Just started reading this - entertainingly and accessibly written:
Today marks the launch of @DuncanWeldon's Two Hundred Years of Muddling Through - this is the surprising story of Britain's economy from boom to bust and back again!
And I don't have any hatred towards pensioners at all, I just think if you were to investigate, young people have had a rotten deal over the last many years and in general pensioners have not.
I am not sure what the solution to that is - but it is rich for older people who did not have student loans, ridiculous house prices to say that the solution is just to be a bit more frugal and eat fewer avocados.
You say that: but many pensioners also had a rotten deal over their youth - and perhaps a rose one. My dad was born in 1936, and his early years were spent through WWII, with a dad who was away at sea for a lot of the time, not knowing if he'd see his dad again.
There may have been a golden era to be young - the 1960s? - but even then, it was probably terrible for many youngsters.
Fair point, I take that there are periods on the other side which are a lot worse. The 60s or so era was what I was thinking.
Were the swinging sixties actually an illusion for many (most?) people? A bit like Cool Britannia in the 1990s. Not everyone was involved with the Summer of Love et al.
But I wasn't around at the time, so would have to defer to those who were ...
It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?
My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.
This is a tough one for Johnson.
Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
I'm a pensioner, ffs!
Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
One of the odder things is the number of reduced prices pensioners get.
Something which started when there were far fewer pensioners and when they tended to be far poorer.
But why should a pensioner now get lower priced entry to a sports match for example.
Another greedy envious git whining and whinging.
Have you ever surprised on the upside Malcolm ?
Yes. Sometimes.
Incredible the hatred of pensioners on here. I cannot understand why people would not be happy for pensioners getting a few bob extra after having worked all their lives. I never fail to be amazed at how many people are so greedy and envious of others rather than wishing other people well.
I do not hate pensioners. But I find the logic of 'happy for pensioners getting a few bob extra after having worked all their lives' to be really peculiar, and I heard the same thing from people about the Waspi stuff. By that logic no negative impact change could ever be permitted, no matter how justified, because people have 'worked all their lives'. But sometimes negative changes for one group are justified.
It's not a question of whether people deserve specific things after working their whole lives, people deserve a lot of things they don't get - care workers and better pay spring to mind - but it is a question of whether the existing situation is reasonable and affordable for society as a whole in a particular context, and whether proposals to benefit or in this case disadvantage pensions are reasonable or not.
Many will think it is not, but treating proposals to do so automatically as unfair because people have worked all their lives, or that it is driven by hatred, is as silly as when NHS veneration prevents consideration of potentially sensible ideas.
Pensioners do not have a god given right to an 8% or whatever rise from the triple lock because they have worked all their lives. At what point would it be unreasonable to not just 'wish people well'? The lock did not always exist so would be outrageous to return to a policy where it did not?
Some may say so, we've seen the argument the state pension in the UK is too low, but whether it is right or wrong I find it unconvincing that a political policy is being proffered as some inalienable right that people should just wish people well over. I think that could be extended into a great many areas.
Under current rules they do, we will see if government have the bollox to change them and risk upsetting voters. Also I said they had a right to their pension, not a specific increase, however they are entitled to an increase under the rules so they should get it.
Whirlybirds are just not natural. That looks like a very lucky escape.
Probably LTE due to tail rotor vortex ring state.
Unless you've got airspeed or altitude you are more fucked than a pensioner expecting 8% when this occurs. The Mi-17-1V like all Hip variants is a big old barge that needs a firm hand and nerves to steel to recover from uncommanded yaw.
Yes, that’s a plausible reason for the failure (which I’d not read about for a decade or so!).
Airspeed and altitude, two of a pilot’s three best friends, no matter what he’s flying. Fuel is the other one, unless he’s on fire!
I always remember a friend of mine, navy pilot (not @Dura as far as I'm aware, same insouciance, but older) telling me that he had just taken off from some holiday island with his wife in an older twin-prop plane when one of the engines stopped turning. His wife noticed it and asked him about it to which he said all is good, just procedure, while inwardly hoping that the pilot would gain altitude, and then turn around and head back to the airport they'd just left.
And sure enough, barely discernibly, the aircraft slowly began to climb and executed a big arc turn back towards the airport. All was well and they landed safely on one engine.
It makes no logical sense to apply the triple lock this year – that’s obvious and so we must scrabble around for a fresh angle on the subject. I think I have one.
In almost every conceivable way it’s better to be young than old. I won’t list all the ways – not in the mood – and I don’t need to. Not expecting an argument on the point.
Why is this relevant to the thread topic of pensions? It’s relevant because the core issue is equity between the generations. What we usually hear is that the young are subsidizing the old. Which is true. They do. But think of it a different way. The young have copious amounts of something very precious – time. Time is the most precious commodity on the planet since it’s needed for literally everything and is strictly limited in supply, extra amounts cannot under any circumstances be manufactured.
This isn't an airy fairy intangible asset it has hard monetary value. Eg, the average 61 year old would be willing to pay approx 50% (maybe more) of their net worth in order to become an average 21 year old. That’s just by way of illustration, some would pay less, some more, and in general the older you are the more you’d be willing to cough up. Let’s not quibble on the detail. The point I’m making is that when you bring in this metric – which is both genuine and material - young people start to look much £££ wealthier and old people much £££ poorer. Once in this frame of mind the objection to one year’s triple lock anomaly seems petty.
Strong contender for WAOTY that one! (Weirdest argument of the year).
Well I must be weird then because it came naturally! Wasn't straining particularly. The trick is to recognize time as an asset with monetary value. Once you do this, the wealth profile across the generations looks radically different, the young far less hard done by, the old far less cossetted.
But "time remaining" isn't an asset with monetary value, is it? It is untradeable. When you take that into account, the wealth profile across the generations looks radically the same.
The focus seems to be on the Triple Lock, why not a refund or a rebate for students who have been taught from home for the last year+? Why are they ignored?
One reason is they do not vote.
Old people do.
They do vote, just not in large enough quantities - but I very much agree with the basis of your point.
And I agree with the basis of yours. Young people have been treated very badly in this pandemic and it is time it stopped. High time.
Young people have been treated badly for the last twenty+ years, it did not start with COVID.
I am fortunate enough to be in the position to be buying a house due to inherited money, if I didn't have that I would be utterly screwed and I am a higher earner for my age. A Government needs to do something about that.
I had this conversation with a 29 year old at work a few months back. You could afford property, we can't.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?
My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.
This is a tough one for Johnson.
Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
I'm a pensioner, ffs!
Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
One of the odder things is the number of reduced prices pensioners get.
Something which started when there were far fewer pensioners and when they tended to be far poorer.
But why should a pensioner now get lower priced entry to a sports match for example.
Another greedy envious git whining and whinging.
Have you ever surprised on the upside Malcolm ?
Yes. Sometimes.
Incredible the hatred of pensioners on here. I cannot understand why people would not be happy for pensioners getting a few bob extra after having worked all their lives. I never fail to be amazed at how many people are so greedy and envious of others rather than wishing other people well.
I do not hate pensioners. But I find the logic of 'happy for pensioners getting a few bob extra after having worked all their lives' to be really peculiar, and I heard the same thing from people about the Waspi stuff. By that logic no negative impact change could ever be permitted, no matter how justified, because people have 'worked all their lives'. But sometimes negative changes for one group are justified.
It's not a question of whether people deserve specific things after working their whole lives, people deserve a lot of things they don't get - care workers and better pay spring to mind - but it is a question of whether the existing situation is reasonable and affordable for society as a whole in a particular context, and whether proposals to benefit or in this case disadvantage pensions are reasonable or not.
Many will think it is not, but treating proposals to do so automatically as unfair because people have worked all their lives, or that it is driven by hatred, is as silly as when NHS veneration prevents consideration of potentially sensible ideas.
Pensioners do not have a god given right to an 8% or whatever rise from the triple lock because they have worked all their lives. At what point would it be unreasonable to not just 'wish people well'? The lock did not always exist so would be outrageous to return to a policy where it did not?
Some may say so, we've seen the argument the state pension in the UK is too low, but whether it is right or wrong I find it unconvincing that a political policy is being proffered as some inalienable right that people should just wish people well over. I think that could be extended into a great many areas.
Under current rules they do, we will see if government have the bollox to change them and risk upsetting voters. Also I said they had a right to their pension, not a specific increase, however they are entitled to an increase under the rules so they should get it.
The focus seems to be on the Triple Lock, why not a refund or a rebate for students who have been taught from home for the last year+? Why are they ignored?
One reason is they do not vote.
Old people do.
They do vote, just not in large enough quantities - but I very much agree with the basis of your point.
And I agree with the basis of yours. Young people have been treated very badly in this pandemic and it is time it stopped. High time.
Young people have been treated badly for the last twenty+ years, it did not start with COVID.
I am fortunate enough to be in the position to be buying a house due to inherited money, if I didn't have that I would be utterly screwed and I am a higher earner for my age. A Government needs to do something about that.
I had this conversation with a 29 year old at work a few months back. You could afford property, we can't.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
I am buying with somebody else, if I was alone despite the money I had inherited, I would still be screwed.
And I don't have any hatred towards pensioners at all, I just think if you were to investigate, young people have had a rotten deal over the last many years and in general pensioners have not.
I am not sure what the solution to that is - but it is rich for older people who did not have student loans, ridiculous house prices to say that the solution is just to be a bit more frugal and eat fewer avocados.
You say that: but many pensioners also had a rotten deal over their youth - and perhaps a rose one. My dad was born in 1936, and his early years were spent through WWII, with a dad who was away at sea for a lot of the time, not knowing if he'd see his dad again.
