Sunak needs to be creative.. How about freezing all public sector pay, pensions and benefits this year, but give everyone an 8% Covid booster cheque - effectively an extra month's payment. It would be expensive this year, but would keep the base expense at last year's level from which to give permanent pay rises next year.
Now expecting to be given lots of good reasons why this is a stupid idea!
I see the argument, but big-bang solutions are politically appealing but tend to be disruptive. The suspension of stamp duty turned out to be an expensive mistake IMO - main beneficiaries were existing house owners (who put up prices to compensate) and it produced a bubble of frantic sales which is now poised to deflate.
I think there are just two reasonable solutions - change to a double lock and take the electoral hit, or give them the raise but put up taxes/NI. The latter could in theory be wrapped into the social care plan which has been floating around.
So "big-bang solutions" aren't necessarily disruptive? You've made an argument against a different one which was, but it doesn't make it any clearer to me why my idea wouldn't work..
As I said, I'm expecting those wise heads who I come hear to read to tell me why it's daft
Keep the triple lock. The UK state pension is already the worst in the developed world.
The UK state pension comes bottom in a league table of net replacement rates for average earnings at just 28 per cent, according to an influential global pensions report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
This compares with a 59 per cent average across the 36 members of the international organisation of rich democratic countries analysed in its latest report
It won't when it gets to privateer pensioners of my age, when the final salary pensions of our parents era have all but evaporated.
A very, very high percentage of the over 40s have wholly inadequate pension provision. With personal hindsight my advice would be forego the monthly lease payments on the Discovery Sport ( it's killing the planet anyway ) exchange that for a £1000 Fiesta and put the savings into the pension pot.
I am in the "luxurious" position of being able to work until I drop. Without that I would be b*ll*xed, I suspect many others will be too!
Actually the UK has amongst the highest enrolled in workplace pensions in Europe now, which will make it easier for future generations.
France however has far fewer with private pensions and very costly state pensions Macron wants to cut
But a huge number of those workplace pensions are going to be worthless. The size of the pot you need to retire on is out of the reach of all these new schemes the Govt has encouraged. people are going to be very disappointed.
Given most pensioners own their own property and have no mortgage or rent to pay they don't need vast pensions, just enough to live on.
We will also be far better placed than most of Europe to cope as we have far higher workplace pension enrolment than they do and as Macron starts to cut the vast state pension bill in France
LOL. Have you any idea what these new workplace pensions will give you to live on?
I wasn't making any comparison with France. I was just pointing out that most of these new pensions will be next to worthless, and I don't mean a little less than they are currently getting so ok because they don't have a mortgage to pay, but actually next to worthless. Many will only be paying out the equivalent of the low tens of pounds a week.
Also while I think the figure is currently 72% of pensioners owning their own home expect that figure to drop over the next few decades as just as the figure for home ownership is.
By 40 most own their own home still and that percentage expands every decade after
Way to ignore the point....the percentage of people who own their own home is dropping. That will follow through to the percentage of those that retire owning their own home.
quote "People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997
If this trend persists into their older ages, in the future, older people will be more likely to be living in the private rental sector than today"
Yes, that's intriguing. There are two more variables in the mix, under-40 age and higher education, both of which have bewcome very strongly correlated with voting Labour, and which were also very strongly linked to voting Remain. Which is the chicken and which the egg?
It should be noted Cameron won graduates in 2010 and 2015 and Brown appealed more to the working class (more Leave) than Ed Miliband, Corbyn and Starmer did so I think Brexit is a factor but not the only one
Ok genuine question. I thought we had secret ballots in this country. I know that you can in fact identify who voted on each slip as there is a record taken, but I assumed it is not looked at. So how do we 'know' that Cameron won graduates in 2010 and 2015 etc? Is this just from polling, or from actual voting data? As I said - genuine question.
Exit polling and post election polling from Yougov and Mori.
A lot of it is down to how the ONS and Eurostat record exports. The pre and Post Brexit figures are calculated differently, and there is an increasing discrepancy between the two:
Yes, that's intriguing. There are two more variables in the mix, under-40 age and higher education, both of which have bewcome very strongly correlated with voting Labour, and which were also very strongly linked to voting Remain. Which is the chicken and which the egg?
It should be noted Cameron won graduates in 2010 and 2015 and Brown appealed more to the working class (more Leave) than Ed Miliband, Corbyn and Starmer did so I think Brexit is a factor but not the only one
Ok genuine question. I thought we had secret ballots in this country. I know that you can in fact identify who voted on each slip as there is a record taken, but I assumed it is not looked at. So how do we 'know' that Cameron won graduates in 2010 and 2015 etc? Is this just from polling, or from actual voting data? As I said - genuine question.
Exit polling and post election polling from Yougov and Mori.
Yes, that's intriguing. There are two more variables in the mix, under-40 age and higher education, both of which have bewcome very strongly correlated with voting Labour, and which were also very strongly linked to voting Remain. Which is the chicken and which the egg?
It should be noted Cameron won graduates in 2010 and 2015 and Brown appealed more to the working class (more Leave) than Ed Miliband, Corbyn and Starmer did so I think Brexit is a factor but not the only one
Ok genuine question. I thought we had secret ballots in this country. I know that you can in fact identify who voted on each slip as there is a record taken, but I assumed it is not looked at. So how do we 'know' that Cameron won graduates in 2010 and 2015 etc? Is this just from polling, or from actual voting data? As I said - genuine question.
Exit polling and post election polling from Yougov and Mori.
Proves nothing. You need to correct for the base vote. It's possible that every single one of the LD votes was a graduate, for instance, and none at all for Mr Farage's lot, or the other way round.
Keep the triple lock. The UK state pension is already the worst in the developed world.
The UK state pension comes bottom in a league table of net replacement rates for average earnings at just 28 per cent, according to an influential global pensions report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
This compares with a 59 per cent average across the 36 members of the international organisation of rich democratic countries analysed in its latest report
It won't when it gets to privateer pensioners of my age, when the final salary pensions of our parents era have all but evaporated.
A very, very high percentage of the over 40s have wholly inadequate pension provision. With personal hindsight my advice would be forego the monthly lease payments on the Discovery Sport ( it's killing the planet anyway ) exchange that for a £1000 Fiesta and put the savings into the pension pot.
I am in the "luxurious" position of being able to work until I drop. Without that I would be b*ll*xed, I suspect many others will be too!
Actually the UK has amongst the highest enrolled in workplace pensions in Europe now, which will make it easier for future generations.
France however has far fewer with private pensions and very costly state pensions Macron wants to cut
But a huge number of those workplace pensions are going to be worthless. The size of the pot you need to retire on is out of the reach of all these new schemes the Govt has encouraged. people are going to be very disappointed.
Given most pensioners own their own property and have no mortgage or rent to pay they don't need vast pensions, just enough to live on.
We will also be far better placed than most of Europe to cope as we have far higher workplace pension enrolment than they do and as Macron starts to cut the vast state pension bill in France
LOL. Have you any idea what these new workplace pensions will give you to live on?
I wasn't making any comparison with France. I was just pointing out that most of these new pensions will be next to worthless, and I don't mean a little less than they are currently getting so ok because they don't have a mortgage to pay, but actually next to worthless. Many will only be paying out the equivalent of the low tens of pounds a week.
Not sure that is true for someone starting out now, even on minimum wage throughout a career. 40-50 years of 8% of qualifying earnings (£1k ish?) invested in the market should give 2.5-4k per year annuity at 68.
Keep the triple lock. The UK state pension is already the worst in the developed world.
The UK state pension comes bottom in a league table of net replacement rates for average earnings at just 28 per cent, according to an influential global pensions report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
This compares with a 59 per cent average across the 36 members of the international organisation of rich democratic countries analysed in its latest report
It won't when it gets to privateer pensioners of my age, when the final salary pensions of our parents era have all but evaporated.
A very, very high percentage of the over 40s have wholly inadequate pension provision. With personal hindsight my advice would be forego the monthly lease payments on the Discovery Sport ( it's killing the planet anyway ) exchange that for a £1000 Fiesta and put the savings into the pension pot.
I am in the "luxurious" position of being able to work until I drop. Without that I would be b*ll*xed, I suspect many others will be too!
Actually the UK has amongst the highest enrolled in workplace pensions in Europe now, which will make it easier for future generations.
France however has far fewer with private pensions and very costly state pensions Macron wants to cut
But a huge number of those workplace pensions are going to be worthless. The size of the pot you need to retire on is out of the reach of all these new schemes the Govt has encouraged. people are going to be very disappointed.
Given most pensioners own their own property and have no mortgage or rent to pay they don't need vast pensions, just enough to live on.
We will also be far better placed than most of Europe to cope as we have far higher workplace pension enrolment than they do and as Macron starts to cut the vast state pension bill in France
LOL. Have you any idea what these new workplace pensions will give you to live on?
I wasn't making any comparison with France. I was just pointing out that most of these new pensions will be next to worthless, and I don't mean a little less than they are currently getting so ok because they don't have a mortgage to pay, but actually next to worthless. Many will only be paying out the equivalent of the low tens of pounds a week.
Also while I think the figure is currently 72% of pensioners owning their own home expect that figure to drop over the next few decades as just as the figure for home ownership is.
By 40 most own their own home still and that percentage expands every decade after
Way to ignore the point....the percentage of people who own their own home is dropping. That will follow through to the percentage of those that retire owning their own home.
quote "People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997
If this trend persists into their older ages, in the future, older people will be more likely to be living in the private rental sector than today"
Even on that chart only 28% of 35-44s were privately renting and that will decline further as they get older and more have saved enough for a deposit to buy
Prince Andrew: Refusal to talk to Epstein investigators ‘straining relations between UK and America’
… the lack of information-sharing had caused diplomatic strain, with US law enforcement and diplomats raising the matter with their British counterparts.
The lack of cooperation now spans three years of reported attempts by the US authorities to gather facts from the royal who, in a statement from 2019, said he would be willing to help US law-enforcement with investigations. However, in January last year, Manhattan US attorney Geoffrey Berman said the country’s authorities had received “zero cooperation” from the prince…
Of particular interest to the US authorities is how money transfers may be linked to the movement of young women and girls. The various interested bodies, including the FBI, believe these may offer insights into ongoing organised criminal operations.
The authorities’ interests are understood to include multiple trips by the royal to Epstein’s Caribbean island, Little St James, as well as Florida and New York. Last year, prosecutors in the US Virgin Islands, which includes Little St James, alleged Mr Epstein abused hundreds of young women and girls up until 2018.
Given the US refuse to hand over Anne Sacoolas tough. Biden is hardly doing a great deal to defend international security at the moment anyway nor has he or the Democrats in Congress ever been that interested in prioritising a UK trade deal either.
Perhaps they could also look a bit more into Bill Clinton and Bill Gates' links to Epstein before lecturing us
This Windsor scandal is clearly touching a raw Tory nerve. Hardly news. I expect a veritable infestation of squirrels in the coming months and years. Poor old Harry and Meghan.
Shame on you HY. If the Tories had an ounce of decency they would be encouraging the coward prince to get on a trans-Atlantic plane and face the charges, as he promised to do in 2019.
Given that Prince Andrew hasn't been charged with anything, exactly what are you talking about?
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
One wonders why you feel so at home as an English Nationalist and those that aren't, have resigned or been kicked out, if what you are saying is true.
Because its not true.
The ones who resigned or got kicked out were those who were European nationalists and couldn't cope with their grief at losing their European identity.
England wasn't here nor there for that.
What has Brexit got to do with European identity? Whether you like it or not, England/the UK is within the continent of Europe. We will always be European.
Even your mate BoJo said that when the referendum result came in. Your pathetic EDL-lite style posturing shows through in this post.
Perhaps you should ask yourself - but I am sure you don't care - why the Tory Party has abandoned so many people that voted for it for decades. And whether you think that's right.
Your naivety is astonishing.
What the heck has the continent of Europe got to do with being in the European Union?
Should those in Alberta or Quebec or Jalisco be considered Americans and join the United States of America?
That's got nothing to do with England, or EDL or anything else. If you're so childish and puerile as you consider that being in a continent means you must be part of a union then that's just farcical.
Anyway the Tory Party has not abandoned so many that voted for it for decades. The Tory Party got more voters than it has in decades. So yes I absolutely 100% think that's right and anyone so undemocratic as to like you equate Brexit with "EDL" or English nationalism absolutely should be told to take a cold shower until they stop being so silly.
Keep the triple lock. The UK state pension is already the worst in the developed world.
The UK state pension comes bottom in a league table of net replacement rates for average earnings at just 28 per cent, according to an influential global pensions report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
This compares with a 59 per cent average across the 36 members of the international organisation of rich democratic countries analysed in its latest report
It won't when it gets to privateer pensioners of my age, when the final salary pensions of our parents era have all but evaporated.
A very, very high percentage of the over 40s have wholly inadequate pension provision. With personal hindsight my advice would be forego the monthly lease payments on the Discovery Sport ( it's killing the planet anyway ) exchange that for a £1000 Fiesta and put the savings into the pension pot.
I am in the "luxurious" position of being able to work until I drop. Without that I would be b*ll*xed, I suspect many others will be too!
Actually the UK has amongst the highest enrolled in workplace pensions in Europe now, which will make it easier for future generations.
France however has far fewer with private pensions and very costly state pensions Macron wants to cut
But a huge number of those workplace pensions are going to be worthless. The size of the pot you need to retire on is out of the reach of all these new schemes the Govt has encouraged. people are going to be very disappointed.
Given most pensioners own their own property and have no mortgage or rent to pay they don't need vast pensions, just enough to live on.
We will also be far better placed than most of Europe to cope as we have far higher workplace pension enrolment than they do and as Macron starts to cut the vast state pension bill in France
LOL. Have you any idea what these new workplace pensions will give you to live on?
I wasn't making any comparison with France. I was just pointing out that most of these new pensions will be next to worthless, and I don't mean a little less than they are currently getting so ok because they don't have a mortgage to pay, but actually next to worthless. Many will only be paying out the equivalent of the low tens of pounds a week.
Well you should have been making a comparison with France as it is the huge deficit France has from its vast state pensions bill that is forcing Macron to make cuts while France is far behind us on the number enrolled in workplace pensions.
Workplace pensions come on top of the state pension of course and most pensioners have no mortgage, no rent to pay and no commute and train fares to pay either
You have completely missed the point HYUFD. I am not arguing with thrust of your argument (I am not saying I agree or disagree) and therefore I have no interest in the point you are making about France.
Simply put I was just, and only just, pointing out your statement about us having the highest numbers enrolled in workplace pensions was, although I assume accurate it was flawed, because a huge number of them are next to worthless in what they will provide (certainly do not cover loss of income even taking into account mortgages and commuting).
I was not making any wider judgement on your posts.
Sunak needs to be creative.. How about freezing all public sector pay, pensions and benefits this year, but give everyone an 8% Covid booster cheque - effectively an extra month's payment. It would be expensive this year, but would keep the base expense at last year's level from which to give permanent pay rises next year.
Now expecting to be given lots of good reasons why this is a stupid idea!
I see the argument, but big-bang solutions are politically appealing but tend to be disruptive. The suspension of stamp duty turned out to be an expensive mistake IMO - main beneficiaries were existing house owners (who put up prices to compensate) and it produced a bubble of frantic sales which is now poised to deflate.
I think there are just two reasonable solutions - change to a double lock and take the electoral hit, or give them the raise but put up taxes/NI. The latter could in theory be wrapped into the social care plan which has been floating around.
So "big-bang solutions" aren't necessarily disruptive? You've made an argument against a different one which was, but it doesn't make it any clearer to me why my idea wouldn't work..
As I said, I'm expecting those wise heads who I come hear to read to tell me why it's daft
Short term rush of people to public sector jobs and benefits, plus people lying about their age to claim boosted pensions, unravels next year with record departures from public sector and from benefits.
I jest, of course. Although an 8% boost might delay some departures from the public sector until next year. Hard to really see that as a problem though, unless pent-up departure demand caused a bit of a rentention crisis next year. An 8% uplift in benefits might also discourage some from taking a low paid job (less than 8% higher than baseline benefit income) until next year, I guess.
Inflationary pressure this year too, I guess, with the extra money sloshing around? Pressure on private sector employers to raise wages (again, is that a bad thing?). Plus the extra bill to the treasury, even as a one off thing.
Because in the 60s only the most motivated 2,000 in the country were taking the test, by the 90s it was in the tens of thousands of students, and now it is hundreds of thousands.
Sunak needs to be creative.. How about freezing all public sector pay, pensions and benefits this year, but give everyone an 8% Covid booster cheque - effectively an extra month's payment. It would be expensive this year, but would keep the base expense at last year's level from which to give permanent pay rises next year.
Now expecting to be given lots of good reasons why this is a stupid idea!
I see the argument, but big-bang solutions are politically appealing but tend to be disruptive. The suspension of stamp duty turned out to be an expensive mistake IMO - main beneficiaries were existing house owners (who put up prices to compensate) and it produced a bubble of frantic sales which is now poised to deflate.
