It's the one simple obvious thing we could do - and could have started doing months ago - to prevent another large wave of infection, hospitalisation and death - bearing in mind that the hospitalisation rate per infection is just as large now as it ever has been, despite vaccination, thanks to Delta - and it's not going to be done.
Other than sheer morbid Dr Strangelove curiosity what possible benefit of "gain of function research" could possibly justify the risk?
I'm serious, why do it at all?
To learn about the viruses so you're better prepared for the next natural one.
"Genetic power is the most awesome force the planet's ever seen, but you wield it like a kid that's found his dad's gun." - Jeff Goldblum in "Jurastic Park".
The culture is increasingly "this has to be paid for but I'm not paying for it". It's almost impossible to have a meaningful conversation about tax because the very notion of raising taxes provokes a reaction.
Exactly. Everyone is ready with their excuse for why they are a special sunflower and other, less deserving sources should be bled white for the money.
I proceed from the assumption that the Government will hear the special pleading of those who vote for it, and thus the old will be treated as special sunflowers and the young will be bled white. This may continue for some decades. There are huge numbers of old people and the population is still ageing. Demography is destiny.
The whole concept is protect the value of pensions?
Starting with double lock, 2.5% or inflation which ever is the higher. But becomes triple adding average earnings to the equation and whichever the higher?
Example 2% inflation 8% average earnings, pensions up 8%?
So the question, if it doesn’t rise as much as average earnings, how does that significantly erode the value of pensions?
Because it seems to me pensions paid by what national government can afford, and National government doesn’t have control over average earnings so is ceding control of delivering a promise. If you are giving the 8% because politically it’s sensible, but to pay for it axing the pensioners weekly outings to the community centre, it’s not really about caring about quality of life is it?
Starting with double lock, 2.5% or inflation which ever is the higher. But becomes triple adding average earnings to the equation and whichever the higher?
Example 2% inflation 8% average earnings, pensions up 8%?
So the question, if it doesn’t rise as much as average earnings, how will that significantly erode the value of pensions if still locked into greater than inflation increase 🤔
They want to close the gap between pensions and average earnings.
Vaguely on topic, it's the classic conundrum for any Party - screw your own supporters or screw everyone else. That should for some on here be a no-brainer but the truth is sometimes Governments have to do things which test the loyalty of their supporters.
The problem is building a voting coalition on whom you are so reliant it becomes impossible to govern effectively in the interests of the whole country is the very definition of a house built on sand.
If that coalition is so fragile it falls apart at the first sign of anything negative it's not worth having at all. Those who voted for Johnson, Brexit and the Conservatives in 2019 may have thought they were electing a Government who would never say or do anything to offend them morally or politically or adversely affect them financially but that's not how Government should work.
I know some will disagree but I have this curious old-fashioned notion Governments are elected to govern in the interests of all not just those who voted for them.
And that's the heart of the matter. At some point, the national culture changed for the worse.
OK, it was never a disinterested "do what's in the best interests of the whole nation". There was always an element of "vote for us and we'll see you all right". But historically substantial Prime Ministers (Blair, say) really acted as if doing things his way would make everyone benefit. Even Thatcher, divisive (and in some ways wrong) as she was, believed that what she was doing was the right thing for all. And when presented with think tank reports suggesting (for example) that Liverpool should be left to die, she binned them, even though there were precisely zero votes in it for her.
For some reason, that's not the case right now. It all feels very American; vote for me so I can bring home the pork barrel. (Hi Ben! Hello Rishi!) Or there are 55 of me and 45 of you, so I can trample on your previous rights in any way I can imagine (see Texas and those who defend what's happened there). The will of just over half the people becomes the will of all the people.
And some of it is the fault of politicians exploiting this to gain power. But some of it is down to us as voters. We've become as consumerist about our politics as we have about our shopping. And I'm not sure that running a country works like that.
Very good post. But I'd say it's almost all down to us. This is a democracy. We're the boss.
Other than sheer morbid Dr Strangelove curiosity what possible benefit of "gain of function research" could possibly justify the risk?
I'm serious, why do it at all?
To learn about the viruses so you're better prepared for the next natural one.
"Genetic power is the most awesome force the planet's ever seen, but you wield it like a kid that's found his dad's gun." - Jeff Goldblum in "Jurastic Park".
: Just tell me one thing, Sunil. You're going out there to destroy them, right? Not to study. Not to bring back. But to wipe them out.
And that's the heart of the matter. At some point, the national culture changed for the worse.
OK, it was never a disinterested "do what's in the best interests of the whole nation". There was always an element of "vote for us and we'll see you all right". But historically substantial Prime Ministers (Blair, say) really acted as if doing things his way would make everyone benefit. Even Thatcher, divisive (and in some ways wrong) as she was, believed that what she was doing was the right thing for all. And when presented with think tank reports suggesting (for example) that Liverpool should be left to die, she binned them, even though there were precisely zero votes in it for her.
For some reason, that's not the case right now. It all feels very American; vote for me so I can bring home the pork barrel. (Hi Ben! Hello Rishi!) Or there are 55 of me and 45 of you, so I can trample on your previous rights in any way I can imagine (see Texas and those who defend what's happened there). The will of just over half the people becomes the will of all the people.
And some of it is the fault of politicians exploiting this to gain power. But some of it is down to us as voters. We've become as consumerist about our politics as we have about our shopping. And I'm not sure that running a country works like that.
The culture is increasingly "this has to be paid for but I'm not paying for it". It's almost impossible to have a meaningful conversation about tax because the very notion of raising taxes provokes a reaction.
In fairness no one ever liked paying tax, they used to riot if it happened too often, but we do expect so much more now. And everything is a 'stealth' tax or a 'raid'. Depressing stuff.
Talking of Germanic food, the Flint Knapper's Gazette have asked me to write about Switzerland and I am off to Lucerne (and then Ticino) next week
Has anyone been to Lucerne? Is it nice? What can I expect? Efficient trains but somewhat stodgy food? What fun things can I do?
I know Ticino and I already know it is very lovely but extremely pricey....
It has these two mediaeval covered bridges with paintings which you use to cross the river and I was thinking, surely they can't do that, it has to be blocked off and protected. And then about twenty years ago someone drove a boat into one of the bridges and set it on fire. Now rebuilt.
I quite like Moevenpick. It's a chain though.
Main thing about Luzern is that it's an excellent centre. You probably won't spend much time in town
Notes from ten years ago:
The train arrives at a new station on the lake. I think there is a modern concert hall there too.
You must see the Dying Lion statue.
The Grand Hotel National is probably not the best hotel in town, but you should stay there anyway. Book directly (by phone) to get the fanciest rooms - they’re not online. See website for their photos.
Take the ferry to the Park Hotel Vitznau (which is extremely expensive but a bit gauche). There is also a “torte-cruise” where old ladies eat coffee and cake on a round trip ferry. Amusing rather than good.
Go up mount pilatus, on the transport. Is it a mountain train or a ski lift? I forget…
Oh, and as regards food. The knoefle (dough bits boiled in water with cheese and bacon on top) is gross. The first taste is ok, then it is very very cloying.
Danke!
Switzerland is weird with food, tending to its international national stereotypes. German Swiss food is pretty stodgy and grim, French Swiss food is varied and sometimes great, but often overwrought, Italian Swiss food is generally fine, but - this being Switzerland - about 10 times more expensive than Italian food over the border
We had a lovely holiday in a self-catered Swiss ski chalet for a Summer holiday 4 years ago. One of my main recollections of food was wanting to buy a packet of cereal and baulking at it costing about £5 for cornflakes. We drove and if I were to do it again I would try and pre-pack a whole load of basics for the family. Meals out were very expensive for even basic fare but it was all good quality. Although I doubt we were dining at the same sorts of establishments you will be given we had kids with us!
Apparently the norweigans get rather grumpy about the dutch bringing all their food in their motorhomes and spending no money in Norway.
On a related note, we saw the dutch take sandwiches from truck drivers coming from the UK post brexit. Are they really going to go through the fridges of dutch motohoke owners coming back from the UK to check for cheddar?
Other than sheer morbid Dr Strangelove curiosity what possible benefit of "gain of function research" could possibly justify the risk?
I'm serious, why do it at all?
To learn about the viruses so you're better prepared for the next natural one.
"Genetic power is the most awesome force the planet's ever seen, but you wield it like a kid that's found his dad's gun." - Jeff Goldblum in "Jurastic Park".
: Just tell me one thing, Sunil. You're going out there to destroy them, right? Not to study. Not to bring back. But to wipe them out.
"Oh what's so great about discovery? It's a violent, penetrative act that scars what it explores. What you call discovery, I call the rape of the natural world."
The culture is increasingly "this has to be paid for but I'm not paying for it". It's almost impossible to have a meaningful conversation about tax because the very notion of raising taxes provokes a reaction.
Exactly. Everyone is ready with their excuse for why they are a special sunflower and other, less deserving sources should be bled white for the money.
I proceed from the assumption that the Government will hear the special pleading of those who vote for it, and thus the old will be treated as special sunflowers and the young will be bled white. This may continue for some decades. There are huge numbers of old people and the population is still ageing. Demography is destiny.
Oddly enough, a braver Government and governing party would take their own supporters on.
How many of these pensioners would honestly vote Labour or LD or Green at a future election? I suppose they might choose to stay at home but the newly-elected northern Tories have big majorities so it can't just be the pensioner vote sustaining an 80-seat majority.
Yes, there may be some heavy local losses in Council seats but to what extent have governing parties ever really worried about their local Government base? It becomes a problem when you have to rebuild after a defeat but you soon get supporters from those fed up with the new Government.
I suppose the political risk is Farage sets himself up as the pensioners' friend and threatens to run Reform candidates against sitting Conservatives but I don't see it.
For @MaxPB and others, let me make my position clear:-
I think that the taxes that will have to be levied must be shared by all, including pensioners. So if you work you pay increased tax and NI. I also think there will have to be some form of wealth tax, possibly also capital gains tax on houses, including first homes.
I really despise the way @MaxPB attacks those who are older (as he did on me on the previous thread) without knowing what sacrifices they have made nor what they are doing for the young. I paid for my mother's care. I did not inherit any home. My parents rented. And I am working to support my children.
If he had bothered to read my posts carefully he would have realised that I do not approve of only raising tax by raising NI precisely because it only falls on one group. Everyone will have to pay more tax. Everyone. And while I will no doubt grumble I will pay. Not least because we owe it to the younger generation to do something for them because they have lost so much in the last few years.
For him to say - as he did on the previous thread (though perhaps I have misunderstood - and, if so, apologies - that there should be no more taxes on working people is absurd and unrealistic. We simply cannot afford to exempt any group from the obligation to contribute to our country and public services.
The government are proposing to exempt one group, pensioners, from their share of tax rises. A few posters on a website say another poorer group, workers, should be exempt from the tax rises.
You appear to be more concerned and critical about the views of a handful of posters rather than the stated intentions of the government. It should be the other way around.
On the contrary, my very first comment on this earlier today was to say that everyone should pay and that income tax and NI should be merged so that all pay, including pensioners. At no stage have I ever stated that pensioners should be exempt from paying for social care - or indeed the costs of Covid. I have on more than one occasion said the opposite. When Mrs May came forward with proposals to get those with assets to pay for their social care, I was one of the few on here to support this.
What I object to - rightly - is my views being incorrectly described, indeed being made out to be the opposite of what I have stated - and then attacked in nasty and unpleasantly personal terms.
The government does not appear to have a clue on social care. It appears to be doing too little, too late and in an unfair way. It is ignoring the young, which is unconscionable. But that is hardly news. It is not a good government. It is not a government I support. Those who do might perhaps ask themselves a few tough questions rather than lashing out at those who have criticised the government for its failings (and faced a lot of criticism from some on here for not acting as its cheerleaders).
The culture is increasingly "this has to be paid for but I'm not paying for it". It's almost impossible to have a meaningful conversation about tax because the very notion of raising taxes provokes a reaction.
Exactly. Everyone is ready with their excuse for why they are a special sunflower and other, less deserving sources should be bled white for the money.
I proceed from the assumption that the Government will hear the special pleading of those who vote for it, and thus the old will be treated as special sunflowers and the young will be bled white. This may continue for some decades. There are huge numbers of old people and the population is still ageing. Demography is destiny.
Oddly enough, a braver Government and governing party would take their own supporters on.
How many of these pensioners would honestly vote Labour or LD or Green at a future election? I suppose they might choose to stay at home but the newly-elected northern Tories have big majorities so it can't just be the pensioner vote sustaining an 80-seat majority.
Yes, there may be some heavy local losses in Council seats but to what extent have governing parties ever really worried about their local Government base? It becomes a problem when you have to rebuild after a defeat but you soon get supporters from those fed up with the new Government.
I suppose the political risk is Farage sets himself up as the pensioners' friend and threatens to run Reform candidates against sitting Conservatives but I don't see it.
The annoying thing is a giant majority should be just the thing to be brave and take on your own supporters if needs be, but they tend to act as though it is still a wafer thin majority, terrified of the possibility of some unpopularity, which used to be a given this far in.
And that's the heart of the matter. At some point, the national culture changed for the worse.
OK, it was never a disinterested "do what's in the best interests of the whole nation". There was always an element of "vote for us and we'll see you all right". But historically substantial Prime Ministers (Blair, say) really acted as if doing things his way would make everyone benefit. Even Thatcher, divisive (and in some ways wrong) as she was, believed that what she was doing was the right thing for all. And when presented with think tank reports suggesting (for example) that Liverpool should be left to die, she binned them, even though there were precisely zero votes in it for her.
For some reason, that's not the case right now. It all feels very American; vote for me so I can bring home the pork barrel. (Hi Ben! Hello Rishi!) Or there are 55 of me and 45 of you, so I can trample on your previous rights in any way I can imagine (see Texas and those who defend what's happened there). The will of just over half the people becomes the will of all the people.
And some of it is the fault of politicians exploiting this to gain power. But some of it is down to us as voters. We've become as consumerist about our politics as we have about our shopping. And I'm not sure that running a country works like that.
The culture is increasingly "this has to be paid for but I'm not paying for it". It's almost impossible to have a meaningful conversation about tax because the very notion of raising taxes provokes a reaction.
In fairness no one ever liked paying tax, they used to riot if it happened too often, but we do expect so much more now. And everything is a 'stealth' tax or a 'raid'. Depressing stuff.
Well folk better get used to it. There is more coming down the line. This paltry amount isn't going to fix social care. It is barely enough to make up Covid NHS backlog. And the Triple Lock is supposedly ending. Lay Rishi. His star is about to crash to Earth. We have another decade of retrenchment on the way. Folk haven't realised yet. They are in no mood for it.
Talking of Germanic food, the Flint Knapper's Gazette have asked me to write about Switzerland and I am off to Lucerne (and then Ticino) next week
Has anyone been to Lucerne? Is it nice? What can I expect? Efficient trains but somewhat stodgy food? What fun things can I do?
I know Ticino and I already know it is very lovely but extremely pricey....
Walk over the old bridge. Visit the transport museum. Have lunch at my family’s old house (now the Seehaus Grill).
