Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Cameron’s 2011 “Triple Lock” for pensions creates a massive headache for Sunak – politicalbetting.co

SystemSystem Posts: 12,158
edited July 2021 in General
imageCameron’s 2011 “Triple Lock” for pensions creates a massive headache for Sunak – politicalbetting.com

Part of the Tory programme at GE2010 was the “triple lock” for pensioners. Passed into legislation in 2011 this guarantees that the basic state pension will rise by a minimum of either 2.5%, the rate of inflation or average earnings growth, whichever is largest.

Read the full story here

«13456710

Comments

  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    It would be good to have the true cost.
    Many pensioers pay income tax at the basic rate, and a percentage at the higher rate.
    The true cost is pension out minus tax paid on pensions.
    The pensioners on lower incomes deserve the increase. Taxong it for better off pensioers strikes me as, to take a word from the previous thread, progressive.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    OGH is probably right in his conclusion. Hosing down old people with cash is like rigging the housing market to drive ever-increasing prices: both policies with dire long-term consequences, that will nonetheless be continued for as long as possible because they delight the core vote.

    Of course, predicting when the bribery will finally become unsustainable and have to stop is a mug's game, but there's no sign that we're anywhere close to that point yet. Could carry on for decades.
  • https://twitter.com/BenPBradshaw/status/1413359207575871488?s=20

    Labour just took an East Devon seat from the Conservatives for the first time in 35 years.

    Interesting!
  • As well as the triple lock issue there's likely to be a kerfuffle about the end of universal credit top-up. That £20 a week amounts to over £1000 a year and has kept some families out of poverty during the crisis.

    The problem is that Johnson splurges public finances in the same way that he splurges his own. He's virtually bankrupt which is what he's doing to the nation. You can't keep spending on the credit card for your daily living.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,652
    Cutting universal credit payments for people who mostly don't vote Tory while throwing an 8% income jump at people who do is not a great look. But the Tories need the pensioner vote, so it's hard to see any meaningful change any time soon.
  • Cutting universal credit payments for people who mostly don't vote Tory while throwing an 8% income jump at people who do is not a great look. But the Tories need the pensioner vote, so it's hard to see any meaningful change any time soon.

    I'd normally agree with you but these are no longer normal times. The UC cut is making northern tories very edgy. Apparently it's playing very badly in the Red Wall seats with the kind of voters Johnson has been pitching to.

    There's likely to be a big revolt over it but whether they'll bring it down, who knows?
  • FernandoFernando Posts: 145
    Is this really such a difficult matter to solve? It is obvious that coronavirus has distorted the figures. Why not retain the triple lock but replace the short—term up ups and downs in average wages by ( say) a five year average. Still likely to deliver a reasonable increase.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    As well as the triple lock issue there's likely to be a kerfuffle about the end of universal credit top-up. That £20 a week amounts to over £1000 a year and has kept some families out of poverty during the crisis.

    The problem is that Johnson splurges public finances in the same way that he splurges his own. He's virtually bankrupt which is what he's doing to the nation. You can't keep spending on the credit card for your daily living.

    As long as the cost of borrowing is so low, that's exactly what will continue to happen - accompanied by budget theatre (symbolic cuts applicable in areas which won't be noticed by the core vote, or about which they do not care) to create the illusion of fiscal rectitude.

    One thing is certain: just as happened after the financial crisis, when action is eventually needed to rein in spending and balance the books, the old will be insulated from the costs and the young will shoulder the entire burden.

    Cutting universal credit payments for people who mostly don't vote Tory while throwing an 8% income jump at people who do is not a great look. But the Tories need the pensioner vote, so it's hard to see any meaningful change any time soon.

    Time for our regular reminder that. taking into account both demographics and the propensity to turn out to vote, over 55s constitute about half of the entire electorate; over 65s, a third. Any party that can grab the lion's share of support from that lot doesn't need to try very hard with everyone else.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,350
    Here’s another prediction:

    Sunak won’t do a Javid if the last sentence comes true.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    Fernando said:

    Is this really such a difficult matter to solve? It is obvious that coronavirus has distorted the figures. Why not retain the triple lock but replace the short—term up ups and downs in average wages by (say) a five year average. Still likely to deliver a reasonable increase.

    In theory you're right; in practice, if the increase isn't paid out then the howling about broken promises and impoverished old ducks being cheated out of an extra tenner a week will be deafening.

    Cutting universal credit payments for people who mostly don't vote Tory while throwing an 8% income jump at people who do is not a great look. But the Tories need the pensioner vote, so it's hard to see any meaningful change any time soon.

    I'd normally agree with you but these are no longer normal times. The UC cut is making northern tories very edgy. Apparently it's playing very badly in the Red Wall seats with the kind of voters Johnson has been pitching to.
    Hmmm... how much of the Northern Tory vote is actually reliant on UC, and therefore particularly cares about it, I wonder?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,350

    It would help hugely if Johnson stopped splurging stupid amounts on vanity projects.

    The royal yacht is an example of a f-ing stupid piece of uncosted vanity. We've been here with Johnson many times before: bendy buses, water canons, cable cars, HS2. And don't forget he wanted to build a brand new London airport in the Thames estuary.

    He's a menace with money.

    Whether you approve of it or not, HS2 is not a Johnson ‘vanity project.’ Leaving aside the urgent need for more capacity on the WCML it’s been in development since 2009, and was confirmed twice during first the coalition and then the May years before Johnson finally gave the order to start digging last year.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,540
    Some reports that Johnson may declare 19th July a national holiday.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,859
    Fernando said:

    Is this really such a difficult matter to solve? It is obvious that coronavirus has distorted the figures. Why not retain the triple lock but replace the short—term up ups and downs in average wages by ( say) a five year average. Still likely to deliver a reasonable increase.

    Taking yesterday’s interview with Sunak and the commentary from various experts, it looks pretty clear to me that the treasury is thinking of some kind of one- off adjustment to allow for the pandemic related distortion in the figures. A lot of the apparent increase in average earnings arises because the jobs that have been lost are mostly the lowest paid ones, for example.

    This might reduce the 8% increase down to something like 3% - which could still be sold as an above inflation increase.

    Whether or not the PM will go along with this will depend, as usual, on who has sat on him the most recently.
  • Fernando said:

    Is this really such a difficult matter to solve? It is obvious that coronavirus has distorted the figures. Why not retain the triple lock but replace the short—term up ups and downs in average wages by (say) a five year average. Still likely to deliver a reasonable increase.

    In theory you're right; in practice, if the increase isn't paid out then the howling about broken promises and impoverished old ducks being cheated out of an extra tenner a week will be deafening.

    Cutting universal credit payments for people who mostly don't vote Tory while throwing an 8% income jump at people who do is not a great look. But the Tories need the pensioner vote, so it's hard to see any meaningful change any time soon.

    I'd normally agree with you but these are no longer normal times. The UC cut is making northern tories very edgy. Apparently it's playing very badly in the Red Wall seats with the kind of voters Johnson has been pitching to.
    Hmmm... how much of the Northern Tory vote is actually reliant on UC, and therefore particularly cares about it, I wonder?
    Well I'm only feeding back what is being reported. It was in the news yesterday. Northern tories are very edgy about this one. The Bright Blue think tank are warning that it's not playing well in the Red Wall.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-universal-credit-cut-b1787955.html

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jan/17/universal-credit-cut-will-hit-red-wall-seats-hardest-tories-warned

    The problem is that just as the Lord giveth so the Lord can taketh away.

    If the meme spreads that the nasty party are back then Johnson risks losing both the north and the south.
  • Cocky_cockneyCocky_cockney Posts: 760
    edited July 2021
    ydoethur said:

    It would help hugely if Johnson stopped splurging stupid amounts on vanity projects.

    The royal yacht is an example of a f-ing stupid piece of uncosted vanity. We've been here with Johnson many times before: bendy buses, water canons, cable cars, HS2. And don't forget he wanted to build a brand new London airport in the Thames estuary.