I think there are just two reasonable solutions - change to a double lock and take the electoral hit, or give them the raise but put up taxes/NI. The latter could in theory be wrapped into the social care plan which has been floating around.
So "big-bang solutions" aren't necessarily disruptive? You've made an argument against a different one which was, but it doesn't make it any clearer to me why my idea wouldn't work..
As I said, I'm expecting those wise heads who I come hear to read to tell me why it's daft
I think my suggestions would be less disruptive. I don't think your idea is daft, but it would create a big burst of inflation as suddenly everyone would have a wodge of cash to spend and shops would react accordingly, just as house-owners did. In theory we'd all use it to pay off debt, save for our old age, etc., but in practice a lot of people would simply buy a new kitchen or go on an expensive holiday. Then after 6 months or so reality would bite as everyone would be back on their non-increased pay and prices would have gone up, so they would be worse off going forward (but with a new kitchen etc.). Shops would in due course respond to lower real incomes by bringing prices back down again, but the whole exercise would shake the economy around without really benefiting anyone, except for a short-term boost for Rishi.
‘Blood clots after Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine rare but devastating’
A breakthrough study lead by scientists in Oxford has revealed 'devastating' findings on blood clotting in some adults after Covid-19 vaccination.
… the overall mortality rate of patients with VITT was 23 per cent.
… "In those aged under 50, incidence is around one in 50,000 people who have received the vaccine. But our study shows that for those who develop VITT, it can be devastating. It often affects young, otherwise healthy vaccine recipients and has high mortality.
… Some 85 per cent of the patients studied were under the age of 60, despite most of the elderly population having been vaccinated.
Almost all of those presenting to hospital experienced the condition between five and 30 days after their first vaccination with the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine.
Messy reporting. Why is one number per 50,000 and the other per 100? The incidence rate is in under 50s but the death rate is in a sample where 15% are above 60. This cashes out as: your chances of dying, as an under 50 year old, are very significantly less than .00046% or 1 in 217,000 (assuming greater lethality among older populations). Wow.
Take it up with Dr Sue Pavord of Oxford University Hospitals (OUH) NHS Foundation Trust and/or the New England Journal of Medicine. The Oxford Mail is simply summarising their presentations.
No issue with Pavord, because it is possible to work out from what she is saying, what she is actually saying. It is the paper which has failed to state the position as per my previous post. If I can, they should be able to.
I long ago realised that journalists don’t work like that. They are lazy, and will simply copy and paste from source material, eg press releases. Then tweak a bit. Getting out a calculator is too much like hard work, and what if they do the sum wrong? How embarrassing.
We don't have journalists now, we have reporters who only pass on propaganda handed to them.
Whilst this is largely true Malcolm I am not sure that it is their fault. Proper journalists had genuine knowledge of their field, they ideally had some practical experience, they knew who were reliable sources of information and who were not and they could identify when they were being spun a line. The problem is that someone so narrowly focused is unlikely to make a living in the current media where there is a need for constant output with a very small return per piece. There is also the problem that knowing a fair bit about your material makes you realise that most stories are not as exciting as they first appear.
The Times still has some proper journalists like this. The FT also, in a narrower field. No one else has the money to maintain them. Free internet news has had some upsides but there are downsides too.
As with most categories of human endeavour (probably including our own comments here), Sturgeon's Law tends to apply.
Well, ninety percent of everything the UK government does is crap.
But not sure that ninety percent of everything the Covid vaccine boffins do is crap. At least, I bloody well hope not.
And at the other end of the scale, and back to the original point, I’d say that well over 90% of what passes for “journalism” is crap. I feel sorry for the few competent, conscientious ones out there, mired in a sea of utter guff.
If you've any knowledge of the biotech industry you'll realise that a large majority of programs result in failure. And the successful new vaccines were built on the back of successive prior failures. But you're right that science is a bit different from other endeavours, since it's a system which is designed to deliver results which will be invalidated by others if wrong.
Prince Andrew: Refusal to talk to Epstein investigators ‘straining relations between UK and America’
… the lack of information-sharing had caused diplomatic strain, with US law enforcement and diplomats raising the matter with their British counterparts.
The lack of cooperation now spans three years of reported attempts by the US authorities to gather facts from the royal who, in a statement from 2019, said he would be willing to help US law-enforcement with investigations. However, in January last year, Manhattan US attorney Geoffrey Berman said the country’s authorities had received “zero cooperation” from the prince…
Of particular interest to the US authorities is how money transfers may be linked to the movement of young women and girls. The various interested bodies, including the FBI, believe these may offer insights into ongoing organised criminal operations.
The authorities’ interests are understood to include multiple trips by the royal to Epstein’s Caribbean island, Little St James, as well as Florida and New York. Last year, prosecutors in the US Virgin Islands, which includes Little St James, alleged Mr Epstein abused hundreds of young women and girls up until 2018.
Given the US refuse to hand over Anne Sacoolas tough.
Perhaps they could also look a bit more into Bill Clinton and Bill Gates' links to Epstein before lecturing us
This Windsor scandal is clearly touching a raw Tory nerve. Hardly news. I expect a veritable infestation of squirrels in the coming months and years. Poor old Harry and Meghan.
Shame on you HY. If the Tories had an ounce of decency they would be encouraging the coward prince to get on a trans-Atlantic plane and face the charges, as he promised to do in 2019.
1. The US criminal authorities have charged Ghislaine Maxwell. As part of that they may be seeking evidence from Andrew as a potential witness. There is no necessity for him to fly to the US to do this. He would be well advised not to in any case until the basis on which such discussions are had is clear & there is clear agreement on what use can & cannot be made of whatever he says. This is because there are various protections in law - both English & the US - and everyone is entitled to use them. There are dangers in volunteering evidence without doing so. There are also issues for the US authorities because evidence gathered in such a way may not be admissible in any subsequent trial
Believe me, I have advised a number of people in similar circumstances & any good lawyer would be very wary about telling a client to go to the US to speak to the criminal authorities there just because they ask.
The US authorities - whether criminal or regulatory - are very willing to grandstand in public to bully people into ignoring their rights. They will often try to ignore different legal requirements in overseas jurisdictions because (a) it is just plain inconvenient for them or (b) it stops them doing what they want.
2. The US criminal authorities have not charged Andrew with anything. Extradition is irrelevant.
3. He now faces a civil suit in the US - brought just before the limitation period expires. It is not entirely clear whether the allegation is that he had sex with a minor or had sex with someone over the age of consent without her consent (rape, in other words) or something else. There is an issue as to jurisdiction because the acts complained of, AFAIU, happened in the UK.
It really does not matter whether he is an HRH or not. He is entitled to the same legal protections as everyone else including the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. There is something unseemly in the way that people rush to assume that because he appears to be an entitled twit he must therefore be guilty of serious crimes. Some of the comments made about him on social media are seriously defamatory. Equally, he is subject to the law as everyone else.
There will be strategic & tactical decisions which his lawyers will have to consider. In addition, he - and his advisors - need to consider the impact of his behaviour on the rest of his family.
Much of what is written in the papers about this is ill-informed nonsense.
I have no idea who is telling the truth here. I do think Andrew was ill-advised to give that interview. But in any event, the matter is now in the hands of the lawyers and, from what I know, some of those advising him are very good indeed. I hope for his sake that he listens to good advice. He clearly hasn't in the past.
You'd have thought courtiers or someone might have warned him about Epstein. But there again Epstein managed to get into his orbit people far far cleverer than Andrew - Clinton, Gates etc. So what does that say about them?
I had to look this up because the article had no actual facts and I was confused as to what blue hydrogen was.
So to those of you here who have the appropriate knowledge can someone explain why on earth you would want to produce hydrogen from methane for environmental reasons. I can see it might be the way to produce it commercially, but no reason to produce it for environmental reasons as you still have to do carbon capture. Might as well burn any old crap and do carbon capture in that case.
Electrolysis of water from renewable energy makes sense (environmentally if not economically) as there is no carbon emission.
Is it a case of politicians just hearing the word that burning Hydrogen is carbon free and don't think about any carbon emitted in producing it?
I don't think it's a good idea, but I think the idea would be that it would be easier to capture the carbon from a central plant that produced hydrogen from methane, than if you burn the methane in every individual home.
Prince Andrew: Refusal to talk to Epstein investigators ‘straining relations between UK and America’
… the lack of information-sharing had caused diplomatic strain, with US law enforcement and diplomats raising the matter with their British counterparts.
The lack of cooperation now spans three years of reported attempts by the US authorities to gather facts from the royal who, in a statement from 2019, said he would be willing to help US law-enforcement with investigations. However, in January last year, Manhattan US attorney Geoffrey Berman said the country’s authorities had received “zero cooperation” from the prince…
Of particular interest to the US authorities is how money transfers may be linked to the movement of young women and girls. The various interested bodies, including the FBI, believe these may offer insights into ongoing organised criminal operations.
The authorities’ interests are understood to include multiple trips by the royal to Epstein’s Caribbean island, Little St James, as well as Florida and New York. Last year, prosecutors in the US Virgin Islands, which includes Little St James, alleged Mr Epstein abused hundreds of young women and girls up until 2018.
Given the US refuse to hand over Anne Sacoolas tough.
Perhaps they could also look a bit more into Bill Clinton and Bill Gates' links to Epstein before lecturing us
This Windsor scandal is clearly touching a raw Tory nerve. Hardly news. I expect a veritable infestation of squirrels in the coming months and years. Poor old Harry and Meghan.
Shame on you HY. If the Tories had an ounce of decency they would be encouraging the coward prince to get on a trans-Atlantic plane and face the charges, as he promised to do in 2019.
1. The US criminal authorities have charged Ghislaine Maxwell. As part of that they may be seeking evidence from Andrew as a potential witness. There is no necessity for him to fly to the US to do this. He would be well advised not to in any case until the basis on which such discussions are had is clear & there is clear agreement on what use can & cannot be made of whatever he says. This is because there are various protections in law - both English & the US - and everyone is entitled to use them. There are dangers in volunteering evidence without doing so. There are also issues for the US authorities because evidence gathered in such a way may not be admissible in any subsequent trial
Believe me, I have advised a number of people in similar circumstances & any good lawyer would be very wary about telling a client to go to the US to speak to the criminal authorities there just because they ask.
The US authorities - whether criminal or regulatory - are very willing to grandstand in public to bully people into ignoring their rights. They will often try to ignore different legal requirements in overseas jurisdictions because (a) it is just plain inconvenient for them or (b) it stops them doing what they want.
2. The US criminal authorities have not charged Andrew with anything. Extradition is irrelevant.
3. He now faces a civil suit in the US - brought just before the limitation period expires. It is not entirely clear whether the allegation is that he had sex with a minor or had sex with someone over the age of consent without her consent (rape, in other words) or something else. There is an issue as to jurisdiction because the acts complained of, AFAIU, happened in the UK.
It really does not matter whether he is an HRH or not. He is entitled to the same legal protections as everyone else including the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. There is something unseemly in the way that people rush to assume that because he appears to be an entitled twit he must therefore be guilty of serious crimes. Some of the comments made about him on social media are seriously defamatory. Equally, he is subject to the law as everyone else.
There will be strategic & tactical decisions which his lawyers will have to consider. In addition, he - and his advisors - need to consider the impact of his behaviour on the rest of his family.
Much of what is written in the papers about this is ill-informed nonsense.
I have no idea who is telling the truth here. I do think Andrew was ill-advised to give that interview. But in any event, the matter is now in the hands of the lawyers and, from what I know, some of those advising him are very good indeed. I hope for his sake that he listens to good advice. He clearly hasn't in the past.
You'd have thought courtiers or someone might have warned him about Epstein. But there again Epstein managed to get into his orbit people far far cleverer than Andrew - Clinton, Gates etc. So what does that say about them?
One of the many depressing things about Epstein is that his whole career was a tissue of lies and fantasies and yet somehow he persuaded some very bright people to overlook that. His whole fortune that allowed him to get away with so much for so long was built on his fraudulently claiming qualifications and experience he didn’t have for a first job yet even when he was found out, he wasn’t fired because he was so eloquent in his defence.
His ability to deceive and manipulate was really quite extraordinary and that was one reason he got away with so much.
Interesting notes at the bottom - a statistical minefield. A change of methodology, assumptions replacing data, and it seems very unclear about NI - for "UK" read "GB". As an export from GB to NI is an export to the "EU" is that in here...?
Sunak needs to be creative.. How about freezing all public sector pay, pensions and benefits this year, but give everyone an 8% Covid booster cheque - effectively an extra month's payment. It would be expensive this year, but would keep the base expense at last year's level from which to give permanent pay rises next year.
Now expecting to be given lots of good reasons why this is a stupid idea!
I see the argument, but big-bang solutions are politically appealing but tend to be disruptive. The suspension of stamp duty turned out to be an expensive mistake IMO - main beneficiaries were existing house owners (who put up prices to compensate) and it produced a bubble of frantic sales which is now poised to deflate.
I think there are just two reasonable solutions - change to a double lock and take the electoral hit, or give them the raise but put up taxes/NI. The latter could in theory be wrapped into the social care plan which has been floating around.
So "big-bang solutions" aren't necessarily disruptive? You've made an argument against a different one which was, but it doesn't make it any clearer to me why my idea wouldn't work..
As I said, I'm expecting those wise heads who I come hear to read to tell me why it's daft
I think my suggestions would be less disruptive. I don't think your idea is daft, but it would create a big burst of inflation as suddenly everyone would have a wodge of cash to spend and shops would react accordingly, just as house-owners did. In theory we'd all use it to pay off debt, save for our old age, etc., but in practice a lot of people would simply buy a new kitchen or go on an expensive holiday. Then after 6 months or so reality would bite as everyone would be back on their non-increased pay and prices would have gone up, so they would be worse off going forward (but with a new kitchen etc.). Shops would in due course respond to lower real incomes by bringing prices back down again, but the whole exercise would shake the economy around without really benefiting anyone, except for a short-term boost for Rishi.
Ironically, HMT would probably prefer people to spend any sudden windfall, especially while they cannot easily export it by taking a week in Magaluf. Paying off debt might be better for the long term but in the short term, we'd get an economic stimulus and Rishi would be a step closer to Number 10. The downside might be political rather than economic – that people would see it as designed to make fools of them.
Why in 1963 did only 284 people sit it and in 2019 it was 270,000?
Might that have a bearing on it? More people sitting it on spec?
That seems to be a good enough reason 👍🏻
Although, in the 60s how many people got three As in A level compared to now? Is that ratio 1:1000?
Comparatively few people sat A-levels in the 1960s (only 20% sat O-levels, for example) as with the CFA BUT they were designed very differently so comparisons would be somewhat misleading.
The roughly equivalent figure would be that in 1972 43% of children left school at 15 with no qualifications at all, whereas in 2019 33% left without the five grades at 4 or above. However, this does reflect the fact that all students now sit them whereas in 1972 quite a number simply didn’t bother.
Sunak needs to be creative.. How about freezing all public sector pay, pensions and benefits this year, but give everyone an 8% Covid booster cheque - effectively an extra month's payment. It would be expensive this year, but would keep the base expense at last year's level from which to give permanent pay rises next year.
Now expecting to be given lots of good reasons why this is a stupid idea!
I see the argument, but big-bang solutions are politically appealing but tend to be disruptive. The suspension of stamp duty turned out to be an expensive mistake IMO - main beneficiaries were existing house owners (who put up prices to compensate) and it produced a bubble of frantic sales which is now poised to deflate.
I think there are just two reasonable solutions - change to a double lock and take the electoral hit, or give them the raise but put up taxes/NI. The latter could in theory be wrapped into the social care plan which has been floating around.
So "big-bang solutions" aren't necessarily disruptive? You've made an argument against a different one which was, but it doesn't make it any clearer to me why my idea wouldn't work..
As I said, I'm expecting those wise heads who I come hear to read to tell me why it's daft
I think my suggestions would be less disruptive. I don't think your idea is daft, but it would create a big burst of inflation as suddenly everyone would have a wodge of cash to spend and shops would react accordingly, just as house-owners did. In theory we'd all use it to pay off debt, save for our old age, etc., but in practice a lot of people would simply buy a new kitchen or go on an expensive holiday. Then after 6 months or so reality would bite as everyone would be back on their non-increased pay and prices would have gone up, so they would be worse off going forward (but with a new kitchen etc.). Shops would in due course respond to lower real incomes by bringing prices back down again, but the whole exercise would shake the economy around without really benefiting anyone, except for a short-term boost for Rishi.
Ironically, HMT would probably prefer people to spend any sudden windfall, especially while they cannot easily export it by taking a week in Magaluf. Paying off debt might be better for the long term but in the short term, we'd get an economic stimulus and Rishi would be a step closer to Number 10. The downside might be political rather than economic – that people would see it as designed to make fools of them.