Walk up Mt Pilatus to see the lake where legend says Pontus Pilate was drowned
Grazie. Merci and Danke
One of the interesting things about Switzerland is how English is becoming a kind of dominant elite language. As it unites them all, and no one feels hard-done-by
In 20-30 years maybe most Swiss will speak English most of the time at work, on the Net, at Uni, etc
The other languages will become quaint mother tongues, like Welsh or Gaelic. OR we will all talk Astro-Neptune-speak BSYalpha%%## as imposed by our AI overlords run by the creepy cow-fucking UFO dudes
The culture is increasingly "this has to be paid for but I'm not paying for it". It's almost impossible to have a meaningful conversation about tax because the very notion of raising taxes provokes a reaction.
Exactly. Everyone is ready with their excuse for why they are a special sunflower and other, less deserving sources should be bled white for the money.
I proceed from the assumption that the Government will hear the special pleading of those who vote for it, and thus the old will be treated as special sunflowers and the young will be bled white. This may continue for some decades. There are huge numbers of old people and the population is still ageing. Demography is destiny.
Oddly enough, a braver Government and governing party would take their own supporters on.
How many of these pensioners would honestly vote Labour or LD or Green at a future election? I suppose they might choose to stay at home but the newly-elected northern Tories have big majorities so it can't just be the pensioner vote sustaining an 80-seat majority.
Yes, there may be some heavy local losses in Council seats but to what extent have governing parties ever really worried about their local Government base? It becomes a problem when you have to rebuild after a defeat but you soon get supporters from those fed up with the new Government.
I suppose the political risk is Farage sets himself up as the pensioners' friend and threatens to run Reform candidates against sitting Conservatives but I don't see it.
Some of the newly elected northern Tories have big majorities. Quite a few have wafer thin ones.
Vaguely on topic, it's the classic conundrum for any Party - screw your own supporters or screw everyone else. That should for some on here be a no-brainer but the truth is sometimes Governments have to do things which test the loyalty of their supporters.
The problem is building a voting coalition on whom you are so reliant it becomes impossible to govern effectively in the interests of the whole country is the very definition of a house built on sand.
If that coalition is so fragile it falls apart at the first sign of anything negative it's not worth having at all. Those who voted for Johnson, Brexit and the Conservatives in 2019 may have thought they were electing a Government who would never say or do anything to offend them morally or politically or adversely affect them financially but that's not how Government should work.
I know some will disagree but I have this curious old-fashioned notion Governments are elected to govern in the interests of all not just those who voted for them.
And that's the heart of the matter. At some point, the national culture changed for the worse.
OK, it was never a disinterested "do what's in the best interests of the whole nation". There was always an element of "vote for us and we'll see you all right". But historically substantial Prime Ministers (Blair, say) really acted as if doing things his way would make everyone benefit. Even Thatcher, divisive (and in some ways wrong) as she was, believed that what she was doing was the right thing for all. And when presented with think tank reports suggesting (for example) that Liverpool should be left to die, she binned them, even though there were precisely zero votes in it for her.
For some reason, that's not the case right now. It all feels very American; vote for me so I can bring home the pork barrel. (Hi Ben! Hello Rishi!) Or there are 55 of me and 45 of you, so I can trample on your previous rights in any way I can imagine (see Texas and those who defend what's happened there). The will of just over half the people becomes the will of all the people.
And some of it is the fault of politicians exploiting this to gain power. But some of it is down to us as voters. We've become as consumerist about our politics as we have about our shopping. And I'm not sure that running a country works like that.
Very good post. But I'd say it's almost all down to us. This is a democracy. We're the boss.
I'm your man on this one. I don't overdo the detail but I have a terrific radar for what's likely cf unlikely. So if I were to flip and announce that lab leak is convicing me of its credentials, such that it's become favourite, this will be a key moment in the debate. But I'm not there yet.
A big issue is that the conspiracy theorists (I use that term factually rather than derogatively) conflate two hypotheses. One that a lab in Wuhan leaked an existing virus into the city; two that the lab synthetically created the virus and then leaked it. Those are two very different assertions with different probabilities of being true. Just because the virus supposedly leaked from a lab doesn't mean that it was created synthetically, but it is viewed that way.
Like you I struggle to be convinced that a lab was working in total secrecy over a long period developing this new disease and then at the point when they got there, they leaked it into the environment, presumably accidentally.
Accidental leaking of a natural virus of concern that was already under investigation IMO is plausible, but no more than plausible. While we don't know the origin of the virus (situation normal however), we do know the epidemic started in Wuhan. So the virus might have stayed contained if that supposed leak hadn't happened.
There is the coincidence of research into these kinds of viruses taking place in the same city as where the epidemic started. The coincidence may not be that compelling when you bear in mind that Wuhan is a bigger city than London. The other circumstantial evidence is the lack of co-operation from Chinese authorities and scientists. But maybe not surprising, Those authorities tend to lack of transparency and people like Trump who made the allegations weren't always doing so in good faith.
You don't know much about this stuff, do you? "Synthetically created" is nonsense. Google "gain of function research" and ponder this: wtf would the point be of a lab which just sat there containing viruses and didn't do anything to alter them in any way? Would it even count as a lab rather than a sort of virus zoo?
I suspect I know as much about this stuff as you do.
Your comment indicates this might not be true.
You too are conflating multiple possibilities
There are many versions of lab leak
1. A bat bit a Wuhan lab worker in Yunnan, infecting him with a natural virus, he took it back to Wuhan 2. A bat bit a Wuhan lab worker in Wuhan, infecting him with a natural virus, he took it to Wuhan wet market 3. A bat virus was altered for Gain of Function, given to humanised mice, the mice accidentally bit the Wuhan lab worker, and so on 4. The altered GoF virus was a in a fridge which accidentally leaked 5. The altered GoF virus was ALSO secretly being developed as a potential bioweapon (we know the CCP is into this shit) and coincidentally it accidentally leaked 6. The altered GoF virus was ALSO secretly being developed as a potential bioweapon and some lunatic deliberately leaked it into Wuhan and the world 7. The Chinese spies did all of the GoF bioweapon stuff deliberately and there was no leak, it was willingly sent out to kill 10m humans and more
And within these various definitions there are sub-definitions, some mad, some highly plausible
I'm not sure what a "synthetically created virus" even means. Does it mean a virus entirely built from scratch?! Literally created?
Sure. The basic issue from my - I agree very limited - understanding is that all previously known strains of coronavirus are too different genomically to create the eventual Covid 19 virus through artificial mutation. More precisely there would be evidence in the virus itself of that mutation having been made. To create Covid 19 as it is, lab workers would have to take a naturally occurring, but secretly obtained and undeclared, virus that is very close to or identical with Covid 19. It is plausible on my second lab leak hypothesis that lab workers didn't just investigate a naturally occurring virus. They attenuated it first. It depends what people mean by "origin" of the virus, I guess.
If subject matter experts are happy to refer to synthetically created viruses as a concept, which by the way I don't think exist in this case because they are of natural origin, I am happy to do so too. Sorry.
Hope this is an opportunity for Labour. Arguably Tories are doing this at perfect electoral time... break promises/do the unpopular stuff well before an election.
I'm coming round to the idea that Labour ought to offer lower tax rates for middle class to a) draw clear differential with the Tories b) in exchange for bringing in wealth taxation of some kind.
"The Tories want to protect the already-wealthy, we want to make you wealthy"... not sure it quite works but something along those lines.
The problem with that approach is that the prime target for wealth taxation is property, and going after people's houses is electoral death.
Property wealth is 35% of total apparently... [not including public pensions].
Feels like it must be possible to draw a line somewhere on property that would be acceptable to people... and as a bonus help counter an unhelpful impression that Labour is too London-centric.
Well there you go: strip out pensions and property is the predominant source of wealth in Great Britain. Much, probably most, of the residuum is held as other physical possessions and cash in the bank; short of empowering the bailiffs to wander the land basically nicking people's stuff to flog it off, there wouldn't seem to be much prospect of extracting much in the way of revenue from the latter.
Now, the Government could try, for example, levying a charge of 0.25% of the value of every home in the land each year (which would presently rake in something in the order of £19bn) to help pay the bills - but my God can you imagine the deafening screams of agony that would follow? First and foremost from the largest cohort of homeowners (yes, their elderly core vote) but ultimately from everyone. Because any such tax visited upon rental properties would immediately be passed on to the tenants.
At the end of the day we always come back to spiralling costs being imposed upon the incomes of working age people, because (a) the retired are the most powerful constituency in the electorate and (b) people who are still working can always, if they are very lucky, earn more to compensate. As distinct from the stickbangers, who are basically on fixed incomes and mostly unwilling to, or simply incapable of, going back to work.
I can't see a way of funding the sort of welfare state we've become accustomed to - let alone improve it - without tapping more into private wealth than we do today.
It's a political challenge because wealth taxes are hated, including by people who wouldn't be hit by them that much.
"You work hard, pay your taxes, save and invest to build up some capital, then those bastards come along and pick your pocket."
This sentiment is pretty ubiquitous.
This, I suspect, is why wealth taxes may need to be paired with reducing income taxes.
The Government will put it off as long as possible, perhaps with further NI hikes or raids on tax reliefs mainly enjoyed by people of working age (maybe on pension savings a la Gordon Brown,) but eventually income tax is likely to start rising. Taxes on assets would impact on property and savings (disproportionately hitting the old,) whereas taxes on wages would whack the young and spare the vast bulk of the retired.
Put yourself in the Government's position. According to research published in April 2019 - and I doubt that the situation has changed much since - almost half of Tory support is drawn from the over 65s, and less than 10% from the under 35s: the mean age of a Tory voter is probably now over 60. The population is still ageing, so the elderly demographic is growing as a share of the electorate. It votes religiously and it likes you; the young hate you and vote Labour.
So, who is going to get the sweeties and who is going to pay for them? It's a no-brainer.
Talking of Germanic food, the Flint Knapper's Gazette have asked me to write about Switzerland and I am off to Lucerne (and then Ticino) next week
Has anyone been to Lucerne? Is it nice? What can I expect? Efficient trains but somewhat stodgy food? What fun things can I do?
I know Ticino and I already know it is very lovely but extremely pricey....
It has these two mediaeval covered bridges with paintings which you use to cross the river and I was thinking, surely they can't do that, it has to be blocked off and protected. And then about twenty years ago someone drove a boat into one of the bridges and set it on fire. Now rebuilt.
I quite like Moevenpick. It's a chain though.
Main thing about Luzern is that it's an excellent centre. You probably won't spend much time in town
Notes from ten years ago:
The train arrives at a new station on the lake. I think there is a modern concert hall there too.
You must see the Dying Lion statue.
The Grand Hotel National is probably not the best hotel in town, but you should stay there anyway. Book directly (by phone) to get the fanciest rooms - they’re not online. See website for their photos.
Take the ferry to the Park Hotel Vitznau (which is extremely expensive but a bit gauche). There is also a “torte-cruise” where old ladies eat coffee and cake on a round trip ferry. Amusing rather than good.
Go up mount pilatus, on the transport. Is it a mountain train or a ski lift? I forget…
Oh, and as regards food. The knoefle (dough bits boiled in water with cheese and bacon on top) is gross. The first taste is ok, then it is very very cloying.
Danke!
Switzerland is weird with food, tending to its international national stereotypes. German Swiss food is pretty stodgy and grim, French Swiss food is varied and sometimes great, but often overwrought, Italian Swiss food is generally fine, but - this being Switzerland - about 10 times more expensive than Italian food over the border
We had a lovely holiday in a self-catered Swiss ski chalet for a Summer holiday 4 years ago. One of my main recollections of food was wanting to buy a packet of cereal and baulking at it costing about £5 for cornflakes. We drove and if I were to do it again I would try and pre-pack a whole load of basics for the family. Meals out were very expensive for even basic fare but it was all good quality. Although I doubt we were dining at the same sorts of establishments you will be given we had kids with us!
Apparently the norweigans get rather grumpy about the dutch bringing all their food in their motorhomes and spending no money in Norway.
On a related note, we saw the dutch take sandwiches from truck drivers coming from the UK post brexit. Are they really going to go through the fridges of dutch motohoke owners coming back from the UK to check for cheddar?
Have the Norwegians considered the option of not charging £9 for a small glass of beer?
One of my main memories of my one and only trip to Norway was the four of us (a flint knapping media team) opting for a "cheap burger lunch" before getting to work.
Four burgers and chips: £60. I kid you not. They weren't even very good burgers
India’s DNA COVID vaccine is a world first – more are coming https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02385-x India has approved a new COVID vaccine that uses circular strands of DNA to prime the immune system against the virus SARS-CoV-2. Researchers have welcomed news of the first DNA vaccine for people to receive approval anywhere in the world, and say many other DNA vaccines may soon be hot on its heels.
ZyCoV-D, which is administered into the skin without an injection, has been found to be 67% protective against symptomatic COVID-19 in clinical trials, and will likely start to be administered in India this month. Although the efficacy is not particularly high compared to that of many other COVID-19 vaccines, the fact that it is a DNA vaccine is significant, say researchers.
It is proof of the principle that DNA vaccines work and can help in controlling the pandemic, says Peter Richmond, a paediatric immunologist at the University of Western Australia in Perth. “This is a really important step forward in the fight to defeat COVID-19 globally, because it demonstrates that we have another class of vaccines that we can use.”…
And that's the heart of the matter. At some point, the national culture changed for the worse.
OK, it was never a disinterested "do what's in the best interests of the whole nation". There was always an element of "vote for us and we'll see you all right". But historically substantial Prime Ministers (Blair, say) really acted as if doing things his way would make everyone benefit. Even Thatcher, divisive (and in some ways wrong) as she was, believed that what she was doing was the right thing for all. And when presented with think tank reports suggesting (for example) that Liverpool should be left to die, she binned them, even though there were precisely zero votes in it for her.
For some reason, that's not the case right now. It all feels very American; vote for me so I can bring home the pork barrel. (Hi Ben! Hello Rishi!) Or there are 55 of me and 45 of you, so I can trample on your previous rights in any way I can imagine (see Texas and those who defend what's happened there). The will of just over half the people becomes the will of all the people.
And some of it is the fault of politicians exploiting this to gain power. But some of it is down to us as voters. We've become as consumerist about our politics as we have about our shopping. And I'm not sure that running a country works like that.
The culture is increasingly "this has to be paid for but I'm not paying for it". It's almost impossible to have a meaningful conversation about tax because the very notion of raising taxes provokes a reaction.
In fairness no one ever liked paying tax, they used to riot if it happened too often, but we do expect so much more now. And everything is a 'stealth' tax or a 'raid'. Depressing stuff.
TBF to Boris a rise in tax to pay for SC is the least bad solution.
I would prefer it to be income tax that is paid by all age groups but far better to go down this route than Mays proposal
There is no justification for the old paying less tax on the same income than the young. Indeed there are quite compelling reasons why they should pay more as they typically have much lower outlays and more disposable income. But politically this is difficult so what do we do about it?
One obvious step is to integrate NI into IT so the advantage of not paying NI disappears. It also means the same tax is paid on earned income and investment income, surely another no brainer.