There may have been a golden era to be young - the 1960s? - but even then, it was probably terrible for many youngsters.
Fair point, I take that there are periods on the other side which are a lot worse. The 60s or so era was what I was thinking.
Were the swinging sixties actually an illusion for many (most?) people? A bit like Cool Britannia in the 1990s. Not everyone was involved with the Summer of Love et al.
But I wasn't around at the time, so would have to defer to those who were ...
Sheila Hancock reminisced about driving round London on her moped with Kenneth Williams behind her shouting "Where are all the orgies and why haven't we been asked...?"
It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?
My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.
This is a tough one for Johnson.
Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
I'm a pensioner, ffs!
Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
Even worse they think that they have "earned" it by paying NI (and electing governments which spent that money and ran a deficit overall). Another serious upside of the abolition of NI and its incorporation into IT is that this particular delusion will fade over time.
Well, I lived through the War and the troubles of the later 40's, so you might argue.....
Not that I am. Although I had some seriously ill-fortune at one time in my life, as a result of prudence and good luck in eventually getting a public service job I'm comfortable enough. So If the triple lock goes, so be it. I'd rather that than the cut in Universal Credit.
Absolutely. And Pension credit for those in hardship should be prioritised too. I have several friends who are now retiring on state or NHS pensions in excess of £60k a year plus a very nice lump sum to fund the holidoddles and I just don't see why they are getting the state pension at all. I would far rather have a more generous pension for those with no alternative sources of income and means test it for those who do. But then, I don't need to get elected.
This is what I was saying a few weeks ago when the subject last came up. Make if more generous for people with low private income, reduce or eliminate it for people in the higher tax rate. Any pensioner earning £50k+ from private sources just doesn't need the state pension. That's a huge saving which can be spent on actually helping those older people who need it because their careers didn't provide them with a solid retirement fund.
Bollox as usual. You would spend more time on an army of drones working out who gets it and who does not and then if next year they are not on high rate tax it all has to change. Stupid stupid idea and a bureaucratic nightmare.
Honestly Malc, you're a fool and I'm done engaging with you. All anyone ever gets is insults and absolute rubbish in response. You're not even a good value comedy poster like Leon.
The focus seems to be on the Triple Lock, why not a refund or a rebate for students who have been taught from home for the last year+? Why are they ignored?
One reason is they do not vote.
Old people do.
They do vote, just not in large enough quantities - but I very much agree with the basis of your point.
And I agree with the basis of yours. Young people have been treated very badly in this pandemic and it is time it stopped. High time.
Young people have been treated badly for the last twenty+ years, it did not start with COVID.
I am fortunate enough to be in the position to be buying a house due to inherited money, if I didn't have that I would be utterly screwed and I am a higher earner for my age. A Government needs to do something about that.
I had this conversation with a 29 year old at work a few months back. You could afford property, we can't.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
I am buying with somebody else, if I was alone despite the money I had inherited, I would still be screwed.
Whirlybirds are just not natural. That looks like a very lucky escape.
Probably LTE due to tail rotor vortex ring state.
Unless you've got airspeed or altitude you are more fucked than a pensioner expecting 8% when this occurs. The Mi-17-1V like all Hip variants is a big old barge that needs a firm hand and nerves to steel to recover from uncommanded yaw.
Yes, that’s a plausible reason for the failure (which I’d not read about for a decade or so!).
Airspeed and altitude, two of a pilot’s three best friends, no matter what he’s flying. Fuel is the other one, unless he’s on fire!
I always remember a friend of mine, navy pilot (not @Dura as far as I'm aware, same insouciance, but older) telling me that he had just taken off from some holiday island with his wife in an older twin-prop plane when one of the engines stopped turning. His wife noticed it and asked him about it to which he said all is good, just procedure, while inwardly hoping that the pilot would gain altitude, and then turn around and head back to the airport they'd just left.
And sure enough, barely discernibly, the aircraft slowly began to climb and executed a big arc turn back towards the airport. All was well and they landed safely on one engine.
Engine failure at takeoff in a twin-prop, is something definitely better experienced in the simulator than in real life. Depending on the aircraft type and speed, you might need to throttle back the good engine, to recover sufficient rudder authority to choose your own accident site!
I didn’t do my twin rating, at least with one engine you know the score when it fails.
Whirlybirds are just not natural. That looks like a very lucky escape.
Probably LTE due to tail rotor vortex ring state.
Unless you've got airspeed or altitude you are more fucked than a pensioner expecting 8% when this occurs. The Mi-17-1V like all Hip variants is a big old barge that needs a firm hand and nerves to steel to recover from uncommanded yaw.
Yes, that’s a plausible reason for the failure (which I’d not read about for a decade or so!).
Airspeed and altitude, two of a pilot’s three best friends, no matter what he’s flying. Fuel is the other one, unless he’s on fire!
I always remember a friend of mine, navy pilot (not @Dura as far as I'm aware, same insouciance, but older)
The Fleet Air Arm of the generation before me were completely inured to mortal peril through frequent exposure. One of my instructors on RNFTF at Roborough was a greybeard who had flown Wyverns, Scimitars, Sea Vixens and assorted other deathtraps. He reckoned he was going to one funeral a month (closed casket) in the early 60s.
The focus seems to be on the Triple Lock, why not a refund or a rebate for students who have been taught from home for the last year+? Why are they ignored?
One reason is they do not vote.
Old people do.
They do vote, just not in large enough quantities - but I very much agree with the basis of your point.
And I agree with the basis of yours. Young people have been treated very badly in this pandemic and it is time it stopped. High time.
Young people have been treated badly for the last twenty+ years, it did not start with COVID.
I am fortunate enough to be in the position to be buying a house due to inherited money, if I didn't have that I would be utterly screwed and I am a higher earner for my age. A Government needs to do something about that.
I had this conversation with a 29 year old at work a few months back. You could afford property, we can't.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
I am buying with somebody else, if I was alone despite the money I had inherited, I would still be screwed.
Best of luck to both of you, anyhow.
Thank you, just need to find the right place now.
I don't think becoming a property owner is going to change my left wing views
On the polling. It seems clear to me that the government is a bit less popular that it was back in May/June. No dramatic slide, more a gradual erosion. Labour, however is static - stuck on around 33%. For Labour to be competitive again, the first part of the equation may have started - Tories to be less popular. But the second part hasn't - Labour to be more popular. It strikes me that the party conferences will be crucial: if Starmer can take the opportunity to make Labour more popular, then by October the polling could look very different. It is, of course, equally possible that Labour fails to come up with anything significant to make it more attractive to voters.
The focus seems to be on the Triple Lock, why not a refund or a rebate for students who have been taught from home for the last year+? Why are they ignored?
One reason is they do not vote.
Old people do.
They do vote, just not in large enough quantities - but I very much agree with the basis of your point.
And I agree with the basis of yours. Young people have been treated very badly in this pandemic and it is time it stopped. High time.
Young people have been treated badly for the last twenty+ years, it did not start with COVID.
I am fortunate enough to be in the position to be buying a house due to inherited money, if I didn't have that I would be utterly screwed and I am a higher earner for my age. A Government needs to do something about that.
I had this conversation with a 29 year old at work a few months back. You could afford property, we can't.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
I am buying with somebody else, if I was alone despite the money I had inherited, I would still be screwed.
Best of luck to both of you, anyhow.
Thank you, just need to find the right place now.
I don't think becoming a property owner is going to change my left wing views
The focus seems to be on the Triple Lock, why not a refund or a rebate for students who have been taught from home for the last year+? Why are they ignored?
One reason is they do not vote.
Old people do.
They do vote, just not in large enough quantities - but I very much agree with the basis of your point.
And I agree with the basis of yours. Young people have been treated very badly in this pandemic and it is time it stopped. High time.
Young people have been treated badly for the last twenty+ years, it did not start with COVID.
I am fortunate enough to be in the position to be buying a house due to inherited money, if I didn't have that I would be utterly screwed and I am a higher earner for my age. A Government needs to do something about that.
I had this conversation with a 29 year old at work a few months back. You could afford property, we can't.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
I am buying with somebody else, if I was alone despite the money I had inherited, I would still be screwed.
Best of luck to both of you, anyhow.
Thank you, just need to find the right place now.
I don't think becoming a property owner is going to change my left wing views
Give it time…
I highly doubt it but feel free to come back and ask in time
The fundamental point is that when the formula was introduced, it was never imagined that there would be a dramatic fall in earnings one year and a dramatic recovery the next, such that it would deliver pensioners a surprise one off rise because of the increase whilst protecting them from the fall. It’s an anomaly and in a sensible world, a temporary fix should be found to avoid it.
Of course, in a sensible world social care would have been sorted out long ago.
The bigger picture is of growing inter-generational unfairness, which the pandemic has worsened. It would be unreasonable to direct so much extra funding toward pensioners, because of an anomaly, when so many young are struggling with housing, student finance and the rest.
To be honest if Labour can poll 33% with a historically unpopular leader and unpopular policies it seems nuts to me that they can poll less than that with a leader who the collective response is "meh"
The focus seems to be on the Triple Lock, why not a refund or a rebate for students who have been taught from home for the last year+? Why are they ignored?
One reason is they do not vote.
Old people do.
They do vote, just not in large enough quantities - but I very much agree with the basis of your point.
And I agree with the basis of yours. Young people have been treated very badly in this pandemic and it is time it stopped. High time.
Young people have been treated badly for the last twenty+ years, it did not start with COVID.