Given the current rate of inflation and supply issues that already exist, HMT would prefer not to feed the existing issues and make them worse.
Keep the triple lock. The UK state pension is already the worst in the developed world.
The UK state pension comes bottom in a league table of net replacement rates for average earnings at just 28 per cent, according to an influential global pensions report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
This compares with a 59 per cent average across the 36 members of the international organisation of rich democratic countries analysed in its latest report
It won't when it gets to privateer pensioners of my age, when the final salary pensions of our parents era have all but evaporated.
A very, very high percentage of the over 40s have wholly inadequate pension provision. With personal hindsight my advice would be forego the monthly lease payments on the Discovery Sport ( it's killing the planet anyway ) exchange that for a £1000 Fiesta and put the savings into the pension pot.
I am in the "luxurious" position of being able to work until I drop. Without that I would be b*ll*xed, I suspect many others will be too!
Actually the UK has amongst the highest enrolled in workplace pensions in Europe now, which will make it easier for future generations.
France however has far fewer with private pensions and very costly state pensions Macron wants to cut
But a huge number of those workplace pensions are going to be worthless. The size of the pot you need to retire on is out of the reach of all these new schemes the Govt has encouraged. people are going to be very disappointed.
Given most pensioners own their own property and have no mortgage or rent to pay they don't need vast pensions, just enough to live on.
We will also be far better placed than most of Europe to cope as we have far higher workplace pension enrolment than they do and as Macron starts to cut the vast state pension bill in France
LOL. Have you any idea what these new workplace pensions will give you to live on?
I wasn't making any comparison with France. I was just pointing out that most of these new pensions will be next to worthless, and I don't mean a little less than they are currently getting so ok because they don't have a mortgage to pay, but actually next to worthless. Many will only be paying out the equivalent of the low tens of pounds a week.
Well you should have been making a comparison with France as it is the huge deficit France has from its vast state pensions bill that is forcing Macron to make cuts while France is far behind us on the number enrolled in workplace pensions.
Workplace pensions come on top of the state pension of course and most pensioners have no mortgage, no rent to pay and no commute and train fares to pay either
You have completely missed the point HYUFD. I am not arguing with thrust of your argument (I am not saying I agree or disagree) and therefore I have no interest in the point you are making about France.
Simply put I was just, and only just, pointing out your statement about us having the highest numbers enrolled in workplace pensions was, although I assume accurate it was flawed, because a huge number of them are next to worthless in what they will provide (certainly do not cover loss of income even taking into account mortgages and commuting).
I was not making any wider judgement on your posts.
On top of state pensions however as most of Europe has to slash its state pensions bill overall in future decades our pensioners will likely be better off.
By definition if you are on a pension you will be on lower income than you were working (even with lower costs), if you want a higher income stay working or pay more into your private pension which you are perfectly entitled to do
Keep the triple lock. The UK state pension is already the worst in the developed world.
The UK state pension comes bottom in a league table of net replacement rates for average earnings at just 28 per cent, according to an influential global pensions report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
This compares with a 59 per cent average across the 36 members of the international organisation of rich democratic countries analysed in its latest report
It won't when it gets to privateer pensioners of my age, when the final salary pensions of our parents era have all but evaporated.
A very, very high percentage of the over 40s have wholly inadequate pension provision. With personal hindsight my advice would be forego the monthly lease payments on the Discovery Sport ( it's killing the planet anyway ) exchange that for a £1000 Fiesta and put the savings into the pension pot.
I am in the "luxurious" position of being able to work until I drop. Without that I would be b*ll*xed, I suspect many others will be too!
Actually the UK has amongst the highest enrolled in workplace pensions in Europe now, which will make it easier for future generations.
France however has far fewer with private pensions and very costly state pensions Macron wants to cut
But a huge number of those workplace pensions are going to be worthless. The size of the pot you need to retire on is out of the reach of all these new schemes the Govt has encouraged. people are going to be very disappointed.
Given most pensioners own their own property and have no mortgage or rent to pay they don't need vast pensions, just enough to live on.
We will also be far better placed than most of Europe to cope as we have far higher workplace pension enrolment than they do and as Macron starts to cut the vast state pension bill in France
LOL. Have you any idea what these new workplace pensions will give you to live on?
I wasn't making any comparison with France. I was just pointing out that most of these new pensions will be next to worthless, and I don't mean a little less than they are currently getting so ok because they don't have a mortgage to pay, but actually next to worthless. Many will only be paying out the equivalent of the low tens of pounds a week.
Also while I think the figure is currently 72% of pensioners owning their own home expect that figure to drop over the next few decades as just as the figure for home ownership is.
By 40 most own their own home still and that percentage expands every decade after
Way to ignore the point....the percentage of people who own their own home is dropping. That will follow through to the percentage of those that retire owning their own home.
quote "People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997
If this trend persists into their older ages, in the future, older people will be more likely to be living in the private rental sector than today"
The percentage of people born in (say) 1980 who have a mortgage or have paid off their mortgage will increase over time.
The percentage of people born in 1980 who own their own home will never reach the levels of those born in (say) 1950.
As you pay off a mortgage, your domestic finances steadily become easier and easier, because you lock in the price of the house as it was a decade or two ago. Hence the mutual incomprehension between generations either side of that gap.
The short-term opportunity, long-term challenge for the Conservatives is that they are becoming the party of those with lots of property wealth and enough pension income to be comfortable, which doesn't take all that much. Take a look at these graphs from the British Election Study of the 2019 election;
Amongst working-age people, Labour were ahead (even in 2019!) amongst voters with household incomes up to about 30k (working working-class, if you like), and competitive up to 70k or so (working middle-class). As has been pointed out before, the Conservative triumph of 2019 was underpinned by retired people- retired working-class and retired middle-class alike. And whilst retired people are people like any others, OGH Jr has noted that countries run according to the interests of the retired (Japan, Italy) tend not to thrive.
And that's the knot that the government needs to untangle in dealing with the triple lock.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
One wonders why you feel so at home as an English Nationalist and those that aren't, have resigned or been kicked out, if what you are saying is true.
Because its not true.
The ones who resigned or got kicked out were those who were European nationalists and couldn't cope with their grief at losing their European identity.
England wasn't here nor there for that.
What has Brexit got to do with European identity? Whether you like it or not, England/the UK is within the continent of Europe. We will always be European.
Even your mate BoJo said that when the referendum result came in. Your pathetic EDL-lite style posturing shows through in this post.
Perhaps you should ask yourself - but I am sure you don't care - why the Tory Party has abandoned so many people that voted for it for decades. And whether you think that's right.
Your naivety is astonishing.
What the heck has the continent of Europe got to do with being in the European Union?
Should those in Alberta or Quebec or Jalisco be considered Americans and join the United States of America?
That's got nothing to do with England, or EDL or anything else. If you're so childish and puerile as you consider that being in a continent means you must be part of a union then that's just farcical.
Anyway the Tory Party has not abandoned so many that voted for it for decades. The Tory Party got more voters than it has in decades. So yes I absolutely 100% think that's right and anyone so undemocratic as to like you equate Brexit with "EDL" or English nationalism absolutely should be told to take a cold shower until they stop being so silly.
These isles are european. We are directly a result of waves of forced migrations and even name England after one of the germanic tribes. We had germans then Vikings then Normans then French then Dutch then German monarchs.
Yet despite this we're not and never have been European. The empire, and our endless wars against the French and Germans and Dutch have seen to that. We like them, but we aren't them. We have more affinity with the places we shipped our convicts to and the rebellious colonists over the Atlantic.
Prince Andrew: Refusal to talk to Epstein investigators ‘straining relations between UK and America’
… the lack of information-sharing had caused diplomatic strain, with US law enforcement and diplomats raising the matter with their British counterparts.
The lack of cooperation now spans three years of reported attempts by the US authorities to gather facts from the royal who, in a statement from 2019, said he would be willing to help US law-enforcement with investigations. However, in January last year, Manhattan US attorney Geoffrey Berman said the country’s authorities had received “zero cooperation” from the prince…
Of particular interest to the US authorities is how money transfers may be linked to the movement of young women and girls. The various interested bodies, including the FBI, believe these may offer insights into ongoing organised criminal operations.
The authorities’ interests are understood to include multiple trips by the royal to Epstein’s Caribbean island, Little St James, as well as Florida and New York. Last year, prosecutors in the US Virgin Islands, which includes Little St James, alleged Mr Epstein abused hundreds of young women and girls up until 2018.
Given the US refuse to hand over Anne Sacoolas tough.
Perhaps they could also look a bit more into Bill Clinton and Bill Gates' links to Epstein before lecturing us
This Windsor scandal is clearly touching a raw Tory nerve. Hardly news. I expect a veritable infestation of squirrels in the coming months and years. Poor old Harry and Meghan.
Shame on you HY. If the Tories had an ounce of decency they would be encouraging the coward prince to get on a trans-Atlantic plane and face the charges, as he promised to do in 2019.
1. The US criminal authorities have charged Ghislaine Maxwell. As part of that they may be seeking evidence from Andrew as a potential witness. There is no necessity for him to fly to the US to do this. He would be well advised not to in any case until the basis on which such discussions are had is clear & there is clear agreement on what use can & cannot be made of whatever he says. This is because there are various protections in law - both English & the US - and everyone is entitled to use them. There are dangers in volunteering evidence without doing so. There are also issues for the US authorities because evidence gathered in such a way may not be admissible in any subsequent trial
Believe me, I have advised a number of people in similar circumstances & any good lawyer would be very wary about telling a client to go to the US to speak to the criminal authorities there just because they ask.
The US authorities - whether criminal or regulatory - are very willing to grandstand in public to bully people into ignoring their rights. They will often try to ignore different legal requirements in overseas jurisdictions because (a) it is just plain inconvenient for them or (b) it stops them doing what they want.
2. The US criminal authorities have not charged Andrew with anything. Extradition is irrelevant.
3. He now faces a civil suit in the US - brought just before the limitation period expires. It is not entirely clear whether the allegation is that he had sex with a minor or had sex with someone over the age of consent without her consent (rape, in other words) or something else. There is an issue as to jurisdiction because the acts complained of, AFAIU, happened in the UK.
It really does not matter whether he is an HRH or not. He is entitled to the same legal protections as everyone else including the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. There is something unseemly in the way that people rush to assume that because he appears to be an entitled twit he must therefore be guilty of serious crimes. Some of the comments made about him on social media are seriously defamatory. Equally, he is subject to the law as everyone else.
There will be strategic & tactical decisions which his lawyers will have to consider. In addition, he - and his advisors - need to consider the impact of his behaviour on the rest of his family.
Much of what is written in the papers about this is ill-informed nonsense.
I have no idea who is telling the truth here. I do think Andrew was ill-advised to give that interview. But in any event, the matter is now in the hands of the lawyers and, from what I know, some of those advising him are very good indeed. I hope for his sake that he listens to good advice. He clearly hasn't in the past.
You'd have thought courtiers or someone might have warned him about Epstein. But there again Epstein managed to get into his orbit people far far cleverer than Andrew - Clinton, Gates etc. So what does that say about them?
One of the many depressing things about Epstein is that his whole career was a tissue of lies and fantasies and yet somehow he persuaded some very bright people to overlook that. His whole fortune that allowed him to get away with so much for so long was built on his fraudulently claiming qualifications and experience he didn’t have for a first job yet even when he was found out, he wasn’t fired because he was so eloquent in his defence.
His ability to deceive and manipulate was really quite extraordinary and that was one reason he got away with so much.
The ability to deceive and manipulate at the highest levels of public life seems increasingly ordinary rather than extraordinary.
Keep the triple lock. The UK state pension is already the worst in the developed world.
The UK state pension comes bottom in a league table of net replacement rates for average earnings at just 28 per cent, according to an influential global pensions report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
This compares with a 59 per cent average across the 36 members of the international organisation of rich democratic countries analysed in its latest report
It won't when it gets to privateer pensioners of my age, when the final salary pensions of our parents era have all but evaporated.
A very, very high percentage of the over 40s have wholly inadequate pension provision. With personal hindsight my advice would be forego the monthly lease payments on the Discovery Sport ( it's killing the planet anyway ) exchange that for a £1000 Fiesta and put the savings into the pension pot.
I am in the "luxurious" position of being able to work until I drop. Without that I would be b*ll*xed, I suspect many others will be too!
Actually the UK has amongst the highest enrolled in workplace pensions in Europe now, which will make it easier for future generations.
France however has far fewer with private pensions and very costly state pensions Macron wants to cut
But a huge number of those workplace pensions are going to be worthless. The size of the pot you need to retire on is out of the reach of all these new schemes the Govt has encouraged. people are going to be very disappointed.
Given most pensioners own their own property and have no mortgage or rent to pay they don't need vast pensions, just enough to live on.
We will also be far better placed than most of Europe to cope as we have far higher workplace pension enrolment than they do and as Macron starts to cut the vast state pension bill in France
LOL. Have you any idea what these new workplace pensions will give you to live on?
I wasn't making any comparison with France. I was just pointing out that most of these new pensions will be next to worthless, and I don't mean a little less than they are currently getting so ok because they don't have a mortgage to pay, but actually next to worthless. Many will only be paying out the equivalent of the low tens of pounds a week.
Also while I think the figure is currently 72% of pensioners owning their own home expect that figure to drop over the next few decades as just as the figure for home ownership is.
By 40 most own their own home still and that percentage expands every decade after
Way to ignore the point....the percentage of people who own their own home is dropping. That will follow through to the percentage of those that retire owning their own home.
quote "People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997
If this trend persists into their older ages, in the future, older people will be more likely to be living in the private rental sector than today"
The percentage of people born in (say) 1980 who have a mortgage or have paid off their mortgage will increase over time.
The percentage of people born in 1980 who own their own home will never reach the levels of those born in (say) 1950.
As you pay off a mortgage, your domestic finances steadily become easier and easier, because you lock in the price of the house as it was a decade or two ago. Hence the mutual incomprehension between generations either side of that gap.
The short-term opportunity, long-term challenge for the Conservatives is that they are becoming the party of those with lots of property wealth and enough pension income to be comfortable, which doesn't take all that much. Take a look at these graphs from the British Election Study of the 2019 election;
Amongst working-age people, Labour were ahead (even in 2019!) amongst voters with household incomes up to about 30k (working working-class, if you like), and competitive up to 70k or so (working middle-class). As has been pointed out before, the Conservative triumph of 2019 was underpinned by retired people- retired working-class and retired middle-class alike. And whilst retired people are people like any others, OGH Jr has noted that countries run according to the interests of the retired (Japan, Italy) tend not to thrive.
And that's the knot that the government needs to untangle in dealing with the triple lock.
Keep the triple lock. The UK state pension is already the worst in the developed world.
The UK state pension comes bottom in a league table of net replacement rates for average earnings at just 28 per cent, according to an influential global pensions report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
This compares with a 59 per cent average across the 36 members of the international organisation of rich democratic countries analysed in its latest report
It won't when it gets to privateer pensioners of my age, when the final salary pensions of our parents era have all but evaporated.
A very, very high percentage of the over 40s have wholly inadequate pension provision. With personal hindsight my advice would be forego the monthly lease payments on the Discovery Sport ( it's killing the planet anyway ) exchange that for a £1000 Fiesta and put the savings into the pension pot.
I am in the "luxurious" position of being able to work until I drop. Without that I would be b*ll*xed, I suspect many others will be too!
Actually the UK has amongst the highest enrolled in workplace pensions in Europe now, which will make it easier for future generations.
France however has far fewer with private pensions and very costly state pensions Macron wants to cut
But a huge number of those workplace pensions are going to be worthless. The size of the pot you need to retire on is out of the reach of all these new schemes the Govt has encouraged. people are going to be very disappointed.
Given most pensioners own their own property and have no mortgage or rent to pay they don't need vast pensions, just enough to live on.
We will also be far better placed than most of Europe to cope as we have far higher workplace pension enrolment than they do and as Macron starts to cut the vast state pension bill in France
LOL. Have you any idea what these new workplace pensions will give you to live on?
I wasn't making any comparison with France. I was just pointing out that most of these new pensions will be next to worthless, and I don't mean a little less than they are currently getting so ok because they don't have a mortgage to pay, but actually next to worthless. Many will only be paying out the equivalent of the low tens of pounds a week.
Also while I think the figure is currently 72% of pensioners owning their own home expect that figure to drop over the next few decades as just as the figure for home ownership is.
By 40 most own their own home still and that percentage expands every decade after
Way to ignore the point....the percentage of people who own their own home is dropping. That will follow through to the percentage of those that retire owning their own home.
quote "People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997
If this trend persists into their older ages, in the future, older people will be more likely to be living in the private rental sector than today"
The percentage of people born in (say) 1980 who have a mortgage or have paid off their mortgage will increase over time.
The percentage of people born in 1980 who own their own home will never reach the levels of those born in (say) 1950.