A second step is to require the elderly to contribute to their care. It is really not obvious why a generation drowning in student debt should be asked to subsidise this so that a relatively small percentage of them can have meaningful inheritances.
A third step is to look at some of the freebies the elderly receive on a non means tested basis. In fairness this has already started with TV licences but there are more to go. Bus passes, which I will qualify for this month, are absurd.
I do not regard this as an attack on the elderly which as I have indicated I nearly am. But there must be some rebalancing of the load which is all the heavier after Covid.
One other issue which could be a Black Swan for the government - and was covered by Newsnignt last night - is the issue of those in unsellable/unliveable leasehold flats affected by the cladding issues, post Grenfell Tower.
It combines property and particularly affects the young who have managed to get on the housing ladder but now find themselves trapped and facing ruinous bills and/or bankruptcy.
I am surprised that this is not more of a political issue. But I do wonder whether it might not blow up in the government's faces at some point.
The culture is increasingly "this has to be paid for but I'm not paying for it". It's almost impossible to have a meaningful conversation about tax because the very notion of raising taxes provokes a reaction.
Exactly. Everyone is ready with their excuse for why they are a special sunflower and other, less deserving sources should be bled white for the money.
I proceed from the assumption that the Government will hear the special pleading of those who vote for it, and thus the old will be treated as special sunflowers and the young will be bled white. This may continue for some decades. There are huge numbers of old people and the population is still ageing. Demography is destiny.
Oddly enough, a braver Government and governing party would take their own supporters on.
This Government has one purpose, which is to sustain Boris Johnson in office. The rest is noise.
And that's the heart of the matter. At some point, the national culture changed for the worse.
OK, it was never a disinterested "do what's in the best interests of the whole nation". There was always an element of "vote for us and we'll see you all right". But historically substantial Prime Ministers (Blair, say) really acted as if doing things his way would make everyone benefit. Even Thatcher, divisive (and in some ways wrong) as she was, believed that what she was doing was the right thing for all. And when presented with think tank reports suggesting (for example) that Liverpool should be left to die, she binned them, even though there were precisely zero votes in it for her.
For some reason, that's not the case right now. It all feels very American; vote for me so I can bring home the pork barrel. (Hi Ben! Hello Rishi!) Or there are 55 of me and 45 of you, so I can trample on your previous rights in any way I can imagine (see Texas and those who defend what's happened there). The will of just over half the people becomes the will of all the people.
And some of it is the fault of politicians exploiting this to gain power. But some of it is down to us as voters. We've become as consumerist about our politics as we have about our shopping. And I'm not sure that running a country works like that.
The culture is increasingly "this has to be paid for but I'm not paying for it". It's almost impossible to have a meaningful conversation about tax because the very notion of raising taxes provokes a reaction.
In fairness no one ever liked paying tax, they used to riot if it happened too often, but we do expect so much more now. And everything is a 'stealth' tax or a 'raid'. Depressing stuff.
TBF to Boris a rise in tax to pay for SC is the least bad solution.
I would prefer it to be income tax that is paid by all age groups but far better to go down this route than Mays proposal
It makes me more likely to vote for him
Well I'd be happy for him to at least do something at this point (wary as I am of a 'this is something, so we must do it' approach), but the reports didn't seem a definite yet.
I am so glad I am leaving the country before HMRC can fleece me with an NI rise.
Workers are already too highly taxed, as far as I am concerned, and the Tory Party couldn’t give a toss. Alongside the corporation tax hike, the plan is to pay for the oldies’s comfortable retirement (and nostalgic fantasies) by crushing the real economy.
I suspect I am reaching my last months - ever - as a PAYE taxpayer in this country. It’s just not worth it.
As others have said, Labour could actually surprise us all by offering a tax CUT to workers.
But they won’t.
I missed that - where are you off to?
NYC, for three years or so.
Sounds interesting - hope you enjoy it.
Hope so! Good to mix things up every decade or so…
I do not regard this as an attack on the elderly which as I have indicated I nearly am. But there must be some rebalancing of the load which is all the heavier after Covid.
Why must there? The elderly are numerous and they vote.
One other issue which could be a Black Swan for the government - and was covered by Newsnignt last night - is the issue of those in unsellable/unliveable leasehold flats affected by the cladding issues, post Grenfell Tower.
It combines property and particularly affects the young who have managed to get on the housing ladder but now find themselves trapped and facing ruinous bills and/or bankruptcy.
I am surprised that this is not more of a political issue. But I do wonder whether it might not blow up in the government's faces at some point.
It won't because it doesn't affect many old people.
I'm your man on this one. I don't overdo the detail but I have a terrific radar for what's likely cf unlikely. So if I were to flip and announce that lab leak is convicing me of its credentials, such that it's become favourite, this will be a key moment in the debate. But I'm not there yet.
A big issue is that the conspiracy theorists (I use that term factually rather than derogatively) conflate two hypotheses. One that a lab in Wuhan leaked an existing virus into the city; two that the lab synthetically created the virus and then leaked it. Those are two very different assertions with different probabilities of being true. Just because the virus supposedly leaked from a lab doesn't mean that it was created synthetically, but it is viewed that way.
Like you I struggle to be convinced that a lab was working in total secrecy over a long period developing this new disease and then at the point when they got there, they leaked it into the environment, presumably accidentally.
Accidental leaking of a natural virus of concern that was already under investigation IMO is plausible, but no more than plausible. While we don't know the origin of the virus (situation normal however), we do know the epidemic started in Wuhan. So the virus might have stayed contained if that supposed leak hadn't happened.
There is the coincidence of research into these kinds of viruses taking place in the same city as where the epidemic started. The coincidence may not be that compelling when you bear in mind that Wuhan is a bigger city than London. The other circumstantial evidence is the lack of co-operation from Chinese authorities and scientists. But maybe not surprising, Those authorities tend to lack of transparency and people like Trump who made the allegations weren't always doing so in good faith.
You don't know much about this stuff, do you? "Synthetically created" is nonsense. Google "gain of function research" and ponder this: wtf would the point be of a lab which just sat there containing viruses and didn't do anything to alter them in any way? Would it even count as a lab rather than a sort of virus zoo?
I suspect I know as much about this stuff as you do.
Your comment indicates this might not be true.
You too are conflating multiple possibilities
There are many versions of lab leak
1. A bat bit a Wuhan lab worker in Yunnan, infecting him with a natural virus, he took it back to Wuhan 2. A bat bit a Wuhan lab worker in Wuhan, infecting him with a natural virus, he took it to Wuhan wet market 3. A bat virus was altered for Gain of Function, given to humanised mice, the mice accidentally bit the Wuhan lab worker, and so on 4. The altered GoF virus was a in a fridge which accidentally leaked 5. The altered GoF virus was ALSO secretly being developed as a potential bioweapon (we know the CCP is into this shit) and coincidentally it accidentally leaked 6. The altered GoF virus was ALSO secretly being developed as a potential bioweapon and some lunatic deliberately leaked it into Wuhan and the world 7. The Chinese spies did all of the GoF bioweapon stuff deliberately and there was no leak, it was willingly sent out to kill 10m humans and more
And within these various definitions there are sub-definitions, some mad, some highly plausible
I'm not sure what a "synthetically created virus" even means. Does it mean a virus entirely built from scratch?! Literally created?
Sure. The basic issue from my - I agree very limited - understanding is that all previously known strains of coronavirus are too different genomically to create the eventual Covid 19 virus through artificial mutation. More precisely there would be evidence in the virus itself of that mutation having been made. To create Covid 19 as it is, lab workers would have to take a naturally occurring, but secretly obtained and undeclared, virus that is very close to or identical with Covid 19. It is plausible on my second lab leak hypothesis that lab workers didn't just investigate a naturally occurring virus. They attenuated it first. It depends what people mean by "origin" of the virus, I guess.
If subject matter experts are happy to refer to synthetically created viruses as a concept, which by the way I don't think exist in this case because they are of natural origin, I am happy to do so too. Sorry.
I wish no argument. I am in a benign mood. Just got back from a superb trip around north Scotland, on Sunday I'm off for a mad freebie in Switzerland. The world returns, albeit slowly
You're not a stupid person, by any means. You're smart. I genuinely believe that if you spent a few days reading everything you could, you would end up - like me - thinking Lab Leak (of some sort, there are many, as we agree) is really the most likely hypothesis by a considerable distance.
Of course, unlike me, most people don't have the time or inclination to spend days reading obscure stuff, so there we are. I do. I am the sort of relatively leisured, manic person that gets an obsession then reads EVERYTHING. The advantage is that I can often form a correct opinion early, the disadvantage is that I sometimes waste much time with a false thesis, and I also get bored and want to move on to the next controversy, and I end up missing major and obvious developments and I look like a fool.
Hey ho
I am now bloody good at fish risotto and allied seafood cookery, tho. That was one weird lockdown obsession which panned out well
Talking of Germanic food, the Flint Knapper's Gazette have asked me to write about Switzerland and I am off to Lucerne (and then Ticino) next week
Has anyone been to Lucerne? Is it nice? What can I expect? Efficient trains but somewhat stodgy food? What fun things can I do?
I know Ticino and I already know it is very lovely but extremely pricey....
It has these two mediaeval covered bridges with paintings which you use to cross the river and I was thinking, surely they can't do that, it has to be blocked off and protected. And then about twenty years ago someone drove a boat into one of the bridges and set it on fire. Now rebuilt.
I quite like Moevenpick. It's a chain though.
Main thing about Luzern is that it's an excellent centre. You probably won't spend much time in town
Notes from ten years ago:
The train arrives at a new station on the lake. I think there is a modern concert hall there too.
You must see the Dying Lion statue.
The Grand Hotel National is probably not the best hotel in town, but you should stay there anyway. Book directly (by phone) to get the fanciest rooms - they’re not online. See website for their photos.
Take the ferry to the Park Hotel Vitznau (which is extremely expensive but a bit gauche). There is also a “torte-cruise” where old ladies eat coffee and cake on a round trip ferry. Amusing rather than good.
Go up mount pilatus, on the transport. Is it a mountain train or a ski lift? I forget…
Oh, and as regards food. The knoefle (dough bits boiled in water with cheese and bacon on top) is gross. The first taste is ok, then it is very very cloying.
Danke!
Switzerland is weird with food, tending to its international national stereotypes. German Swiss food is pretty stodgy and grim, French Swiss food is varied and sometimes great, but often overwrought, Italian Swiss food is generally fine, but - this being Switzerland - about 10 times more expensive than Italian food over the border
We had a lovely holiday in a self-catered Swiss ski chalet for a Summer holiday 4 years ago. One of my main recollections of food was wanting to buy a packet of cereal and baulking at it costing about £5 for cornflakes. We drove and if I were to do it again I would try and pre-pack a whole load of basics for the family. Meals out were very expensive for even basic fare but it was all good quality. Although I doubt we were dining at the same sorts of establishments you will be given we had kids with us!
Apparently the norweigans get rather grumpy about the dutch bringing all their food in their motorhomes and spending no money in Norway.
On a related note, we saw the dutch take sandwiches from truck drivers coming from the UK post brexit. Are they really going to go through the fridges of dutch motohoke owners coming back from the UK to check for cheddar?
Have the Norwegians considered the option of not charging £9 for a small glass of beer?
One of my main memories of my one and only trip to Norway was the four of us (a flint knapping media team) opting for a "cheap burger lunch" before getting to work.
Four burgers and chips: £60. I kid you not. They weren't even very good burgers
We have been skiing in Norway twice now on the week before Christmas with friends. It didn't happen last December due to Covid but hopefully will this year. The hotel we stayed at had a fabulous buffet breakfast. We made sure that we made packed lunches in napkins for all of us (parents + 3 kids) every day from the buffet. It probably saved us at least £300 from not buying lunch. We did go out for meals every evening though and even kids menus are expensive.
Vaguely on topic, it's the classic conundrum for any Party - screw your own supporters or screw everyone else. That should for some on here be a no-brainer but the truth is sometimes Governments have to do things which test the loyalty of their supporters.
The problem is building a voting coalition on whom you are so reliant it becomes impossible to govern effectively in the interests of the whole country is the very definition of a house built on sand.
If that coalition is so fragile it falls apart at the first sign of anything negative it's not worth having at all. Those who voted for Johnson, Brexit and the Conservatives in 2019 may have thought they were electing a Government who would never say or do anything to offend them morally or politically or adversely affect them financially but that's not how Government should work.
I know some will disagree but I have this curious old-fashioned notion Governments are elected to govern in the interests of all not just those who voted for them.
And that's the heart of the matter. At some point, the national culture changed for the worse.
OK, it was never a disinterested "do what's in the best interests of the whole nation". There was always an element of "vote for us and we'll see you all right". But historically substantial Prime Ministers (Blair, say) really acted as if doing things his way would make everyone benefit. Even Thatcher, divisive (and in some ways wrong) as she was, believed that what she was doing was the right thing for all. And when presented with think tank reports suggesting (for example) that Liverpool should be left to die, she binned them, even though there were precisely zero votes in it for her.
For some reason, that's not the case right now. It all feels very American; vote for me so I can bring home the pork barrel. (Hi Ben! Hello Rishi!) Or there are 55 of me and 45 of you, so I can trample on your previous rights in any way I can imagine (see Texas and those who defend what's happened there). The will of just over half the people becomes the will of all the people.
And some of it is the fault of politicians exploiting this to gain power. But some of it is down to us as voters. We've become as consumerist about our politics as we have about our shopping. And I'm not sure that running a country works like that.
Very good post. But I'd say it's almost all down to us. This is a democracy. We're the boss.
Damn, we're terrible bosses! I'd fire us.
How very Brechtian.
In our defence, the menu of options in 2019 was incredibly unattractive. Though that's to the nation's discredit as well- we let our political parties shrivel to the point that the realistic choices (in most of England) were to vote for a candidate backing Boris Johnson or a candidate backing Jeremy Corbyn or a distant no-hoper.
And that's me as well. I could have stayed and fought for the soul of the party I yada yada. But instead, I thought "stuff it, I can't endorse this with my money or time" and wandered off. It's a consumerist attitude, I know.
And that's the heart of the matter. At some point, the national culture changed for the worse.
OK, it was never a disinterested "do what's in the best interests of the whole nation". There was always an element of "vote for us and we'll see you all right". But historically substantial Prime Ministers (Blair, say) really acted as if doing things his way would make everyone benefit. Even Thatcher, divisive (and in some ways wrong) as she was, believed that what she was doing was the right thing for all. And when presented with think tank reports suggesting (for example) that Liverpool should be left to die, she binned them, even though there were precisely zero votes in it for her.
For some reason, that's not the case right now. It all feels very American; vote for me so I can bring home the pork barrel. (Hi Ben! Hello Rishi!) Or there are 55 of me and 45 of you, so I can trample on your previous rights in any way I can imagine (see Texas and those who defend what's happened there). The will of just over half the people becomes the will of all the people.
And some of it is the fault of politicians exploiting this to gain power. But some of it is down to us as voters. We've become as consumerist about our politics as we have about our shopping. And I'm not sure that running a country works like that.