I am fortunate enough to be in the position to be buying a house due to inherited money, if I didn't have that I would be utterly screwed and I am a higher earner for my age. A Government needs to do something about that.
I had this conversation with a 29 year old at work a few months back. You could afford property, we can't.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
I am buying with somebody else, if I was alone despite the money I had inherited, I would still be screwed.
Best of luck to both of you, anyhow.
Thank you, just need to find the right place now.
I don't think becoming a property owner is going to change my left wing views
Give it time…
Nah, don't forget most leading Corbynistas were property mogels...and one of the most hard left candidates in the union election was a multi-millionaire out of property.
No website is going to have a different cookies policy dependant on location
Many international sites do that already. Geo-location based on IP address is often used to direct you to a certain page, or to give certain options such as cookies.
The stereotype that if you're young you must be stupid if you're left wing is alive and well whenever I converse with older people. You're not stupid if you vote Tory though, no of course not
Its not about being stupid. I respect peoples opinions. Sadly too many on the left think that Tories are evil and too many on the right think lefties are stupid, or out of touch with reality. Its fine to disagree about the best way to support the unemployed, or how to structure a benefits system. Its fine to wonder if benefits should be more contribution based. Its fine to wonder if the rich should pay more tax, or less tax if that increases the tax haul. There are not easy answers. Some will see people on benefits as scroungers, some will see people who deserve help. I have agonies about people who cannot work. What kind of life to they deserve? Do they have a right to Sky TV, to holidays? Or should it be just the minimum to live? Not easy answers.
No website is going to have a different cookies policy dependant on location
Many international sites do that already. Geo-location based on IP address is often used to direct you to a certain page, or to give certain options such as cookies.
See the dodgy betting companies advertising at premier league grounds....
It makes no logical sense to apply the triple lock this year – that’s obvious and so we must scrabble around for a fresh angle on the subject. I think I have one.
In almost every conceivable way it’s better to be young than old. I won’t list all the ways – not in the mood – and I don’t need to. Not expecting an argument on the point.
Why is this relevant to the thread topic of pensions? It’s relevant because the core issue is equity between the generations. What we usually hear is that the young are subsidizing the old. Which is true. They do. But think of it a different way. The young have copious amounts of something very precious – time. Time is the most precious commodity on the planet since it’s needed for literally everything and is strictly limited in supply, extra amounts cannot under any circumstances be manufactured.
This isn't an airy fairy intangible asset it has hard monetary value. Eg, the average 61 year old would be willing to pay approx 50% (maybe more) of their net worth in order to become an average 21 year old. That’s just by way of illustration, some would pay less, some more, and in general the older you are the more you’d be willing to cough up. Let’s not quibble on the detail. The point I’m making is that when you bring in this metric – which is both genuine and material - young people start to look much £££ wealthier and old people much £££ poorer. Once in this frame of mind the objection to one year’s triple lock anomaly seems petty.
Strong contender for WAOTY that one! (Weirdest argument of the year).
Well I must be weird then because it came naturally! Wasn't straining particularly. The trick is to recognize time as an asset with monetary value. Once you do this, the wealth profile across the generations looks radically different, the young far less hard done by, the old far less cossetted.
I cannot believe I am continuing this, but I think for it to be valid the following would need to apply:
61 year olds did not get the experience of being 21, otherwise they are eating cake and having it We had the ability to make 61 year olds 21 (Peter Stringfellow shows what happens when we try).
It was just a wonky way of expressing the sentiment that we should err on the side of prioritizing the old over the young because the old are at a relative structural disadvantage - their balance sheet being low on the asset of time. I don't really see a 'cake and eat it' angle. The trade of £X for Y years isn't possible. But if it were it would be done, so you can look at it as a monetary item. I can perfectly understand why it isn't normally viewed this way but it's how it sometimes (eg today) strikes me.
Whirlybirds are just not natural. That looks like a very lucky escape.
Probably LTE due to tail rotor vortex ring state.
Unless you've got airspeed or altitude you are more fucked than a pensioner expecting 8% when this occurs. The Mi-17-1V like all Hip variants is a big old barge that needs a firm hand and nerves to steel to recover from uncommanded yaw.
Yes, that’s a plausible reason for the failure (which I’d not read about for a decade or so!).
Airspeed and altitude, two of a pilot’s three best friends, no matter what he’s flying. Fuel is the other one, unless he’s on fire!
I always remember a friend of mine, navy pilot (not @Dura as far as I'm aware, same insouciance, but older)
The Fleet Air Arm of the generation before me were completely inured to mortal peril through frequent exposure. One of my instructors on RNFTF at Roborough was a greybeard who had flown Wyverns, Scimitars, Sea Vixens and assorted other deathtraps. He reckoned he was going to one funeral a month (closed casket) in the early 60s.
ISTR that many of the post-war F1 drivers were ex-pilots, who were similarly inured to death. One of them gave a quote about it, where he said the dangers of F1 were nothing compared to those he had faced in the war.
(Citation reqd).
On your note, one of the books I've got has a section where it talks about a dump of broken early jet planes at an airfield in Lincolnshire. All had crashed.
The stereotype that if you're young you must be stupid if you're left wing is alive and well whenever I converse with older people. You're not stupid if you vote Tory though, no of course not
Its not about being stupid. I respect peoples opinions. Sadly too many on the left think that Tories are evil and too many on the right think lefties are stupid, or out of touch with reality. Its fine to disagree about the best way to support the unemployed, or how to structure a benefits system. Its fine to wonder if benefits should be more contribution based. Its fine to wonder if the rich should pay more tax, or less tax if that increases the tax haul. There are not easy answers. Some will see people on benefits as scroungers, some will see people who deserve help. I have agonies about people who cannot work. What kind of life to they deserve? Do they have a right to Sky TV, to holidays? Or should it be just the minimum to live? Not easy answers.
A days batting at the cricket usually accelerates through the day. The last session, if a side is still batting, will see many more runs as the bowlers and fielders get tired. Of course, he could just have got a bit stuck...
To be honest if Labour can poll 33% with a historically unpopular leader and unpopular policies it seems nuts to me that they can poll less than that with a leader who the collective response is "meh"
Best guess is the Jeremy's most devout disciples have gone off to the Greens or whoever, roughly cancelled out by Starmer attracting more in the centre.
A company is not going to give a different cookies policy to UK customers than those in the EU, it will be the same
When the options are GDPR and non-GDPR, it’s easy to move any given country from one to the other. There are companies who maintain the tables of IP addresses to countries, and maintain these tables for thousands of websites. It’s a tiny change for them, and no change at all for the thousands of websites.
No website is going to have a different cookies policy dependant on location
Many international sites do that already. Geo-location based on IP address is often used to direct you to a certain page, or to give certain options such as cookies.
It's sometimes a confounded nuisance. The most brain-dead one I know is Google. Sometimes I want to do a search in French about something in France. You might have thought that going to google.fr would be a good start for this, but, oh no, Mr Google thinks he knows better than me what I'm trying to do, and switches back to a UK-based search in English.
Office furniture (£360k) and computer equipment (£195k) mainly.....
Consider the following possibilities for comingled funds:
1) The SNP has £2m in a bank account, and claims the "ringfenced" £600k is part of that; 2) The SNP has £0 in a bank account, but a £2m overdraft facility, and claims the "ringfenced" £600k is part of that; 3) The SNP has -£2m in a bank account, at the bottom of their overdraft, but claims they could borrow the "ringfenced" £600k easily elsewhere.
What are the accounting and legal and moral differences here?
My guess is that legally (1) and (2) are the same, and (3) very different. But I think the average punter would consider (1) ok and (2) pretty dodgy, and therefore different.
No website is going to have a different cookies policy dependant on location
Many international sites do that already. Geo-location based on IP address is often used to direct you to a certain page, or to give certain options such as cookies.
It's sometimes a confounded nuisance. The most brain-dead one I know is Google. Sometimes I want to do a search in French about something in France. You might have thought that going to google.fr would be a good start for this, but, oh no, Mr Google thinks he knows better than me what I'm trying to do, and switches back to a UK-based search in English.
Google are absolutely the worst for it. Occasionally they try and put my account into Arabic, with no obvious way of working out how to get it back in English except using Google translate on their own page!
The fundamental point is that when the formula was introduced, it was never imagined that there would be a dramatic fall in earnings one year and a dramatic recovery the next, such that it would deliver pensioners a surprise one off rise because of the increase whilst protecting them from the fall. It’s an anomaly and in a sensible world, a temporary fix should be found to avoid it.
Of course, in a sensible world social care would have been sorted out long ago.
The bigger picture is of growing inter-generational unfairness, which the pandemic has worsened. It would be unreasonable to direct so much extra funding toward pensioners, because of an anomaly, when so many young are struggling with housing, student finance and the rest.
The triple lock rise (or any pension rise) will go to future pensioners as well – however young they are today. It is not as if this is a one-off Christmas bonus.
Whirlybirds are just not natural. That looks like a very lucky escape.
Probably LTE due to tail rotor vortex ring state.
Unless you've got airspeed or altitude you are more fucked than a pensioner expecting 8% when this occurs. The Mi-17-1V like all Hip variants is a big old barge that needs a firm hand and nerves to steel to recover from uncommanded yaw.
Yes, that’s a plausible reason for the failure (which I’d not read about for a decade or so!).
Airspeed and altitude, two of a pilot’s three best friends, no matter what he’s flying. Fuel is the other one, unless he’s on fire!