    He's a menace with money.

    Whether you approve of it or not, HS2 is not a Johnson ‘vanity project.’ Leaving aside the urgent need for more capacity on the WCML it’s been in development since 2009, and was confirmed twice during first the coalition and then the May years before Johnson finally gave the order to start digging last year.
    I know that and when I wrote I just knew that someone was bound to point out that it began before him blah blah.

    Fact is, the buck stopped with Johnson. He had the chance to stop HS2 in its tracks. Didn't. It's another Johnson splurge.

    Whether you think it will pay off is another question. Meantime we're spending billions on it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,350

    ydoethur said:

    It would help hugely if Johnson stopped splurging stupid amounts on vanity projects.

    The royal yacht is an example of a f-ing stupid piece of uncosted vanity. We've been here with Johnson many times before: bendy buses, water canons, cable cars, HS2. And don't forget he wanted to build a brand new London airport in the Thames estuary.

    He's a menace with money.

    Whether you approve of it or not, HS2 is not a Johnson ‘vanity project.’ Leaving aside the urgent need for more capacity on the WCML it’s been in development since 2009, and was confirmed twice during first the coalition and then the May years before Johnson finally gave the order to start digging last year.
    I know that and when I wrote I just knew that someone was bound to point out that it began before him blah blah.

    Fact is, the buck stopped with Johnson. He had the chance to stop HS2 in its tracks. Didn't. It's another Johnson splurge.

    Whether you think it will pay off is another question. Meantime we're spending billions on it.
    He really didn’t.

    Or at least, he could have done so in the same way that somebody could have stopped the building of the M25.

    Merely saying ‘stop’ now would just have increased the costs when it had to be built later anyway.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    ydoethur said:

    It would help hugely if Johnson stopped splurging stupid amounts on vanity projects.

    The royal yacht is an example of a f-ing stupid piece of uncosted vanity. We've been here with Johnson many times before: bendy buses, water canons, cable cars, HS2. And don't forget he wanted to build a brand new London airport in the Thames estuary.

    He's a menace with money.

    Whether you approve of it or not, HS2 is not a Johnson ‘vanity project.’ Leaving aside the urgent need for more capacity on the WCML it’s been in development since 2009, and was confirmed twice during first the coalition and then the May years before Johnson finally gave the order to start digging last year.
    I know that and when I wrote I just knew that someone was bound to point out that it began before him blah blah.

    Fact is, the buck stopped with Johnson. He had the chance to stop HS2 in its tracks. Didn't. It's another Johnson splurge.

    Whether you think it will pay off is another question. Meantime we're spending billions on it.
    Has any actual groundwork been done on HS2 north of Birmingham? The sunk costs for the first section of the line are probably too great already for anyone to dare pull the plug on it, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if this Government, or a future one, devised a justification to dump the remainder of the project. After all, it is fantastically expensive, and being built at the same time as all sorts of other urgent demands for spending - Exhibit A: the UC top-up; Exhibit B: schools recovery expenditure - have been turned down or look like they will be.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,775
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Rook, HS2 is more popular the further north you go.

    If the part connecting London to Birmingham is completed and the northern half cancelled that will not go down well.
  • FWIW I'm actually a supporter of HS2.

    But it's undeniably controversial. And very expensive. The benefits are not conclusively established. And as Black_Rod points out, the extensions beyond Birmingham are far from sorted.

    It's particularly acute at the moment because train passenger numbers have plunged during the pandemic to the lowest level in the UK since 1872. https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-rail-passenger-numbers-fall-to-lowest-level-since-time-of-steam-trains-in-1872-12324020

    As for whether they could have stopped it, of course they could have done. They only began the tunnelling work under the Chilterns last month.

    Sometimes you have to cut your losses.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,859

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Rook, HS2 is more popular the further north you go.

    If the part connecting London to Birmingham is completed and the northern half cancelled that will not go down well.

    Yes, the opposition is mostly Home Counties folks getting worked up about trains rushing through their patch on the way to the faraway north. And those bits are already being built and past the point of no return,
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,350

    ydoethur said:

    It would help hugely if Johnson stopped splurging stupid amounts on vanity projects.

    The royal yacht is an example of a f-ing stupid piece of uncosted vanity. We've been here with Johnson many times before: bendy buses, water canons, cable cars, HS2. And don't forget he wanted to build a brand new London airport in the Thames estuary.

    He's a menace with money.

    Whether you approve of it or not, HS2 is not a Johnson ‘vanity project.’ Leaving aside the urgent need for more capacity on the WCML it’s been in development since 2009, and was confirmed twice during first the coalition and then the May years before Johnson finally gave the order to start digging last year.
    I know that and when I wrote I just knew that someone was bound to point out that it began before him blah blah.

    Fact is, the buck stopped with Johnson. He had the chance to stop HS2 in its tracks. Didn't. It's another Johnson splurge.

    Whether you think it will pay off is another question. Meantime we're spending billions on it.
    Has any actual groundwork been done on HS2 north of Birmingham? The sunk costs for the first section of the line are probably too great already for anyone to dare pull the plug on it, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if this Government, or a future one, devised a justification to dump the remainder of the project. After all, it is fantastically expensive, and being built at the same time as all sorts of other urgent demands for spending - Exhibit A: the UC top-up; Exhibit B: schools recovery expenditure - have been turned down or look like they will be.
    Yes. Huge amounts. The works at Lichfield are at quite an advanced stage, plus large sections of the M42 at Tamworth have already been remodelled.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,350
    IanB2 said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Rook, HS2 is more popular the further north you go.

    If the part connecting London to Birmingham is completed and the northern half cancelled that will not go down well.

    Yes, the opposition is mostly Home Counties folks getting worked up about trains rushing through their patch on the way to the faraway north. And those bits are already being built and past the point of no return,
    And that’s also much the most expensive bit, partly due to land prices and partly due to the disastrous contract risk transfers.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,350

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Rook, HS2 is more popular the further north you go.

    If the part connecting London to Birmingham is completed and the northern half cancelled that will not go down well.

    In any case, if it’s not completed at least to Crewe - and arguably Manchester and Warrington - it’s not going to free up meaningful capacity. In fact, if it was completed only to Lichfield it might actually make things worse.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,414
    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.
    Sunny morning; much sunnier than my general mood!

    Obviously in the short-term I'd be pleased with a substantial rise in my OAP; it wouldn't make me change my vote though; although as a 'Never Tory' I know I'm not typical of my age group! In any event if there was a rise in income tax I'd lose some of it, and I'm inclined to agree with @Philiph, todays early bird.

    How would an overall rise in income tax go down generally though? No way. I think, of taxing my income, an OAP, and not the chap next door, who is working.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,362

    FWIW I'm actually a supporter of HS2.

    But it's undeniably controversial. And very expensive. The benefits are not conclusively established. And as Black_Rod points out, the extensions beyond Birmingham are far from sorted.

    It's particularly acute at the moment because train passenger numbers have plunged during the pandemic to the lowest level in the UK since 1872. https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-rail-passenger-numbers-fall-to-lowest-level-since-time-of-steam-trains-in-1872-12324020

    As for whether they could have stopped it, of course they could have done. They only began the tunnelling work under the Chilterns last month.

    Sometimes you have to cut your losses.

    Nope the last chance to stop HS2 was about 2018.

    And the southern part is really only viable if it takes traffic from north of Birmingham and really only viable if the eastern leg is built and so takes trains off the Midland and ECML routes.
  • agingjb2agingjb2 Posts: 114
    If our sole income were our two state pensions, triple locked or not, we would find life much more difficult.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,240

    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.
    Sunny morning; much sunnier than my general mood!

    Obviously in the short-term I'd be pleased with a substantial rise in my OAP; it wouldn't make me change my vote though; although as a 'Never Tory' I know I'm not typical of my age group! In any event if there was a rise in income tax I'd lose some of it, and I'm inclined to agree with @Philiph, todays early bird.