The culture is increasingly "this has to be paid for but I'm not paying for it". It's almost impossible to have a meaningful conversation about tax because the very notion of raising taxes provokes a reaction.
In fairness no one ever liked paying tax, they used to riot if it happened too often, but we do expect so much more now. And everything is a 'stealth' tax or a 'raid'. Depressing stuff.
TBF to Boris a rise in tax to pay for SC is the least bad solution.
I would prefer it to be income tax that is paid by all age groups but far better to go down this route than Mays proposal
It makes me more likely to vote for him
And having criticised SKS for failing to oppose the Govt
Funnily enough a tax rise to solve the SC Crisis is something i believe Lab should support.
There is no justification for the old paying less tax on the same income than the young. Indeed there are quite compelling reasons why they should pay more as they typically have much lower outlays and more disposable income. But politically this is difficult so what do we do about it?
One obvious step is to integrate NI into IT so the advantage of not paying NI disappears. It also means the same tax is paid on earned income and investment income, surely another no brainer.
A second step is to require the elderly to contribute to their care. It is really not obvious why a generation drowning in student debt should be asked to subsidise this so that a relatively small percentage of them can have meaningful inheritances.
A third step is to look at some of the freebies the elderly receive on a non means tested basis. In fairness this has already started with TV licences but there are more to go. Bus passes, which I will qualify for this month, are absurd.
I do not regard this as an attack on the elderly which as I have indicated I nearly am. But there must be some rebalancing of the load which is all the heavier after Covid.
Maybe at some point it will occur to the young to bother to turn out and vote.
Talking of Germanic food, the Flint Knapper's Gazette have asked me to write about Switzerland and I am off to Lucerne (and then Ticino) next week
Has anyone been to Lucerne? Is it nice? What can I expect? Efficient trains but somewhat stodgy food? What fun things can I do?
I know Ticino and I already know it is very lovely but extremely pricey....
It has these two mediaeval covered bridges with paintings which you use to cross the river and I was thinking, surely they can't do that, it has to be blocked off and protected. And then about twenty years ago someone drove a boat into one of the bridges and set it on fire. Now rebuilt.
I quite like Moevenpick. It's a chain though.
Main thing about Luzern is that it's an excellent centre. You probably won't spend much time in town
Notes from ten years ago:
The train arrives at a new station on the lake. I think there is a modern concert hall there too.
You must see the Dying Lion statue.
The Grand Hotel National is probably not the best hotel in town, but you should stay there anyway. Book directly (by phone) to get the fanciest rooms - they’re not online. See website for their photos.
Take the ferry to the Park Hotel Vitznau (which is extremely expensive but a bit gauche). There is also a “torte-cruise” where old ladies eat coffee and cake on a round trip ferry. Amusing rather than good.
Go up mount pilatus, on the transport. Is it a mountain train or a ski lift? I forget…
Oh, and as regards food. The knoefle (dough bits boiled in water with cheese and bacon on top) is gross. The first taste is ok, then it is very very cloying.
Danke!
Switzerland is weird with food, tending to its international national stereotypes. German Swiss food is pretty stodgy and grim, French Swiss food is varied and sometimes great, but often overwrought, Italian Swiss food is generally fine, but - this being Switzerland - about 10 times more expensive than Italian food over the border
We had a lovely holiday in a self-catered Swiss ski chalet for a Summer holiday 4 years ago. One of my main recollections of food was wanting to buy a packet of cereal and baulking at it costing about £5 for cornflakes. We drove and if I were to do it again I would try and pre-pack a whole load of basics for the family. Meals out were very expensive for even basic fare but it was all good quality. Although I doubt we were dining at the same sorts of establishments you will be given we had kids with us!
Apparently the norweigans get rather grumpy about the dutch bringing all their food in their motorhomes and spending no money in Norway.
On a related note, we saw the dutch take sandwiches from truck drivers coming from the UK post brexit. Are they really going to go through the fridges of dutch motohoke owners coming back from the UK to check for cheddar?
Have the Norwegians considered the option of not charging £9 for a small glass of beer?
One of my main memories of my one and only trip to Norway was the four of us (a flint knapping media team) opting for a "cheap burger lunch" before getting to work.
Four burgers and chips: £60. I kid you not. They weren't even very good burgers
I remember, when I was younger and poorer, having a bit of a tantrum in Oslo realising that even buying ham and cheese and bread for lunch in a small supermarket was over-budget. Meals out had been ruled out already. (As mentioned on PB yesterday, accomodation in Norway is actually reasonably priced. But everything else - ouch!)
There is no justification for the old paying less tax on the same income than the young. Indeed there are quite compelling reasons why they should pay more as they typically have much lower outlays and more disposable income. But politically this is difficult so what do we do about it?
One obvious step is to integrate NI into IT so the advantage of not paying NI disappears. It also means the same tax is paid on earned income and investment income, surely another no brainer.
A second step is to require the elderly to contribute to their care. It is really not obvious why a generation drowning in student debt should be asked to subsidise this so that a relatively small percentage of them can have meaningful inheritances.
A third step is to look at some of the freebies the elderly receive on a non means tested basis. In fairness this has already started with TV licences but there are more to go. Bus passes, which I will qualify for this month, are absurd.
I do not regard this as an attack on the elderly which as I have indicated I nearly am. But there must be some rebalancing of the load which is all the heavier after Covid.
Maybe at some point it will occur to the young to bother to turn out and vote.
Possibly, but in the meantime our politicians need to think laterally about how to address the unsatisfactory situation they inherited.
One other issue which could be a Black Swan for the government - and was covered by Newsnignt last night - is the issue of those in unsellable/unliveable leasehold flats affected by the cladding issues, post Grenfell Tower.
It combines property and particularly affects the young who have managed to get on the housing ladder but now find themselves trapped and facing ruinous bills and/or bankruptcy.
I am surprised that this is not more of a political issue. But I do wonder whether it might not blow up in the government's faces at some point.
Peter Hitchens has been on the case for ages
“ Stupid bureaucracy that is ruining lives
My colleague Keeba Critchlow is married to a junior doctor, Ben. They have had to move recently so that he can be close to the hospital where he works. Because of this, they have to pay for two homes at once and so they face bankruptcy.
They cannot sell their London flat, but they still have to pay for their new house near Ben’s nationally important work.
This is absurd. They have buyers who want the flat, but the buyers cannot get a mortgage because they do not have a form guaranteeing that the block is totally safe from a Grenfell-type fire.
The block is, in fact, safe. Its cladding has already been replaced and they have a certificate confirming that – but this is not enough.
They have to have the stupid form, even though it is not a legal requirement. But this country is now so Sovietised and scared that lenders will not lend in such a case. This problem affects huge numbers of people and is known to the Government. They could, in my view, solve it at a stroke by instructing all lenders to stop demanding the form.
But it seems that Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick is so busy planning to concrete over the countryside that he has not turned his mind to it.
He should talk to Keeba and Ben. Then he will grasp that this is a real problem which he has the power to fix. And fix it.”
Prof Francois Balloux @BallouxFrancois Replying to @BallouxFrancois The fact that the the JCVI committee did not cave in to pressure exerted by politicians, Pharma, and the shrill voices of self-appointed 'experts' and scientific populists is also something to celebrate, I believe. 5/
There is no justification for the old paying less tax on the same income than the young. Indeed there are quite compelling reasons why they should pay more as they typically have much lower outlays and more disposable income. But politically this is difficult so what do we do about it?
One obvious step is to integrate NI into IT so the advantage of not paying NI disappears. It also means the same tax is paid on earned income and investment income, surely another no brainer.
A second step is to require the elderly to contribute to their care. It is really not obvious why a generation drowning in student debt should be asked to subsidise this so that a relatively small percentage of them can have meaningful inheritances.
A third step is to look at some of the freebies the elderly receive on a non means tested basis. In fairness this has already started with TV licences but there are more to go. Bus passes, which I will qualify for this month, are absurd.
I do not regard this as an attack on the elderly which as I have indicated I nearly am. But there must be some rebalancing of the load which is all the heavier after Covid.
Maybe at some point it will occur to the young to bother to turn out and vote.
Up to a point. However, there simply aren't enough of them in enough parts of the country. And if they did, they wouldn’t vote as a unified bloc.
One other issue which could be a Black Swan for the government - and was covered by Newsnignt last night - is the issue of those in unsellable/unliveable leasehold flats affected by the cladding issues, post Grenfell Tower.
It combines property and particularly affects the young who have managed to get on the housing ladder but now find themselves trapped and facing ruinous bills and/or bankruptcy.
I am surprised that this is not more of a political issue. But I do wonder whether it might not blow up in the government's faces at some point.
Peter Hitchens has been on the case for ages
“ Stupid bureaucracy that is ruining lives
My colleague Keeba Critchlow is married to a junior doctor, Ben. They have had to move recently so that he can be close to the hospital where he works. Because of this, they have to pay for two homes at once and so they face bankruptcy.
They cannot sell their London flat, but they still have to pay for their new house near Ben’s nationally important work.
This is absurd. They have buyers who want the flat, but the buyers cannot get a mortgage because they do not have a form guaranteeing that the block is totally safe from a Grenfell-type fire.
The block is, in fact, safe. Its cladding has already been replaced and they have a certificate confirming that – but this is not enough.
They have to have the stupid form, even though it is not a legal requirement. But this country is now so Sovietised and scared that lenders will not lend in such a case. This problem affects huge numbers of people and is known to the Government. They could, in my view, solve it at a stroke by instructing all lenders to stop demanding the form.
But it seems that Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick is so busy planning to concrete over the countryside that he has not turned his mind to it.
He should talk to Keeba and Ben. Then he will grasp that this is a real problem which he has the power to fix. And fix it.”
One other issue which could be a Black Swan for the government - and was covered by Newsnignt last night - is the issue of those in unsellable/unliveable leasehold flats affected by the cladding issues, post Grenfell Tower.
It combines property and particularly affects the young who have managed to get on the housing ladder but now find themselves trapped and facing ruinous bills and/or bankruptcy.
I am surprised that this is not more of a political issue. But I do wonder whether it might not blow up in the government's faces at some point.
Peter Hitchens has been on the case for ages
“ Stupid bureaucracy that is ruining lives
My colleague Keeba Critchlow is married to a junior doctor, Ben. They have had to move recently so that he can be close to the hospital where he works. Because of this, they have to pay for two homes at once and so they face bankruptcy.
They cannot sell their London flat, but they still have to pay for their new house near Ben’s nationally important work.
This is absurd. They have buyers who want the flat, but the buyers cannot get a mortgage because they do not have a form guaranteeing that the block is totally safe from a Grenfell-type fire.
The block is, in fact, safe. Its cladding has already been replaced and they have a certificate confirming that – but this is not enough.
They have to have the stupid form, even though it is not a legal requirement. But this country is now so Sovietised and scared that lenders will not lend in such a case. This problem affects huge numbers of people and is known to the Government. They could, in my view, solve it at a stroke by instructing all lenders to stop demanding the form.
But it seems that Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick is so busy planning to concrete over the countryside that he has not turned his mind to it.
He should talk to Keeba and Ben. Then he will grasp that this is a real problem which he has the power to fix. And fix it.”
There is no justification for the old paying less tax on the same income than the young. Indeed there are quite compelling reasons why they should pay more as they typically have much lower outlays and more disposable income. But politically this is difficult so what do we do about it?
One obvious step is to integrate NI into IT so the advantage of not paying NI disappears. It also means the same tax is paid on earned income and investment income, surely another no brainer.
A second step is to require the elderly to contribute to their care. It is really not obvious why a generation drowning in student debt should be asked to subsidise this so that a relatively small percentage of them can have meaningful inheritances.
A third step is to look at some of the freebies the elderly receive on a non means tested basis. In fairness this has already started with TV licences but there are more to go. Bus passes, which I will qualify for this month, are absurd.
I do not regard this as an attack on the elderly which as I have indicated I nearly am. But there must be some rebalancing of the load which is all the heavier after Covid.
Maybe at some point it will occur to the young to bother to turn out and vote.
Up to a point. However, there simply aren't enough of them in enough parts of the country. And if they did, they wouldn’t vote as a unified bloc.
Every time there is an issue with tax, social care, health etc etc, there is a ton of stuff about how the boomer generation 'client vote' for the tories have everything sewn up so they are sitting pretty.
And yet when the next election rolls around - guess which age groups can't be arsed to turn up?
One other issue which could be a Black Swan for the government - and was covered by Newsnignt last night - is the issue of those in unsellable/unliveable leasehold flats affected by the cladding issues, post Grenfell Tower.
It combines property and particularly affects the young who have managed to get on the housing ladder but now find themselves trapped and facing ruinous bills and/or bankruptcy.
I am surprised that this is not more of a political issue. But I do wonder whether it might not blow up in the government's faces at some point.
Peter Hitchens has been on the case for ages
“ Stupid bureaucracy that is ruining lives
My colleague Keeba Critchlow is married to a junior doctor, Ben. They have had to move recently so that he can be close to the hospital where he works. Because of this, they have to pay for two homes at once and so they face bankruptcy.
They cannot sell their London flat, but they still have to pay for their new house near Ben’s nationally important work.
This is absurd. They have buyers who want the flat, but the buyers cannot get a mortgage because they do not have a form guaranteeing that the block is totally safe from a Grenfell-type fire.
The block is, in fact, safe. Its cladding has already been replaced and they have a certificate confirming that – but this is not enough.
They have to have the stupid form, even though it is not a legal requirement. But this country is now so Sovietised and scared that lenders will not lend in such a case. This problem affects huge numbers of people and is known to the Government. They could, in my view, solve it at a stroke by instructing all lenders to stop demanding the form.
But it seems that Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick is so busy planning to concrete over the countryside that he has not turned his mind to it.
He should talk to Keeba and Ben. Then he will grasp that this is a real problem which he has the power to fix. And fix it.”
Either some people and businesses who donate to the Tory party are profiting handsomely from this fiasco, or Jenrick is grossly negligent and/or a moron.
Again, this would not be happening if the affected homeowners were in their 60s and 70s rather than their 20s and 30s.
One other issue which could be a Black Swan for the government - and was covered by Newsnignt last night - is the issue of those in unsellable/unliveable leasehold flats affected by the cladding issues, post Grenfell Tower.
It combines property and particularly affects the young who have managed to get on the housing ladder but now find themselves trapped and facing ruinous bills and/or bankruptcy.
I am surprised that this is not more of a political issue. But I do wonder whether it might not blow up in the government's faces at some point.
Peter Hitchens has been on the case for ages
“ Stupid bureaucracy that is ruining lives
My colleague Keeba Critchlow is married to a junior doctor, Ben. They have had to move recently so that he can be close to the hospital where he works. Because of this, they have to pay for two homes at once and so they face bankruptcy.
They cannot sell their London flat, but they still have to pay for their new house near Ben’s nationally important work.
This is absurd. They have buyers who want the flat, but the buyers cannot get a mortgage because they do not have a form guaranteeing that the block is totally safe from a Grenfell-type fire.