I always remember a friend of mine, navy pilot (not @Dura as far as I'm aware, same insouciance, but older)
The Fleet Air Arm of the generation before me were completely inured to mortal peril through frequent exposure. One of my instructors on RNFTF at Roborough was a greybeard who had flown Wyverns, Scimitars, Sea Vixens and assorted other deathtraps. He reckoned he was going to one funeral a month (closed casket) in the early 60s.
My late dad served on Glory for a while in the early 50s (ordnance tiffy). His memory of the chaps landing on the roof was of their very short lives. One day there were five hammocks over the side in one funeral, as he told it.
It makes no logical sense to apply the triple lock this year – that’s obvious and so we must scrabble around for a fresh angle on the subject. I think I have one.
In almost every conceivable way it’s better to be young than old. I won’t list all the ways – not in the mood – and I don’t need to. Not expecting an argument on the point.
Why is this relevant to the thread topic of pensions? It’s relevant because the core issue is equity between the generations. What we usually hear is that the young are subsidizing the old. Which is true. They do. But think of it a different way. The young have copious amounts of something very precious – time. Time is the most precious commodity on the planet since it’s needed for literally everything and is strictly limited in supply, extra amounts cannot under any circumstances be manufactured.
This isn't an airy fairy intangible asset it has hard monetary value. Eg, the average 61 year old would be willing to pay approx 50% (maybe more) of their net worth in order to become an average 21 year old. That’s just by way of illustration, some would pay less, some more, and in general the older you are the more you’d be willing to cough up. Let’s not quibble on the detail. The point I’m making is that when you bring in this metric – which is both genuine and material - young people start to look much £££ wealthier and old people much £££ poorer. Once in this frame of mind the objection to one year’s triple lock anomaly seems petty.
Although I might negotiate hard I suspect I would give 100% of my wealth to be 21 again.
Whirlybirds are just not natural. That looks like a very lucky escape.
Probably LTE due to tail rotor vortex ring state.
Unless you've got airspeed or altitude you are more fucked than a pensioner expecting 8% when this occurs. The Mi-17-1V like all Hip variants is a big old barge that needs a firm hand and nerves to steel to recover from uncommanded yaw.
Yes, that’s a plausible reason for the failure (which I’d not read about for a decade or so!).
Airspeed and altitude, two of a pilot’s three best friends, no matter what he’s flying. Fuel is the other one, unless he’s on fire!
I always remember a friend of mine, navy pilot (not @Dura as far as I'm aware, same insouciance, but older)
The Fleet Air Arm of the generation before me were completely inured to mortal peril through frequent exposure. One of my instructors on RNFTF at Roborough was a greybeard who had flown Wyverns, Scimitars, Sea Vixens and assorted other deathtraps. He reckoned he was going to one funeral a month (closed casket) in the early 60s.
ISTR that many of the post-war F1 drivers were ex-pilots, who were similarly inured to death. One of them gave a quote about it, where he said the dangers of F1 were nothing compared to those he had faced in the war.
(Citation reqd).
On your note, one of the books I've got has a section where it talks about a dump of broken early jet planes at an airfield in Lincolnshire. All had crashed.
On your note, one of the books I've got has a section where it talks about a dump of broken early jet planes at an airfield in Lincolnshire. All had crashed.
On the first day of Harrier ground school they raised our morale by telling us the aircraft currently had an accidental fatality rate of 30 per 100,000 flight hours. Those trainees who were more able at mathematics immediately tried to transfer to the Sea King.
Whirlybirds are just not natural. That looks like a very lucky escape.
Probably LTE due to tail rotor vortex ring state.
Unless you've got airspeed or altitude you are more fucked than a pensioner expecting 8% when this occurs. The Mi-17-1V like all Hip variants is a big old barge that needs a firm hand and nerves to steel to recover from uncommanded yaw.
Yes, that’s a plausible reason for the failure (which I’d not read about for a decade or so!).
Airspeed and altitude, two of a pilot’s three best friends, no matter what he’s flying. Fuel is the other one, unless he’s on fire!
I always remember a friend of mine, navy pilot (not @Dura as far as I'm aware, same insouciance, but older)
The Fleet Air Arm of the generation before me were completely inured to mortal peril through frequent exposure. One of my instructors on RNFTF at Roborough was a greybeard who had flown Wyverns, Scimitars, Sea Vixens and assorted other deathtraps. He reckoned he was going to one funeral a month (closed casket) in the early 60s.
My late dad served on Glory for a while in the early 50s (ordnance tiffy). His memory of the chaps landing on the roof was of their very short lives. One day there were five hammocks over the side in one funeral, as he told it.
Further to that, anyone wanting some lunchtime viewing might like this (some real gemns including ?Winkle Brown in the first deck landing trials by a jet?). How small the decks were, and no angled decks either.
On your note, one of the books I've got has a section where it talks about a dump of broken early jet planes at an airfield in Lincolnshire. All had crashed.
On the first day of Harrier ground school they raised our morale by telling us the aircraft currently had an accidental fatality rate of 30 per 100,000 flight hours. Those trainees who were more able at mathematics immediately tried to transfer to the Sea King.
3% chance of a fatality per 100 hours
Bet you hoped they were unserviceable most of the time!
The stereotype that if you're young you must be stupid if you're left wing is alive and well whenever I converse with older people. You're not stupid if you vote Tory though, no of course not
Whenever you speak to an older person they tell you that you are stupid? They don’t sound particularly friendly.
What is the single common factor in all those conversations?
Office furniture (£360k) and computer equipment (£195k) mainly.....
Consider the following possibilities for comingled funds:
1) The SNP has £2m in a bank account, and claims the "ringfenced" £600k is part of that; 2) The SNP has £0 in a bank account, but a £2m overdraft facility, and claims the "ringfenced" £600k is part of that; 3) The SNP has -£2m in a bank account, at the bottom of their overdraft, but claims they could borrow the "ringfenced" £600k easily elsewhere.
What are the accounting and legal and moral differences here?
My guess is that legally (1) and (2) are the same, and (3) very different. But I think the average punter would consider (1) ok and (2) pretty dodgy, and therefore different.
In English law, which may nto be applicable, there are really two options. Some form of constructive trust, in which case (1) is the required case or the phrase is meaningless and all donations to the SNP are donations to their work generally in advancing causes include independence.
On the polling. It seems clear to me that the government is a bit less popular that it was back in May/June. No dramatic slide, more a gradual erosion. Labour, however is static - stuck on around 33%. For Labour to be competitive again, the first part of the equation may have started - Tories to be less popular. But the second part hasn't - Labour to be more popular. It strikes me that the party conferences will be crucial: if Starmer can take the opportunity to make Labour more popular, then by October the polling could look very different. It is, of course, equally possible that Labour fails to come up with anything significant to make it more attractive to voters.
Yes, I hope we see something special from Starmer at the conference. He just HAS to somehow grab the lapels of the nation and headbutt it. "Oi, Britain, stop messing around and listen up."
- “Are you in favour of the Draft Co-operation Agreement that has been reached between the SNP Scottish Government and the Scottish Green Party Parliamentary Group?”
I voted yes.
Voting will close at 10am on Saturday 28 August 2021.
I voted no. Apart from the Greens in government being bad for the economy and for the rights of women and safety of children, it’s one of very few opportunities as an ordinary SNP member to express my dissatisfaction with the current leadership.
That’s like saying SNP members should have voted Leave, just because David Cameron was fronting the Remain campaign. I think you’re much better just voting on the actual question rather than trying to be clever sending messages. If however you genuinely disapprove of the cooperation agreement, then by all means vote no.
Who was that daft Blairite Labour MP who nominated Jeremy Corbyn for leader just to be nice or fair or some such guff? She had no intention of actually voting for him. And then he went and won, and screwed the party for a generation. Perhaps longer. Moral of tale: careful what you vote for, or against.
Via @Kantar_UKI, 19-23 August, Changes w/ 12 July.
Another one showing an SNP drop.....(probably noise, but you never know...)
Here we go, politics as normal returning - government becoming unpopular mid-term, opposition gaining as a result.
Still think the goverment will win the next election with a reduced majority (1992 and 2005 all over again) but that will be it for this particular run for the Tories.
Labour back in government at the end of the decade.
And what will the Tories have to show for two decades in power? Fuck all and worse.
The key for Starmer is going to be laying out a few simple and understandable things about what 2024-2030 Britain will look like under him, that means looking forward, not back
The focus seems to be on the Triple Lock, why not a refund or a rebate for students who have been taught from home for the last year+? Why are they ignored?
One reason is they do not vote.
Old people do.
They do vote, just not in large enough quantities - but I very much agree with the basis of your point.
And I agree with the basis of yours. Young people have been treated very badly in this pandemic and it is time it stopped. High time.
Young people have been treated badly for the last twenty+ years, it did not start with COVID.
I am fortunate enough to be in the position to be buying a house due to inherited money, if I didn't have that I would be utterly screwed and I am a higher earner for my age. A Government needs to do something about that.
I had this conversation with a 29 year old at work a few months back. You could afford property, we can't.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
I am buying with somebody else, if I was alone despite the money I had inherited, I would still be screwed.
I have to ask. What property are you trying to buy that two high earners would be screwed if it weren’t for inherited money?
It makes no logical sense to apply the triple lock this year – that’s obvious and so we must scrabble around for a fresh angle on the subject. I think I have one.
In almost every conceivable way it’s better to be young than old. I won’t list all the ways – not in the mood – and I don’t need to. Not expecting an argument on the point.