As you pay off a mortgage, your domestic finances steadily become easier and easier, because you lock in the price of the house as it was a decade or two ago. Hence the mutual incomprehension between generations either side of that gap.
The short-term opportunity, long-term challenge for the Conservatives is that they are becoming the party of those with lots of property wealth and enough pension income to be comfortable, which doesn't take all that much. Take a look at these graphs from the British Election Study of the 2019 election;
Amongst working-age people, Labour were ahead (even in 2019!) amongst voters with household incomes up to about 30k (working working-class, if you like), and competitive up to 70k or so (working middle-class). As has been pointed out before, the Conservative triumph of 2019 was underpinned by retired people- retired working-class and retired middle-class alike. And whilst retired people are people like any others, OGH Jr has noted that countries run according to the interests of the retired (Japan, Italy) tend not to thrive.
And that's the knot that the government needs to untangle in dealing with the triple lock.
Why should they untangle it when it is working so well for them? Meanwhile, a tenth capital falls to the Taliban. Prisoners freed in Kandahar.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
The young are just greedy whiney no marks. Get out and work like the pensioners did and earn your own money. A days work would be too much for most of the pampered jessies. Back in the day when men were men , we did not plot how to rob our granny , we got out there and worked our socks off, no handed it on a plate in those days.
Enjoy it while it last Malc, you won't get anything near as generous in indyScotland...
Don’t you start the too wee, too poor, too stupid nonsense Foxy. You’re a better man than that.
The truth hurts
You’re also a better man than than. You’re is the wrong party. They’re a bunch of rotters.
I expect Sunak to suspend the triple lock for a year, and for that decision not to be too controversial; and I'd support it.
But it's worth looking at the actual figures. An 8% increase would give somebody living on the full state pension an extra £62 per calendar month. Probably enough to cover the looming rise in energy prices and a little bit more. So not hugely beneficial or life-changing for an individual pensioner, but a huge cost to the nation's economy. Of course, a fair bit of the £62 would be clawed back from those pensioners who have taxable income. By contrast, a 3% rise in state pension would give a £23 monthly rise, less than £6 a week, a meagre amount.
It remains the case that our state pension is too low for those who have no other income, and too high for those rolling in it. Surely the radical answer is to improve the lot of the poorest pensioners while increasing the tax/NI take from those who can afford it.
David Cameron is a paid advisor to US biotech firm Illumina. Illumina wanted an NHS contract. Cameron lobbied Matt Hancock for a contract on Illumina's behalf. Illumina were awarded a £123m NHS contract without tender
OT - I'm extremely excited about today's impending delivery of my first order of Dr Trouble Hot Lemon Chilli Sauce. I do hope it's here in time for me to put in my dinner!
OT - I'm extremely excited about today's impending delivery of my first order of Dr Trouble Hot Lemon Chilli Sauce. I do hope it's here in time for me to put in my dinner!
The smokey one is better to my mind, but both are delicious - on the right meat/cheese and used quite sparingly. Hope you enjoy!
OT - I'm extremely excited about today's impending delivery of my first order of Dr Trouble Hot Lemon Chilli Sauce. I do hope it's here in time for me to put in my dinner!
The smokey one is better to my mind, but both are delicious - on the right meat/cheese and used quite sparingly. Hope you enjoy!
I see they can be had direct from the company by mail.
Prince Andrew: Refusal to talk to Epstein investigators ‘straining relations between UK and America’
… the lack of information-sharing had caused diplomatic strain, with US law enforcement and diplomats raising the matter with their British counterparts.
The lack of cooperation now spans three years of reported attempts by the US authorities to gather facts from the royal who, in a statement from 2019, said he would be willing to help US law-enforcement with investigations. However, in January last year, Manhattan US attorney Geoffrey Berman said the country’s authorities had received “zero cooperation” from the prince…
Of particular interest to the US authorities is how money transfers may be linked to the movement of young women and girls. The various interested bodies, including the FBI, believe these may offer insights into ongoing organised criminal operations.
The authorities’ interests are understood to include multiple trips by the royal to Epstein’s Caribbean island, Little St James, as well as Florida and New York. Last year, prosecutors in the US Virgin Islands, which includes Little St James, alleged Mr Epstein abused hundreds of young women and girls up until 2018.
Given the US refuse to hand over Anne Sacoolas tough.
Perhaps they could also look a bit more into Bill Clinton and Bill Gates' links to Epstein before lecturing us
This Windsor scandal is clearly touching a raw Tory nerve. Hardly news. I expect a veritable infestation of squirrels in the coming months and years. Poor old Harry and Meghan.
Shame on you HY. If the Tories had an ounce of decency they would be encouraging the coward prince to get on a trans-Atlantic plane and face the charges, as he promised to do in 2019.
1. The US criminal authorities have charged Ghislaine Maxwell. As part of that they may be seeking evidence from Andrew as a potential witness. There is no necessity for him to fly to the US to do this. He would be well advised not to in any case until the basis on which such discussions are had is clear & there is clear agreement on what use can & cannot be made of whatever he says. This is because there are various protections in law - both English & the US - and everyone is entitled to use them. There are dangers in volunteering evidence without doing so. There are also issues for the US authorities because evidence gathered in such a way may not be admissible in any subsequent trial
Believe me, I have advised a number of people in similar circumstances & any good lawyer would be very wary about telling a client to go to the US to speak to the criminal authorities there just because they ask.
The US authorities - whether criminal or regulatory - are very willing to grandstand in public to bully people into ignoring their rights. They will often try to ignore different legal requirements in overseas jurisdictions because (a) it is just plain inconvenient for them or (b) it stops them doing what they want.
2. The US criminal authorities have not charged Andrew with anything. Extradition is irrelevant.
3. He now faces a civil suit in the US - brought just before the limitation period expires. It is not entirely clear whether the allegation is that he had sex with a minor or had sex with someone over the age of consent without her consent (rape, in other words) or something else. There is an issue as to jurisdiction because the acts complained of, AFAIU, happened in the UK.
It really does not matter whether he is an HRH or not. He is entitled to the same legal protections as everyone else including the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. There is something unseemly in the way that people rush to assume that because he appears to be an entitled twit he must therefore be guilty of serious crimes. Some of the comments made about him on social media are seriously defamatory. Equally, he is subject to the law as everyone else.
There will be strategic & tactical decisions which his lawyers will have to consider. In addition, he - and his advisors - need to consider the impact of his behaviour on the rest of his family.
Much of what is written in the papers about this is ill-informed nonsense.
I have no idea who is telling the truth here. I do think Andrew was ill-advised to give that interview. But in any event, the matter is now in the hands of the lawyers and, from what I know, some of those advising him are very good indeed. I hope for his sake that he listens to good advice. He clearly hasn't in the past.
You'd have thought courtiers or someone might have warned him about Epstein. But there again Epstein managed to get into his orbit people far far cleverer than Andrew - Clinton, Gates etc. So what does that say about them?
Nothing great - but some in closer orbits than others, apparently.
Rory Burns, Dom Sibley, Haseeb Hameed, Joe Root (capt), Jonny Bairstow, Jos Buttler (wk), Moeen Ali, Sam Curran, Ollie Robinson, Mark Wood, James Anderson.
Good to see Hameed given a chance...but Dom Sibley still in, he is the Gavin Williamson of England team.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
One wonders why you feel so at home as an English Nationalist and those that aren't, have resigned or been kicked out, if what you are saying is true.
Because its not true.
The ones who resigned or got kicked out were those who were European nationalists and couldn't cope with their grief at losing their European identity.
England wasn't here nor there for that.
What has Brexit got to do with European identity? Whether you like it or not, England/the UK is within the continent of Europe. We will always be European.
Even your mate BoJo said that when the referendum result came in. Your pathetic EDL-lite style posturing shows through in this post.
Perhaps you should ask yourself - but I am sure you don't care - why the Tory Party has abandoned so many people that voted for it for decades. And whether you think that's right.
Your naivety is astonishing.
What the heck has the continent of Europe got to do with being in the European Union?
Should those in Alberta or Quebec or Jalisco be considered Americans and join the United States of America?
That's got nothing to do with England, or EDL or anything else. If you're so childish and puerile as you consider that being in a continent means you must be part of a union then that's just farcical.
Anyway the Tory Party has not abandoned so many that voted for it for decades. The Tory Party got more voters than it has in decades. So yes I absolutely 100% think that's right and anyone so undemocratic as to like you equate Brexit with "EDL" or English nationalism absolutely should be told to take a cold shower until they stop being so silly.
Absolutely not a personal inference about you but did you ever take my recommendation and check out the links between Eng Nat and the far right?
David Cameron is a paid advisor to US biotech firm Illumina. Illumina wanted an NHS contract. Cameron lobbied Matt Hancock for a contract on Illumina's behalf. Illumina were awarded a £123m NHS contract without tender
Pfff standard. Be fair, if the Eton schoolboys can't make the odd ten million through schemes like this how will they keep up with their peers who chose a more lucrative career?
OT - I'm extremely excited about today's impending delivery of my first order of Dr Trouble Hot Lemon Chilli Sauce. I do hope it's here in time for me to put in my dinner!
The smokey one is better to my mind, but both are delicious - on the right meat/cheese and used quite sparingly. Hope you enjoy!
Thanks for the tip! I've grown a white Casperita pumpkin that I'm going to chop up, sprinkle (sparingly!) with hot sauce and then bake
Keep the triple lock. The UK state pension is already the worst in the developed world.
The UK state pension comes bottom in a league table of net replacement rates for average earnings at just 28 per cent, according to an influential global pensions report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
This compares with a 59 per cent average across the 36 members of the international organisation of rich democratic countries analysed in its latest report
It won't when it gets to privateer pensioners of my age, when the final salary pensions of our parents era have all but evaporated.
A very, very high percentage of the over 40s have wholly inadequate pension provision. With personal hindsight my advice would be forego the monthly lease payments on the Discovery Sport ( it's killing the planet anyway ) exchange that for a £1000 Fiesta and put the savings into the pension pot.
I am in the "luxurious" position of being able to work until I drop. Without that I would be b*ll*xed, I suspect many others will be too!
Actually the UK has amongst the highest enrolled in workplace pensions in Europe now, which will make it easier for future generations.
France however has far fewer with private pensions and very costly state pensions Macron wants to cut
But a huge number of those workplace pensions are going to be worthless. The size of the pot you need to retire on is out of the reach of all these new schemes the Govt has encouraged. people are going to be very disappointed.
Given most pensioners own their own property and have no mortgage or rent to pay they don't need vast pensions, just enough to live on.
We will also be far better placed than most of Europe to cope as we have far higher workplace pension enrolment than they do and as Macron starts to cut the vast state pension bill in France
LOL. Have you any idea what these new workplace pensions will give you to live on?
I wasn't making any comparison with France. I was just pointing out that most of these new pensions will be next to worthless, and I don't mean a little less than they are currently getting so ok because they don't have a mortgage to pay, but actually next to worthless. Many will only be paying out the equivalent of the low tens of pounds a week.
Well you should have been making a comparison with France as it is the huge deficit France has from its vast state pensions bill that is forcing Macron to make cuts while France is far behind us on the number enrolled in workplace pensions.
Workplace pensions come on top of the state pension of course and most pensioners have no mortgage, no rent to pay and no commute and train fares to pay either
You have completely missed the point HYUFD. I am not arguing with thrust of your argument (I am not saying I agree or disagree) and therefore I have no interest in the point you are making about France.
Simply put I was just, and only just, pointing out your statement about us having the highest numbers enrolled in workplace pensions was, although I assume accurate it was flawed, because a huge number of them are next to worthless in what they will provide (certainly do not cover loss of income even taking into account mortgages and commuting).
I was not making any wider judgement on your posts.
On top of state pensions however as most of Europe has to slash its state pensions bill overall in future decades our pensioners will likely be better off.
By definition if you are on a pension you will be on lower income than you were working (even with lower costs), if you want a higher income stay working or pay more into your private pension which you are perfectly entitled to do
Oh HUYFD please read my posts. I have not been arguing with you on any of these points. I have just made one simple observation on one 'fact' in one post. That is it. You are having a argument with someone who isn't disagreeing with you (I am not saying I agree or disagree). I just thought that one observation you made may be worth less than you think. That is all.
I expect Sunak to suspend the triple lock for a year, and for that decision not to be too controversial; and I'd support it.
But it's worth looking at the actual figures. An 8% increase would give somebody living on the full state pension an extra £62 per calendar month. Probably enough to cover the looming rise in energy prices and a little bit more. So not hugely beneficial or life-changing for an individual pensioner, but a huge cost to the nation's economy. Of course, a fair bit of the £62 would be clawed back from those pensioners who have taxable income. By contrast, a 3% rise in state pension would give a £23 monthly rise, less than £6 a week, a meagre amount.
It remains the case that our state pension is too low for those who have no other income, and too high for those rolling in it. Surely the radical answer is to improve the lot of the poorest pensioners while increasing the tax/NI take from those who can afford it.
How do you think Starmer will play this one?
I see a possible conflict between 2 factors:
1. Labour need to look sensible with money to win apolitical floating voters.
I expect Sunak to suspend the triple lock for a year, and for that decision not to be too controversial; and I'd support it.
But it's worth looking at the actual figures. An 8% increase would give somebody living on the full state pension an extra £62 per calendar month. Probably enough to cover the looming rise in energy prices and a little bit more. So not hugely beneficial or life-changing for an individual pensioner, but a huge cost to the nation's economy. Of course, a fair bit of the £62 would be clawed back from those pensioners who have taxable income. By contrast, a 3% rise in state pension would give a £23 monthly rise, less than £6 a week, a meagre amount.
It remains the case that our state pension is too low for those who have no other income, and too high for those rolling in it. Surely the radical answer is to improve the lot of the poorest pensioners while increasing the tax/NI take from those who can afford it.
The issue is that
1) it's not that much in actual terms but 2) it's big enough to seriously annoy everyone who is seeing a 0% or very small pay rise - and that is virtually everyone in the public sector. 3) the £20 UC payment seems to be disappearing.
So politically it just looks like an impossible situation, required when looked at from one angle but a utter nightmare when you look at it from any other angle
David Cameron is a paid advisor to US biotech firm Illumina. Illumina wanted an NHS contract. Cameron lobbied Matt Hancock for a contract on Illumina's behalf. Illumina were awarded a £123m NHS contract without tender
Pfff standard. Be fair, if the Eton schoolboys can't make the odd ten million through schemes like this how will they keep up with their peers who chose a more lucrative career?
It would be a sad day for democracy in this country if a politician cannot spend his election expenses how he chooses.
I expect Sunak to suspend the triple lock for a year, and for that decision not to be too controversial; and I'd support it.
But it's worth looking at the actual figures. An 8% increase would give somebody living on the full state pension an extra £62 per calendar month. Probably enough to cover the looming rise in energy prices and a little bit more. So not hugely beneficial or life-changing for an individual pensioner, but a huge cost to the nation's economy. Of course, a fair bit of the £62 would be clawed back from those pensioners who have taxable income. By contrast, a 3% rise in state pension would give a £23 monthly rise, less than £6 a week, a meagre amount.
It remains the case that our state pension is too low for those who have no other income, and too high for those rolling in it. Surely the radical answer is to improve the lot of the poorest pensioners while increasing the tax/NI take from those who can afford it.
Well isn't that the point, the triple lock benefits people like my dad who has just reached state pension age, his private pension and investment earnings are in the higher tax bracket. He can afford to pay a lot more tax but the government is dithering over giving him an extra £800 per year. It should be putting up taxes on people like him so that his income is taxed the same as mine or yours is.
Keep the triple lock. The UK state pension is already the worst in the developed world.
The UK state pension comes bottom in a league table of net replacement rates for average earnings at just 28 per cent, according to an influential global pensions report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
This compares with a 59 per cent average across the 36 members of the international organisation of rich democratic countries analysed in its latest report
It won't when it gets to privateer pensioners of my age, when the final salary pensions of our parents era have all but evaporated.
A very, very high percentage of the over 40s have wholly inadequate pension provision. With personal hindsight my advice would be forego the monthly lease payments on the Discovery Sport ( it's killing the planet anyway ) exchange that for a £1000 Fiesta and put the savings into the pension pot.
I am in the "luxurious" position of being able to work until I drop. Without that I would be b*ll*xed, I suspect many others will be too!
Actually the UK has amongst the highest enrolled in workplace pensions in Europe now, which will make it easier for future generations.
France however has far fewer with private pensions and very costly state pensions Macron wants to cut
But a huge number of those workplace pensions are going to be worthless. The size of the pot you need to retire on is out of the reach of all these new schemes the Govt has encouraged. people are going to be very disappointed.
Given most pensioners own their own property and have no mortgage or rent to pay they don't need vast pensions, just enough to live on.
We will also be far better placed than most of Europe to cope as we have far higher workplace pension enrolment than they do and as Macron starts to cut the vast state pension bill in France
LOL. Have you any idea what these new workplace pensions will give you to live on?