The block is, in fact, safe. Its cladding has already been replaced and they have a certificate confirming that – but this is not enough.
They have to have the stupid form, even though it is not a legal requirement. But this country is now so Sovietised and scared that lenders will not lend in such a case. This problem affects huge numbers of people and is known to the Government. They could, in my view, solve it at a stroke by instructing all lenders to stop demanding the form.
But it seems that Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick is so busy planning to concrete over the countryside that he has not turned his mind to it.
He should talk to Keeba and Ben. Then he will grasp that this is a real problem which he has the power to fix. And fix it.”
One other issue which could be a Black Swan for the government - and was covered by Newsnignt last night - is the issue of those in unsellable/unliveable leasehold flats affected by the cladding issues, post Grenfell Tower.
It combines property and particularly affects the young who have managed to get on the housing ladder but now find themselves trapped and facing ruinous bills and/or bankruptcy.
I am surprised that this is not more of a political issue. But I do wonder whether it might not blow up in the government's faces at some point.
Peter Hitchens has been on the case for ages
“ Stupid bureaucracy that is ruining lives
My colleague Keeba Critchlow is married to a junior doctor, Ben. They have had to move recently so that he can be close to the hospital where he works. Because of this, they have to pay for two homes at once and so they face bankruptcy.
They cannot sell their London flat, but they still have to pay for their new house near Ben’s nationally important work.
This is absurd. They have buyers who want the flat, but the buyers cannot get a mortgage because they do not have a form guaranteeing that the block is totally safe from a Grenfell-type fire.
The block is, in fact, safe. Its cladding has already been replaced and they have a certificate confirming that – but this is not enough.
They have to have the stupid form, even though it is not a legal requirement. But this country is now so Sovietised and scared that lenders will not lend in such a case. This problem affects huge numbers of people and is known to the Government. They could, in my view, solve it at a stroke by instructing all lenders to stop demanding the form.
But it seems that Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick is so busy planning to concrete over the countryside that he has not turned his mind to it.
He should talk to Keeba and Ben. Then he will grasp that this is a real problem which he has the power to fix. And fix it.”
On the matter of raising NI to provide for elderly social care, I write as an elderly person with a decent occupational pension and would not mind paying extra tax (or paying NI for that matter) if that can ensure a decent standard of care for those who need it (and associated decent training and renumeration for those who provide it).
But in respect of assets;he proposal is aimed at protecting assets, which may otherwise be consumed by care costs, especially residential care - the big hitter financially. Only around 12% of the age cohort end up needing residential care so tax/NI funding is risk sharing. The protected assets aren't going to be consumed by elderly folk so frail/dependent they need residential care. The assets are being protected for their inheritors - most likely current, working age people (WAPs).
There is an element of intergenerational subsidy but more so of subsidy from WAPs who have the prospect of little or no inheritance to those who can expect to inherit substantial estates. So, for example, from the regions to the south east, where house prices are generally higher.
One other issue which could be a Black Swan for the government - and was covered by Newsnignt last night - is the issue of those in unsellable/unliveable leasehold flats affected by the cladding issues, post Grenfell Tower.
It combines property and particularly affects the young who have managed to get on the housing ladder but now find themselves trapped and facing ruinous bills and/or bankruptcy.
I am surprised that this is not more of a political issue. But I do wonder whether it might not blow up in the government's faces at some point.
Peter Hitchens has been on the case for ages
“ Stupid bureaucracy that is ruining lives
My colleague Keeba Critchlow is married to a junior doctor, Ben. They have had to move recently so that he can be close to the hospital where he works. Because of this, they have to pay for two homes at once and so they face bankruptcy.
They cannot sell their London flat, but they still have to pay for their new house near Ben’s nationally important work.
This is absurd. They have buyers who want the flat, but the buyers cannot get a mortgage because they do not have a form guaranteeing that the block is totally safe from a Grenfell-type fire.
The block is, in fact, safe. Its cladding has already been replaced and they have a certificate confirming that – but this is not enough.
They have to have the stupid form, even though it is not a legal requirement. But this country is now so Sovietised and scared that lenders will not lend in such a case. This problem affects huge numbers of people and is known to the Government. They could, in my view, solve it at a stroke by instructing all lenders to stop demanding the form.
But it seems that Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick is so busy planning to concrete over the countryside that he has not turned his mind to it.
He should talk to Keeba and Ben. Then he will grasp that this is a real problem which he has the power to fix. And fix it.”
Either some people and businesses who donate to the Tory party are profiting handsomely from this fiasco, or Jenrick is grossly negligent and/or a moron.
Again, this would not be happening if the affected homeowners were in their 60s and 70s rather than their 20s and 30s.
It's what you get for electing a government of ideologically correct fuckwits. What did you really expect?
Talking of Germanic food, the Flint Knapper's Gazette have asked me to write about Switzerland and I am off to Lucerne (and then Ticino) next week
Has anyone been to Lucerne? Is it nice? What can I expect? Efficient trains but somewhat stodgy food? What fun things can I do?
I know Ticino and I already know it is very lovely but extremely pricey....
It has these two mediaeval covered bridges with paintings which you use to cross the river and I was thinking, surely they can't do that, it has to be blocked off and protected. And then about twenty years ago someone drove a boat into one of the bridges and set it on fire. Now rebuilt.
I quite like Moevenpick. It's a chain though.
Main thing about Luzern is that it's an excellent centre. You probably won't spend much time in town
Notes from ten years ago:
The train arrives at a new station on the lake. I think there is a modern concert hall there too.
You must see the Dying Lion statue.
The Grand Hotel National is probably not the best hotel in town, but you should stay there anyway. Book directly (by phone) to get the fanciest rooms - they’re not online. See website for their photos.
Take the ferry to the Park Hotel Vitznau (which is extremely expensive but a bit gauche). There is also a “torte-cruise” where old ladies eat coffee and cake on a round trip ferry. Amusing rather than good.
Go up mount pilatus, on the transport. Is it a mountain train or a ski lift? I forget…
Oh, and as regards food. The knoefle (dough bits boiled in water with cheese and bacon on top) is gross. The first taste is ok, then it is very very cloying.
Danke!
Switzerland is weird with food, tending to its international national stereotypes. German Swiss food is pretty stodgy and grim, French Swiss food is varied and sometimes great, but often overwrought, Italian Swiss food is generally fine, but - this being Switzerland - about 10 times more expensive than Italian food over the border
We had a lovely holiday in a self-catered Swiss ski chalet for a Summer holiday 4 years ago. One of my main recollections of food was wanting to buy a packet of cereal and baulking at it costing about £5 for cornflakes. We drove and if I were to do it again I would try and pre-pack a whole load of basics for the family. Meals out were very expensive for even basic fare but it was all good quality. Although I doubt we were dining at the same sorts of establishments you will be given we had kids with us!
Apparently the norweigans get rather grumpy about the dutch bringing all their food in their motorhomes and spending no money in Norway.
On a related note, we saw the dutch take sandwiches from truck drivers coming from the UK post brexit. Are they really going to go through the fridges of dutch motohoke owners coming back from the UK to check for cheddar?
Have the Norwegians considered the option of not charging £9 for a small glass of beer?
One of my main memories of my one and only trip to Norway was the four of us (a flint knapping media team) opting for a "cheap burger lunch" before getting to work.
Four burgers and chips: £60. I kid you not. They weren't even very good burgers
I remember, when I was younger and poorer, having a bit of a tantrum in Oslo realising that even buying ham and cheese and bread for lunch in a small supermarket was over-budget. Meals out had been ruled out already. (As mentioned on PB yesterday, accomodation in Norway is actually reasonably priced. But everything else - ouch!)
The basic fact about Norway is that it's an oil economy, and the Government sensibly paid off the entire national debt from its share and reinvested the rest of the proceeds, so generally the standard of living is very high but the currency has an overinflated exchange rate. Swirzerland has similar issues - as a safe place for corporations and savings, so the franc is always overvalued.
All the lakeside towns in central Switzerland are pretty, and travelling by paddlesteamer is an offbeat way to enjoy them. When I lived there I used to contribute to a charity that kept one of them running, for no reason that I could figure out - it so obviously wasn't a charity in more need of money than others, but the idea enticed me.
What reason did Trudeau actually give for going early anyway? Obviously it was always the case PMs go at a time they consider advantageous, but it was awfully early and usually there's a pretext.
For those who aren't all Abba'd out, and the PBer who I was debating Sweden's low-key style with the other day, this is an interesting subtitled interview with Agnetha from a few years back:
One other issue which could be a Black Swan for the government - and was covered by Newsnignt last night - is the issue of those in unsellable/unliveable leasehold flats affected by the cladding issues, post Grenfell Tower.
It combines property and particularly affects the young who have managed to get on the housing ladder but now find themselves trapped and facing ruinous bills and/or bankruptcy.
I am surprised that this is not more of a political issue. But I do wonder whether it might not blow up in the government's faces at some point.
Peter Hitchens has been on the case for ages
“ Stupid bureaucracy that is ruining lives
My colleague Keeba Critchlow is married to a junior doctor, Ben. They have had to move recently so that he can be close to the hospital where he works. Because of this, they have to pay for two homes at once and so they face bankruptcy.
They cannot sell their London flat, but they still have to pay for their new house near Ben’s nationally important work.
This is absurd. They have buyers who want the flat, but the buyers cannot get a mortgage because they do not have a form guaranteeing that the block is totally safe from a Grenfell-type fire.
The block is, in fact, safe. Its cladding has already been replaced and they have a certificate confirming that – but this is not enough.
They have to have the stupid form, even though it is not a legal requirement. But this country is now so Sovietised and scared that lenders will not lend in such a case. This problem affects huge numbers of people and is known to the Government. They could, in my view, solve it at a stroke by instructing all lenders to stop demanding the form.
But it seems that Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick is so busy planning to concrete over the countryside that he has not turned his mind to it.
He should talk to Keeba and Ben. Then he will grasp that this is a real problem which he has the power to fix. And fix it.”
This may be a dumb question, but if they can get a certificate saying that there isn't any cladding, what is the problem with getting that form?
I'll try to answer this with reference to memory, so apologies in advance if I've got my facts muddled...
The form in question (called EWS1) isn't a statutory requirement, but mortgage lenders have got it lodged in their brains that they will be sued if they offer a mortgage on a property that ought to be covered by the form that subsequently bursts into flames, so they insist upon having it. That is, that form specifically. Not a letter that says there's no cladding, or a survey that says there's no cladding, or anything else. Only that form will do.
EWS1 forms can only be completed by a small number of specially qualified professionals. Firstly, they have a backlog of years of requests for EWS1 surveys to get through. Secondly, I believe that the freeholder of the affected building has to order the EWS1, not the leaseholders - and the freeholders frequently refuse because EWS1 costs money and it isn't a statutory requirement. So the leasehold tenants can find themselves trapped in an endless, Kafkaesque nightmare. I've no idea how many leaseholders have already been driven to bankruptcy by all of this but I would imagine that such cases exist.
I believe that guidance has been issued recently by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, which also has a walk-on part in this tragedy, which gets the owners of most flats in blocks under about six storeys out of the EWS1 trap, but insofar as I'm aware anyone living in a taller building that doesn't have an EWS1 may still be affected. I don't know whether every tall block of flats in the land needs EWS1, or if the monster only rears its head if cladding is known to be present, or if it is suspected to be present.
I myself live in a flat but the building is clearly not clad and, most crucially, is only three storeys high - and the neighbours downstairs recently sold up with no problems of which I'm aware, thank Christ.
And that's the heart of the matter. At some point, the national culture changed for the worse.
OK, it was never a disinterested "do what's in the best interests of the whole nation". There was always an element of "vote for us and we'll see you all right". But historically substantial Prime Ministers (Blair, say) really acted as if doing things his way would make everyone benefit. Even Thatcher, divisive (and in some ways wrong) as she was, believed that what she was doing was the right thing for all. And when presented with think tank reports suggesting (for example) that Liverpool should be left to die, she binned them, even though there were precisely zero votes in it for her.
For some reason, that's not the case right now. It all feels very American; vote for me so I can bring home the pork barrel. (Hi Ben! Hello Rishi!) Or there are 55 of me and 45 of you, so I can trample on your previous rights in any way I can imagine (see Texas and those who defend what's happened there). The will of just over half the people becomes the will of all the people.
And some of it is the fault of politicians exploiting this to gain power. But some of it is down to us as voters. We've become as consumerist about our politics as we have about our shopping. And I'm not sure that running a country works like that.
The culture is increasingly "this has to be paid for but I'm not paying for it". It's almost impossible to have a meaningful conversation about tax because the very notion of raising taxes provokes a reaction.
In fairness no one ever liked paying tax, they used to riot if it happened too often, but we do expect so much more now. And everything is a 'stealth' tax or a 'raid'. Depressing stuff.
Controversial maybe, but I 'like' (okay, the wrong word, but you know what I mean) paying tax. Imagine a world without tax. Schools, hospitals, road maintenance, libraries, parks and so on and so on would have to be paid by individuals.
Tax is good. Because it is (or should be) spent on things that are for the common good, make our lives easier and better and, dare I say, a bit more equal. But the dominant discourse, particularly over the last 40 years or so, is that tax is bad, and increasing taxes is even worse.
This is particularly the case with income tax, where tax rates are much lower than they used to be. Because no government dare raise it, they just raise VAT, NI and other random taxes instead. But actually, raising income tax is the most efficient and fairest way to raise the amount available for (good) public spending. I'm all for it, and was even before I retired.
Talking of Germanic food, the Flint Knapper's Gazette have asked me to write about Switzerland and I am off to Lucerne (and then Ticino) next week
Has anyone been to Lucerne? Is it nice? What can I expect? Efficient trains but somewhat stodgy food? What fun things can I do?
I know Ticino and I already know it is very lovely but extremely pricey....
It has these two mediaeval covered bridges with paintings which you use to cross the river and I was thinking, surely they can't do that, it has to be blocked off and protected. And then about twenty years ago someone drove a boat into one of the bridges and set it on fire. Now rebuilt.
I quite like Moevenpick. It's a chain though.
Main thing about Luzern is that it's an excellent centre. You probably won't spend much time in town
Notes from ten years ago:
The train arrives at a new station on the lake. I think there is a modern concert hall there too.
You must see the Dying Lion statue.
The Grand Hotel National is probably not the best hotel in town, but you should stay there anyway. Book directly (by phone) to get the fanciest rooms - they’re not online. See website for their photos.
Take the ferry to the Park Hotel Vitznau (which is extremely expensive but a bit gauche). There is also a “torte-cruise” where old ladies eat coffee and cake on a round trip ferry. Amusing rather than good.
Go up mount pilatus, on the transport. Is it a mountain train or a ski lift? I forget…
Oh, and as regards food. The knoefle (dough bits boiled in water with cheese and bacon on top) is gross. The first taste is ok, then it is very very cloying.
Danke!