    How would an overall rise in income tax go down generally though? No way. I think, of taxing my income, an OAP, and not the chap next door, who is working.

    NI on pensions would do the job. And as we apply NI differentially to pensions, I suspect it would be fairly easy to tax them differently.

    Can't see it happening though. Many pensioners, even those with company or personal pensions, are not particularly well off.

    On the other hand, I don't see a problem discarding an earnings figure that is obviously an artifact of the pandemic. What has the average rise in earnings been over the last 2 years?
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,240
    IanB2 said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Rook, HS2 is more popular the further north you go.

    If the part connecting London to Birmingham is completed and the northern half cancelled that will not go down well.

    Yes, the opposition is mostly Home Counties folks getting worked up about trains rushing through their patch on the way to the faraway north. And those bits are already being built and past the point of no return,
    There is also absolutely no point building a high speed line over short distances.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Fernando said:

    Is this really such a difficult matter to solve? It is obvious that coronavirus has distorted the figures. Why not retain the triple lock but replace the short—term up ups and downs in average wages by ( say) a five year average. Still likely to deliver a reasonable increase.

    Indeed. This is what I expect to happen, a "technical fix" to how earnings are calculated to remove the furlough distortion/use an average.

    Triple lock remains but this artificial rise doesn't occur due to the technical fix.

    Though how the average is calculated will be crucial. Eg using a three year average as some have suggested will still mean an artificial issue in a couple of years time once the furlough year has rolled out.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,362
    edited July 2021

    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.
    Sunny morning; much sunnier than my general mood!

    Obviously in the short-term I'd be pleased with a substantial rise in my OAP; it wouldn't make me change my vote though; although as a 'Never Tory' I know I'm not typical of my age group! In any event if there was a rise in income tax I'd lose some of it, and I'm inclined to agree with @Philiph, todays early bird.

    How would an overall rise in income tax go down generally though? No way. I think, of taxing my income, an OAP, and not the chap next door, who is working.

    NI on pensions would do the job. And as we apply NI differentially to pensions, I suspect it would be fairly easy to tax them differently.

    Can't see it happening though. Many pensioners, even those with company or personal pensions, are not particularly well off.

    On the other hand, I don't see a problem discarding an earnings figure that is obviously an artifact of the pandemic. What has the average rise in earnings been over the last 2 years?
    NI on pensions - would result in pensioners seeing their tax rates go up 10% or so more - isn't going to happen

    The simple fact is that it is easy to stop something occurring, it would be a political nightmare to take something away.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,173
    I’m sorry, but this really isn’t a difficult issue. No one is going to complain when they get a 2.5% increase.

    It’s a bigger problem for the Labour Party because they’re too dumb to realise this and will just look stupid for pointing at the manifestos.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,569
    tlg86 said:

    I’m sorry, but this really isn’t a difficult issue. No one is going to complain when they get a 2.5% increase.

    It’s a bigger problem for the Labour Party because they’re too dumb to realise this and will just look stupid for pointing at the manifestos.

    Exactly. This is just political opponents trying to stir up a story. There’s not going to be hundreds of angry Tory MPs shouting about an 8% uplift in pensions.

    There will be plenty of other issues distorted by pandemic effects in the next couple of years, that will require workarounds too.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,173

    Cutting universal credit payments for people who mostly don't vote Tory while throwing an 8% income jump at people who do is not a great look. But the Tories need the pensioner vote, so it's hard to see any meaningful change any time soon.

    You do know that Labour is in favour of maintaining the triple lock as per the manifesto commitments.

    Of all the things that need doing, changing the triple lock is one of the easier ones.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,767
    Alistair said:
    Alexa, show me the one man who personifies everything that is wrong with this country.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,454
    tlg86 said:

    Cutting universal credit payments for people who mostly don't vote Tory while throwing an 8% income jump at people who do is not a great look. But the Tories need the pensioner vote, so it's hard to see any meaningful change any time soon.

    You do know that Labour is in favour of maintaining the triple lock as per the manifesto commitments.

    Of all the things that need doing, changing the triple lock is one of the easier ones.
    We all know manifesto commitments mean nothing
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,077
    edited July 2021

    OGH is probably right in his conclusion. Hosing down old people with cash is like rigging the housing market to drive ever-increasing prices: both policies with dire long-term consequences, that will nonetheless be continued for as long as possible because they delight the core vote.

    Of course, predicting when the bribery will finally become unsustainable and have to stop is a mug's game, but there's no sign that we're anywhere close to that point yet. Could carry on for decades.

    Not sure about decades. The UK Public Sector net debt is now 99.5%, which is the highest since 1962 and over 2 trillion pounds. Private sector debt is close to 90% of GDP too, and has increased over three times since 1980. Meanwhile GDP /cap is now the lowest in Northern Europe and Q1 21 GDP fell by 1.6% (-8.8% since pandemic began) versus the Eurozone which saw a -0.3% GDP fall Q1 and -5.1% since the pandemic began. Income inequality was increasing even before the pandemic, with the poorest 20% seeing incomes fall 1.6% in 2018, while the richest 20% saw their incomes rise 4.7% in the same period.

    On these numbers, there is not much doubt that the country is riding into an economic storm. Pretty soon that will be followed by a social and political storm.

    Johnson can not keep promising jelly and ice cream for everyone for much longer.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,747
    To deny the extension of the UC uplift would in itself be terrible politics. To ally this with an arbitrary and unfair pay rise for the retired would signal that covid-19 has warped Boris Johnson’s political antenna.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,032
    On topic - it's another mess Cameron left for somebody else to deal win. His FTPA and his foreign aid policy are heading for the scrapheap and so should this. He really was a terrible PM.

    More generally, putting future spending plans in legislation like this is a terrible gimmick. It reduces flexibility and stores up problems when they're unsustainable.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,348
    Fernando said:

    Is this really such a difficult matter to solve? It is obvious that coronavirus has distorted the figures. Why not retain the triple lock but replace the short—term up ups and downs in average wages by ( say) a five year average. Still likely to deliver a reasonable increase.

    Using a five year average would seem to be pretty uncontroversial if applied to average earnings, but must be a temptation to do the same with inflation - which could store up political trouble for the future.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,767

    ydoethur said:

    It would help hugely if Johnson stopped splurging stupid amounts on vanity projects.

    The royal yacht is an example of a f-ing stupid piece of uncosted vanity. We've been here with Johnson many times before: bendy buses, water canons, cable cars, HS2. And don't forget he wanted to build a brand new London airport in the Thames estuary.

    He's a menace with money.

    Whether you approve of it or not, HS2 is not a Johnson ‘vanity project.’ Leaving aside the urgent need for more capacity on the WCML it’s been in development since 2009, and was confirmed twice during first the coalition and then the May years before Johnson finally gave the order to start digging last year.
    I know that and when I wrote I just knew that someone was bound to point out that it began before him blah blah.

    Fact is, the buck stopped with Johnson. He had the chance to stop HS2 in its tracks. Didn't. It's another Johnson splurge.

    Whether you think it will pay off is another question. Meantime we're spending billions on it.
    Continuing with HS2 is one of the things I won't have a go at Johnson for, I think it was a good decision. In fact, his love of grand infrastructure projects is something I like about him. The problem is the lack of consistency and prioritising, eg when he was London mayor cancelling the planned Thames crossing to the east and wasting money on the stupid garden bridge instead. The traffic problems in SE London caused by the absence of a crossing between Blackwall and Dartford are abysmal (recently took me 90 minutes to drive my daughter about 10 miles to a piano exam, should have taken half an hour).
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,903
    Hang on a moment, Mike!!!! The triple lock was a Lib Dem proposal at the time of the Coalition Government, which Cameron and Osborne were strongly opposed to, but the Lib Dems pushed hard on that one. This came after the miserly increase that Gordon Brown gave pensioners.