Why is this relevant to the thread topic of pensions? It’s relevant because the core issue is equity between the generations. What we usually hear is that the young are subsidizing the old. Which is true. They do. But think of it a different way. The young have copious amounts of something very precious – time. Time is the most precious commodity on the planet since it’s needed for literally everything and is strictly limited in supply, extra amounts cannot under any circumstances be manufactured.
This isn't an airy fairy intangible asset it has hard monetary value. Eg, the average 61 year old would be willing to pay approx 50% (maybe more) of their net worth in order to become an average 21 year old. That’s just by way of illustration, some would pay less, some more, and in general the older you are the more you’d be willing to cough up. Let’s not quibble on the detail. The point I’m making is that when you bring in this metric – which is both genuine and material - young people start to look much £££ wealthier and old people much £££ poorer. Once in this frame of mind the objection to one year’s triple lock anomaly seems petty.
Although I might negotiate hard I suspect I would give 100% of my wealth to be 21 again.
Gosh, ok. I think you're an outlier there. But maybe not. Once the market is developed - with sufficient liquidity - we'll find out.
Technical note: You'll need to find a willing counterparty. Either a single one, a 21 year old who will sell you the 44 years, you becoming 21, them 65, or multiples, eg you buy 10 years off a 25 year old, 20 off an 18 year old, and 14 off a 30 year old, you emerging as 21, them becoming 35, 38, 44 respectively.
One can see it working well as an exchange rather like Betfair. One thing's for sure, it will change the calculus of the 'intergenerational unfairness' debate quite markedly.
I love the way one of the groups hides behind the 'anti-fascist' moniker. To me, it seems like two groups of generally-not-very-nice people looking for a barney.
I'd love to ask a few of them when 'fascism' actually means, to see if they know.
(As an aside, when I lived in Docklands there was graffiti, allegedly from the Anti-Nazi League, saying 'Kill the fascist scum'. Which probably made the graffiti writer as bad as the people he was campaigning against.)
The focus seems to be on the Triple Lock, why not a refund or a rebate for students who have been taught from home for the last year+? Why are they ignored?
One reason is they do not vote.
Old people do.
They do vote, just not in large enough quantities - but I very much agree with the basis of your point.
And I agree with the basis of yours. Young people have been treated very badly in this pandemic and it is time it stopped. High time.
Young people have been treated badly for the last twenty+ years, it did not start with COVID.
I am fortunate enough to be in the position to be buying a house due to inherited money, if I didn't have that I would be utterly screwed and I am a higher earner for my age. A Government needs to do something about that.
I had this conversation with a 29 year old at work a few months back. You could afford property, we can't.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
I am buying with somebody else, if I was alone despite the money I had inherited, I would still be screwed.
I have to ask. What property are you trying to buy that two high earners would be screwed if it weren’t for inherited money?
The focus seems to be on the Triple Lock, why not a refund or a rebate for students who have been taught from home for the last year+? Why are they ignored?
One reason is they do not vote.
Old people do.
They do vote, just not in large enough quantities - but I very much agree with the basis of your point.
And I agree with the basis of yours. Young people have been treated very badly in this pandemic and it is time it stopped. High time.
Young people have been treated badly for the last twenty+ years, it did not start with COVID.
I am fortunate enough to be in the position to be buying a house due to inherited money, if I didn't have that I would be utterly screwed and I am a higher earner for my age. A Government needs to do something about that.
I had this conversation with a 29 year old at work a few months back. You could afford property, we can't.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
I am buying with somebody else, if I was alone despite the money I had inherited, I would still be screwed.
I have to ask. What property are you trying to buy that two high earners would be screwed if it weren’t for inherited money?
Welcome to London
Is it all so prohibitively expensive that it wouldn’t be possible just with normal savings, without relying on inheritance?
The focus seems to be on the Triple Lock, why not a refund or a rebate for students who have been taught from home for the last year+? Why are they ignored?
One reason is they do not vote.
Old people do.
They do vote, just not in large enough quantities - but I very much agree with the basis of your point.
And I agree with the basis of yours. Young people have been treated very badly in this pandemic and it is time it stopped. High time.
Young people have been treated badly for the last twenty+ years, it did not start with COVID.
I am fortunate enough to be in the position to be buying a house due to inherited money, if I didn't have that I would be utterly screwed and I am a higher earner for my age. A Government needs to do something about that.
I had this conversation with a 29 year old at work a few months back. You could afford property, we can't.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
I am buying with somebody else, if I was alone despite the money I had inherited, I would still be screwed.
I have to ask. What property are you trying to buy that two high earners would be screwed if it weren’t for inherited money?
Welcome to London
Is it all so prohibitively expensive that it wouldn’t be possible just with normal savings, without relying on inheritance?
Unless you're both very, very high earners, without a sizeable deposit you're going to struggle, yes
The stereotype that if you're young you must be stupid if you're left wing is alive and well whenever I converse with older people. You're not stupid if you vote Tory though, no of course not
Its not about being stupid. I respect peoples opinions. Sadly too many on the left think that Tories are evil and too many on the right think lefties are stupid, or out of touch with reality. Its fine to disagree about the best way to support the unemployed, or how to structure a benefits system. Its fine to wonder if benefits should be more contribution based. Its fine to wonder if the rich should pay more tax, or less tax if that increases the tax haul. There are not easy answers. Some will see people on benefits as scroungers, some will see people who deserve help. I have agonies about people who cannot work. What kind of life to they deserve? Do they have a right to Sky TV, to holidays? Or should it be just the minimum to live? Not easy answers.
I think few people these days label unemployed people as either universally scroungers or universally deserving.
Every case is different because these are people were are talking about...??
It makes no logical sense to apply the triple lock this year – that’s obvious and so we must scrabble around for a fresh angle on the subject. I think I have one.
In almost every conceivable way it’s better to be young than old. I won’t list all the ways – not in the mood – and I don’t need to. Not expecting an argument on the point.
Why is this relevant to the thread topic of pensions? It’s relevant because the core issue is equity between the generations. What we usually hear is that the young are subsidizing the old. Which is true. They do. But think of it a different way. The young have copious amounts of something very precious – time. Time is the most precious commodity on the planet since it’s needed for literally everything and is strictly limited in supply, extra amounts cannot under any circumstances be manufactured.
This isn't an airy fairy intangible asset it has hard monetary value. Eg, the average 61 year old would be willing to pay approx 50% (maybe more) of their net worth in order to become an average 21 year old. That’s just by way of illustration, some would pay less, some more, and in general the older you are the more you’d be willing to cough up. Let’s not quibble on the detail. The point I’m making is that when you bring in this metric – which is both genuine and material - young people start to look much £££ wealthier and old people much £££ poorer. Once in this frame of mind the objection to one year’s triple lock anomaly seems petty.
Although I might negotiate hard I suspect I would give 100% of my wealth to be 21 again.
Gosh, ok. I think you're an outlier there. But maybe not. Once the market is developed - with sufficient liquidity - we'll find out.
Technical note: You'll need to find a willing counterparty. Either a single one, a 21 year old who will sell you the 44 years, you becoming 21, them 65, or multiples, eg you buy 10 years off a 25 year old, 20 off an 18 year old, and 14 off a 30 year old, you emerging as 21, them becoming 35, 38, 44 respectively.
One can see it working well as an exchange rather like Betfair. One thing's for sure, it will change the calculus of the 'intergenerational unfairness' debate quite markedly.
Would I get to be 21 again, but know all the stuff I know now? In which case 'all my wealth' seems like an amazing deal. I'd be able to do the job I do now, and get paid what I get paid now, but have many years doing it. I'd be pretty well paid for a 21 year old. But if I just get to be 21 again, only today, rather than in 1996 - I don't think I'd pay for that. And I'd do rather better at being in my 20s second time around. I think the 40 years or so I've got left will be better, if rather shorter, than the 65 years or so that the average 21 year old today will have.
EDIT - changed my mind almost immediately. No deal. I'm staying at 46. What I'd like to do is have the opportunity to go back to 1996 and do my 20s again, only better. But I don't think that's what you're offering me.
The focus seems to be on the Triple Lock, why not a refund or a rebate for students who have been taught from home for the last year+? Why are they ignored?
One reason is they do not vote.
Old people do.
They do vote, just not in large enough quantities - but I very much agree with the basis of your point.
And I agree with the basis of yours. Young people have been treated very badly in this pandemic and it is time it stopped. High time.
Young people have been treated badly for the last twenty+ years, it did not start with COVID.
I am fortunate enough to be in the position to be buying a house due to inherited money, if I didn't have that I would be utterly screwed and I am a higher earner for my age. A Government needs to do something about that.
I had this conversation with a 29 year old at work a few months back. You could afford property, we can't.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
I am buying with somebody else, if I was alone despite the money I had inherited, I would still be screwed.
I have to ask. What property are you trying to buy that two high earners would be screwed if it weren’t for inherited money?
Welcome to London
Is it all so prohibitively expensive that it wouldn’t be possible just with normal savings, without relying on inheritance?
Yes.
The 2 bed terrace in wandsworth i bought for 140k in 1992 and sold for 145 in 1994 now wants 1.1m.
The focus seems to be on the Triple Lock, why not a refund or a rebate for students who have been taught from home for the last year+? Why are they ignored?
One reason is they do not vote.
Old people do.
They do vote, just not in large enough quantities - but I very much agree with the basis of your point.
And I agree with the basis of yours. Young people have been treated very badly in this pandemic and it is time it stopped. High time.
Young people have been treated badly for the last twenty+ years, it did not start with COVID.