Switzerland is weird with food, tending to its international national stereotypes. German Swiss food is pretty stodgy and grim, French Swiss food is varied and sometimes great, but often overwrought, Italian Swiss food is generally fine, but - this being Switzerland - about 10 times more expensive than Italian food over the border
We had a lovely holiday in a self-catered Swiss ski chalet for a Summer holiday 4 years ago. One of my main recollections of food was wanting to buy a packet of cereal and baulking at it costing about £5 for cornflakes. We drove and if I were to do it again I would try and pre-pack a whole load of basics for the family. Meals out were very expensive for even basic fare but it was all good quality. Although I doubt we were dining at the same sorts of establishments you will be given we had kids with us!
Apparently the norweigans get rather grumpy about the dutch bringing all their food in their motorhomes and spending no money in Norway.
On a related note, we saw the dutch take sandwiches from truck drivers coming from the UK post brexit. Are they really going to go through the fridges of dutch motohoke owners coming back from the UK to check for cheddar?
Have the Norwegians considered the option of not charging £9 for a small glass of beer?
One of my main memories of my one and only trip to Norway was the four of us (a flint knapping media team) opting for a "cheap burger lunch" before getting to work.
Four burgers and chips: £60. I kid you not. They weren't even very good burgers
I remember, when I was younger and poorer, having a bit of a tantrum in Oslo realising that even buying ham and cheese and bread for lunch in a small supermarket was over-budget. Meals out had been ruled out already. (As mentioned on PB yesterday, accomodation in Norway is actually reasonably priced. But everything else - ouch!)
I went to the Italian-apeaking region of Switzerland once. It was like Italy, only cleaner. Which was odd, because I hadn't noticed Italy as especially dirty. But after Italian-Switzerland, Italy proper appeared to be seen through sepia and covered in a fine layer of dust. I did eat there, twice: the first was like Italy only more expensive, the second was in a mountain shack and was cheap and delicious though almost entirely lacking in choice. It felt like a relic from the 1950s.
Talking of Germanic food, the Flint Knapper's Gazette have asked me to write about Switzerland and I am off to Lucerne (and then Ticino) next week
Has anyone been to Lucerne? Is it nice? What can I expect? Efficient trains but somewhat stodgy food? What fun things can I do?
I know Ticino and I already know it is very lovely but extremely pricey....
It has these two mediaeval covered bridges with paintings which you use to cross the river and I was thinking, surely they can't do that, it has to be blocked off and protected. And then about twenty years ago someone drove a boat into one of the bridges and set it on fire. Now rebuilt.
I quite like Moevenpick. It's a chain though.
Main thing about Luzern is that it's an excellent centre. You probably won't spend much time in town
Notes from ten years ago:
The train arrives at a new station on the lake. I think there is a modern concert hall there too.
You must see the Dying Lion statue.
The Grand Hotel National is probably not the best hotel in town, but you should stay there anyway. Book directly (by phone) to get the fanciest rooms - they’re not online. See website for their photos.
Take the ferry to the Park Hotel Vitznau (which is extremely expensive but a bit gauche). There is also a “torte-cruise” where old ladies eat coffee and cake on a round trip ferry. Amusing rather than good.
Go up mount pilatus, on the transport. Is it a mountain train or a ski lift? I forget…
Oh, and as regards food. The knoefle (dough bits boiled in water with cheese and bacon on top) is gross. The first taste is ok, then it is very very cloying.
Danke!
Switzerland is weird with food, tending to its international national stereotypes. German Swiss food is pretty stodgy and grim, French Swiss food is varied and sometimes great, but often overwrought, Italian Swiss food is generally fine, but - this being Switzerland - about 10 times more expensive than Italian food over the border
We had a lovely holiday in a self-catered Swiss ski chalet for a Summer holiday 4 years ago. One of my main recollections of food was wanting to buy a packet of cereal and baulking at it costing about £5 for cornflakes. We drove and if I were to do it again I would try and pre-pack a whole load of basics for the family. Meals out were very expensive for even basic fare but it was all good quality. Although I doubt we were dining at the same sorts of establishments you will be given we had kids with us!
Apparently the norweigans get rather grumpy about the dutch bringing all their food in their motorhomes and spending no money in Norway.
On a related note, we saw the dutch take sandwiches from truck drivers coming from the UK post brexit. Are they really going to go through the fridges of dutch motohoke owners coming back from the UK to check for cheddar?
Have the Norwegians considered the option of not charging £9 for a small glass of beer?
One of my main memories of my one and only trip to Norway was the four of us (a flint knapping media team) opting for a "cheap burger lunch" before getting to work.
Four burgers and chips: £60. I kid you not. They weren't even very good burgers
I remember, when I was younger and poorer, having a bit of a tantrum in Oslo realising that even buying ham and cheese and bread for lunch in a small supermarket was over-budget. Meals out had been ruled out already. (As mentioned on PB yesterday, accomodation in Norway is actually reasonably priced. But everything else - ouch!)
The basic fact about Norway is that it's an oil economy, and the Government sensibly paid off the entire national debt from its share and reinvested the rest of the proceeds, so generally the standard of living is very high but the currency has an overinflated exchange rate. Swirzerland has similar issues - as a safe place for corporations and savings, so the franc is always overvalued.
All the lakeside towns in central Switzerland are pretty, and travelling by paddlesteamer is an offbeat way to enjoy them. When I lived there I used to contribute to a charity that kept one of them running, for no reason that I could figure out - it so obviously wasn't a charity in more need of money than others, but the idea enticed me.
Worth noting that, despite the ridiculous valuation of the Swiss Franc, they have no problems running an export led economy with a large trade surplus.
One other issue which could be a Black Swan for the government - and was covered by Newsnignt last night - is the issue of those in unsellable/unliveable leasehold flats affected by the cladding issues, post Grenfell Tower.
It combines property and particularly affects the young who have managed to get on the housing ladder but now find themselves trapped and facing ruinous bills and/or bankruptcy.
I am surprised that this is not more of a political issue. But I do wonder whether it might not blow up in the government's faces at some point.
Peter Hitchens has been on the case for ages
“ Stupid bureaucracy that is ruining lives
My colleague Keeba Critchlow is married to a junior doctor, Ben. They have had to move recently so that he can be close to the hospital where he works. Because of this, they have to pay for two homes at once and so they face bankruptcy.
They cannot sell their London flat, but they still have to pay for their new house near Ben’s nationally important work.
This is absurd. They have buyers who want the flat, but the buyers cannot get a mortgage because they do not have a form guaranteeing that the block is totally safe from a Grenfell-type fire.
The block is, in fact, safe. Its cladding has already been replaced and they have a certificate confirming that – but this is not enough.
They have to have the stupid form, even though it is not a legal requirement. But this country is now so Sovietised and scared that lenders will not lend in such a case. This problem affects huge numbers of people and is known to the Government. They could, in my view, solve it at a stroke by instructing all lenders to stop demanding the form.
But it seems that Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick is so busy planning to concrete over the countryside that he has not turned his mind to it.
He should talk to Keeba and Ben. Then he will grasp that this is a real problem which he has the power to fix. And fix it.”
Either some people and businesses who donate to the Tory party are profiting handsomely from this fiasco, or Jenrick is grossly negligent and/or a moron.
Again, this would not be happening if the affected homeowners were in their 60s and 70s rather than their 20s and 30s.
I suspect in your first sentence the first 'or' could be replaced by an 'and', and the 'Either' taken out.
Lesson for Boris on the dangers of calling an election too early maybe?
I don't think he'll go before the boundary reform proposals have been implemented, the final report of the Boundary Commissioners isn't due to come in until mid-2023, and local Government will presumably need some time to implement the changes.
I suppose that could mean an Autumn election, but it might be cutting it a bit fine, and (despite the most recent example) Winter elections are unusual. Spring 2024 therefore looks like a good bet, which would be unlikely to be regarded as going too early.
One other issue which could be a Black Swan for the government - and was covered by Newsnignt last night - is the issue of those in unsellable/unliveable leasehold flats affected by the cladding issues, post Grenfell Tower.
It combines property and particularly affects the young who have managed to get on the housing ladder but now find themselves trapped and facing ruinous bills and/or bankruptcy.
I am surprised that this is not more of a political issue. But I do wonder whether it might not blow up in the government's faces at some point.
Peter Hitchens has been on the case for ages
“ Stupid bureaucracy that is ruining lives
My colleague Keeba Critchlow is married to a junior doctor, Ben. They have had to move recently so that he can be close to the hospital where he works. Because of this, they have to pay for two homes at once and so they face bankruptcy.
They cannot sell their London flat, but they still have to pay for their new house near Ben’s nationally important work.
This is absurd. They have buyers who want the flat, but the buyers cannot get a mortgage because they do not have a form guaranteeing that the block is totally safe from a Grenfell-type fire.
The block is, in fact, safe. Its cladding has already been replaced and they have a certificate confirming that – but this is not enough.
They have to have the stupid form, even though it is not a legal requirement. But this country is now so Sovietised and scared that lenders will not lend in such a case. This problem affects huge numbers of people and is known to the Government. They could, in my view, solve it at a stroke by instructing all lenders to stop demanding the form.
But it seems that Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick is so busy planning to concrete over the countryside that he has not turned his mind to it.
He should talk to Keeba and Ben. Then he will grasp that this is a real problem which he has the power to fix. And fix it.”
Either some people and businesses who donate to the Tory party are profiting handsomely from this fiasco, or Jenrick is grossly negligent and/or a moron.
Again, this would not be happening if the affected homeowners were in their 60s and 70s rather than their 20s and 30s.
I suspect in your first sentence the 'or' could be replaced by an 'and', and the 'Either' taken out.
One other issue which could be a Black Swan for the government - and was covered by Newsnignt last night - is the issue of those in unsellable/unliveable leasehold flats affected by the cladding issues, post Grenfell Tower.
It combines property and particularly affects the young who have managed to get on the housing ladder but now find themselves trapped and facing ruinous bills and/or bankruptcy.
I am surprised that this is not more of a political issue. But I do wonder whether it might not blow up in the government's faces at some point.
Peter Hitchens has been on the case for ages
“ Stupid bureaucracy that is ruining lives
My colleague Keeba Critchlow is married to a junior doctor, Ben. They have had to move recently so that he can be close to the hospital where he works. Because of this, they have to pay for two homes at once and so they face bankruptcy.
They cannot sell their London flat, but they still have to pay for their new house near Ben’s nationally important work.
This is absurd. They have buyers who want the flat, but the buyers cannot get a mortgage because they do not have a form guaranteeing that the block is totally safe from a Grenfell-type fire.
The block is, in fact, safe. Its cladding has already been replaced and they have a certificate confirming that – but this is not enough.
They have to have the stupid form, even though it is not a legal requirement. But this country is now so Sovietised and scared that lenders will not lend in such a case. This problem affects huge numbers of people and is known to the Government. They could, in my view, solve it at a stroke by instructing all lenders to stop demanding the form.
But it seems that Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick is so busy planning to concrete over the countryside that he has not turned his mind to it.
He should talk to Keeba and Ben. Then he will grasp that this is a real problem which he has the power to fix. And fix it.”
With all due respect, they may not be able to sell to that buyer. But there are 100s - perhaps 1,000s - of BTL investors who will happily pay 5 or 10% less than market and who can pay cash. They're willing to take a flyer because they know they'll get the right forms later.
Hopefully 75% decide that Trudeau isn't necessary...
I would personally make it clear that you mean he isn't necessarily the best leader for Canada, not that you think humanity would be better off without him.
There is no justification for the old paying less tax on the same income than the young. Indeed there are quite compelling reasons why they should pay more as they typically have much lower outlays and more disposable income. But politically this is difficult so what do we do about it?
One obvious step is to integrate NI into IT so the advantage of not paying NI disappears. It also means the same tax is paid on earned income and investment income, surely another no brainer.
A second step is to require the elderly to contribute to their care. It is really not obvious why a generation drowning in student debt should be asked to subsidise this so that a relatively small percentage of them can have meaningful inheritances.
A third step is to look at some of the freebies the elderly receive on a non means tested basis. In fairness this has already started with TV licences but there are more to go. Bus passes, which I will qualify for this month, are absurd.
I do not regard this as an attack on the elderly which as I have indicated I nearly am. But there must be some rebalancing of the load which is all the heavier after Covid.
Maybe at some point it will occur to the young to bother to turn out and vote.
Up to a point. However, there simply aren't enough of them in enough parts of the country. And if they did, they wouldn’t vote as a unified bloc.
Every time there is an issue with tax, social care, health etc etc, there is a ton of stuff about how the boomer generation 'client vote' for the tories have everything sewn up so they are sitting pretty.
And yet when the next election rolls around - guess which age groups can't be arsed to turn up?
Because there hasn't been an economic downturn since the boomer client vote coalesced. Life isn't easy for younger generations. But it hasn't been spectacularly hard as of yet
What reason did Trudeau actually give for going early anyway? Obviously it was always the case PMs go at a time they consider advantageous, but it was awfully early and usually there's a pretext.
What reason did Trudeau actually give for going early anyway? Obviously it was always the case PMs go at a time they consider advantageous, but it was awfully early and usually there's a pretext.
Insofar as I understand it, he wanted a majority and he thought he could get it. That's all.
Vaguely on topic, it's the classic conundrum for any Party - screw your own supporters or screw everyone else. That should for some on here be a no-brainer but the truth is sometimes Governments have to do things which test the loyalty of their supporters.
The problem is building a voting coalition on whom you are so reliant it becomes impossible to govern effectively in the interests of the whole country is the very definition of a house built on sand.
If that coalition is so fragile it falls apart at the first sign of anything negative it's not worth having at all. Those who voted for Johnson, Brexit and the Conservatives in 2019 may have thought they were electing a Government who would never say or do anything to offend them morally or politically or adversely affect them financially but that's not how Government should work.
I know some will disagree but I have this curious old-fashioned notion Governments are elected to govern in the interests of all not just those who voted for them.
And that's the heart of the matter. At some point, the national culture changed for the worse.
OK, it was never a disinterested "do what's in the best interests of the whole nation". There was always an element of "vote for us and we'll see you all right". But historically substantial Prime Ministers (Blair, say) really acted as if doing things his way would make everyone benefit. Even Thatcher, divisive (and in some ways wrong) as she was, believed that what she was doing was the right thing for all. And when presented with think tank reports suggesting (for example) that Liverpool should be left to die, she binned them, even though there were precisely zero votes in it for her.
For some reason, that's not the case right now. It all feels very American; vote for me so I can bring home the pork barrel. (Hi Ben! Hello Rishi!) Or there are 55 of me and 45 of you, so I can trample on your previous rights in any way I can imagine (see Texas and those who defend what's happened there). The will of just over half the people becomes the will of all the people.
And some of it is the fault of politicians exploiting this to gain power. But some of it is down to us as voters. We've become as consumerist about our politics as we have about our shopping. And I'm not sure that running a country works like that.
Very good post. But I'd say it's almost all down to us. This is a democracy. We're the boss.
Damn, we're terrible bosses! I'd fire us.
How very Brechtian.
In our defence, the menu of options in 2019 was incredibly unattractive. Though that's to the nation's discredit as well- we let our political parties shrivel to the point that the realistic choices (in most of England) were to vote for a candidate backing Boris Johnson or a candidate backing Jeremy Corbyn or a distant no-hoper.