    Afterwards, once it was seen to be popular and a vote-winner, Cameron and Osborne grabbed all the credit..... and it was one of the reasons why the Conservatives did well in 2015.

    People need to remember that there is no consistency to be found in the Conservative Party. As young HY and others keep reminding us, the Conservative Party will and say whatever it takes to win an election and hang on to power. This is very cynical and two-faced of them, of course.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,309
    philiph said:

    It would be good to have the true cost.
    Many pensioners pay income tax at the basic rate, and a percentage at the higher rate.
    The true cost is pension out minus tax paid on pensions.
    The pensioners on lower incomes deserve the increase. Taxong it for better off pensioers strikes me as, to take a word from the previous thread, progressive.

    I already pay tax of 43% on my pension , how much more do you think I should have to pay. Get more of the lazy beggars off their arse's, start contributing to paying tax and NI rather than milking it. Supposedly there are hundred's of thousands of vacancies.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,454
    Does anyone know how other countries decide by what % to increase the state pension?
  • eekeek Posts: 28,362
    tlg86 said:

    Cutting universal credit payments for people who mostly don't vote Tory while throwing an 8% income jump at people who do is not a great look. But the Tories need the pensioner vote, so it's hard to see any meaningful change any time soon.

    You do know that Labour is in favour of maintaining the triple lock as per the manifesto commitments.

    Of all the things that need doing, changing the triple lock is one of the easier ones.
    Is it in Labour's 2023 manifesto?

    And remember the whole point was to keep pensioners relatively new well off. The figure is only so high because there was a completely unexpected dip in average earnings last year that has now been reversed.

    It's a unique circumstance that needs to be explained and then a decent offer made - it will also need to play along with NHS and other civil servant pay rises and allowing 8% will cause problems everywhere.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,309
    agingjb2 said:

    If our sole income were our two state pensions, triple locked or not, we would find life much more difficult.

    Given the paltry amount I would say impossible.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,652
    tlg86 said:

    Cutting universal credit payments for people who mostly don't vote Tory while throwing an 8% income jump at people who do is not a great look. But the Tories need the pensioner vote, so it's hard to see any meaningful change any time soon.

    You do know that Labour is in favour of maintaining the triple lock as per the manifesto commitments.

    Of all the things that need doing, changing the triple lock is one of the easier ones.

    Voters rejected the Labour manifesto - especially older ones.

  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,454
    malcolmg said:

    agingjb2 said:

    If our sole income were our two state pensions, triple locked or not, we would find life much more difficult.

    Given the paltry amount I would say impossible.
    2x basic state pension is around £1,000 per month. Assuming you have no mortgage to pay, that is a good amount of money.

    "paltry amount" suggests "out of touch"
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,112

    It would help hugely if Johnson stopped splurging stupid amounts on vanity projects.

    The royal yacht is an example of a f-ing stupid piece of uncosted vanity. We've been here with Johnson many times before: bendy buses, water canons, cable cars, HS2. And don't forget he wanted to build a brand new London airport in the Thames estuary.

    He's a menace with money.

    HS2 can't really be called a Johnson vanity project. It was first devised under a Labour government with Brown as PM; planning progressed under Cameron with a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition; advanced groundworks started under May; and the full works under Johnson. The full scheme will probably be completed in two or three PM's time.

    And the airport in the Thames Estuary might actually be a good idea compared to the neverending Heathrow saga ... ;)

    Some people seem to instinctively hate infrastructure; any large project is expensive and often locally unpopular. Yet we'd have to think the state we'd be in if (say) the ecoloonies of the 1980s and 1990s at Newbury, Winchester etc had had their way with the motorway network in the 1960s. Or the railways in the 1830s to 1860s had been kyboshed by landed interests.

    Infrastructure isn't just for next year; or the next thirty years. It is for a hundred years and more.
    Bendy buses was a Livingstone project, I thought?

    HS2 is sensible, and necessary. By Adonis, and I say it though I can't stand the man. Cable cars, water cannons - maybe. Though demonstrations continue to be too out of control.

    Heathrow - fifty years later and it is still held up. Not really sure whether this is an issue; other EU countries, who we know are the advanced on the planet (cough) are building plenty of runways. Like HS2, the problem to building it is nimbies.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,173

    tlg86 said:

    Cutting universal credit payments for people who mostly don't vote Tory while throwing an 8% income jump at people who do is not a great look. But the Tories need the pensioner vote, so it's hard to see any meaningful change any time soon.

    You do know that Labour is in favour of maintaining the triple lock as per the manifesto commitments.

    Of all the things that need doing, changing the triple lock is one of the easier ones.

    Voters rejected the Labour manifesto - especially older ones.

    Labour are pointing at the Tory manifesto too!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,569
    eek said:

    tlg86 said:

    Cutting universal credit payments for people who mostly don't vote Tory while throwing an 8% income jump at people who do is not a great look. But the Tories need the pensioner vote, so it's hard to see any meaningful change any time soon.

    You do know that Labour is in favour of maintaining the triple lock as per the manifesto commitments.

    Of all the things that need doing, changing the triple lock is one of the easier ones.
    Is it in Labour's 2023 manifesto?

    And remember the whole point was to keep pensioners relatively new well off. The figure is only so high because there was a completely unexpected dip in average earnings last year that has now been reversed.

    It's a unique circumstance that needs to be explained and then a decent offer made - it will also need to play along with NHS and other civil servant pay rises and allowing 8% will cause problems everywhere.
    A good point about other public sector pay offers too.

    For the last decade, many private sector workers have seen close to zero pay rise. Not index-linked either. There would be huge resentment at taxes needing to rise for yet more public sector pay awards.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,541
    MattW said:

    It would help hugely if Johnson stopped splurging stupid amounts on vanity projects.

    The royal yacht is an example of a f-ing stupid piece of uncosted vanity. We've been here with Johnson many times before: bendy buses, water canons, cable cars, HS2. And don't forget he wanted to build a brand new London airport in the Thames estuary.

    He's a menace with money.

    HS2 can't really be called a Johnson vanity project. It was first devised under a Labour government with Brown as PM; planning progressed under Cameron with a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition; advanced groundworks started under May; and the full works under Johnson. The full scheme will probably be completed in two or three PM's time.

    And the airport in the Thames Estuary might actually be a good idea compared to the neverending Heathrow saga ... ;)

    Some people seem to instinctively hate infrastructure; any large project is expensive and often locally unpopular. Yet we'd have to think the state we'd be in if (say) the ecoloonies of the 1980s and 1990s at Newbury, Winchester etc had had their way with the motorway network in the 1960s. Or the railways in the 1830s to 1860s had been kyboshed by landed interests.

    Infrastructure isn't just for next year; or the next thirty years. It is for a hundred years and more.
    Bendy buses was a Livingstone project, I thought?

    HS2 is sensible, and necessary. By Adonis, and I say it though I can't stand the man. Cable cars, water cannons - maybe. Though demonstrations continue to be too out of control.

    Heathrow - fifty years later and it is still held up. Not really sure whether this is an issue; other EU countries, who we know are the advanced on the planet (cough) are building plenty of runways. Like HS2, the problem to building it is nimbies.
    Bloody LibDems....
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,414

    malcolmg said:

    agingjb2 said:

    If our sole income were our two state pensions, triple locked or not, we would find life much more difficult.

    Given the paltry amount I would say impossible.
    2x basic state pension is around £1,000 per month. Assuming you have no mortgage to pay, that is a good amount of money.

    "paltry amount" suggests "out of touch"
    Plus, if one is in an area with reasonable bus transport, free transport. One thing that surprised us during lockdown was the amount we saved on petrol. (We have quite a limited bus service)
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,009
    edited July 2021
    Good morning

    As a pensioner I have long said the triple lock is not sustainable

    The decision on UC is wrong

    And I doubt iSage will be promoting this survey but it is good news for children

    BBC News - Covid: Children's extremely low risk confirmed by study
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57766717
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,454
    Andy_JS said:

    Some reports that Johnson may declare 19th July a national holiday.