I wasn't making any comparison with France. I was just pointing out that most of these new pensions will be next to worthless, and I don't mean a little less than they are currently getting so ok because they don't have a mortgage to pay, but actually next to worthless. Many will only be paying out the equivalent of the low tens of pounds a week.
Well you should have been making a comparison with France as it is the huge deficit France has from its vast state pensions bill that is forcing Macron to make cuts while France is far behind us on the number enrolled in workplace pensions.
Workplace pensions come on top of the state pension of course and most pensioners have no mortgage, no rent to pay and no commute and train fares to pay either
You have completely missed the point HYUFD. I am not arguing with thrust of your argument (I am not saying I agree or disagree) and therefore I have no interest in the point you are making about France.
Simply put I was just, and only just, pointing out your statement about us having the highest numbers enrolled in workplace pensions was, although I assume accurate it was flawed, because a huge number of them are next to worthless in what they will provide (certainly do not cover loss of income even taking into account mortgages and commuting).
I was not making any wider judgement on your posts.
On top of state pensions however as most of Europe has to slash its state pensions bill overall in future decades our pensioners will likely be better off.
By definition if you are on a pension you will be on lower income than you were working (even with lower costs), if you want a higher income stay working or pay more into your private pension which you are perfectly entitled to do
Oh HUYFD please read my posts. I have not been arguing with you on any of these points. I have just made one simple observation on one 'fact' in one post. That is it. You are having a argument with someone who isn't disagreeing with you (I am not saying I agree or disagree). I just thought that one observation you made may be worth less than you think. That is all.
He is training to be a politician......responding to the question he wants to answer rather than the question/comment actually asked is a required skill.
OT - I'm extremely excited about today's impending delivery of my first order of Dr Trouble Hot Lemon Chilli Sauce. I do hope it's here in time for me to put in my dinner!
I had a £10 burger on Clapham Common yesterday. Great meat, bun, lettuce, gherkin, would have been worth a tenner but for some reason they smothered it in various gooey dressings that you couldn't scrape off, being all mixed in. Don't know why they'd do that. If you have top quality basic ingredients better imo to let them do all the work.
Keep the triple lock. The UK state pension is already the worst in the developed world.
The UK state pension comes bottom in a league table of net replacement rates for average earnings at just 28 per cent, according to an influential global pensions report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
This compares with a 59 per cent average across the 36 members of the international organisation of rich democratic countries analysed in its latest report
It won't when it gets to privateer pensioners of my age, when the final salary pensions of our parents era have all but evaporated.
A very, very high percentage of the over 40s have wholly inadequate pension provision. With personal hindsight my advice would be forego the monthly lease payments on the Discovery Sport ( it's killing the planet anyway ) exchange that for a £1000 Fiesta and put the savings into the pension pot.
I am in the "luxurious" position of being able to work until I drop. Without that I would be b*ll*xed, I suspect many others will be too!
Actually the UK has amongst the highest enrolled in workplace pensions in Europe now, which will make it easier for future generations.
France however has far fewer with private pensions and very costly state pensions Macron wants to cut
But a huge number of those workplace pensions are going to be worthless. The size of the pot you need to retire on is out of the reach of all these new schemes the Govt has encouraged. people are going to be very disappointed.
Given most pensioners own their own property and have no mortgage or rent to pay they don't need vast pensions, just enough to live on.
We will also be far better placed than most of Europe to cope as we have far higher workplace pension enrolment than they do and as Macron starts to cut the vast state pension bill in France
LOL. Have you any idea what these new workplace pensions will give you to live on?
I wasn't making any comparison with France. I was just pointing out that most of these new pensions will be next to worthless, and I don't mean a little less than they are currently getting so ok because they don't have a mortgage to pay, but actually next to worthless. Many will only be paying out the equivalent of the low tens of pounds a week.
Well you should have been making a comparison with France as it is the huge deficit France has from its vast state pensions bill that is forcing Macron to make cuts while France is far behind us on the number enrolled in workplace pensions.
Workplace pensions come on top of the state pension of course and most pensioners have no mortgage, no rent to pay and no commute and train fares to pay either
You have completely missed the point HYUFD. I am not arguing with thrust of your argument (I am not saying I agree or disagree) and therefore I have no interest in the point you are making about France.
Simply put I was just, and only just, pointing out your statement about us having the highest numbers enrolled in workplace pensions was, although I assume accurate it was flawed, because a huge number of them are next to worthless in what they will provide (certainly do not cover loss of income even taking into account mortgages and commuting).
I was not making any wider judgement on your posts.
On top of state pensions however as most of Europe has to slash its state pensions bill overall in future decades our pensioners will likely be better off.
By definition if you are on a pension you will be on lower income than you were working (even with lower costs), if you want a higher income stay working or pay more into your private pension which you are perfectly entitled to do
Oh HUYFD please read my posts. I have not been arguing with you on any of these points. I have just made one simple observation on one 'fact' in one post. That is it. You are having a argument with someone who isn't disagreeing with you (I am not saying I agree or disagree). I just thought that one observation you made may be worth less than you think. That is all.
He is training to be a politician......responding to the question he wants to answer rather than the question/comment actually asked is a required skill.
Can you see him at the despatch box if tripped up on a matter of fact?
‘I assure the honourable member for Inverness that he is wrong and that there is a ferry connection between his city and Ullapool.’
Rory Burns, Dom Sibley, Haseeb Hameed, Joe Root (capt), Jonny Bairstow, Jos Buttler (wk), Moeen Ali, Sam Curran, Ollie Robinson, Mark Wood, James Anderson.
Good to see Hameed given a chance...but Dom Sibley still in, he is the Gavin Williamson of England team.
No, he's not. Possibly the Kier Starmer - hangs around for quite some time without unduly troubling the scorers.
Recalling Phil Tufnell to open the batting might approximate appointing Williamson as Secretary of State for Education.
Rory Burns, Dom Sibley, Haseeb Hameed, Joe Root (capt), Jonny Bairstow, Jos Buttler (wk), Moeen Ali, Sam Curran, Ollie Robinson, Mark Wood, James Anderson.
Good to see Hameed given a chance...but Dom Sibley still in, he is the Gavin Williamson of England team.
No, he's not. Possibly the Kier Starmer - hangs around for quite some time without unduly troubling the scorers.
Recalling Phil Tufnell to open the batting might approximate appointing Williamson as Secretary of State for Education.
Partnered with Chris Martin with Bill Bowes at 3 and you would have Williamson, Gibb and Spielman.
Rory Burns, Dom Sibley, Haseeb Hameed, Joe Root (capt), Jonny Bairstow, Jos Buttler (wk), Moeen Ali, Sam Curran, Ollie Robinson, Mark Wood, James Anderson.
Good to see Hameed given a chance...but Dom Sibley still in, he is the Gavin Williamson of England team.
No, he's not. Possibly the Kier Starmer - hangs around for quite some time without unduly troubling the scorers.
Recalling Phil Tufnell to open the batting might approximate appointing Williamson as Secretary of State for Education.
Sibley, over promoted batter with extremely limited ability and an absolute liability in the field....sounds like Pike to me.
Tuffers opening the batting..its Boris as PM....we all have a right laugh at him trying to duck and weave against the fast bowlers, playing and missing, occasionally nicking one for 4, or even off the helmet for 6, but at the end of the day is clueless.
I expect Sunak to suspend the triple lock for a year, and for that decision not to be too controversial; and I'd support it.
But it's worth looking at the actual figures. An 8% increase would give somebody living on the full state pension an extra £62 per calendar month. Probably enough to cover the looming rise in energy prices and a little bit more. So not hugely beneficial or life-changing for an individual pensioner, but a huge cost to the nation's economy. Of course, a fair bit of the £62 would be clawed back from those pensioners who have taxable income. By contrast, a 3% rise in state pension would give a £23 monthly rise, less than £6 a week, a meagre amount.
It remains the case that our state pension is too low for those who have no other income, and too high for those rolling in it. Surely the radical answer is to improve the lot of the poorest pensioners while increasing the tax/NI take from those who can afford it.
The issue is that
1) it's not that much in actual terms but 2) it's big enough to seriously annoy everyone who is seeing a 0% or very small pay rise - and that is virtually everyone in the public sector. 3) the £20 UC payment seems to be disappearing.
So politically it just looks like an impossible situation, required when looked at from one angle but a utter nightmare when you look at it from any other angle
But finding tolerable solutions to impossible situations is part of the job description for high-flying politicians.
Assuming that said politicians really are high flyers, and not low flyers temporarily aided by gusts of wind.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
One wonders why you feel so at home as an English Nationalist and those that aren't, have resigned or been kicked out, if what you are saying is true.
Because its not true.
The ones who resigned or got kicked out were those who were European nationalists and couldn't cope with their grief at losing their European identity.
England wasn't here nor there for that.
What has Brexit got to do with European identity? Whether you like it or not, England/the UK is within the continent of Europe. We will always be European.
Even your mate BoJo said that when the referendum result came in. Your pathetic EDL-lite style posturing shows through in this post.
Perhaps you should ask yourself - but I am sure you don't care - why the Tory Party has abandoned so many people that voted for it for decades. And whether you think that's right.
Your naivety is astonishing.
What the heck has the continent of Europe got to do with being in the European Union?
Should those in Alberta or Quebec or Jalisco be considered Americans and join the United States of America?
That's got nothing to do with England, or EDL or anything else. If you're so childish and puerile as you consider that being in a continent means you must be part of a union then that's just farcical.
Anyway the Tory Party has not abandoned so many that voted for it for decades. The Tory Party got more voters than it has in decades. So yes I absolutely 100% think that's right and anyone so undemocratic as to like you equate Brexit with "EDL" or English nationalism absolutely should be told to take a cold shower until they stop being so silly.
Absolutely not a personal inference about you but did you ever take my recommendation and check out the links between Eng Nat and the far right?
There are no links.
Since I can't examine inside your head for what you fictionalise, I can't do much more than that.
David Cameron is a paid advisor to US biotech firm Illumina. Illumina wanted an NHS contract. Cameron lobbied Matt Hancock for a contract on Illumina's behalf. Illumina were awarded a £123m NHS contract without tender
Not great, but there's far dodgier stuff than that. Illumina are by quite some distance the world's leading sequencing company, so in the context of all the other no bid contracts, this one seems on the face of it fairly reasonable.
The Greensil thing seems an utterly toxic swamp, though.
Rory Burns, Dom Sibley, Haseeb Hameed, Joe Root (capt), Jonny Bairstow, Jos Buttler (wk), Moeen Ali, Sam Curran, Ollie Robinson, Mark Wood, James Anderson.
Good to see Hameed given a chance...but Dom Sibley still in, he is the Gavin Williamson of England team.
No, he's not. Possibly the Kier Starmer - hangs around for quite some time without unduly troubling the scorers.
Recalling Phil Tufnell to open the batting might approximate appointing Williamson as Secretary of State for Education.
Sibley, over promoted batter with extremely limited ability and an absolute liability in the field....sounds like Pike to me.
Tuffers as PM...its Boris....
Pike wasn’t of limited ability. Lavender made the point that he played him as sheltered and naive, never an idiot.
On topic, this is in many ways a perfect situation for Sunak.
The triple lock could not be forever, as the logic of it is that pensions would catch up with and surpass average wages over time (since the increase would at the very least be the increase in earnings). That would be gradual, of course, but inevitable.
The trouble, though is that, in normal times and because it is gradual, there's never a clear justification in any given year to abandon the triple lock.
However, the situation has arisen where it would so obviously be unfair and economically damaging to award the increase implied by the triple lock, that it provides the best cover a Chancellor will ever get to abandon it. It's a year when pensioners can get a generous rise... just not 8%. For all the huff and puff in the Express, OAPs are not going to abandon the Tories in their droves because they get, say, 4% which is objectively a nice uplift.
The triple lock has served its purpose over the past decade in providing a significant rise in the state pension which was pretty paltry for those relying on that alone back in 2010 (thanks, Nick Clegg). But all good things come to an end, and it's probably the right time.
I expect Sunak to suspend the triple lock for a year, and for that decision not to be too controversial; and I'd support it.
But it's worth looking at the actual figures. An 8% increase would give somebody living on the full state pension an extra £62 per calendar month. Probably enough to cover the looming rise in energy prices and a little bit more. So not hugely beneficial or life-changing for an individual pensioner, but a huge cost to the nation's economy. Of course, a fair bit of the £62 would be clawed back from those pensioners who have taxable income. By contrast, a 3% rise in state pension would give a £23 monthly rise, less than £6 a week, a meagre amount.
It remains the case that our state pension is too low for those who have no other income, and too high for those rolling in it. Surely the radical answer is to improve the lot of the poorest pensioners while increasing the tax/NI take from those who can afford it.
How do you think Starmer will play this one?
I see a possible conflict between 2 factors:
1. Labour need to look sensible with money to win apolitical floating voters.
2. Labour need to make inroads with pensioners.
That's a really tricky one. I don't think Starmer would benefit from supporting an 8% rise - wouldn't look good for those getting no pay rise, and the argument I put forward is too complicated for him to explain. So I suspect he will support a suspension as long as 1) the return of the triple lock is guaranteed - it is only a suspension, and 2) this year's rise is decent enough - say 4% - to keep faith with the principle that the gap between the basic state pension and the average (or even minimum) wage should continue to narrow.
From my personal experience, when I entered the investment industry in 1998 the only people who would really need or want the CFA were those in the sharp end of analysis - fund managers, stock analysts, CIOs etc. As the years progressed more and more people were being persuaded they needed to have a CFA to progress and then this was added to by a ratcheting up of investment qualifications required to fulfil more ordinary roles.
So whilst before if you were an investment manager/relationship manager or private banker you might get away with the Reg Rep or similar it got shifted that everyone needed the MSI qualifications then everyone is in a race to get CFA.
Basically in 90% of cases these people never needed these technical skills as they were never actually analysing markets or stocks to any degree but simply following what the investment committee told them to put in their client portfolios. So you end up with a situation where these guys are “more qualified” to seemingly reduce risk but their individual knowledge is pointless as decision making is centralised to remove risk....
So in effect in the earlier years of the CFA you had the “best” financial analytical brains/people who really wanted or needed the CFA taking it and gradually you get a sausage machine of entrants with a wider range of ability taking because they have to even though it’s of very little practical use and so failure rate likely to go up accordingly.
Similar to general life with increased “requirement” for degrees for jobs that don’t need them - ticking boxes and focusing on unnecessary qualifications.
Keep the triple lock. The UK state pension is already the worst in the developed world.
The UK state pension comes bottom in a league table of net replacement rates for average earnings at just 28 per cent, according to an influential global pensions report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
This compares with a 59 per cent average across the 36 members of the international organisation of rich democratic countries analysed in its latest report
It won't when it gets to privateer pensioners of my age, when the final salary pensions of our parents era have all but evaporated.
A very, very high percentage of the over 40s have wholly inadequate pension provision. With personal hindsight my advice would be forego the monthly lease payments on the Discovery Sport ( it's killing the planet anyway ) exchange that for a £1000 Fiesta and put the savings into the pension pot.
I am in the "luxurious" position of being able to work until I drop. Without that I would be b*ll*xed, I suspect many others will be too!
Actually the UK has amongst the highest enrolled in workplace pensions in Europe now, which will make it easier for future generations.
France however has far fewer with private pensions and very costly state pensions Macron wants to cut
But a huge number of those workplace pensions are going to be worthless. The size of the pot you need to retire on is out of the reach of all these new schemes the Govt has encouraged. people are going to be very disappointed.
Given most pensioners own their own property and have no mortgage or rent to pay they don't need vast pensions, just enough to live on.
We will also be far better placed than most of Europe to cope as we have far higher workplace pension enrolment than they do and as Macron starts to cut the vast state pension bill in France
LOL. Have you any idea what these new workplace pensions will give you to live on?
I wasn't making any comparison with France. I was just pointing out that most of these new pensions will be next to worthless, and I don't mean a little less than they are currently getting so ok because they don't have a mortgage to pay, but actually next to worthless. Many will only be paying out the equivalent of the low tens of pounds a week.
Well you should have been making a comparison with France as it is the huge deficit France has from its vast state pensions bill that is forcing Macron to make cuts while France is far behind us on the number enrolled in workplace pensions.
Workplace pensions come on top of the state pension of course and most pensioners have no mortgage, no rent to pay and no commute and train fares to pay either
You have completely missed the point HYUFD. I am not arguing with thrust of your argument (I am not saying I agree or disagree) and therefore I have no interest in the point you are making about France.
Simply put I was just, and only just, pointing out your statement about us having the highest numbers enrolled in workplace pensions was, although I assume accurate it was flawed, because a huge number of them are next to worthless in what they will provide (certainly do not cover loss of income even taking into account mortgages and commuting).
I was not making any wider judgement on your posts.