I am fortunate enough to be in the position to be buying a house due to inherited money, if I didn't have that I would be utterly screwed and I am a higher earner for my age. A Government needs to do something about that.
I had this conversation with a 29 year old at work a few months back. You could afford property, we can't.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
I am buying with somebody else, if I was alone despite the money I had inherited, I would still be screwed.
I have to ask. What property are you trying to buy that two high earners would be screwed if it weren’t for inherited money?
Welcome to London
Is it all so prohibitively expensive that it wouldn’t be possible just with normal savings, without relying on inheritance?
Yes.
The 2 bed terrace in wandsworth i bought for 140k in 1992 and sold for 145 in 1994 now wants 1.1m.
Let’s get some facts out there: 1. No one , at any stage has blocked a flight. This is a total myth and is being peddled around as if that is why the pet evacuation hasn’t taken place. 2. I never said I would not facilitate. I said no one would get to queue jump.
The focus seems to be on the Triple Lock, why not a refund or a rebate for students who have been taught from home for the last year+? Why are they ignored?
One reason is they do not vote.
Old people do.
They do vote, just not in large enough quantities - but I very much agree with the basis of your point.
And I agree with the basis of yours. Young people have been treated very badly in this pandemic and it is time it stopped. High time.
Young people have been treated badly for the last twenty+ years, it did not start with COVID.
I am fortunate enough to be in the position to be buying a house due to inherited money, if I didn't have that I would be utterly screwed and I am a higher earner for my age. A Government needs to do something about that.
I had this conversation with a 29 year old at work a few months back. You could afford property, we can't.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
I am buying with somebody else, if I was alone despite the money I had inherited, I would still be screwed.
I have to ask. What property are you trying to buy that two high earners would be screwed if it weren’t for inherited money?
Welcome to London
Is it all so prohibitively expensive that it wouldn’t be possible just with normal savings, without relying on inheritance?
Yes.
The 2 bed terrace in wandsworth i bought for 140k in 1992 and sold for 145 in 1994 now wants 1.1m.
Wandsworth! Just up from me, it is a lovely place but yes it's incredibly expensive around here now
I love the way one of the groups hides behind the 'anti-fascist' moniker. To me, it seems like two groups of generally-not-very-nice people looking for a barney.
I'd love to ask a few of them when 'fascism' actually means, to see if they know.
(As an aside, when I lived in Docklands there was graffiti, allegedly from the Anti-Nazi League, saying 'Kill the fascist scum'. Which probably made the graffiti writer as bad as the people he was campaigning against.)
The “anti-fascists” saying agree with us or we’ll beat you up and torch your business, is the same as the “anti-racists” who want to treat people differently based on the colour of their skin.
They’re trying to convince everyone they’re the good guys, but they’re actually turning into an Orwellian doublespeak parody of everything they say they despise.
This is a very serious charge by Ben Wallace, similar to the one he made to MPs last night
Well connected Pen Farthing’s operation, he alleges, is interfering with the evacuation and they aren’t presenting the facts - the hurdles involved in animal rescue - fairly
The focus seems to be on the Triple Lock, why not a refund or a rebate for students who have been taught from home for the last year+? Why are they ignored?
One reason is they do not vote.
Old people do.
They do vote, just not in large enough quantities - but I very much agree with the basis of your point.
And I agree with the basis of yours. Young people have been treated very badly in this pandemic and it is time it stopped. High time.
Young people have been treated badly for the last twenty+ years, it did not start with COVID.
I am fortunate enough to be in the position to be buying a house due to inherited money, if I didn't have that I would be utterly screwed and I am a higher earner for my age. A Government needs to do something about that.
I had this conversation with a 29 year old at work a few months back. You could afford property, we can't.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
I am buying with somebody else, if I was alone despite the money I had inherited, I would still be screwed.
I have to ask. What property are you trying to buy that two high earners would be screwed if it weren’t for inherited money?
Welcome to London
Is it all so prohibitively expensive that it wouldn’t be possible just with normal savings, without relying on inheritance?
Yes.
The 2 bed terrace in wandsworth i bought for 140k in 1992 and sold for 145 in 1994 now wants 1.1m.
Time to stop the market-inflating tax breaks...
The stamp duty holiday has been one of the dumbest policies of the recent past, Sunak is a fool
Germany and the Netherlands use 50-100% more energy per person than UK/Italy. Germany's fossil fuel consumption per head (Oil, Coal, Gas) is higher than the UK or Italy or Spain's entire energy consumption per head. Startling.
(Yes, you can go gub-gub-gub Wind Turbines, but twice as much energy consumption means twice as many wind turbines.)
The focus seems to be on the Triple Lock, why not a refund or a rebate for students who have been taught from home for the last year+? Why are they ignored?
One reason is they do not vote.
Old people do.
They do vote, just not in large enough quantities - but I very much agree with the basis of your point.
And I agree with the basis of yours. Young people have been treated very badly in this pandemic and it is time it stopped. High time.
Young people have been treated badly for the last twenty+ years, it did not start with COVID.
I am fortunate enough to be in the position to be buying a house due to inherited money, if I didn't have that I would be utterly screwed and I am a higher earner for my age. A Government needs to do something about that.
I had this conversation with a 29 year old at work a few months back. You could afford property, we can't.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
I am buying with somebody else, if I was alone despite the money I had inherited, I would still be screwed.
I have to ask. What property are you trying to buy that two high earners would be screwed if it weren’t for inherited money?
Welcome to London
Is it all so prohibitively expensive that it wouldn’t be possible just with normal savings, without relying on inheritance?
Yes.
The 2 bed terrace in wandsworth i bought for 140k in 1992 and sold for 145 in 1994 now wants 1.1m.
Wandsworth! Just up from me, it is a lovely place but yes it's incredibly expensive around here now
Ballantine street, opposite the Royal Standard. Lovely pub, but had to have a no viewings on rugby saturdays rule when i was selling.
Just watched something that I thought was relevant to the situation in Afghanistan, or maybe the Middle East where we go in for regime change, imposing western democracy etc. Ian Smith, Prime Minister of Rhodesia, answering William Buckley’s question as to why should it matter if the black people of Rhodesia understand what the constitution means, citing Americans lack of knowledge of political procedure. Amazingly enough, on the bio of the episode, the quote I was looking for from Smith was the only one they printed.
“The American people basically have always lived under this system. Now, we're dealing with people who say, 'But we don't understand this thing that the white man has brought here. We live under the tribal system. We're quite happy, we're peaceful. Why don't you leave us alone?' What do you say to them? 'You can't be left alone and peaceful. Whether you like it or not, you must come in and play a part with us'? It's not an easy question."
The fundamental point is that when the formula was introduced, it was never imagined that there would be a dramatic fall in earnings one year and a dramatic recovery the next, such that it would deliver pensioners a surprise one off rise because of the increase whilst protecting them from the fall. It’s an anomaly and in a sensible world, a temporary fix should be found to avoid it.
Of course, in a sensible world social care would have been sorted out long ago.
The bigger picture is of growing inter-generational unfairness, which the pandemic has worsened. It would be unreasonable to direct so much extra funding toward pensioners, because of an anomaly, when so many young are struggling with housing, student finance and the rest.
The triple lock rise (or any pension rise) will go to future pensioners as well – however young they are today. It is not as if this is a one-off Christmas bonus.
That is incorrect, over the next few years, sure the increase will be maintained.
Over the next few decades, it wont, because the maths and demographics dont work. Hence (near) enforced private pensions being introduced to cover the gap for reduced state pensions.
The fundamental point is that when the formula was introduced, it was never imagined that there would be a dramatic fall in earnings one year and a dramatic recovery the next, such that it would deliver pensioners a surprise one off rise because of the increase whilst protecting them from the fall. It’s an anomaly and in a sensible world, a temporary fix should be found to avoid it.
Of course, in a sensible world social care would have been sorted out long ago.
The bigger picture is of growing inter-generational unfairness, which the pandemic has worsened. It would be unreasonable to direct so much extra funding toward pensioners, because of an anomaly, when so many young are struggling with housing, student finance and the rest.
The triple lock rise (or any pension rise) will go to future pensioners as well – however young they are today. It is not as if this is a one-off Christmas bonus.
That is incorrect, over the next few years, sure.
Over the next few decades, it wont, because the maths and demographics dont work. Hence (near) enforced private pensions being introduced to cover the gap for reduced state pensions.
Are you suggesting that in say 2065 pensions will be cut by 10% because "we did the Triple Lock in 2012-2030 which increased pensions by £12 a week above inflation".
I really don't see it happening like that?
Younger people will certainly benefit from past Triple Lock boosts, even if by then state pensions are up to a decent level and the triple lock has done its job and has been ended.
I love the way one of the groups hides behind the 'anti-fascist' moniker. To me, it seems like two groups of generally-not-very-nice people looking for a barney.
I'd love to ask a few of them when 'fascism' actually means, to see if they know.
(As an aside, when I lived in Docklands there was graffiti, allegedly from the Anti-Nazi League, saying 'Kill the fascist scum'. Which probably made the graffiti writer as bad as the people he was campaigning against.)
I am conflicted by the Police chief's statement that the unsanctioned demonstrators should not expect the police to keep them apart. 1. Sympathy, let the two sets of idiots at each other, if that is what they so dearly want. Why should he put his police officers at risk for idiots? 2. What about the high potential for innocent outsiders to get enmeshed and hurt in this, and the police's duty to keep public order?
On balance, I think the police chief is being irresponsible, abrogating his responsibility to keep law and order, and by his actions stating that his force will not seek to prevent all major infractions of the law.