    Why?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,191
    MattW said:

    It would help hugely if Johnson stopped splurging stupid amounts on vanity projects.

    The royal yacht is an example of a f-ing stupid piece of uncosted vanity. We've been here with Johnson many times before: bendy buses, water canons, cable cars, HS2. And don't forget he wanted to build a brand new London airport in the Thames estuary.

    He's a menace with money.

    HS2 can't really be called a Johnson vanity project. It was first devised under a Labour government with Brown as PM; planning progressed under Cameron with a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition; advanced groundworks started under May; and the full works under Johnson. The full scheme will probably be completed in two or three PM's time.

    And the airport in the Thames Estuary might actually be a good idea compared to the neverending Heathrow saga ... ;)

    Some people seem to instinctively hate infrastructure; any large project is expensive and often locally unpopular. Yet we'd have to think the state we'd be in if (say) the ecoloonies of the 1980s and 1990s at Newbury, Winchester etc had had their way with the motorway network in the 1960s. Or the railways in the 1830s to 1860s had been kyboshed by landed interests.

    Infrastructure isn't just for next year; or the next thirty years. It is for a hundred years and more.
    Bendy buses was a Livingstone project, I thought?

    HS2 is sensible, and necessary. By Adonis, and I say it though I can't stand the man. Cable cars, water cannons - maybe. Though demonstrations continue to be too out of control.

    Heathrow - fifty years later and it is still held up. Not really sure whether this is an issue; other EU countries, who we know are the advanced on the planet (cough) are building plenty of runways. Like HS2, the problem to building it is nimbies.
    On the buses subject - the new RouteMaster buses that Johnson ordered as Mayor of London are still in service. The bendy buses that they replaced (which had problems fitting in the London street plan) were sold off - most are out of service now I believe.

    One of the reasons that the new RouteMasters were ordered was to reduce the emissions in London - which were exceeding agreed limits in a number of areas.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,687

    Good morning

    As a pensioner I have long said the triple lock is not sustainable

    The decision on UC is wrong

    And I doubt iSage will be promoting this survey but it is good news for children

    BBC News - Covid: Children's extremely low risk confirmed by study
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57766717

    On the last point they have moved their conversation onto long covid. I don't see any mention of that in the bbc piece.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,948
    The word "illegal" is your friend here.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,687
    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    tlg86 said:

    Cutting universal credit payments for people who mostly don't vote Tory while throwing an 8% income jump at people who do is not a great look. But the Tories need the pensioner vote, so it's hard to see any meaningful change any time soon.

    You do know that Labour is in favour of maintaining the triple lock as per the manifesto commitments.

    Of all the things that need doing, changing the triple lock is one of the easier ones.
    Is it in Labour's 2023 manifesto?

    And remember the whole point was to keep pensioners relatively new well off. The figure is only so high because there was a completely unexpected dip in average earnings last year that has now been reversed.

    It's a unique circumstance that needs to be explained and then a decent offer made - it will also need to play along with NHS and other civil servant pay rises and allowing 8% will cause problems everywhere.
    A good point about other public sector pay offers too.

    For the last decade, many private sector workers have seen close to zero pay rise. Not index-linked either. There would be huge resentment at taxes needing to rise for yet more public sector pay awards.
    The money is needed for the social care system NOT a huge increase in pensions.

    Reports say the last meeting of senior ministers on social care reform broke up because they can't agree on the money and yet they are contemplating this 8% rise. Bonkers on stilts.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,950
    Alistair said:
    The parade of weirdos, no marks and sociopaths that have been touted at various times is fascinating: McVey, Raab, Shapps, Ruth, Hancock…
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,794
    State pensions in this country remain low by international comparisons. A boost to them would not be the worse thing in the world although the triple lock is a peculiarly foolish policy that should have been abandoned some time ago. I think that we will see a one off moderation of the policy but still a generous increase in the basic pension, say 4%. The triple lock does not apply to public sector pensions which are much more of a problem financially.

    Universal Credit is trickier. I was never particularly clear what the justification for the extra £20 a week was, It seemed to be a peak of we are all in this togetherness. It is not obvious what additional costs the unemployed actually incurred as a result of the pandemic. At the margins costs incurred by attending Job Centres and the like were actually saved. But again UC is a parsimonious scheme which gives a very poor standard of living to those reliant upon it. Having given the extra money it seems extremely harsh to take it away again.

    Boris is indeed a spendthrift. He also wants the economy to recover strongly. I think that the UC and a significant pension increase will both be put on the credit card to boost consumption and help retail recover somewhat.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,541

    https://twitter.com/BenPBradshaw/status/1413359207575871488?s=20

    Labour just took an East Devon seat from the Conservatives for the first time in 35 years.

    Interesting!

    Actually they took the seat from the LibDems.
    Local politics of East Devon have ben hugely complicated by Independents fronted by Claire Wright, who were talked of as possibly taking the seat previously held by Hugo Swire, despite Labour and the LibDems losing their deposits. In the end Simon Jupp held on with a solid 6,800 majority. But that grouping may now be dismantling, allowing previous Labour and LibDem local strengths to resurface.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,009
    edited July 2021

    Good morning

    As a pensioner I have long said the triple lock is not sustainable

    The decision on UC is wrong

    And I doubt iSage will be promoting this survey but it is good news for children

    BBC News - Covid: Children's extremely low risk confirmed by study
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57766717

    On the last point they have moved their conversation onto long covid. I don't see any mention of that in the bbc piece.
    The point is children are at a low risk of covid so logic would conclude that the mantra of thousands of children suffering long covid is just not justified
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    An 8% rise for the OAPs and a 1% rise for the NHS staff will look odd. Especially if the NHS have been keeping the old gits alive.

    It won't happen.

    The only saving grace is that the low-hanging fruit have become the excess deaths of 2020. A lower pension bill than it would have been otherwise.

    PS I'm 71 and I've still got my own teeth.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    MattW said:

    It would help hugely if Johnson stopped splurging stupid amounts on vanity projects.

    The royal yacht is an example of a f-ing stupid piece of uncosted vanity. We've been here with Johnson many times before: bendy buses, water canons, cable cars, HS2. And don't forget he wanted to build a brand new London airport in the Thames estuary.

    He's a menace with money.

    HS2 can't really be called a Johnson vanity project. It was first devised under a Labour government with Brown as PM; planning progressed under Cameron with a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition; advanced groundworks started under May; and the full works under Johnson. The full scheme will probably be completed in two or three PM's time.

    And the airport in the Thames Estuary might actually be a good idea compared to the neverending Heathrow saga ... ;)

    Some people seem to instinctively hate infrastructure; any large project is expensive and often locally unpopular. Yet we'd have to think the state we'd be in if (say) the ecoloonies of the 1980s and 1990s at Newbury, Winchester etc had had their way with the motorway network in the 1960s. Or the railways in the 1830s to 1860s had been kyboshed by landed interests.

    Infrastructure isn't just for next year; or the next thirty years. It is for a hundred years and more.
    Bendy buses was a Livingstone project, I thought?

    HS2 is sensible, and necessary. By Adonis, and I say it though I can't stand the man. Cable cars, water cannons - maybe. Though demonstrations continue to be too out of control.

    Heathrow - fifty years later and it is still held up. Not really sure whether this is an issue; other EU countries, who we know are the advanced on the planet (cough) are building plenty of runways. Like HS2, the problem to building it is nimbies.
    On the buses subject - the new RouteMaster buses that Johnson ordered as Mayor of London are still in service. The bendy buses that they replaced (which had problems fitting in the London street plan) were sold off - most are out of service now I believe.

    One of the reasons that the new RouteMasters were ordered was to reduce the emissions in London - which were exceeding agreed limits in a number of areas.
    Indeed. The bendy buses were completely impractical and someone trying to be too clever by half. Replacing them with cleaner, working alternatives was entirely reasonable.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,948

    Alistair said:
    The parade of weirdos, no marks and sociopaths that have been touted at various times is fascinating: McVey, Raab, Shapps, Ruth, Hancock…
    I rate Raab. Am green on him for next Cons leader IIRC (along with, ahem, Hancock).