On top of state pensions however as most of Europe has to slash its state pensions bill overall in future decades our pensioners will likely be better off.
By definition if you are on a pension you will be on lower income than you were working (even with lower costs), if you want a higher income stay working or pay more into your private pension which you are perfectly entitled to do
Oh HUYFD please read my posts. I have not been arguing with you on any of these points. I have just made one simple observation on one 'fact' in one post. That is it. You are having a argument with someone who isn't disagreeing with you (I am not saying I agree or disagree). I just thought that one observation you made may be worth less than you think. That is all.
A PB cry that has resounded through the ages.
Me, I had an extended and deeply frustrating tumble with H quite soon after I debuted on here. It was like bowling at Geoffrey Boycott on a day when Geoffrey was in a dour 'give nothing' mood. Ie it was like bowling at Geoffrey Boycott.
So what I did was change my run-up and delivery action. It's worked - although only now and again.
I expect Sunak to suspend the triple lock for a year, and for that decision not to be too controversial; and I'd support it.
But it's worth looking at the actual figures. An 8% increase would give somebody living on the full state pension an extra £62 per calendar month. Probably enough to cover the looming rise in energy prices and a little bit more. So not hugely beneficial or life-changing for an individual pensioner, but a huge cost to the nation's economy. Of course, a fair bit of the £62 would be clawed back from those pensioners who have taxable income. By contrast, a 3% rise in state pension would give a £23 monthly rise, less than £6 a week, a meagre amount.
It remains the case that our state pension is too low for those who have no other income, and too high for those rolling in it. Surely the radical answer is to improve the lot of the poorest pensioners while increasing the tax/NI take from those who can afford it.
Well isn't that the point, the triple lock benefits people like my dad who has just reached state pension age, his private pension and investment earnings are in the higher tax bracket. He can afford to pay a lot more tax but the government is dithering over giving him an extra £800 per year. It should be putting up taxes on people like him so that his income is taxed the same as mine or yours is.
Yes, I agree with you - which is by no means common. Maybe this is an issue where a genuine left/centre/right consensus could be achieved?
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
The young are just greedy whiney no marks. Get out and work like the pensioners did and earn your own money. A days work would be too much for most of the pampered jessies. Back in the day when men were men , we did not plot how to rob our granny , we got out there and worked our socks off, no handed it on a plate in those days.
Enjoy it while it last Malc, you won't get anything near as generous in indyScotland...
Don’t you start the too wee, too poor, too stupid nonsense Foxy. You’re a better man than that.
The truth hurts
You’re also a better man than than. You’re is the wrong party. They’re a bunch of rotters.
As you know I support the union and have extensive family ties in Scotland, not least my wife whose late father was a very successful fishing skipper.
He was the quite most wonderful man anyone could want as a father in law, wise, generous and kind, who voted Labour, opposed the EU , but most of all rejected nationalism as divisive and not in Scotland 's interest
I have many reasons for being a conservative, not least as they will defend the union, but the opposition at present are entirely unelectable in my view
From my personal experience, when I entered the investment industry in 1998 the only people who would really need or want the CFA were those in the sharp end of analysis - fund managers, stock analysts, CIOs etc. As the years progressed more and more people were being persuaded they needed to have a CFA to progress and then this was added to by a ratcheting up of investment qualifications required to fulfil more ordinary roles.
So whilst before if you were an investment manager/relationship manager or private banker you might get away with the Reg Rep or similar it got shifted that everyone needed the MSI qualifications then everyone is in a race to get CFA.
Basically in 90% of cases these people never needed these technical skills as they were never actually analysing markets or stocks to any degree but simply following what the investment committee told them to put in their client portfolios. So you end up with a situation where these guys are “more qualified” to seemingly reduce risk but their individual knowledge is pointless as decision making is centralised to remove risk....
So in effect in the earlier years of the CFA you had the “best” financial analytical brains/people who really wanted or needed the CFA taking it and gradually you get a sausage machine of entrants with a wider range of ability taking because they have to even though it’s of very little practical use and so failure rate likely to go up accordingly.
Similar to general life with increased “requirement” for degrees for jobs that don’t need them - ticking boxes and focusing on unnecessary qualifications.
I could of course be wrong.
Yes - I know quite a few software devs who thought that getting a CFA qualification would open doors into management. Since the company(its) fund anyone who wants a go - why not?
Rory Burns, Dom Sibley, Haseeb Hameed, Joe Root (capt), Jonny Bairstow, Jos Buttler (wk), Moeen Ali, Sam Curran, Ollie Robinson, Mark Wood, James Anderson.
Good to see Hameed given a chance...but Dom Sibley still in, he is the Gavin Williamson of England team.
No, he's not. Possibly the Kier Starmer - hangs around for quite some time without unduly troubling the scorers.
Recalling Phil Tufnell to open the batting might approximate appointing Williamson as Secretary of State for Education.
Sibley, over promoted batter with extremely limited ability and an absolute liability in the field....sounds like Pike to me....
Sibley was a decentish pick out of a less than stellar bunch who has held his place for too long. Pike ought never to have been anywhere near the cabinet.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
One wonders why you feel so at home as an English Nationalist and those that aren't, have resigned or been kicked out, if what you are saying is true.
Because its not true.
The ones who resigned or got kicked out were those who were European nationalists and couldn't cope with their grief at losing their European identity.
England wasn't here nor there for that.
What has Brexit got to do with European identity? Whether you like it or not, England/the UK is within the continent of Europe. We will always be European.
Even your mate BoJo said that when the referendum result came in. Your pathetic EDL-lite style posturing shows through in this post.
Perhaps you should ask yourself - but I am sure you don't care - why the Tory Party has abandoned so many people that voted for it for decades. And whether you think that's right.
Your naivety is astonishing.
What the heck has the continent of Europe got to do with being in the European Union?
Should those in Alberta or Quebec or Jalisco be considered Americans and join the United States of America?
That's got nothing to do with England, or EDL or anything else. If you're so childish and puerile as you consider that being in a continent means you must be part of a union then that's just farcical.
Anyway the Tory Party has not abandoned so many that voted for it for decades. The Tory Party got more voters than it has in decades. So yes I absolutely 100% think that's right and anyone so undemocratic as to like you equate Brexit with "EDL" or English nationalism absolutely should be told to take a cold shower until they stop being so silly.
Absolutely not a personal inference about you but did you ever take my recommendation and check out the links between Eng Nat and the far right?
There are no links.
Since I can't examine inside your head for what you fictionalise, I can't do much more than that.
You've looked into it and found that there are no links? I find this hard to believe. I think you haven't looked into it.
From my personal experience, when I entered the investment industry in 1998 the only people who would really need or want the CFA were those in the sharp end of analysis - fund managers, stock analysts, CIOs etc. As the years progressed more and more people were being persuaded they needed to have a CFA to progress and then this was added to by a ratcheting up of investment qualifications required to fulfil more ordinary roles.
So whilst before if you were an investment manager/relationship manager or private banker you might get away with the Reg Rep or similar it got shifted that everyone needed the MSI qualifications then everyone is in a race to get CFA.
Basically in 90% of cases these people never needed these technical skills as they were never actually analysing markets or stocks to any degree but simply following what the investment committee told them to put in their client portfolios. So you end up with a situation where these guys are “more qualified” to seemingly reduce risk but their individual knowledge is pointless as decision making is centralised to remove risk....
So in effect in the earlier years of the CFA you had the “best” financial analytical brains/people who really wanted or needed the CFA taking it and gradually you get a sausage machine of entrants with a wider range of ability taking because they have to even though it’s of very little practical use and so failure rate likely to go up accordingly.
Similar to general life with increased “requirement” for degrees for jobs that don’t need them - ticking boxes and focusing on unnecessary qualifications.
I could of course be wrong.
Yes - I know quite a few software devs who thought that getting a CFA qualification would open doors into management. Since the company(its) fund anyone who wants a go - why not?
Something to put on your CV etc...
Loads more people are taking it, and the pass rate is going down, whereas loads more people are taking A Levels and the pass rate is going up? Is that right?
Are loads more people taking A levels and is the pass rate going up?
I had to look this up because the article had no actual facts and I was confused as to what blue hydrogen was.
So to those of you here who have the appropriate knowledge can someone explain why on earth you would want to produce hydrogen from methane for environmental reasons. I can see it might be the way to produce it commercially, but no reason to produce it for environmental reasons as you still have to do carbon capture. Might as well burn any old crap and do carbon capture in that case.
Electrolysis of water from renewable energy makes sense (environmentally if not economically) as there is no carbon emission.
Is it a case of politicians just hearing the word that burning Hydrogen is carbon free and don't think about any carbon emitted in producing it?
I don't think it's a good idea, but I think the idea would be that it would be easier to capture the carbon from a central plant that produced hydrogen from methane, than if you burn the methane in every individual home.
I think there are better options.
"Electrolysis of water" is extremely inefficient due to basic chemistry and thermodynamics reasons. This is why a good deal of research has been put into trying catalytic methods to crack water into hydrogen.
At the moment, it would be far more efficient (and cheaper) to build vast banks of batteries to store electrical energy.
From my personal experience, when I entered the investment industry in 1998 the only people who would really need or want the CFA were those in the sharp end of analysis - fund managers, stock analysts, CIOs etc. As the years progressed more and more people were being persuaded they needed to have a CFA to progress and then this was added to by a ratcheting up of investment qualifications required to fulfil more ordinary roles.
So whilst before if you were an investment manager/relationship manager or private banker you might get away with the Reg Rep or similar it got shifted that everyone needed the MSI qualifications then everyone is in a race to get CFA.
Basically in 90% of cases these people never needed these technical skills as they were never actually analysing markets or stocks to any degree but simply following what the investment committee told them to put in their client portfolios. So you end up with a situation where these guys are “more qualified” to seemingly reduce risk but their individual knowledge is pointless as decision making is centralised to remove risk....
So in effect in the earlier years of the CFA you had the “best” financial analytical brains/people who really wanted or needed the CFA taking it and gradually you get a sausage machine of entrants with a wider range of ability taking because they have to even though it’s of very little practical use and so failure rate likely to go up accordingly.
Similar to general life with increased “requirement” for degrees for jobs that don’t need them - ticking boxes and focusing on unnecessary qualifications.
I could of course be wrong.
Yes - I know quite a few software devs who thought that getting a CFA qualification would open doors into management. Since the company(its) fund anyone who wants a go - why not?
Something to put on your CV etc...
Loads more people are taking it, and the pass rate is going down, whereas loads more people are taking A Levels and the pass rate is going up? Is that right?
Are loads more people taking A levels and is the pass rate going up?
Lots of people starting to do the CFA qualifications and finding out just how much time and effort it takes the hard way... And since alot of the people doing the CFA aren't using it as professional qualification, failure is, for them, just an annoyance.
As some of you may know, following my granddaughter's excellent A level results she starts at Leeds University in September on a 5 year course in Japanese and Italian language and culture.
However, this morning Leeds University are offering some students (my granddaughter is not affected) £10,000 and free accommodation to defer their courses
As a matter of interest how are these grants funded
In run up to COP26, questions have been asked about new oil field plans in Scotland. @NicolaSturgeon has written to @BorisJohnson saying licences should be “reassessed”
There are two fundamental reasons why the internal Tory arguments about net zero, about building back after Covid and about the party’s future direction should be taken very seriously. The first is ideological, because they tend to bring Johnson’s personality and populism into stark conflict with the ascetic anti-governmental instincts that much of the party and its rich donors have internalised since the era of Margaret Thatcher. The second is more narrowly political. The modern Tory party has become rebellious and confident enough to bring its leader down – in no small way thanks to the example of Johnson’s own behaviour over many years, of course.
The ideological impasse will have to be confronted in some way in Sunak’s autumn spending review. Coming as this does in the wake of Brexit, Covid and the Conservatives’ embrace of the state doing “what it takes” to keep the economy alive, the review will either be the event that puts a stamp on a new Conservative era, or one that marks the retreat towards the tighter norms of the recent past. Until now, Sunak has just about managed to straddle the two approaches. It is one of the reasons why he continues to be most Tories’ choice as future leader. He may yet manage to postpone the moment of decision, as he has done at various stages through the pandemic. But he cannot do that for ever.
The climate crisis means that the spending review has to come down on one side of the fence or the other. Johnson has simply promised too many things on too many issues – net zero, the NHS, social care, rebuilding the north and HS2 among them – for the Conservatives to be able to continue very much longer as simultaneous heavy spenders and tight fiscal rules enforcers. That’s certainly how most Tory MPs see it, including those in former Labour seats. Something will have to give. The choice will say more clearly than any speech or headline what sort of Tory party this now is.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
The young are just greedy whiney no marks. Get out and work like the pensioners did and earn your own money. A days work would be too much for most of the pampered jessies. Back in the day when men were men , we did not plot how to rob our granny , we got out there and worked our socks off, no handed it on a plate in those days.
Enjoy it while it last Malc, you won't get anything near as generous in indyScotland...
Don’t you start the too wee, too poor, too stupid nonsense Foxy. You’re a better man than that.
The truth hurts
You’re also a better man than than. You’re is the wrong party. They’re a bunch of rotters.
As you know I support the union and have extensive family ties in Scotland, not least my wife whose late father was a very successful fishing skipper.
He was the quite most wonderful man anyone could want as a father in law, wise, generous and kind, who voted Labour, opposed the EU , but most of all rejected nationalism as divisive and not in Scotland 's interest
I have many reasons for being a conservative, not least as they will defend the union, but the opposition at present are entirely unelectable in my view
Unelectable under radical left wing management. Unelectable under centrist consensual management.
I'm not sure what Labour have to do to become legitimate in your eyes, G.
I expect Sunak to suspend the triple lock for a year, and for that decision not to be too controversial; and I'd support it.
But it's worth looking at the actual figures. An 8% increase would give somebody living on the full state pension an extra £62 per calendar month. Probably enough to cover the looming rise in energy prices and a little bit more. So not hugely beneficial or life-changing for an individual pensioner, but a huge cost to the nation's economy. Of course, a fair bit of the £62 would be clawed back from those pensioners who have taxable income. By contrast, a 3% rise in state pension would give a £23 monthly rise, less than £6 a week, a meagre amount.
It remains the case that our state pension is too low for those who have no other income, and too high for those rolling in it. Surely the radical answer is to improve the lot of the poorest pensioners while increasing the tax/NI take from those who can afford it.
Well isn't that the point, the triple lock benefits people like my dad who has just reached state pension age, his private pension and investment earnings are in the higher tax bracket. He can afford to pay a lot more tax but the government is dithering over giving him an extra £800 per year. It should be putting up taxes on people like him so that his income is taxed the same as mine or yours is.
Yes, I agree with you - which is by no means common. Maybe this is an issue where a genuine left/centre/right consensus could be achieved?
Yes one would hope, but this feels like the perfect opportunity for Starmer to oppose the government and try and win some old people votes.
Loads of people talk about how the UK state pension is pretty rubbish, however, no one talks about the huge non-state pension income which puts UK pensioners near the top of the table. It's beyond time that the state pension became a tapered benefit, there's simply no need or reason for anyone in the higher rate tax bracket to be getting it. My parents both see it as their holiday subsidy fund, nothing more than that.
If we did that we could maybe make it more generous for people who don't have the same level of private income and make a huge saving at the same time.
I expect Sunak to suspend the triple lock for a year, and for that decision not to be too controversial; and I'd support it.
But it's worth looking at the actual figures. An 8% increase would give somebody living on the full state pension an extra £62 per calendar month. Probably enough to cover the looming rise in energy prices and a little bit more. So not hugely beneficial or life-changing for an individual pensioner, but a huge cost to the nation's economy. Of course, a fair bit of the £62 would be clawed back from those pensioners who have taxable income. By contrast, a 3% rise in state pension would give a £23 monthly rise, less than £6 a week, a meagre amount.
It remains the case that our state pension is too low for those who have no other income, and too high for those rolling in it. Surely the radical answer is to improve the lot of the poorest pensioners while increasing the tax/NI take from those who can afford it.
Well isn't that the point, the triple lock benefits people like my dad who has just reached state pension age, his private pension and investment earnings are in the higher tax bracket. He can afford to pay a lot more tax but the government is dithering over giving him an extra £800 per year. It should be putting up taxes on people like him so that his income is taxed the same as mine or yours is.
Yes, I agree with you - which is by no means common. Maybe this is an issue where a genuine left/centre/right consensus could be achieved?
Yes one would hope, but this feels like the perfect opportunity for Starmer to oppose the government and try and win some old people votes.
Loads of people talk about how the UK state pension is pretty rubbish, however, no one talks about the huge non-state pension income which puts UK pensioners near the top of the table. It's beyond time that the state pension became a tapered benefit, there's simply no need or reason for anyone in the higher rate tax bracket to be getting it. My parents both see it as their holiday subsidy fund, nothing more than that.
If we did that we could maybe make it more generous for people who don't have the same level of private income and make a huge saving at the same time.