It makes no logical sense to apply the triple lock this year – that’s obvious and so we must scrabble around for a fresh angle on the subject. I think I have one.
In almost every conceivable way it’s better to be young than old. I won’t list all the ways – not in the mood – and I don’t need to. Not expecting an argument on the point.
Why is this relevant to the thread topic of pensions? It’s relevant because the core issue is equity between the generations. What we usually hear is that the young are subsidizing the old. Which is true. They do. But think of it a different way. The young have copious amounts of something very precious – time. Time is the most precious commodity on the planet since it’s needed for literally everything and is strictly limited in supply, extra amounts cannot under any circumstances be manufactured.
This isn't an airy fairy intangible asset it has hard monetary value. Eg, the average 61 year old would be willing to pay approx 50% (maybe more) of their net worth in order to become an average 21 year old. That’s just by way of illustration, some would pay less, some more, and in general the older you are the more you’d be willing to cough up. Let’s not quibble on the detail. The point I’m making is that when you bring in this metric – which is both genuine and material - young people start to look much £££ wealthier and old people much £££ poorer. Once in this frame of mind the objection to one year’s triple lock anomaly seems petty.
Although I might negotiate hard I suspect I would give 100% of my wealth to be 21 again.
Gosh, ok. I think you're an outlier there. But maybe not. Once the market is developed - with sufficient liquidity - we'll find out.
Technical note: You'll need to find a willing counterparty. Either a single one, a 21 year old who will sell you the 44 years, you becoming 21, them 65, or multiples, eg you buy 10 years off a 25 year old, 20 off an 18 year old, and 14 off a 30 year old, you emerging as 21, them becoming 35, 38, 44 respectively.
One can see it working well as an exchange rather like Betfair. One thing's for sure, it will change the calculus of the 'intergenerational unfairness' debate quite markedly.
Would I get to be 21 again, but know all the stuff I know now? In which case 'all my wealth' seems like an amazing deal. I'd be able to do the job I do now, and get paid what I get paid now, but have many years doing it. I'd be pretty well paid for a 21 year old. But if I just get to be 21 again, only today, rather than in 1996 - I don't think I'd pay for that. And I'd do rather better at being in my 20s second time around. I think the 40 years or so I've got left will be better, if rather shorter, than the 65 years or so that the average 21 year old today will have.
EDIT - changed my mind almost immediately. No deal. I'm staying at 46. What I'd like to do is have the opportunity to go back to 1996 and do my 20s again, only better. But I don't think that's what you're offering me.
No, that's not on offer. In fact, as we explore further, we hit intractable problems - both practical and philosophical - with any such market. Eg, you buy 27 years, become 19, what happens with your wife? Does she want a toyboy? Fine if she does - it can be you, you're right there in situ - but she might not. And she's had no say in the transaction. It's a can of worms.
Back to the drawing board.
But, still, I find myself unvexed by the thought of this illogical hike to the state pension due to the artificial volatility in average earnings, and this here - the value of time - is why.
Whirlybirds are just not natural. That looks like a very lucky escape.
Probably LTE due to tail rotor vortex ring state.
Unless you've got airspeed or altitude you are more fucked than a pensioner expecting 8% when this occurs. The Mi-17-1V like all Hip variants is a big old barge that needs a firm hand and nerves to steel to recover from uncommanded yaw.
Yes, that’s a plausible reason for the failure (which I’d not read about for a decade or so!).
Airspeed and altitude, two of a pilot’s three best friends, no matter what he’s flying. Fuel is the other one, unless he’s on fire!
I always remember a friend of mine, navy pilot (not @Dura as far as I'm aware, same insouciance, but older)
The Fleet Air Arm of the generation before me were completely inured to mortal peril through frequent exposure. One of my instructors on RNFTF at Roborough was a greybeard who had flown Wyverns, Scimitars, Sea Vixens and assorted other deathtraps. He reckoned he was going to one funeral a month (closed casket) in the early 60s.
Having the right stuff only gets you so far. My recently departed uncle did his national service in the RN in the 50s and absolutely loved it, he considered staying on and training as an FAA pilot. Being a thoughtful chap that did his research, he chatted to as many people as possible about this career choice. After finding out the survival rate he opted instead for an exciting career in paper technology.
Whirlybirds are just not natural. That looks like a very lucky escape.
Probably LTE due to tail rotor vortex ring state.
Unless you've got airspeed or altitude you are more fucked than a pensioner expecting 8% when this occurs. The Mi-17-1V like all Hip variants is a big old barge that needs a firm hand and nerves to steel to recover from uncommanded yaw.
Yes, that’s a plausible reason for the failure (which I’d not read about for a decade or so!).
Airspeed and altitude, two of a pilot’s three best friends, no matter what he’s flying. Fuel is the other one, unless he’s on fire!
I always remember a friend of mine, navy pilot (not @Dura as far as I'm aware, same insouciance, but older)
The Fleet Air Arm of the generation before me were completely inured to mortal peril through frequent exposure. One of my instructors on RNFTF at Roborough was a greybeard who had flown Wyverns, Scimitars, Sea Vixens and assorted other deathtraps. He reckoned he was going to one funeral a month (closed casket) in the early 60s.
My late dad served on Glory for a while in the early 50s (ordnance tiffy). His memory of the chaps landing on the roof was of their very short lives. One day there were five hammocks over the side in one funeral, as he told it.
The Vixen prototype also killed about 30 spectators at Farnborough in '52. Not the happiest of designs.
Just started reading this - entertainingly and accessibly written:
Today marks the launch of @DuncanWeldon's Two Hundred Years of Muddling Through - this is the surprising story of Britain's economy from boom to bust and back again!
Thanks. Ordered. Whilst doing so I noticed Amazon currently is knocking out the "most gripping and original psychological thriller of 2020" for just 99p – The Assistant, by SK Tremayne.
I wonder if a tactical way for Boris/Rishi to avoid this high Pension Increase would be to defer the month that kicks in the triple lock perhaps to January and hope that the average earnings rise would not be as high as in September?
I assume secondary legislation required for such an amendment/deferment?
The fundamental point is that when the formula was introduced, it was never imagined that there would be a dramatic fall in earnings one year and a dramatic recovery the next, such that it would deliver pensioners a surprise one off rise because of the increase whilst protecting them from the fall. It’s an anomaly and in a sensible world, a temporary fix should be found to avoid it.
Of course, in a sensible world social care would have been sorted out long ago.
The bigger picture is of growing inter-generational unfairness, which the pandemic has worsened. It would be unreasonable to direct so much extra funding toward pensioners, because of an anomaly, when so many young are struggling with housing, student finance and the rest.
The triple lock rise (or any pension rise) will go to future pensioners as well – however young they are today. It is not as if this is a one-off Christmas bonus.
That is incorrect, over the next few years, sure.
Over the next few decades, it wont, because the maths and demographics dont work. Hence (near) enforced private pensions being introduced to cover the gap for reduced state pensions.
Are you suggesting that in say 2065 pensions will be cut by 10% because "we did the Triple Lock in 2012-2030 which increased pensions by £12 a week above inflation".
I really don't see it happening like that?
Younger people will certainly benefit from past Triple Lock boosts, even if by then state pensions are up to a decent level and the triple lock has done its job and has been ended.
I am saying state pensions will become increasingly means tested with the universal bit dropping in value over time, probably sometime between 2030 and 2040. Pension increases today mean tax increases for the employed today, which many will not see reciprocated when it is their time as pensioners.
The focus seems to be on the Triple Lock, why not a refund or a rebate for students who have been taught from home for the last year+? Why are they ignored?
One reason is they do not vote.
Old people do.
They do vote, just not in large enough quantities - but I very much agree with the basis of your point.
And I agree with the basis of yours. Young people have been treated very badly in this pandemic and it is time it stopped. High time.
Young people have been treated badly for the last twenty+ years, it did not start with COVID.
I am fortunate enough to be in the position to be buying a house due to inherited money, if I didn't have that I would be utterly screwed and I am a higher earner for my age. A Government needs to do something about that.
I had this conversation with a 29 year old at work a few months back. You could afford property, we can't.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
I am buying with somebody else, if I was alone despite the money I had inherited, I would still be screwed.
I have to ask. What property are you trying to buy that two high earners would be screwed if it weren’t for inherited money?
Welcome to London
Is it all so prohibitively expensive that it wouldn’t be possible just with normal savings, without relying on inheritance?
Yes.
The 2 bed terrace in wandsworth i bought for 140k in 1992 and sold for 145 in 1994 now wants 1.1m.
Wandsworth! Just up from me, it is a lovely place but yes it's incredibly expensive around here now
Ballantine street, opposite the Royal Standard. Lovely pub, but had to have a no viewings on rugby saturdays rule when i was selling.
I love the way one of the groups hides behind the 'anti-fascist' moniker. To me, it seems like two groups of generally-not-very-nice people looking for a barney.
I'd love to ask a few of them when 'fascism' actually means, to see if they know.
(As an aside, when I lived in Docklands there was graffiti, allegedly from the Anti-Nazi League, saying 'Kill the fascist scum'. Which probably made the graffiti writer as bad as the people he was campaigning against.)
I am conflicted by the Police chief's statement that the unsanctioned demonstrators should not expect the police to keep them apart. 1. Sympathy, let the two sets of idiots at each other, if that is what they so dearly want. Why should he put his police officers at risk for idiots? 2. What about the high potential for innocent outsiders to get enmeshed and hurt in this, and the police's duty to keep public order?