    All these people have been voted in via a democratic process and, were they to become Cons leader, would have a democratic mandate to be so.

    If this means that you decide to end your lifelong support of the Cons as a result then so be it.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,950

    malcolmg said:

    agingjb2 said:

    If our sole income were our two state pensions, triple locked or not, we would find life much more difficult.

    Given the paltry amount I would say impossible.
    2x basic state pension is around £1,000 per month. Assuming you have no mortgage to pay, that is a good amount of money.

    "paltry amount" suggests "out of touch"
    That folk living only on the state pension will have paid off a mortgage rather than continue paying rent is a bit of an assumption.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,950
    TOPPING said:

    Alistair said:
    The parade of weirdos, no marks and sociopaths that have been touted at various times is fascinating: McVey, Raab, Shapps, Ruth, Hancock…
    I rate Raab. Am green on him for next Cons leader IIRC (along with, ahem, Hancock).

    All these people have been voted in via a democratic process and, were they to become Cons leader, would have a democratic mandate to be so.

    If this means that you decide to end your lifelong support of the Cons as a result then so be it.
    You seem a bit hair triggery this fine morn..
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,569
    ClippP said:

    Hang on a moment, Mike!!!! The triple lock was a Lib Dem proposal at the time of the Coalition Government, which Cameron and Osborne were strongly opposed to, but the Lib Dems pushed hard on that one. This came after the miserly increase that Gordon Brown gave pensioners.

    Afterwards, once it was seen to be popular and a vote-winner, Cameron and Osborne grabbed all the credit..... and it was one of the reasons why the Conservatives did well in 2015.

    People need to remember that there is no consistency to be found in the Conservative Party. As young HY and others keep reminding us, the Conservative Party will and say whatever it takes to win an election and hang on to power. This is very cynical and two-faced of them, of course.

    As cynical and two-faced as being in favour of unlimited immigration but against housebuilding, or in favour of rail travel nationally but against it in Amersham?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,454

    malcolmg said:

    agingjb2 said:

    If our sole income were our two state pensions, triple locked or not, we would find life much more difficult.

    Given the paltry amount I would say impossible.
    2x basic state pension is around £1,000 per month. Assuming you have no mortgage to pay, that is a good amount of money.

    "paltry amount" suggests "out of touch"
    That folk living only on the state pension will have paid off a mortgage rather than continue paying rent is a bit of an assumption.
    Aye but you get housing benefit or similar if you are renting and unemployed past retirement age, do you not?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,009
    CD13 said:

    An 8% rise for the OAPs and a 1% rise for the NHS staff will look odd. Especially if the NHS have been keeping the old gits alive.

    It won't happen.

    The only saving grace is that the low-hanging fruit have become the excess deaths of 2020. A lower pension bill than it would have been otherwise.

    PS I'm 71 and I've still got my own teeth.

    And neither yourself or the rest of us pensioners are 'old gits' but much loved parents and grandparents

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,615

    Good morning

    As a pensioner I have long said the triple lock is not sustainable

    The decision on UC is wrong

    And I doubt iSage will be promoting this survey but it is good news for children

    BBC News - Covid: Children's extremely low risk confirmed by study
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57766717

    On the last point they have moved their conversation onto long covid. I don't see any mention of that in the bbc piece.
    The point is children are at a low risk of covid so logic would conclude that the mantra of thousands of children suffering long covid is just not justified
    I don't think that true. The ONS data does show long covid at its highest in 35-49 females, but significant rates in the teens:


  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 4,513

    MattW said:

    It would help hugely if Johnson stopped splurging stupid amounts on vanity projects.

    The royal yacht is an example of a f-ing stupid piece of uncosted vanity. We've been here with Johnson many times before: bendy buses, water canons, cable cars, HS2. And don't forget he wanted to build a brand new London airport in the Thames estuary.

    He's a menace with money.

    HS2 can't really be called a Johnson vanity project. It was first devised under a Labour government with Brown as PM; planning progressed under Cameron with a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition; advanced groundworks started under May; and the full works under Johnson. The full scheme will probably be completed in two or three PM's time.

    And the airport in the Thames Estuary might actually be a good idea compared to the neverending Heathrow saga ... ;)

    Some people seem to instinctively hate infrastructure; any large project is expensive and often locally unpopular. Yet we'd have to think the state we'd be in if (say) the ecoloonies of the 1980s and 1990s at Newbury, Winchester etc had had their way with the motorway network in the 1960s. Or the railways in the 1830s to 1860s had been kyboshed by landed interests.

    Infrastructure isn't just for next year; or the next thirty years. It is for a hundred years and more.
    Bendy buses was a Livingstone project, I thought?

    HS2 is sensible, and necessary. By Adonis, and I say it though I can't stand the man. Cable cars, water cannons - maybe. Though demonstrations continue to be too out of control.

    Heathrow - fifty years later and it is still held up. Not really sure whether this is an issue; other EU countries, who we know are the advanced on the planet (cough) are building plenty of runways. Like HS2, the problem to building it is nimbies.
    On the buses subject - the new RouteMaster buses that Johnson ordered as Mayor of London are still in service. The bendy buses that they replaced (which had problems fitting in the London street plan) were sold off - most are out of service now I believe.

    One of the reasons that the new RouteMasters were ordered was to reduce the emissions in London - which were exceeding agreed limits in a number of areas.
    Indeed. The bendy buses were completely impractical and someone trying to be too clever by half. Replacing them with cleaner, working alternatives was entirely reasonable.
    Bendy buses only work if you allow people to get on and off at the rear exit. And that won't work where there is a culture of fare-dodging.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,794

    CD13 said:

    An 8% rise for the OAPs and a 1% rise for the NHS staff will look odd. Especially if the NHS have been keeping the old gits alive.

    It won't happen.

    The only saving grace is that the low-hanging fruit have become the excess deaths of 2020. A lower pension bill than it would have been otherwise.

    PS I'm 71 and I've still got my own teeth.

    And neither yourself or the rest of us pensioners are 'old gits' but much loved parents and grandparents

    You can be both of course.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    MattW said:

    It would help hugely if Johnson stopped splurging stupid amounts on vanity projects.

    The royal yacht is an example of a f-ing stupid piece of uncosted vanity. We've been here with Johnson many times before: bendy buses, water canons, cable cars, HS2. And don't forget he wanted to build a brand new London airport in the Thames estuary.

    He's a menace with money.

    HS2 can't really be called a Johnson vanity project. It was first devised under a Labour government with Brown as PM; planning progressed under Cameron with a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition; advanced groundworks started under May; and the full works under Johnson. The full scheme will probably be completed in two or three PM's time.

    And the airport in the Thames Estuary might actually be a good idea compared to the neverending Heathrow saga ... ;)

    Some people seem to instinctively hate infrastructure; any large project is expensive and often locally unpopular. Yet we'd have to think the state we'd be in if (say) the ecoloonies of the 1980s and 1990s at Newbury, Winchester etc had had their way with the motorway network in the 1960s. Or the railways in the 1830s to 1860s had been kyboshed by landed interests.

    Infrastructure isn't just for next year; or the next thirty years. It is for a hundred years and more.
    Bendy buses was a Livingstone project, I thought?

    HS2 is sensible, and necessary. By Adonis, and I say it though I can't stand the man. Cable cars, water cannons - maybe. Though demonstrations continue to be too out of control.

    Heathrow - fifty years later and it is still held up. Not really sure whether this is an issue; other EU countries, who we know are the advanced on the planet (cough) are building plenty of runways. Like HS2, the problem to building it is nimbies.
    On the buses subject - the new RouteMaster buses that Johnson ordered as Mayor of London are still in service. The bendy buses that they replaced (which had problems fitting in the London street plan) were sold off - most are out of service now I believe.