But the state pension is effectively a tapered benfit - you got extra from Supplementary Benefit if you had no, or little, other income. I'm not sure quite how it works now, though.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
The young are just greedy whiney no marks. Get out and work like the pensioners did and earn your own money. A days work would be too much for most of the pampered jessies. Back in the day when men were men , we did not plot how to rob our granny , we got out there and worked our socks off, no handed it on a plate in those days.
Enjoy it while it last Malc, you won't get anything near as generous in indyScotland...
Don’t you start the too wee, too poor, too stupid nonsense Foxy. You’re a better man than that.
The truth hurts
You’re also a better man than than. You’re is the wrong party. They’re a bunch of rotters.
As you know I support the union and have extensive family ties in Scotland, not least my wife whose late father was a very successful fishing skipper.
He was the quite most wonderful man anyone could want as a father in law, wise, generous and kind, who voted Labour, opposed the EU , but most of all rejected nationalism as divisive and not in Scotland 's interest
I have many reasons for being a conservative, not least as they will defend the union, but the opposition at present are entirely unelectable in my view
Unelectable under radical left wing management. Unelectable under centrist consensual management.
I'm not sure what Labour have to do to become legitimate in your eyes, G.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
One wonders why you feel so at home as an English Nationalist and those that aren't, have resigned or been kicked out, if what you are saying is true.
Because its not true.
The ones who resigned or got kicked out were those who were European nationalists and couldn't cope with their grief at losing their European identity.
England wasn't here nor there for that.
What has Brexit got to do with European identity? Whether you like it or not, England/the UK is within the continent of Europe. We will always be European.
Even your mate BoJo said that when the referendum result came in. Your pathetic EDL-lite style posturing shows through in this post.
Perhaps you should ask yourself - but I am sure you don't care - why the Tory Party has abandoned so many people that voted for it for decades. And whether you think that's right.
Your naivety is astonishing.
What the heck has the continent of Europe got to do with being in the European Union?
Should those in Alberta or Quebec or Jalisco be considered Americans and join the United States of America?
That's got nothing to do with England, or EDL or anything else. If you're so childish and puerile as you consider that being in a continent means you must be part of a union then that's just farcical.
Anyway the Tory Party has not abandoned so many that voted for it for decades. The Tory Party got more voters than it has in decades. So yes I absolutely 100% think that's right and anyone so undemocratic as to like you equate Brexit with "EDL" or English nationalism absolutely should be told to take a cold shower until they stop being so silly.
Absolutely not a personal inference about you but did you ever take my recommendation and check out the links between Eng Nat and the far right?
There are no links.
Since I can't examine inside your head for what you fictionalise, I can't do much more than that.
You've looked into it and found that there are no links? I find this hard to believe. I think you haven't looked into it.
No, there are no links to look into.
That's like me saying to look into the links between ASFsdnbvjisfgadf and GFDGHSUIGSFcassd. Are you going to do that? Or are you going to dismiss it as gibberish?
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
Have you considered the possibility that they might be an English nationalist party without balls and the courage of their convictions?
Prince Andrew: Refusal to talk to Epstein investigators ‘straining relations between UK and America’
… the lack of information-sharing had caused diplomatic strain, with US law enforcement and diplomats raising the matter with their British counterparts.
The lack of cooperation now spans three years of reported attempts by the US authorities to gather facts from the royal who, in a statement from 2019, said he would be willing to help US law-enforcement with investigations. However, in January last year, Manhattan US attorney Geoffrey Berman said the country’s authorities had received “zero cooperation” from the prince…
Of particular interest to the US authorities is how money transfers may be linked to the movement of young women and girls. The various interested bodies, including the FBI, believe these may offer insights into ongoing organised criminal operations.
The authorities’ interests are understood to include multiple trips by the royal to Epstein’s Caribbean island, Little St James, as well as Florida and New York. Last year, prosecutors in the US Virgin Islands, which includes Little St James, alleged Mr Epstein abused hundreds of young women and girls up until 2018.
Given the US refuse to hand over Anne Sacoolas tough. Biden is hardly doing a great deal to defend international security at the moment anyway nor has he or the Democrats in Congress ever been that interested in prioritising a UK trade deal either.
Perhaps they could also look a bit more into Bill Clinton and Bill Gates' links to Epstein before lecturing us
This Windsor scandal is clearly touching a raw Tory nerve. Hardly news. I expect a veritable infestation of squirrels in the coming months and years. Poor old Harry and Meghan.
Shame on you HY. If the Tories had an ounce of decency they would be encouraging the coward prince to get on a trans-Atlantic plane and face the charges, as he promised to do in 2019.
Almost as much whataboutery as an Old Firm supporters' spat.
An Old Firm spat is more dignified and less emotional.
The Windsors have been exposed for their true character here. Shame on them. At the very least, HMQ and her late husband have obviously done a very, very poor job of bringing up their children.
From my personal experience, when I entered the investment industry in 1998 the only people who would really need or want the CFA were those in the sharp end of analysis - fund managers, stock analysts, CIOs etc. As the years progressed more and more people were being persuaded they needed to have a CFA to progress and then this was added to by a ratcheting up of investment qualifications required to fulfil more ordinary roles.
So whilst before if you were an investment manager/relationship manager or private banker you might get away with the Reg Rep or similar it got shifted that everyone needed the MSI qualifications then everyone is in a race to get CFA.
Basically in 90% of cases these people never needed these technical skills as they were never actually analysing markets or stocks to any degree but simply following what the investment committee told them to put in their client portfolios. So you end up with a situation where these guys are “more qualified” to seemingly reduce risk but their individual knowledge is pointless as decision making is centralised to remove risk....
So in effect in the earlier years of the CFA you had the “best” financial analytical brains/people who really wanted or needed the CFA taking it and gradually you get a sausage machine of entrants with a wider range of ability taking because they have to even though it’s of very little practical use and so failure rate likely to go up accordingly.
Similar to general life with increased “requirement” for degrees for jobs that don’t need them - ticking boxes and focusing on unnecessary qualifications.
I could of course be wrong.
Yes - I know quite a few software devs who thought that getting a CFA qualification would open doors into management. Since the company(its) fund anyone who wants a go - why not?
Something to put on your CV etc...
Loads more people are taking it, and the pass rate is going down, whereas loads more people are taking A Levels and the pass rate is going up? Is that right?
Are loads more people taking A levels and is the pass rate going up?
From the 1990s when A-levels became a mass qualification overall pass rates have gone up. It does however vary by subject. Some (e.g. biology) had a pass rate in the 70s in the early 90s while Drama (for example) has always had a 99% pass rate.
As some of you may know, following my granddaughter's excellent A level results she starts at Leeds University in September on a 5 year course in Japanese and Italian language and culture.
However, this morning Leeds University are offering some students (my granddaughter is not affected) £10,000 and free accommodation to defer their courses
As a matter of interest how are these grants funded
Congrats to her. That's a long stint, 5 years, so I hope she enjoys it. My brother is a Prof at Leeds Uni, btw, but not on the languages side of things.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
Have you considered the possibility that they might be an English nationalist party without balls and the courage of their convictions?
No.
If they were an English nationalist party without courage all they'd need to do is let Scotland hold an independence referendum and stay quiet about it and not encourage either side, rather than pushing for a Yes vote.
To be opposing a Scotland referendum is clearly not the actions of an English nationalist. Would you as a Scottish nationalist object to or oppose an English independence referendum? Or would you think "this furthers my own agenda, I hope it works".
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
The young are just greedy whiney no marks. Get out and work like the pensioners did and earn your own money. A days work would be too much for most of the pampered jessies. Back in the day when men were men , we did not plot how to rob our granny , we got out there and worked our socks off, no handed it on a plate in those days.
Enjoy it while it last Malc, you won't get anything near as generous in indyScotland...
Don’t you start the too wee, too poor, too stupid nonsense Foxy. You’re a better man than that.
The truth hurts
You’re also a better man than than. You’re is the wrong party. They’re a bunch of rotters.
As you know I support the union and have extensive family ties in Scotland, not least my wife whose late father was a very successful fishing skipper.
He was the quite most wonderful man anyone could want as a father in law, wise, generous and kind, who voted Labour, opposed the EU , but most of all rejected nationalism as divisive and not in Scotland 's interest
I have many reasons for being a conservative, not least as they will defend the union, but the opposition at present are entirely unelectable in my view
You have extensive family ties in Scotland and a late father who was a very successful fishing skipper? Well, this is news to me.
As some of you may know, following my granddaughter's excellent A level results she starts at Leeds University in September on a 5 year course in Japanese and Italian language and culture.
However, this morning Leeds University are offering some students (my granddaughter is not affected) £10,000 and free accommodation to defer their courses
As a matter of interest how are these grants funded
Congrats to her. That's a long stint, 5 years, so I hope she enjoys it. My brother is a Prof at Leeds Uni, btw, but not on the languages side of things.
Thank you - she is very excited not least as her second year is in Japan and fourth in Italy, a country she adores
I expect Sunak to suspend the triple lock for a year, and for that decision not to be too controversial; and I'd support it.
But it's worth looking at the actual figures. An 8% increase would give somebody living on the full state pension an extra £62 per calendar month. Probably enough to cover the looming rise in energy prices and a little bit more. So not hugely beneficial or life-changing for an individual pensioner, but a huge cost to the nation's economy. Of course, a fair bit of the £62 would be clawed back from those pensioners who have taxable income. By contrast, a 3% rise in state pension would give a £23 monthly rise, less than £6 a week, a meagre amount.
It remains the case that our state pension is too low for those who have no other income, and too high for those rolling in it. Surely the radical answer is to improve the lot of the poorest pensioners while increasing the tax/NI take from those who can afford it.
Well isn't that the point, the triple lock benefits people like my dad who has just reached state pension age, his private pension and investment earnings are in the higher tax bracket. He can afford to pay a lot more tax but the government is dithering over giving him an extra £800 per year. It should be putting up taxes on people like him so that his income is taxed the same as mine or yours is.
Yes, I agree with you - which is by no means common. Maybe this is an issue where a genuine left/centre/right consensus could be achieved?
Yes one would hope, but this feels like the perfect opportunity for Starmer to oppose the government and try and win some old people votes.
Loads of people talk about how the UK state pension is pretty rubbish, however, no one talks about the huge non-state pension income which puts UK pensioners near the top of the table. It's beyond time that the state pension became a tapered benefit, there's simply no need or reason for anyone in the higher rate tax bracket to be getting it. My parents both see it as their holiday subsidy fund, nothing more than that.
If we did that we could maybe make it more generous for people who don't have the same level of private income and make a huge saving at the same time.
But the state pension is effectively a tapered benfit - you got extra from Supplementary Benefit if you had no, or little, other income. I'm not sure quite how it works now, though.
I'm suggesting that the taper go down to zero, not £9k or whatever it is right now. If someone has got £50k+ private income from pensions or investments, what are we giving them £9k per year for in addition? Start the taper at £40k and by £58k state pension income drops to 0. I can imagine the saving would be pretty big and it sidesteps the issue of retiring public sector workers who have got massive defined benefit pensions also getting the state pension.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
The young are just greedy whiney no marks. Get out and work like the pensioners did and earn your own money. A days work would be too much for most of the pampered jessies. Back in the day when men were men , we did not plot how to rob our granny , we got out there and worked our socks off, no handed it on a plate in those days.
Enjoy it while it last Malc, you won't get anything near as generous in indyScotland...
Don’t you start the too wee, too poor, too stupid nonsense Foxy. You’re a better man than that.
The truth hurts
You’re also a better man than than. You’re is the wrong party. They’re a bunch of rotters.
As you know I support the union and have extensive family ties in Scotland, not least my wife whose late father was a very successful fishing skipper.
He was the quite most wonderful man anyone could want as a father in law, wise, generous and kind, who voted Labour, opposed the EU , but most of all rejected nationalism as divisive and not in Scotland 's interest
I have many reasons for being a conservative, not least as they will defend the union, but the opposition at present are entirely unelectable in my view
You have extensive family ties in Scotland and a late father who was a very successful fishing skipper? Well, this is news to me.
I am rather surprised unless you are attempting humour
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
Have you considered the possibility that they might be an English nationalist party without balls and the courage of their convictions?
I think they’re perfectly happy for Sindy to happen (like they’d be happy to see the back of NI) and know there’s a very good chance within a decade or two, they are just more than happy to delay until there’s a Labour PM. They’ve got one eye on the history books.
As some of you may know, following my granddaughter's excellent A level results she starts at Leeds University in September on a 5 year course in Japanese and Italian language and culture.
However, this morning Leeds University are offering some students (my granddaughter is not affected) £10,000 and free accommodation to defer their courses
As a matter of interest how are these grants funded
Congrats to her. That's a long stint, 5 years, so I hope she enjoys it. My brother is a Prof at Leeds Uni, btw, but not on the languages side of things.
Yes, good for her. Leeds feels an amazing place to be at the minute. Cutting edge, but not too big to be impersonal.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
Have you considered the possibility that they might be an English nationalist party without balls and the courage of their convictions?
I think they’re perfectly happy for Sindy to happen (like they’d be happy to see the back of NI) and know there’s a very good chance within a decade or two, they are just more than happy to delay until there’s a Labour PM. They’ve got one eye on the history books.
Delaying it until there's a Labour PM is a terrible idea for the Tories.
That gives the initiative to Labour as to how they're going to respond to Sindy. Voting reform or other stuff could be pushed through under the cover of Scottish independence.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
One wonders why you feel so at home as an English Nationalist and those that aren't, have resigned or been kicked out, if what you are saying is true.
Because its not true.
The ones who resigned or got kicked out were those who were European nationalists and couldn't cope with their grief at losing their European identity.
England wasn't here nor there for that.
What has Brexit got to do with European identity? Whether you like it or not, England/the UK is within the continent of Europe. We will always be European.
Even your mate BoJo said that when the referendum result came in. Your pathetic EDL-lite style posturing shows through in this post.
Perhaps you should ask yourself - but I am sure you don't care - why the Tory Party has abandoned so many people that voted for it for decades. And whether you think that's right.
Your naivety is astonishing.
What the heck has the continent of Europe got to do with being in the European Union?
Should those in Alberta or Quebec or Jalisco be considered Americans and join the United States of America?
That's got nothing to do with England, or EDL or anything else. If you're so childish and puerile as you consider that being in a continent means you must be part of a union then that's just farcical.
Anyway the Tory Party has not abandoned so many that voted for it for decades. The Tory Party got more voters than it has in decades. So yes I absolutely 100% think that's right and anyone so undemocratic as to like you equate Brexit with "EDL" or English nationalism absolutely should be told to take a cold shower until they stop being so silly.
Absolutely not a personal inference about you but did you ever take my recommendation and check out the links between Eng Nat and the far right?
There are no links.
Since I can't examine inside your head for what you fictionalise, I can't do much more than that.
You've looked into it and found that there are no links? I find this hard to believe. I think you haven't looked into it.
No, there are no links to look into.
That's like me saying to look into the links between ASFsdnbvjisfgadf and GFDGHSUIGSFcassd. Are you going to do that? Or are you going to dismiss it as gibberish?
That's a rather silly response. But, ok, if you want to stay in blissful ignorance about the seamy end of Eng Nat, pretend it's not there, that's your prerogative. I can't force you to take a look at it. I'm a bit surprised you'd take the approach of the far left to their links with antisemitism as a template to follow, but it's a funny old world sometimes.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
Have you considered the possibility that they might be an English nationalist party without balls and the courage of their convictions?
I think they’re perfectly happy for Sindy to happen (like they’d be happy to see the back of NI) and know there’s a very good chance within a decade or two, they are just more than happy to delay until there’s a Labour PM. They’ve got one eye on the history books.
That certainly covers the absence of testicular fortitude component. I think there’s also an element of English nationalism that would instinctively see a loss of a third of land mass and two thirds of territorial waters as a failure. ‘We’re now only a bit of a sceptred isle? The shame!’
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
Have you considered the possibility that they might be an English nationalist party without balls and the courage of their convictions?
I think they’re perfectly happy for Sindy to happen (like they’d be happy to see the back of NI) and know there’s a very good chance within a decade or two, they are just more than happy to delay until there’s a Labour PM. They’ve got one eye on the history books.
Agreed. That is certainly the gist of HYUFD’s copy n pastes. They are wanting Scottish independence to happen under a Labour PM. Bit childish and cowardly really.
As some of you may know, following my granddaughter's excellent A level results she starts at Leeds University in September on a 5 year course in Japanese and Italian language and culture.
However, this morning Leeds University are offering some students (my granddaughter is not affected) £10,000 and free accommodation to defer their courses
As a matter of interest how are these grants funded
Goodness only knows, but it does highlight one of the problems that's going to feed through the system in the next few years.