And that's me as well. I could have stayed and fought for the soul of the party I yada yada. But instead, I thought "stuff it, I can't endorse this with my money or time" and wandered off. It's a consumerist attitude, I know.
But you've slightly flippantly raised a profound question: how should a polity get the politicians it wants? Because it starts, or should do, with what people want. I tend to be quite defensive when people dismiss politicians en masse. Politicians are nothing more than the embodiment of a political consensus, and when we dismiss them we are dismissing the fact that other people disagree with us. What the last decade has showed is that delegating our disagreements to politicians shields us from being at permanent war with each other, which is probably less healthy. And I do actually think Boris, and four of his five predecessors carried out the job of embodying the consensus quite well. Boris's many detractors - and I am one - often kid ourselves that we are closer to the political centre ground on our issue of choice than he is. Almost always, we are not. But even so, I'm not convinced that our system - which came within a whisker of PM Corbyn is necessarily terribly optimal.
For those who aren't all Abba'd out, and the PBer who I was debating Sweden's low-key style with the other day, this is an interesting subtitled interview with Agnetha from a few years back:
One other issue which could be a Black Swan for the government - and was covered by Newsnignt last night - is the issue of those in unsellable/unliveable leasehold flats affected by the cladding issues, post Grenfell Tower.
It combines property and particularly affects the young who have managed to get on the housing ladder but now find themselves trapped and facing ruinous bills and/or bankruptcy.
I am surprised that this is not more of a political issue. But I do wonder whether it might not blow up in the government's faces at some point.
Peter Hitchens has been on the case for ages
“ Stupid bureaucracy that is ruining lives
My colleague Keeba Critchlow is married to a junior doctor, Ben. They have had to move recently so that he can be close to the hospital where he works. Because of this, they have to pay for two homes at once and so they face bankruptcy.
They cannot sell their London flat, but they still have to pay for their new house near Ben’s nationally important work.
This is absurd. They have buyers who want the flat, but the buyers cannot get a mortgage because they do not have a form guaranteeing that the block is totally safe from a Grenfell-type fire.
The block is, in fact, safe. Its cladding has already been replaced and they have a certificate confirming that – but this is not enough.
They have to have the stupid form, even though it is not a legal requirement. But this country is now so Sovietised and scared that lenders will not lend in such a case. This problem affects huge numbers of people and is known to the Government. They could, in my view, solve it at a stroke by instructing all lenders to stop demanding the form.
But it seems that Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick is so busy planning to concrete over the countryside that he has not turned his mind to it.
He should talk to Keeba and Ben. Then he will grasp that this is a real problem which he has the power to fix. And fix it.”
With all due respect, they may not be able to sell to that buyer. But there are 100s - perhaps 1,000s - of BTL investors who will happily pay 5 or 10% less than market and who can pay cash. They're willing to take a flyer because they know they'll get the right forms later.
BTL in London is crap though isn’t it? Better to buy 5 100k properties in Nottingham than a half a million pound flat in London?
Expensive, even for simple fare. I was going to say it's possibly the worst value in Europe, but even that seems too kind. It's cheaper and easier to get a good meal in Beverly Hills than in much of Switzerland.
And even if you are prepared to pay up, it's usually not as good as the neighbours.
Alpine cuisine? Done better in France.
Italian cuisine? Done better in Italy.
German cuisine? Done better in Germany. Done better in Argentina, for that matter.
And even if you find somewhere with OK food, the atmosphere is usually very average. Or worse.
One other issue which could be a Black Swan for the government - and was covered by Newsnignt last night - is the issue of those in unsellable/unliveable leasehold flats affected by the cladding issues, post Grenfell Tower.
It combines property and particularly affects the young who have managed to get on the housing ladder but now find themselves trapped and facing ruinous bills and/or bankruptcy.
I am surprised that this is not more of a political issue. But I do wonder whether it might not blow up in the government's faces at some point.
Peter Hitchens has been on the case for ages
“ Stupid bureaucracy that is ruining lives
My colleague Keeba Critchlow is married to a junior doctor, Ben. They have had to move recently so that he can be close to the hospital where he works. Because of this, they have to pay for two homes at once and so they face bankruptcy.
They cannot sell their London flat, but they still have to pay for their new house near Ben’s nationally important work.
This is absurd. They have buyers who want the flat, but the buyers cannot get a mortgage because they do not have a form guaranteeing that the block is totally safe from a Grenfell-type fire.
The block is, in fact, safe. Its cladding has already been replaced and they have a certificate confirming that – but this is not enough.
They have to have the stupid form, even though it is not a legal requirement. But this country is now so Sovietised and scared that lenders will not lend in such a case. This problem affects huge numbers of people and is known to the Government. They could, in my view, solve it at a stroke by instructing all lenders to stop demanding the form.
But it seems that Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick is so busy planning to concrete over the countryside that he has not turned his mind to it.
He should talk to Keeba and Ben. Then he will grasp that this is a real problem which he has the power to fix. And fix it.”
With all due respect, they may not be able to sell to that buyer. But there are 100s - perhaps 1,000s - of BTL investors who will happily pay 5 or 10% less than market and who can pay cash. They're willing to take a flyer because they know they'll get the right forms later.
BTL in London is crap though isn’t it? Better to buy 5 100k properties in Nottingham than a half a million pound flat in London?
There's no shortage of people (and firms) leasing flats in London, and who are always on the prowl to acquire more.
Just bingewatched Clickbait on Netflix. Panned by the critics. Liked by those who watch. Ludicrously unbelievable, but so is Sherlock. Entertaining hokum with enough twists to keep me watching. Ultimately about a close family who support and look out for each other in the most trying circumstances. Not an all time classic, but eminently watchable. Has had some really filthy reviews from some personally offended writers. No idea why at all.
There is no justification for the old paying less tax on the same income than the young. Indeed there are quite compelling reasons why they should pay more as they typically have much lower outlays and more disposable income. But politically this is difficult so what do we do about it?
One obvious step is to integrate NI into IT so the advantage of not paying NI disappears. It also means the same tax is paid on earned income and investment income, surely another no brainer.
A second step is to require the elderly to contribute to their care. It is really not obvious why a generation drowning in student debt should be asked to subsidise this so that a relatively small percentage of them can have meaningful inheritances.
A third step is to look at some of the freebies the elderly receive on a non means tested basis. In fairness this has already started with TV licences but there are more to go. Bus passes, which I will qualify for this month, are absurd.
I do not regard this as an attack on the elderly which as I have indicated I nearly am. But there must be some rebalancing of the load which is all the heavier after Covid.
Maybe at some point it will occur to the young to bother to turn out and vote.
Up to a point. However, there simply aren't enough of them in enough parts of the country. And if they did, they wouldn’t vote as a unified bloc.
Every time there is an issue with tax, social care, health etc etc, there is a ton of stuff about how the boomer generation 'client vote' for the tories have everything sewn up so they are sitting pretty.
And yet when the next election rolls around - guess which age groups can't be arsed to turn up?
Because there hasn't been an economic downturn since the boomer client vote coalesced. Life isn't easy for younger generations. But it hasn't been spectacularly hard as of yet
What reason did Trudeau actually give for going early anyway? Obviously it was always the case PMs go at a time they consider advantageous, but it was awfully early and usually there's a pretext.
He thought he would win? See May T also.
Yes, but May T hid it behind saying giving her a massive majority would send a message to the EU and help her during the Brexit negotiations. Presumably Trudeau would have had to come up with some other bullshit reason?
For @MaxPB and others, let me make my position clear:-
I think that the taxes that will have to be levied must be shared by all, including pensioners. So if you work you pay increased tax and NI. I also think there will have to be some form of wealth tax, possibly also capital gains tax on houses, including first homes.
I really despise the way @MaxPB attacks those who are older (as he did on me on the previous thread) without knowing what sacrifices they have made nor what they are doing for the young. I paid for my mother's care. I did not inherit any home. My parents rented. And I am working to support my children.
If he had bothered to read my posts carefully he would have realised that I do not approve of only raising tax by raising NI precisely because it only falls on one group. Everyone will have to pay more tax. Everyone. And while I will no doubt grumble I will pay. Not least because - as I have said repeatedly over the last year and a half - we owe it to the younger generation to do something for them because they have lost so much in the last few years.
For him to say - as he did on the previous thread (though perhaps I have misunderstood - and, if so, apologies - that there should be no more taxes on working people is absurd and unrealistic. We simply cannot afford to exempt any group from the obligation to contribute to our country and public services.
Oh - and by the way - I did not vote for the government which people like @MaxPB support and which has done a lot of damage to good governance in this country. So he and people like him - before ranting at selfish others (in his view) - might do well to look in the mirror first.
Or - to summarise - @MaxPB (who often makes a good contribution on here) has completely embarrassed himself on here today and needs to reflect on this.
Talking of Germanic food, the Flint Knapper's Gazette have asked me to write about Switzerland and I am off to Lucerne (and then Ticino) next week
Has anyone been to Lucerne? Is it nice? What can I expect? Efficient trains but somewhat stodgy food? What fun things can I do?
I know Ticino and I already know it is very lovely but extremely pricey....
It has these two mediaeval covered bridges with paintings which you use to cross the river and I was thinking, surely they can't do that, it has to be blocked off and protected. And then about twenty years ago someone drove a boat into one of the bridges and set it on fire. Now rebuilt.
I quite like Moevenpick. It's a chain though.
Main thing about Luzern is that it's an excellent centre. You probably won't spend much time in town
Notes from ten years ago:
The train arrives at a new station on the lake. I think there is a modern concert hall there too.
You must see the Dying Lion statue.
The Grand Hotel National is probably not the best hotel in town, but you should stay there anyway. Book directly (by phone) to get the fanciest rooms - they’re not online. See website for their photos.
Take the ferry to the Park Hotel Vitznau (which is extremely expensive but a bit gauche). There is also a “torte-cruise” where old ladies eat coffee and cake on a round trip ferry. Amusing rather than good.
Go up mount pilatus, on the transport. Is it a mountain train or a ski lift? I forget…
Oh, and as regards food. The knoefle (dough bits boiled in water with cheese and bacon on top) is gross. The first taste is ok, then it is very very cloying.
Danke!
Switzerland is weird with food, tending to its international national stereotypes. German Swiss food is pretty stodgy and grim, French Swiss food is varied and sometimes great, but often overwrought, Italian Swiss food is generally fine, but - this being Switzerland - about 10 times more expensive than Italian food over the border
We had a lovely holiday in a self-catered Swiss ski chalet for a Summer holiday 4 years ago. One of my main recollections of food was wanting to buy a packet of cereal and baulking at it costing about £5 for cornflakes. We drove and if I were to do it again I would try and pre-pack a whole load of basics for the family. Meals out were very expensive for even basic fare but it was all good quality. Although I doubt we were dining at the same sorts of establishments you will be given we had kids with us!
Apparently the norweigans get rather grumpy about the dutch bringing all their food in their motorhomes and spending no money in Norway.
On a related note, we saw the dutch take sandwiches from truck drivers coming from the UK post brexit. Are they really going to go through the fridges of dutch motohoke owners coming back from the UK to check for cheddar?
Have the Norwegians considered the option of not charging £9 for a small glass of beer?
One of my main memories of my one and only trip to Norway was the four of us (a flint knapping media team) opting for a "cheap burger lunch" before getting to work.
Four burgers and chips: £60. I kid you not. They weren't even very good burgers
I remember, when I was younger and poorer, having a bit of a tantrum in Oslo realising that even buying ham and cheese and bread for lunch in a small supermarket was over-budget. Meals out had been ruled out already. (As mentioned on PB yesterday, accomodation in Norway is actually reasonably priced. But everything else - ouch!)
The basic fact about Norway is that it's an oil economy, and the Government sensibly paid off the entire national debt from its share and reinvested the rest of the proceeds, so generally the standard of living is very high but the currency has an overinflated exchange rate. Swirzerland has similar issues - as a safe place for corporations and savings, so the franc is always overvalued.
All the lakeside towns in central Switzerland are pretty, and travelling by paddlesteamer is an offbeat way to enjoy them. When I lived there I used to contribute to a charity that kept one of them running, for no reason that I could figure out - it so obviously wasn't a charity in more need of money than others, but the idea enticed me.
Worth noting that, despite the ridiculous valuation of the Swiss Franc, they have no problems running an export led economy with a large trade surplus.
Worth also noting that a Labour politician is describing paying off the National Debt as 'sensible'. (Obviously there will be nuance to Nick's view and I offer these parentheses in mitigation for any excessively selective quotation). Truly we live in interesting times.
Expensive, even for simple fare. I was going to say it's possibly the worst value in Europe, but even that seems too kind. It's cheaper and easier to get a good meal in Beverly Hills than in much of Switzerland.
And even if you are prepared to pay up, it's usually not as good as the neighbours.
Alpine cuisine? Done better in France.
Italian cuisine? Done better in Italy.
German cuisine? Done better in Germany. Done better in Argentina, for that matter.
And even if you find somewhere with OK food, the atmosphere is usually very average. Or worse.
There is no justification for the old paying less tax on the same income than the young. Indeed there are quite compelling reasons why they should pay more as they typically have much lower outlays and more disposable income. But politically this is difficult so what do we do about it?
One obvious step is to integrate NI into IT so the advantage of not paying NI disappears. It also means the same tax is paid on earned income and investment income, surely another no brainer.
A second step is to require the elderly to contribute to their care. It is really not obvious why a generation drowning in student debt should be asked to subsidise this so that a relatively small percentage of them can have meaningful inheritances.
A third step is to look at some of the freebies the elderly receive on a non means tested basis. In fairness this has already started with TV licences but there are more to go. Bus passes, which I will qualify for this month, are absurd.
I do not regard this as an attack on the elderly which as I have indicated I nearly am. But there must be some rebalancing of the load which is all the heavier after Covid.
Maybe at some point it will occur to the young to bother to turn out and vote.
Up to a point. However, there simply aren't enough of them in enough parts of the country. And if they did, they wouldn’t vote as a unified bloc.
Every time there is an issue with tax, social care, health etc etc, there is a ton of stuff about how the boomer generation 'client vote' for the tories have everything sewn up so they are sitting pretty.
And yet when the next election rolls around - guess which age groups can't be arsed to turn up?
Because there hasn't been an economic downturn since the boomer client vote coalesced. Life isn't easy for younger generations. But it hasn't been spectacularly hard as of yet
What reason did Trudeau actually give for going early anyway? Obviously it was always the case PMs go at a time they consider advantageous, but it was awfully early and usually there's a pretext.
He thought he would win? See May T also.
Yes, but May T hid it behind saying giving her a massive majority would send a message to the EU and help her during the Brexit negotiations. Presumably Trudeau would have had to come up with some other bullshit reason?
Covid - specifically, he claimed he wanted a mandate from the electorate for his Covid recovery plan.
On the matter of raising NI to provide for elderly social care, I write as an elderly person with a decent occupational pension and would not mind paying extra tax (or paying NI for that matter) if that can ensure a decent standard of care for those who need it (and associated decent training and renumeration for those who provide it).