    One of the reasons that the new RouteMasters were ordered was to reduce the emissions in London - which were exceeding agreed limits in a number of areas.
    Indeed. The bendy buses were completely impractical and someone trying to be too clever by half. Replacing them with cleaner, working alternatives was entirely reasonable.
    Bendy buses only work if you allow people to get on and off at the rear exit. And that won't work where there is a culture of fare-dodging.
    Wasn't there an issue with them at junctions and with cyclists too? Just going from memory but not sure if that was spin
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,076
    philiph said:

    It would be good to have the true cost.
    Many pensioers pay income tax at the basic rate, and a percentage at the higher rate.
    The true cost is pension out minus tax paid on pensions.
    The pensioners on lower incomes deserve the increase. Taxong it for better off pensioers strikes me as, to take a word from the previous thread, progressive.

    That's the key point, really. Those who only have the state pension need the increase; others, not so much.

    I'm one of the lucky ones who has an occupational pension as well. It's embarrassing, to say the least, that working people who fund it are struggling a lot more than I am.

    How it gets resolved is beyond me, but something needs to be done.

    Good morning, everyone.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    Mr Big G,

    Indeed. But logic should be objective, not subjective. I never claimed to be a politician.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,569

    MattW said:

    It would help hugely if Johnson stopped splurging stupid amounts on vanity projects.

    The royal yacht is an example of a f-ing stupid piece of uncosted vanity. We've been here with Johnson many times before: bendy buses, water canons, cable cars, HS2. And don't forget he wanted to build a brand new London airport in the Thames estuary.

    He's a menace with money.

    HS2 can't really be called a Johnson vanity project. It was first devised under a Labour government with Brown as PM; planning progressed under Cameron with a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition; advanced groundworks started under May; and the full works under Johnson. The full scheme will probably be completed in two or three PM's time.

    And the airport in the Thames Estuary might actually be a good idea compared to the neverending Heathrow saga ... ;)

    Some people seem to instinctively hate infrastructure; any large project is expensive and often locally unpopular. Yet we'd have to think the state we'd be in if (say) the ecoloonies of the 1980s and 1990s at Newbury, Winchester etc had had their way with the motorway network in the 1960s. Or the railways in the 1830s to 1860s had been kyboshed by landed interests.

    Infrastructure isn't just for next year; or the next thirty years. It is for a hundred years and more.
    Bendy buses was a Livingstone project, I thought?

    HS2 is sensible, and necessary. By Adonis, and I say it though I can't stand the man. Cable cars, water cannons - maybe. Though demonstrations continue to be too out of control.

    Heathrow - fifty years later and it is still held up. Not really sure whether this is an issue; other EU countries, who we know are the advanced on the planet (cough) are building plenty of runways. Like HS2, the problem to building it is nimbies.
    On the buses subject - the new RouteMaster buses that Johnson ordered as Mayor of London are still in service. The bendy buses that they replaced (which had problems fitting in the London street plan) were sold off - most are out of service now I believe.

    One of the reasons that the new RouteMasters were ordered was to reduce the emissions in London - which were exceeding agreed limits in a number of areas.
    Indeed. The bendy buses were completely impractical and someone trying to be too clever by half. Replacing them with cleaner, working alternatives was entirely reasonable.
    Bendy buses only work if you allow people to get on and off at the rear exit. And that won't work where there is a culture of fare-dodging.
    Wasn't there an issue with them at junctions and with cyclists too? Just going from memory but not sure if that was spin
    The cyclists issue, and their propsesity to self-combust.
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=ajGZv6KBixo
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,009
    CD13 said:

    Mr Big G,

    Indeed. But logic should be objective, not subjective. I never claimed to be a politician.

    I do agree and nor am I a politician, despite being asked on numerous occasions from the mid sixties until recently when I became old !!!!!!!!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Foxy said:

    Good morning

    As a pensioner I have long said the triple lock is not sustainable

    The decision on UC is wrong

    And I doubt iSage will be promoting this survey but it is good news for children

    BBC News - Covid: Children's extremely low risk confirmed by study
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57766717

    On the last point they have moved their conversation onto long covid. I don't see any mention of that in the bbc piece.
    The point is children are at a low risk of covid so logic would conclude that the mantra of thousands of children suffering long covid is just not justified
    I don't think that true. The ONS data does show long covid at its highest in 35-49 females, but significant rates in the teens:


    Looks like sub 1% for teens +12 weeks for me?

    Sub 12 weeks isn't really "long" even if it may feel it at the time.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,687
    DavidL said:

    State pensions in this country remain low by international comparisons. A boost to them would not be the worse thing in the world although the triple lock is a peculiarly foolish policy that should have been abandoned some time ago. I think that we will see a one off moderation of the policy but still a generous increase in the basic pension, say 4%. The triple lock does not apply to public sector pensions which are much more of a problem financially.

    Universal Credit is trickier. I was never particularly clear what the justification for the extra £20 a week was, It seemed to be a peak of we are all in this togetherness. It is not obvious what additional costs the unemployed actually incurred as a result of the pandemic. At the margins costs incurred by attending Job Centres and the like were actually saved. But again UC is a parsimonious scheme which gives a very poor standard of living to those reliant upon it. Having given the extra money it seems extremely harsh to take it away again.

    Boris is indeed a spendthrift. He also wants the economy to recover strongly. I think that the UC and a significant pension increase will both be put on the credit card to boost consumption and help retail recover somewhat.

    The UC decision was utterly illogical imho. It was like admitting that poverty campaigners had been right all along and you can't really live on UC levels. That didn't matter, seemed to be the logic, when it was a few 100K of unskilled people in on/off employment that no one care about, but when the number became larger and involved people who used a keyboard at work suddenly it mattered.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,077
    TOPPING said:

    The word "illegal" is your friend here.
    Not really, the bill defines what is illegal, and it is not a reasonable definition.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,009
    DavidL said:

    CD13 said:

    An 8% rise for the OAPs and a 1% rise for the NHS staff will look odd. Especially if the NHS have been keeping the old gits alive.

    It won't happen.

    The only saving grace is that the low-hanging fruit have become the excess deaths of 2020. A lower pension bill than it would have been otherwise.

    PS I'm 71 and I've still got my own teeth.

    And neither yourself or the rest of us pensioners are 'old gits' but much loved parents and grandparents

    You can be both of course.
    I would agree but hopefully the majority are not
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,569
    edited July 2021

    DavidL said:

    State pensions in this country remain low by international comparisons. A boost to them would not be the worse thing in the world although the triple lock is a peculiarly foolish policy that should have been abandoned some time ago. I think that we will see a one off moderation of the policy but still a generous increase in the basic pension, say 4%. The triple lock does not apply to public sector pensions which are much more of a problem financially.

    Universal Credit is trickier. I was never particularly clear what the justification for the extra £20 a week was, It seemed to be a peak of we are all in this togetherness. It is not obvious what additional costs the unemployed actually incurred as a result of the pandemic. At the margins costs incurred by attending Job Centres and the like were actually saved. But again UC is a parsimonious scheme which gives a very poor standard of living to those reliant upon it. Having given the extra money it seems extremely harsh to take it away again.

    Boris is indeed a spendthrift. He also wants the economy to recover strongly. I think that the UC and a significant pension increase will both be put on the credit card to boost consumption and help retail recover somewhat.

    The UC decision was utterly illogical imho. It was like admitting that poverty campaigners had been right all along and you can't really live on UC levels. That didn't matter, seemed to be the logic, when it was a few 100K of unskilled people in on/off employment that no one care about, but when the number became larger and involved people who used a keyboard at work suddenly it mattered.
    People forget that UC isn’t just unemployment benefit. More than half of households with children are claimants. 10m £20-a-week payments is a not insubstantial amount of money.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,767
    CD13 said:

    An 8% rise for the OAPs and a 1% rise for the NHS staff will look odd. Especially if the NHS have been keeping the old gits alive.