In most years, most universities make slightly-to-quite a lot more conditional offers than they have places available. The people in admissions offices have a fairly shrewd idea of how many people won't get the grades or will go elsewhere. So when I applied to do NatSci at Cambridge, my college made about 1.4 offers at AAA per place. When I was involved in the other side of admissions a couple of decades later, that ratio was down to about 1.05 offers at AAA per place; this was before A* had been invented.
It looks like Leeds Law and Business (typical offer AAA) use the A level grades to do a lot of their filtering, and that won't work this year. If they have more successful applicants than they have capacity to teach, what else can they do? It's a bit like when airlines overbook flights and then have to bribe people to not take the flight.
If I were on the uni side of the admissions process, I'd really really want to know what the government's plans for the 2022 exam season are- keep the 2021 grade profile, hack back to 2019, somewhere in-between, or something else? Bearing in mind that the students are halfway through their courses and that the first admissions deadline is mid-October, this is getting pretty urgent.
Good job we've got a real high-flyer as Education Secretary to sort that one.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
Have you considered the possibility that they might be an English nationalist party without balls and the courage of their convictions?
I think they’re perfectly happy for Sindy to happen (like they’d be happy to see the back of NI) and know there’s a very good chance within a decade or two, they are just more than happy to delay until there’s a Labour PM. They’ve got one eye on the history books.
Indyref2 would be more likely to be defeated under the next Labour PM anyway, especially as it would likely be with devomax and a closer alignment to the SM and CU too (which also removes the Irish sea border).
Comments
As I said, I'm expecting those wise heads who I come hear to read to tell me why it's daft
quote
"People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997
If this trend persists into their older ages, in the future, older people will be more likely to be living in the private rental sector than today"
source
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/ageing/articles/livinglonger/changesinhousingtenureovertime
In 2015 Cameron won 35% of graduates to 34% for Miliband and 11% for Clegg and 6% for Farage
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted
A lot of it is down to how the ONS and Eurostat record exports. The pre and Post Brexit figures are calculated differently, and there is an increasing discrepancy between the two:
https://blog.ons.gov.uk/2021/07/08/in-the-balance-identifying-differences-between-uk-and-eu-trade-figures/
In the 60s it was 81%
70s 71%
80s 65%
90s 59%
00s 43%
10s 43%
20s 44%
https://www.cfainstitute.org/-/media/documents/support/programs/cfa/cfa-exam-results-since-1963.ashx
What the heck has the continent of Europe got to do with being in the European Union?
Should those in Alberta or Quebec or Jalisco be considered Americans and join the United States of America?
That's got nothing to do with England, or EDL or anything else. If you're so childish and puerile as you consider that being in a continent means you must be part of a union then that's just farcical.
Anyway the Tory Party has not abandoned so many that voted for it for decades. The Tory Party got more voters than it has in decades. So yes I absolutely 100% think that's right and anyone so undemocratic as to like you equate Brexit with "EDL" or English nationalism absolutely should be told to take a cold shower until they stop being so silly.
Might that have a bearing on it? More people sitting it on spec?
Simply put I was just, and only just, pointing out your statement about us having the highest numbers enrolled in workplace pensions was, although I assume accurate it was flawed, because a huge number of them are next to worthless in what they will provide (certainly do not cover loss of income even taking into account mortgages and commuting).
I was not making any wider judgement on your posts.
I jest, of course. Although an 8% boost might delay some departures from the public sector until next year. Hard to really see that as a problem though, unless pent-up departure demand caused a bit of a rentention crisis next year. An 8% uplift in benefits might also discourage some from taking a low paid job (less than 8% higher than baseline benefit income) until next year, I guess.
Inflationary pressure this year too, I guess, with the extra money sloshing around? Pressure on private sector employers to raise wages (again, is that a bad thing?). Plus the extra bill to the treasury, even as a one off thing.
Hardly a consistent sample.
But you're right that science is a bit different from other endeavours, since it's a system which is designed to deliver results which will be invalidated by others if wrong.
Believe me, I have advised a number of people in similar circumstances & any good lawyer would be very wary about telling a client to go to the US to speak to the criminal authorities there just because they ask.
The US authorities - whether criminal or regulatory - are very willing to grandstand in public to bully people into ignoring their rights. They will often try to ignore different legal requirements in overseas jurisdictions because (a) it is just plain inconvenient for them or (b) it stops them doing what they want.
2. The US criminal authorities have not charged Andrew with anything. Extradition is irrelevant.
3. He now faces a civil suit in the US - brought just before the limitation period expires. It is not entirely clear whether the allegation is that he had sex with a minor or had sex with someone over the age of consent without her consent (rape, in other words) or something else. There is an issue as to jurisdiction because the acts complained of, AFAIU, happened in the UK.
It really does not matter whether he is an HRH or not. He is entitled to the same legal protections as everyone else including the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. There is something unseemly in the way that people rush to assume that because he appears to be an entitled twit he must therefore be guilty of serious crimes. Some of the comments made about him on social media are seriously defamatory. Equally, he is subject to the law as everyone else.
There will be strategic & tactical decisions which his lawyers will have to consider. In addition, he - and his advisors - need to consider the impact of his behaviour on the rest of his family.
Much of what is written in the papers about this is ill-informed nonsense.
I have no idea who is telling the truth here. I do think Andrew was ill-advised to give that interview. But in any event, the matter is now in the hands of the lawyers and, from what I know, some of those advising him are very good indeed. I hope for his sake that he listens to good advice. He clearly hasn't in the past.
You'd have thought courtiers or someone might have warned him about Epstein. But there again Epstein managed to get into his orbit people far far cleverer than Andrew - Clinton, Gates etc. So what does that say about them?
Although, in the 60s how many people got three As in A level compared to now? Is that ratio 1:1000?
I think there are better options.
His ability to deceive and manipulate was really quite extraordinary and that was one reason he got away with so much.
The roughly equivalent figure would be that in 1972 43% of children left school at 15 with no qualifications at all, whereas in 2019 33% left without the five grades at 4 or above. However, this does reflect the fact that all students now sit them whereas in 1972 quite a number simply didn’t bother.
By definition if you are on a pension you will be on lower income than you were working (even with lower costs), if you want a higher income stay working or pay more into your private pension which you are perfectly entitled to do
The percentage of people born in (say) 1980 who have a mortgage or have paid off their mortgage will increase over time.
The percentage of people born in 1980 who own their own home will never reach the levels of those born in (say) 1950.
As you pay off a mortgage, your domestic finances steadily become easier and easier, because you lock in the price of the house as it was a decade or two ago. Hence the mutual incomprehension between generations either side of that gap.
The short-term opportunity, long-term challenge for the Conservatives is that they are becoming the party of those with lots of property wealth and enough pension income to be comfortable, which doesn't take all that much. Take a look at these graphs from the British Election Study of the 2019 election;
https://twitter.com/ChristabelCoops/status/1392077436821573636?s=20
https://twitter.com/ChristabelCoops/status/1392077440328085505?s=20
Amongst working-age people, Labour were ahead (even in 2019!) amongst voters with household incomes up to about 30k (working working-class, if you like), and competitive up to 70k or so (working middle-class). As has been pointed out before, the Conservative triumph of 2019 was underpinned by retired people- retired working-class and retired middle-class alike. And whilst retired people are people like any others, OGH Jr has noted that countries run according to the interests of the retired (Japan, Italy) tend not to thrive.
And that's the knot that the government needs to untangle in dealing with the triple lock.
Yet despite this we're not and never have been European. The empire, and our endless wars against the French and Germans and Dutch have seen to that. We like them, but we aren't them. We have more affinity with the places we shipped our convicts to and the rebellious colonists over the Atlantic.
Who’d want to move to America now?
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/whod-want-to-move-to-america-now
Meanwhile, a tenth capital falls to the Taliban. Prisoners freed in Kandahar.
But it's worth looking at the actual figures. An 8% increase would give somebody living on the full state pension an extra £62 per calendar month. Probably enough to cover the looming rise in energy prices and a little bit more. So not hugely beneficial or life-changing for an individual pensioner, but a huge cost to the nation's economy. Of course, a fair bit of the £62 would be clawed back from those pensioners who have taxable income. By contrast, a 3% rise in state pension would give a £23 monthly rise, less than £6 a week, a meagre amount.
It remains the case that our state pension is too low for those who have no other income, and too high for those rolling in it. Surely the radical answer is to improve the lot of the poorest pensioners while increasing the tax/NI take from those who can afford it.
David Cameron is a paid advisor to US biotech firm Illumina.
Illumina wanted an NHS contract.
Cameron lobbied Matt Hancock for a contract on Illumina's behalf.
Illumina were awarded a £123m NHS contract without tender
https://twitter.com/withorpe33/status/1425708575041757188?s=21
Just heard about this. Bit naughty.
Good to see Hameed given a chance...but Dom Sibley still in, he is the Gavin Williamson of England team.
(In addition to the good points raised by Cyclefree earlier.)
Seems very level-headed, this Sean guy. Bit lefty for the Spectator, though. Sounds like he's been reading The Sprit Level.
I see a possible conflict between 2 factors:
1. Labour need to look sensible with money to win apolitical floating voters.
2. Labour need to make inroads with pensioners.
1) it's not that much in actual terms but
2) it's big enough to seriously annoy everyone who is seeing a 0% or very small pay rise - and that is virtually everyone in the public sector.
3) the £20 UC payment seems to be disappearing.
So politically it just looks like an impossible situation, required when looked at from one angle but a utter nightmare when you look at it from any other angle
‘I assure the honourable member for Inverness that he is wrong and that there is a ferry connection between his city and Ullapool.’
Possibly the Kier Starmer - hangs around for quite some time without unduly troubling the scorers.
Recalling Phil Tufnell to open the batting might approximate appointing Williamson as Secretary of State for Education.
https://twitter.com/timspector/status/1425759384924213254?s=19
Tuffers opening the batting..its Boris as PM....we all have a right laugh at him trying to duck and weave against the fast bowlers, playing and missing, occasionally nicking one for 4, or even off the helmet for 6, but at the end of the day is clueless.
Assuming that said politicians really are high flyers, and not low flyers temporarily aided by gusts of wind.
Since I can't examine inside your head for what you fictionalise, I can't do much more than that.
Illumina are by quite some distance the world's leading sequencing company, so in the context of all the other no bid contracts, this one seems on the face of it fairly reasonable.
The Greensil thing seems an utterly toxic swamp, though.
The triple lock could not be forever, as the logic of it is that pensions would catch up with and surpass average wages over time (since the increase would at the very least be the increase in earnings). That would be gradual, of course, but inevitable.
The trouble, though is that, in normal times and because it is gradual, there's never a clear justification in any given year to abandon the triple lock.
However, the situation has arisen where it would so obviously be unfair and economically damaging to award the increase implied by the triple lock, that it provides the best cover a Chancellor will ever get to abandon it. It's a year when pensioners can get a generous rise... just not 8%. For all the huff and puff in the Express, OAPs are not going to abandon the Tories in their droves because they get, say, 4% which is objectively a nice uplift.
The triple lock has served its purpose over the past decade in providing a significant rise in the state pension which was pretty paltry for those relying on that alone back in 2010 (thanks, Nick Clegg). But all good things come to an end, and it's probably the right time.
So whilst before if you were an investment manager/relationship manager or private banker you might get away with the Reg Rep or similar it got shifted that everyone needed the MSI qualifications then everyone is in a race to get CFA.
Basically in 90% of cases these people never needed these technical skills as they were never actually analysing markets or stocks to any degree but simply following what the investment committee told them to put in their client portfolios. So you end up with a situation where these guys are “more qualified” to seemingly reduce risk but their individual knowledge is pointless as decision making is centralised to remove risk....
So in effect in the earlier years of the CFA you had the “best” financial analytical brains/people who really wanted or needed the CFA taking it and gradually you get a sausage machine of entrants with a wider range of ability taking because they have to even though it’s of very little practical use and so failure rate likely to go up accordingly.
Similar to general life with increased “requirement” for degrees for jobs that don’t need them - ticking boxes and focusing on unnecessary qualifications.
I could of course be wrong.
Me, I had an extended and deeply frustrating tumble with H quite soon after I debuted on here. It was like bowling at Geoffrey Boycott on a day when Geoffrey was in a dour 'give nothing' mood. Ie it was like bowling at Geoffrey Boycott.
So what I did was change my run-up and delivery action. It's worked - although only now and again.
He was the quite most wonderful man anyone could want as a father in law, wise, generous and kind, who voted Labour, opposed the EU , but most of all rejected nationalism as divisive and not in Scotland 's interest
I have many reasons for being a conservative, not least as they will defend the union, but the opposition at present are entirely unelectable in my view
Something to put on your CV etc...
Are loads more people taking A levels and is the pass rate going up?
At the moment, it would be far more efficient (and cheaper) to build vast banks of batteries to store electrical energy.
However, this morning Leeds University are offering some students (my granddaughter is not affected) £10,000 and free accommodation to defer their courses
As a matter of interest how are these grants funded
BBC News - University of Leeds students offered £10k and free housing to defer
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-58176877
Extract from letter 👇
http://bbc.co.uk/politics https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1425769454592536580/photo/1
There are two fundamental reasons why the internal Tory arguments about net zero, about building back after Covid and about the party’s future direction should be taken very seriously. The first is ideological, because they tend to bring Johnson’s personality and populism into stark conflict with the ascetic anti-governmental instincts that much of the party and its rich donors have internalised since the era of Margaret Thatcher. The second is more narrowly political. The modern Tory party has become rebellious and confident enough to bring its leader down – in no small way thanks to the example of Johnson’s own behaviour over many years, of course.
The ideological impasse will have to be confronted in some way in Sunak’s autumn spending review. Coming as this does in the wake of Brexit, Covid and the Conservatives’ embrace of the state doing “what it takes” to keep the economy alive, the review will either be the event that puts a stamp on a new Conservative era, or one that marks the retreat towards the tighter norms of the recent past. Until now, Sunak has just about managed to straddle the two approaches. It is one of the reasons why he continues to be most Tories’ choice as future leader. He may yet manage to postpone the moment of decision, as he has done at various stages through the pandemic. But he cannot do that for ever.
The climate crisis means that the spending review has to come down on one side of the fence or the other. Johnson has simply promised too many things on too many issues – net zero, the NHS, social care, rebuilding the north and HS2 among them – for the Conservatives to be able to continue very much longer as simultaneous heavy spenders and tight fiscal rules enforcers. That’s certainly how most Tory MPs see it, including those in former Labour seats. Something will have to give. The choice will say more clearly than any speech or headline what sort of Tory party this now is.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/12/boris-johnson-rebelliousness-tory-party-deep-divisions
I'm not sure what Labour have to do to become legitimate in your eyes, G.
Loads of people talk about how the UK state pension is pretty rubbish, however, no one talks about the huge non-state pension income which puts UK pensioners near the top of the table. It's beyond time that the state pension became a tapered benefit, there's simply no need or reason for anyone in the higher rate tax bracket to be getting it. My parents both see it as their holiday subsidy fund, nothing more than that.
If we did that we could maybe make it more generous for people who don't have the same level of private income and make a huge saving at the same time.
That's like me saying to look into the links between ASFsdnbvjisfgadf and GFDGHSUIGSFcassd. Are you going to do that? Or are you going to dismiss it as gibberish?
The Windsors have been exposed for their true character here. Shame on them. At the very least, HMQ and her late husband have obviously done a very, very poor job of bringing up their children.
http://www.bstubbs.co.uk/a-lev.htm
That may be a function, again, of who took it and how committed they were to the subject.
If they were an English nationalist party without courage all they'd need to do is let Scotland hold an independence referendum and stay quiet about it and not encourage either side, rather than pushing for a Yes vote.
To be opposing a Scotland referendum is clearly not the actions of an English nationalist. Would you as a Scottish nationalist object to or oppose an English independence referendum? Or would you think "this furthers my own agenda, I hope it works".
That gives the initiative to Labour as to how they're going to respond to Sindy. Voting reform or other stuff could be pushed through under the cover of Scottish independence.
In most years, most universities make slightly-to-quite a lot more conditional offers than they have places available. The people in admissions offices have a fairly shrewd idea of how many people won't get the grades or will go elsewhere. So when I applied to do NatSci at Cambridge, my college made about 1.4 offers at AAA per place. When I was involved in the other side of admissions a couple of decades later, that ratio was down to about 1.05 offers at AAA per place; this was before A* had been invented.
It looks like Leeds Law and Business (typical offer AAA) use the A level grades to do a lot of their filtering, and that won't work this year. If they have more successful applicants than they have capacity to teach, what else can they do? It's a bit like when airlines overbook flights and then have to bribe people to not take the flight.
If I were on the uni side of the admissions process, I'd really really want to know what the government's plans for the 2022 exam season are- keep the 2021 grade profile, hack back to 2019, somewhere in-between, or something else? Bearing in mind that the students are halfway through their courses and that the first admissions deadline is mid-October, this is getting pretty urgent.
Good job we've got a real high-flyer as Education Secretary to sort that one.
That really would be it for a generation