiction the pensioner lives in when the pension is first paid. That country pays their pension, from current taxation, for as long the person lives, and wherever they live. If someone in Scotland retires, the Scottish Government pays their pension whether they remain in Scotland or move to rUk, France, Australia or wherever. The same principle applies to someone retiring in rUk, whether they remain in rUk or move to Scotland, France, Australia or wherever. It will be up to each government to decide whose pensions are index linked or not; the same as now. Tax on the pensions will be paid to the person’s current country of residence. Any other system would be as a result of politics or racism, which should not be allowed to interfere with the payment of pensions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtTMEYcIKgw
The Crown Season 10 or something...
Check out the tailgating in the parking lots of US football stadiums. Esp. college football in the South and other places where the locals are SERIOUS about their cooking.
Personally recommend LSU games at Tiger Stadium, Baton Rouge.
You may have to bring your own pâté, but guarantee you can swap it for some andouille!
Very/fairly closely 33% +2
Not very closely 26% -1
Aware but not following 33% +5
Not aware 8% - 6
We have bred a generation of politely neutered males
"University students aren't having sex – and parents don't know whether to be relieved or worried"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/parenting/university-students-arent-having-sex-parents-dont-know-whether/
Ireland - Yez keep it, in return for Rockall.
It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.
I agree the situation re: regulation was a disgrace that can be laid at the feet of the “bonfire of the regulations” brigade, but I’m not sure taxpayers should be expected to contribute much more.
Go after the cladding company, the builders and the people who signed it off.
After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.
Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.
Do it, Boris
Appeal court judges have said it would be “premature, hypothetical and academic” to rule on the matter when the result of the Holyrood election is not known and there is no independence Bill before the Scottish Parliament.
https://twitter.com/heraldscotland/status/1388198213509730310?s=20
Well....
Plenty do.
BUT. He is also a Young Earth Creationist.
He literally believes the Earth is barely 6 000 years old.
What a shining example of a dynamic, forward looking UK that would be were he to be First Minister.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-pensioner-jackpot/#more-58267
(Note to @Philip_Thompson , you can cut and paste it as well
I presume we've commented on the YouGov poll from Germany which has the Greens ahead of the Union 25-24. Still a long way to go but a very real possibility of a fundamental change in German politics which will impact the EU.
Over here, yes, elections next Thursday - democracy, don't you just love it? As far as my neck of the woods is concerned, I'm not expecting any surprises in the Mayoral or East Ham Central by-election or GLA results but the Newham Governance Referendum is a very different matter.
Part of this is an internal Labour issue - part is a genuine belief a Committee system will be more accountable and transparent (not sure I'm convinced when one Party has all the seats and all the votes). The pro-Committee groupings are a mix of anti-Labour groupings and pro-Momentum elements within Labour which some might consider an unholy alliance (though a poor choice of words in an area where those without faith are a small minority).
Generally, the set of elections will be as they are usually - there will be good news for all, it'll just be a question of how you define "good" and how hard you have to look to find it.
I couldn't remember that the other day.
Surely I'd be entitled to 14 years of an English pension, five years of a Scottish pension, and then whatever else from wherever else I go next?
I think that government funding with a share of equity until the loan redeemed is the way forward.
Who is a "developer" - should people building houses (extreme example: self-builder building their own home) contribute? What about a local developer who builds 10 a year? Or a self-builder who builds one for themselves and one to sell?
What where the place is like Grenfell - 50 years old say - and the developer no longer exists?
What about big blocks of flat where the leaseholders (or some of the leaseholders) have exercised their right to purchase the freehold?
What about where the freeholder is the Council? Why should the local people who fund the Council not contribute?
AIUI there is relatively little value in freehold investment, anyway. Especially as ground rents have been / are being slugged.
The reason is because the developers and builders did not comply with the rules - or the rules set by the government were inadequate - or council officers authorised the buildings despite the construction being unsafe.
It was not the fault of the leaseholders that they are in this position and if they don't have the money or can't raise it, they will lose their home and/or face bankruptcy. Meanwhile those primarily responsible walk away.
We cannot have a situation where people are living in unsafe flats. What if there is another fire?
The government should stump up the cash to make the flats safe now and then seek to recover from the developers, builders, manufacturers of the unsafe cladding etc, and the leaseholders on sale of the property eg a percentage of capital gain, say.
Instead we have a building scandal where materials known to be unsafe were used in construction and leaseholders who could not be expected to have known this or even found out about it are left with the liability.
Developers and the construction industry deserve to be hauled over the coals for this. Shoddy workmanship, cutting corners, mis-selling, a lack of care. As does the government, which wholly failed in its regulatory obligations.
Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.
What steps did they take?
That would be nothing compared to unravelling a three hundred year union. It would be petty and vicious with both sides coming out of it much diminished.
https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1388191291788439552
UK State pensions currently in payment to Scottish residents would be paid by the Scottish Government.
For Scottish residents of working age, the liability for all State Pensions earned to date would fall to the Scottish Government
https://www.actuaries.org.uk/system/files/documents/pdf/1310ifoa-commentary-challenges-facing-financial-services-if-there-should-be-independent-scotland-rev.pdf
It sucks but a scheme has been done to ensure costs are capped at £50 per month which is very reasonable in the circumstances.
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1388202672961036293
India reports 401,911 new coronavirus cases, by far the biggest one-day increase on record, and 3,521 new deaths
Stay Out of EU 37%
Apply to join EU 31%
Wouldn't vote 19%
Source: Kantar April 22-26
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1388202978977501184?s=20
54:46
Don't think it's a deal breaker however.
Exactly who?
eg Should 10-a-year developers who never build high-rise with cladding be on the hook for this? Why?
The current leaseholders campaign is not because what they say is justified or logical, it is people with votes wanting a bailout.
What I find rather alarming is that combustible cladding is STILL being installed;
https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/three-quarters-of-cladding-systems-on-new-medium-rise-buildings-use-combustible-materials-data-shows-70298
Non-paywall article posted in the comments here;
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/mqc0vb/threequarters_of_cladding_systems_on_new/
This is just outrageous. Where is the government putting a stop to this crazy state of affairs?
Don’t coat buildings in fuel. It isn’t hard.