    It won't happen.

    The only saving grace is that the low-hanging fruit have become the excess deaths of 2020. A lower pension bill than it would have been otherwise.

    PS I'm 71 and I've still got my own teeth.

    In an ideal world pensioners would all be guaranteed a comfortable retirement at public expense. But when so many working age people, and especially, children, face poverty it does seem odd to be hosing one group with money while cutting spending elsewhere. Personally I would like to see the government switch its focus to children - they are the future of this country and ultimately will be paying everyone's pensions in the long run. Let's do everything we can for them to lead long, happy and productive lives.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,903
    Sandpit said:

    ClippP said:

    Hang on a moment, Mike!!!! The triple lock was a Lib Dem proposal at the time of the Coalition Government, which Cameron and Osborne were strongly opposed to, but the Lib Dems pushed hard on that one. This came after the miserly increase that Gordon Brown gave pensioners.

    Afterwards, once it was seen to be popular and a vote-winner, Cameron and Osborne grabbed all the credit..... and it was one of the reasons why the Conservatives did well in 2015.

    People need to remember that there is no consistency to be found in the Conservative Party. As young HY and others keep reminding us, the Conservative Party will and say whatever it takes to win an election and hang on to power. This is very cynical and two-faced of them, of course.

    As cynical and two-faced as being in favour of unlimited immigration but against housebuilding, or in favour of rail travel nationally but against it in Amersham?
    If you rely on Conservative Party handouts to tell you what Lib Dem policy is, Mr Sandpit, you are bound to come up with nonsense.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,948

    TOPPING said:

    Alistair said:
    The parade of weirdos, no marks and sociopaths that have been touted at various times is fascinating: McVey, Raab, Shapps, Ruth, Hancock…
    I rate Raab. Am green on him for next Cons leader IIRC (along with, ahem, Hancock).

    All these people have been voted in via a democratic process and, were they to become Cons leader, would have a democratic mandate to be so.

    If this means that you decide to end your lifelong support of the Cons as a result then so be it.
    You seem a bit hair triggery this fine morn..
    LOL ah did it come over like that? Moi? Not meant to.

    One of the reasons I felt uncomfortable at the wholesale condemnation of Trump was because tens of millions of Americans voted for him and to dismiss that out of hand struck me as (typically British) condescension. Same really for your list. Yep they are all better or worse to different degrees but people voted for them. And JRM for sure has come from a privileged position but Lisa Nandy hasn't. And both of them are MPs. As could you and I try to be if we wanted enough to be one.

    But yes, I'll take a chill pill.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,392
    Foxy said:

    Good morning

    As a pensioner I have long said the triple lock is not sustainable

    The decision on UC is wrong

    And I doubt iSage will be promoting this survey but it is good news for children

    BBC News - Covid: Children's extremely low risk confirmed by study
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57766717

    On the last point they have moved their conversation onto long covid. I don't see any mention of that in the bbc piece.
    The point is children are at a low risk of covid so logic would conclude that the mantra of thousands of children suffering long covid is just not justified
    I don't think that true. The ONS data does show long covid at its highest in 35-49 females, but significant rates in the teens:


    I’m not seeing the 20 to 30% long Covid that Pagel thinks is the rate. This is an issue for sure, and we probably should get on with rolling out vaccines to the U 18s but I can see arguments for not doing so.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,948
    Cicero said:

    TOPPING said:

    The word "illegal" is your friend here.
    Not really, the bill defines what is illegal, and it is not a reasonable definition.
    Democracy at work.

    General election => parliament => bills => definitions/laws.

    Anyone can change it any time they want. All they need is a parliamentary majority.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,767

    MattW said:

    It would help hugely if Johnson stopped splurging stupid amounts on vanity projects.

    The royal yacht is an example of a f-ing stupid piece of uncosted vanity. We've been here with Johnson many times before: bendy buses, water canons, cable cars, HS2. And don't forget he wanted to build a brand new London airport in the Thames estuary.

    He's a menace with money.

    HS2 can't really be called a Johnson vanity project. It was first devised under a Labour government with Brown as PM; planning progressed under Cameron with a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition; advanced groundworks started under May; and the full works under Johnson. The full scheme will probably be completed in two or three PM's time.

    And the airport in the Thames Estuary might actually be a good idea compared to the neverending Heathrow saga ... ;)

    Some people seem to instinctively hate infrastructure; any large project is expensive and often locally unpopular. Yet we'd have to think the state we'd be in if (say) the ecoloonies of the 1980s and 1990s at Newbury, Winchester etc had had their way with the motorway network in the 1960s. Or the railways in the 1830s to 1860s had been kyboshed by landed interests.

    Infrastructure isn't just for next year; or the next thirty years. It is for a hundred years and more.
    Bendy buses was a Livingstone project, I thought?

    HS2 is sensible, and necessary. By Adonis, and I say it though I can't stand the man. Cable cars, water cannons - maybe. Though demonstrations continue to be too out of control.

    Heathrow - fifty years later and it is still held up. Not really sure whether this is an issue; other EU countries, who we know are the advanced on the planet (cough) are building plenty of runways. Like HS2, the problem to building it is nimbies.
    On the buses subject - the new RouteMaster buses that Johnson ordered as Mayor of London are still in service. The bendy buses that they replaced (which had problems fitting in the London street plan) were sold off - most are out of service now I believe.

    One of the reasons that the new RouteMasters were ordered was to reduce the emissions in London - which were exceeding agreed limits in a number of areas.
    Indeed. The bendy buses were completely impractical and someone trying to be too clever by half. Replacing them with cleaner, working alternatives was entirely reasonable.
    Bendy buses only work if you allow people to get on and off at the rear exit. And that won't work where there is a culture of fare-dodging.
    Wasn't there an issue with them at junctions and with cyclists too? Just going from memory but not sure if that was spin
    I don't really hold a candle for bendy buses but it's perhaps worth noting that they are not uncommon in other countries, including some with a lot of cyclists. Perhaps those countries have better road infrastructure, though, or cyclists who are more used to them.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,950

    malcolmg said:

    agingjb2 said:

    If our sole income were our two state pensions, triple locked or not, we would find life much more difficult.

    Given the paltry amount I would say impossible.
    2x basic state pension is around £1,000 per month. Assuming you have no mortgage to pay, that is a good amount of money.

    "paltry amount" suggests "out of touch"
    That folk living only on the state pension will have paid off a mortgage rather than continue paying rent is a bit of an assumption.
    Aye but you get housing benefit or similar if you are renting and unemployed past retirement age, do you not?
    I believe so and council tax benefit, though it’s related to your income; I don’t know if it someone on the state pension alone would receive 100% benefit.
    I’d still contend a single person on c.£600 a month wouldn’t be looking on that as a good amount of money.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,046
    He might fly a kite about the triple lock, but even if he wants to do more Boris wouldn't dare let him do it - look at the fury of the WASPI crowd, and multiply it tenfold.

    No one wants to get into intergenerational conflict, but for politicians in power theres only one horse worth backing in such a contest.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,687
    Which is that while on the one hand it is just a sporting occasion, on another it is an opportunity where the hopes and dreams of a whole people come together – even for a moment.

    We all focus on the same ball, we all focus on the same goal. There is nothing bad about this. It reminds us that there can be things that unite us and that they should survive off the pitch as well as on it.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/08/englands-flag-waving-perfect-antidote-virus-wokedom/
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,615

    Which is that while on the one hand it is just a sporting occasion, on another it is an opportunity where the hopes and dreams of a whole people come together – even for a moment.

    We all focus on the same ball, we all focus on the same goal. There is nothing bad about this. It reminds us that there can be things that unite us and that they should survive off the pitch as well as on it.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/08/englands-flag-waving-perfect-antidote-virus-wokedom/

    Hmm, is that the same England team that so many "anti-Woke patriots" encourage us to boo prior to kickoff 🤔
This discussion has been closed.