On balance, I think the police chief is being irresponsible, abrogating his responsibility to keep law and order, and by his actions stating that his force will not seek to prevent all major infractions of the law.
When I was in Oxford c.2005-06, there was a big clash outside my college between those opposed to the animal testing lab and those in favour of it. I was surprised the authorities allowed both demos to happen on the same day, but after that they got a lot stricter on who could do what and when.
The focus seems to be on the Triple Lock, why not a refund or a rebate for students who have been taught from home for the last year+? Why are they ignored?
One reason is they do not vote.
Old people do.
They do vote, just not in large enough quantities - but I very much agree with the basis of your point.
And I agree with the basis of yours. Young people have been treated very badly in this pandemic and it is time it stopped. High time.
Young people have been treated badly for the last twenty+ years, it did not start with COVID.
I am fortunate enough to be in the position to be buying a house due to inherited money, if I didn't have that I would be utterly screwed and I am a higher earner for my age. A Government needs to do something about that.
I had this conversation with a 29 year old at work a few months back. You could afford property, we can't.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
I am buying with somebody else, if I was alone despite the money I had inherited, I would still be screwed.
I have to ask. What property are you trying to buy that two high earners would be screwed if it weren’t for inherited money?
Welcome to London
Is it all so prohibitively expensive that it wouldn’t be possible just with normal savings, without relying on inheritance?
Unless you're both very, very high earners, without a sizeable deposit you're going to struggle, yes
Thanks. I had thought it was just limited to a few areas, rather than the entire city.
7. So can people now please let my civil servants and military get on with dealing with one of the most dangerous and challenging evacuations for a generation. As professionals they will do their best for all those eligible and with my full support.
Comments
[link: https://t.co/HKEl4HXUHl] https://t.co/IvWZaQTdGI
Today marks the launch of @DuncanWeldon's Two Hundred Years of Muddling Through - this is the surprising story of Britain's economy from boom to bust and back again!
https://twitter.com/LittleBrownUK/status/1430848260625797124?s=20
But I wasn't around at the time, so would have to defer to those who were ...
And sure enough, barely discernibly, the aircraft slowly began to climb and executed a big arc turn back towards the airport. All was well and they landed safely on one engine.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
Austerity supporting PM!
BBC News - The hard men removing squatters in Spain
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-58310532
I didn’t do my twin rating, at least with one engine you know the score when it fails.
I don't think becoming a property owner is going to change my left wing views
Of course, in a sensible world social care would have been sorted out long ago.
The bigger picture is of growing inter-generational unfairness, which the pandemic has worsened. It would be unreasonable to direct so much extra funding toward pensioners, because of an anomaly, when so many young are struggling with housing, student finance and the rest.
We think that we've got the overwhelming majority of those eligible," says UK PM Boris Johnson on Kabul evacuations
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1430857322381905922?s=20
No website is going to have a different cookies policy dependant on location
Its fine to disagree about the best way to support the unemployed, or how to structure a benefits system. Its fine to wonder if benefits should be more contribution based. Its fine to wonder if the rich should pay more tax, or less tax if that increases the tax haul. There are not easy answers. Some will see people on benefits as scroungers, some will see people who deserve help.
I have agonies about people who cannot work. What kind of life to they deserve? Do they have a right to Sky TV, to holidays? Or should it be just the minimum to live? Not easy answers.
(Citation reqd).
On your note, one of the books I've got has a section where it talks about a dump of broken early jet planes at an airfield in Lincolnshire. All had crashed.
The RAF lost 890 Meteors in service. 145 in 1953 alone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_accidents_and_incidents_involving_Royal_Air_Force_aircraft_from_1945#1950s
1) The SNP has £2m in a bank account, and claims the "ringfenced" £600k is part of that;
2) The SNP has £0 in a bank account, but a £2m overdraft facility, and claims the "ringfenced" £600k is part of that;
3) The SNP has -£2m in a bank account, at the bottom of their overdraft, but claims they could borrow the "ringfenced" £600k easily elsewhere.
What are the accounting and legal and moral differences here?
My guess is that legally (1) and (2) are the same, and (3) very different. But I think the average punter would consider (1) ok and (2) pretty dodgy, and therefore different.
Media reports suggest that Germany will end its Afghanistan evacuations as early as today.
https://twitter.com/dw_politics/status/1430860414296936453?s=20
When are other NATO nations ending their operations?
France has announced that it will end its evacuation operations on Friday afternoon.
The UK is planning to end its airlift efforts before US forces depart at the end of the month.
The Netherlands said it will carry out its last evacuation flight from Kabul on Thursday.
Denmark said its last flight carrying troops and diplomats had already left Kabul's airport.
Poland and Belgium have already ended their evacuations and withdrawn all military personnel from Afghanistan.
Hungary said its army had evacuated all Hungarian citizens from Afghanistan.
A caller says we should prioritise evacuating animals over people. 😮
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxtXDDShjGs
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/aug/26/portland-proud-boys-rally-gunfight-protest-violence
Bet you hoped they were unserviceable most of the time!
Who was that daft Blairite Labour MP who nominated Jeremy Corbyn for leader just to be nice or fair or some such guff? She had no intention of actually voting for him. And then he went and won, and screwed the party for a generation. Perhaps longer. Moral of tale: careful what you vote for, or against.
And I agree. Some on the left did vote to Leave to 'get' Cameron.
Technical note: You'll need to find a willing counterparty. Either a single one, a 21 year old who will sell you the 44 years, you becoming 21, them 65, or multiples, eg you buy 10 years off a 25 year old, 20 off an 18 year old, and 14 off a 30 year old, you emerging as 21, them becoming 35, 38, 44 respectively.
One can see it working well as an exchange rather like Betfair. One thing's for sure, it will change the calculus of the 'intergenerational unfairness' debate quite markedly.
I'd love to ask a few of them when 'fascism' actually means, to see if they know.
(As an aside, when I lived in Docklands there was graffiti, allegedly from the Anti-Nazi League, saying 'Kill the fascist scum'. Which probably made the graffiti writer as bad as the people he was campaigning against.)
Every case is different because these are people were are talking about...??
EDIT - changed my mind almost immediately. No deal. I'm staying at 46.
What I'd like to do is have the opportunity to go back to 1996 and do my 20s again, only better. But I don't think that's what you're offering me.
The 2 bed terrace in wandsworth i bought for 140k in 1992 and sold for 145 in 1994 now wants 1.1m.
Let’s get some facts out there: 1. No one , at any stage has blocked a flight. This is a total myth and is being peddled around as if that is why the pet evacuation hasn’t taken place. 2. I never said I would not facilitate. I said no one would get to queue jump.
https://twitter.com/BWallaceMP/status/1430865167471022080?s=20
They’re trying to convince everyone they’re the good guys, but they’re actually turning into an Orwellian doublespeak parody of everything they say they despise.
Well connected Pen Farthing’s operation, he alleges, is interfering with the evacuation and they aren’t presenting the facts - the hurdles involved in animal rescue - fairly
https://twitter.com/bwallacemp/status/1430865179345047560
This country man, dear dear dear
Germany and the Netherlands use 50-100% more energy per person than UK/Italy. Germany's fossil fuel consumption per head (Oil, Coal, Gas) is higher than the UK or Italy or Spain's entire energy consumption per head. Startling.
(Yes, you can go gub-gub-gub Wind Turbines, but twice as much energy consumption means twice as many wind turbines.)
“The American people basically have always lived under this system. Now, we're dealing with people who say, 'But we don't understand this thing that the white man has brought here. We live under the tribal system. We're quite happy, we're peaceful. Why don't you leave us alone?' What do you say to them? 'You can't be left alone and peaceful. Whether you like it or not, you must come in and play a part with us'? It's not an easy question."
https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt6m3nc88c/dsc/
https://youtu.be/t1OzfpPtJoQ
Over the next few decades, it wont, because the maths and demographics dont work. Hence (near) enforced private pensions being introduced to cover the gap for reduced state pensions.
Why isn't Dan Hodges calling for this disgraceful anti-vaxx conspiracy theory peddling rag to be silenced?
I really don't see it happening like that?
Younger people will certainly benefit from past Triple Lock boosts, even if by then state pensions are up to a decent level and the triple lock has done its job and has been ended.
1. Sympathy, let the two sets of idiots at each other, if that is what they so dearly want. Why should he put his police officers at risk for idiots?
2. What about the high potential for innocent outsiders to get enmeshed and hurt in this, and the police's duty to keep public order?
On balance, I think the police chief is being irresponsible, abrogating his responsibility to keep law and order, and by his actions stating that his force will not seek to prevent all major infractions of the law.
Back to the drawing board.
But, still, I find myself unvexed by the thought of this illogical hike to the state pension due to the artificial volatility in average earnings, and this here - the value of time - is why.
My recently departed uncle did his national service in the RN in the 50s and absolutely loved it, he considered staying on and training as an FAA pilot. Being a thoughtful chap that did his research, he chatted to as many people as possible about this career choice. After finding out the survival rate he opted instead for an exciting career in paper technology.
Latest: https://trib.al/qZuFeIr https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1430873570675204096/video/1
Not the happiest of designs.
I assume secondary legislation required for such an amendment/deferment?
But keeping the triple lock and cutting UC is going to be very bad for the government.
So your CGT on residential property goes up from 18%/28% to 19.4%/30.2% this year and by a minimum of a further 2.5%, earnings or inflation ongoing.
That way the increases can be paid for by the richest rather than the poorer workers.
https://twitter.com/BWallaceMP/status/1430865179345047560
Farthing is an utter arse.