But in respect of assets;he proposal is aimed at protecting assets, which may otherwise be consumed by care costs, especially residential care - the big hitter financially. Only around 12% of the age cohort end up needing residential care so tax/NI funding is risk sharing. The protected assets aren't going to be consumed by elderly folk so frail/dependent they need residential care. The assets are being protected for their inheritors - most likely current, working age people (WAPs).
There is an element of intergenerational subsidy but more so of subsidy from WAPs who have the prospect of little or no inheritance to those who can expect to inherit substantial estates. So, for example, from the regions to the south east, where house prices are generally higher.
Welcome.
The protected assets may not be consumed by the frail who need care, but the inheritors. But for those who have worked and saved all their lives to have an asset to pass on to the grandchildren this is hugely important. Hugely.
Public policy should perhaps cut through that kind of emotional gut feeling but boy it is bloody hard to deliver. look at the endless rows about IHT.
Hopefully 75% decide that Trudeau isn't necessary...
Are the Canadian polls turnout-weighted? Becuase if they’re not it could be an unexpected rout…
AIUI a result in which the Liberals actually fail to win the most seats is considered unlikely, because the Tories' voter distribution is very inefficient and the NDP aren't popular enough to really hurt them. I doubt that deficiencies in polling methodology would be enough to disguise a shift in voting patterns large enough to overturn this calculus, but I stand, of course, to be corrected by events...
On the matter of raising NI to provide for elderly social care, I write as an elderly person with a decent occupational pension and would not mind paying extra tax (or paying NI for that matter) if that can ensure a decent standard of care for those who need it (and associated decent training and renumeration for those who provide it).
But in respect of assets;he proposal is aimed at protecting assets, which may otherwise be consumed by care costs, especially residential care - the big hitter financially. Only around 12% of the age cohort end up needing residential care so tax/NI funding is risk sharing. The protected assets aren't going to be consumed by elderly folk so frail/dependent they need residential care. The assets are being protected for their inheritors - most likely current, working age people (WAPs).
There is an element of intergenerational subsidy but more so of subsidy from WAPs who have the prospect of little or no inheritance to those who can expect to inherit substantial estates. So, for example, from the regions to the south east, where house prices are generally higher.
Welcome.
The protected assets may not be consumed by the frail who need care, but the inheritors. But for those who have worked and saved all their lives to have an asset to pass on to the grandchildren this is hugely important. Hugely.
Public policy should perhaps cut through that kind of emotional gut feeling but boy it is bloody hard to deliver. look at the endless rows about IHT.
There is that. But people worked and saved all their lives to have an asset just as hard in Burnley or Rotherham, as in Camden or Cambridge. But the value of the assets don't reflect that. And what about those who struggled all their life to pay the rent?
Wow. Meow. Gloves are truly off over in the science corner...
Prof Francois Balloux @BallouxFrancois · 2h Please chip in if you hope to delay the end of the pandemic. Every penny helps to sustain our neuroses at keep us at home on zoom. We promise to continue stoking fear in the population. We will also undermine the efficacy of vaccines and maximise any side-effect of COVID-19.
The whole concept is protect the value of pensions?
Starting with double lock, 2.5% or inflation which ever is the higher. But becomes triple adding average earnings to the equation and whichever the higher?
Example 2% inflation 8% average earnings, pensions up 8%?
So the question, if it doesn’t rise as much as average earnings, how does that significantly erode the value of pensions?
Because it seems to me pensions paid by what national government can afford, and National government doesn’t have control over average earnings so is ceding control of delivering a promise. If you are giving the 8% because politically it’s sensible, but to pay for it axing the pensioners weekly outings to the community centre, it’s not really about caring about quality of life is it?
Starting with double lock, 2.5% or inflation which ever is the higher. But becomes triple adding average earnings to the equation and whichever the higher?
Example 2% inflation 8% average earnings, pensions up 8%?
So the question, if it doesn’t rise as much as average earnings, how will that significantly erode the value of pensions if still locked into greater than inflation increase 🤔
They want to close the gap between pensions and average earnings.
The survey found the average UK salary for full-time employees was £31,461 for the tax year ending 5 April 2020, up 3.6% on the previous year.
After a lifetime of saving, the average UK pension pot stands at £61,897. [3] With current annuity rates, this would buy you an average retirement income of only around £3,000 extra per year from 67, which added to the maximum State Pension, makes just over £12,000 a year, just enough for a basic retirement lifestyle.
So you mean there is a policy position to bring the 12k closer to the 31k? And that is the policy that is basically under threat, because triple lock is replaced by something, likely double lock - triple lock minus average earnings.
I can appreciate now why this is a very important policy to have, especially for the Conservative party. It’s a question simply, how much of a nice to have policy is it, if, ahem, the sun is no longer shining and the roof needs fixing.
Expensive, even for simple fare. I was going to say it's possibly the worst value in Europe, but even that seems too kind. It's cheaper and easier to get a good meal in Beverly Hills than in much of Switzerland.
And even if you are prepared to pay up, it's usually not as good as the neighbours.
Alpine cuisine? Done better in France.
Italian cuisine? Done better in Italy.
German cuisine? Done better in Germany. Done better in Argentina, for that matter.
And even if you find somewhere with OK food, the atmosphere is usually very average. Or worse.
Happily, in my position as a premier sex toy flint knapper with a regular column in the Bi-monthly "Basalt ButtPlug" brochure, every single thing I am doing is paid for by Switzerland. Including my 8 day first class rail travel pass, and my Michelin starred meals by Lake Maggiore. They might even chuck in a few nude girls to dive for gold coins on the Brissago islands (which are wonderful, BTW, I went there a few years back)
Hopefully 75% decide that Trudeau isn't necessary...
Are the Canadian polls turnout-weighted? Becuase if they’re not it could be an unexpected rout…
AIUI a result in which the Liberals actually fail to win the most seats is considered unlikely, because the Tories' voter distribution is very inefficient and the NDP aren't popular enough to really hurt them. I doubt that deficiencies in polling methodology would be enough to disguise a shift in voting patterns large enough to overturn this calculus, but I stand, of course, to be corrected by events...
True. But the lead is now up to c 4%. At that level it becomes around 50 50 for most seats. Most especially because they are solely Lib to Con switchers. The other Parties haven't moved much during the campaign. And the Tory vote is becoming more efficiently distributed as a result. Particularly in the Maritimes, Prairies and Ontario. And the NDP have the most popular leader. The Libs traditionally rely on them undershooting their natural score out of fear of a Tory majority. And scooping up their tactical votes.This isn't happening as of yet, because no one is seriously contemplating a Tory majority, and the election was called purely and cynically to rid the NDP of influence. Rigjt now it is a toss up. It is the leaders' debate in French tonight.
On the matter of raising NI to provide for elderly social care, I write as an elderly person with a decent occupational pension and would not mind paying extra tax (or paying NI for that matter) if that can ensure a decent standard of care for those who need it (and associated decent training and renumeration for those who provide it).
But in respect of assets;he proposal is aimed at protecting assets, which may otherwise be consumed by care costs, especially residential care - the big hitter financially. Only around 12% of the age cohort end up needing residential care so tax/NI funding is risk sharing. The protected assets aren't going to be consumed by elderly folk so frail/dependent they need residential care. The assets are being protected for their inheritors - most likely current, working age people (WAPs).
There is an element of intergenerational subsidy but more so of subsidy from WAPs who have the prospect of little or no inheritance to those who can expect to inherit substantial estates. So, for example, from the regions to the south east, where house prices are generally higher.
Welcome.
The protected assets may not be consumed by the frail who need care, but the inheritors. But for those who have worked and saved all their lives to have an asset to pass on to the grandchildren this is hugely important. Hugely.
Public policy should perhaps cut through that kind of emotional gut feeling but boy it is bloody hard to deliver. look at the endless rows about IHT.
There is that. But people worked and saved all their lives to have an asset just as hard in Burnley or Rotherham, as in Camden or Cambridge. But the value of the assets don't reflect that. And what about those who struggled all their life to pay the rent?
Thanks rottenborough.
I agree. It is a strong gut feeling and the political follow through is seen both in the recurrent IHT debates, and Osborne's concession, and now in this proposal.
But is around the current issue that the notion of intergenerational inequity is being highlighted. My comment would be that the proposal delivers 'feel-good' to the elderly (their assets are preserved to pass on) but hard cash to some working age people cost to others.
dixidean makes a fair point to which we can add that the inflated value of property, which I believe accounts for around 40% of estates values overall, is not the result of anybody's hard work, but rather our failure to build enough houses.
Worth also noting that a Labour politician is describing paying off the National Debt as 'sensible'. (Obviously there will be nuance to Nick's view and I offer these parentheses in mitigation for any excessively selective quotation). Truly we live in interesting times.
Sure! Other things being equal, with general prosperity on all sides, why not pay it off and have more to spend on public services or simply as a protection against global hard times in the future? That's what the Norwegians did under successive socialist governments.
Contrast it with what we did. We spent it on consumption.
The culture is increasingly "this has to be paid for but I'm not paying for it". It's almost impossible to have a meaningful conversation about tax because the very notion of raising taxes provokes a reaction.
Exactly. Everyone is ready with their excuse for why they are a special sunflower and other, less deserving sources should be bled white for the money.
I proceed from the assumption that the Government will hear the special pleading of those who vote for it, and thus the old will be treated as special sunflowers and the young will be bled white. This may continue for some decades. There are huge numbers of old people and the population is still ageing. Demography is destiny.
Oddly enough, a braver Government and governing party would take their own supporters on.
How many of these pensioners would honestly vote Labour or LD or Green at a future election? I suppose they might choose to stay at home but the newly-elected northern Tories have big majorities so it can't just be the pensioner vote sustaining an 80-seat majority.
Yes, there may be some heavy local losses in Council seats but to what extent have governing parties ever really worried about their local Government base? It becomes a problem when you have to rebuild after a defeat but you soon get supporters from those fed up with the new Government.
I suppose the political risk is Farage sets himself up as the pensioners' friend and threatens to run Reform candidates against sitting Conservatives but I don't see it.
Some of the newly elected northern Tories have big majorities. Quite a few have wafer thin ones.
Indeed - and apparently comfortable majorities obtained under particular circumstances - ie Corbyn and Brexit factors - at a single election do not make such seats secure. Only if repeated over several elections will that be so.
Expensive, even for simple fare. I was going to say it's possibly the worst value in Europe, but even that seems too kind. It's cheaper and easier to get a good meal in Beverly Hills than in much of Switzerland.
And even if you are prepared to pay up, it's usually not as good as the neighbours.
Alpine cuisine? Done better in France.
Italian cuisine? Done better in Italy.
German cuisine? Done better in Germany. Done better in Argentina, for that matter.
And even if you find somewhere with OK food, the atmosphere is usually very average. Or worse.
Happily, in my position as a premier sex toy flint knapper with a regular column in the Bi-monthly "Basalt ButtPlug" brochure, every single thing I am doing is paid for by Switzerland. Including my 8 day first class rail travel pass, and my Michelin starred meals by Lake Maggiore. They might even chuck in a few nude girls to dive for gold coins on the Brissago islands (which are wonderful, BTW, I went there a few years back)
And that's the heart of the matter. At some point, the national culture changed for the worse.
OK, it was never a disinterested "do what's in the best interests of the whole nation". There was always an element of "vote for us and we'll see you all right". But historically substantial Prime Ministers (Blair, say) really acted as if doing things his way would make everyone benefit. Even Thatcher, divisive (and in some ways wrong) as she was, believed that what she was doing was the right thing for all. And when presented with think tank reports suggesting (for example) that Liverpool should be left to die, she binned them, even though there were precisely zero votes in it for her.
For some reason, that's not the case right now. It all feels very American; vote for me so I can bring home the pork barrel. (Hi Ben! Hello Rishi!) Or there are 55 of me and 45 of you, so I can trample on your previous rights in any way I can imagine (see Texas and those who defend what's happened there). The will of just over half the people becomes the will of all the people.
And some of it is the fault of politicians exploiting this to gain power. But some of it is down to us as voters. We've become as consumerist about our politics as we have about our shopping. And I'm not sure that running a country works like that.
The culture is increasingly "this has to be paid for but I'm not paying for it". It's almost impossible to have a meaningful conversation about tax because the very notion of raising taxes provokes a reaction.
In fairness no one ever liked paying tax, they used to riot if it happened too often, but we do expect so much more now. And everything is a 'stealth' tax or a 'raid'. Depressing stuff.
Controversial maybe, but I 'like' (okay, the wrong word, but you know what I mean) paying tax. Imagine a world without tax. Schools, hospitals, road maintenance, libraries, parks and so on and so on would have to be paid by individuals.
Tax is good. Because it is (or should be) spent on things that are for the common good, make our lives easier and better and, dare I say, a bit more equal. But the dominant discourse, particularly over the last 40 years or so, is that tax is bad, and increasing taxes is even worse.
This is particularly the case with income tax, where tax rates are much lower than they used to be. Because no government dare raise it, they just raise VAT, NI and other random taxes instead. But actually, raising income tax is the most efficient and fairest way to raise the amount available for (good) public spending. I'm all for it, and was even before I retired.
I agree. Conversely, while I always defend Gordon Brown on his handling of the economic crisis, I think he was bonkers to cut the rate of income tax. He thought it'd be popular - in reality, people pocketed it and forgot about it.
Why is Camilla Tomney surprised that a Government which is obviously not Thatcherite, is erh not Thatcherite?
The fact it is ideologically and morally bankrupt is irrelevant, it frankly beggars belief that she believed it would somehow implement a Thatcherite agenda, when it was elected to do specifically the opposite.
6 pollsters now have the CDU/CSU on 20-22%. It could be difficult for them to stay in office even with a three party coalition. A "traffic light" coalition seems the most likely outcome at this stage: Social Democrats, Greens and Free Democrats.
6 pollsters now have the CDU/CSU on 20-22%. It could be difficult for them to stay in office even with a three party coalition. A "traffic light" coalition seems the most likely outcome at this stage: Social Democrats, Greens and Free Democrats.
6 pollsters now have the CDU/CSU on 20-22%. It could be difficult for them to stay in office even with a three party coalition. A "traffic light" coalition seems the most likely outcome at this stage: Social Democrats, Greens and Free Democrats.
Don't underestimate the possibility of a SPD/Union coalition continuing. Germany is notorious for late swingback to the government. It has happened often. Just with the major and minor parties switched. If Merkel were in the picture she'd walk it. They seem to be choosing the closest available facsimile.
Why is Camilla Tomney surprised that a Government which is obviously not Thatcherite, is erh not Thatcherite?
The fact it is ideologically and morally bankrupt is irrelevant, it frankly beggars belief that she believed it would somehow implement a Thatcherite agenda, when it was elected to do specifically the opposite.
Is she just an idiot?
Occam's Razor. There is an entire cohort who believe Tory = Thatcherite. It isn't their fault. That is all they've experienced. Older folk know Tory = what will gain them and keep them in power.
Isn't the sensible option for old age social care some form of insurance system?
As I understand it, the problem is that the cost of being old is essentially pretty random. You may be perfectly fit and live at home with virtually no medical intervention till you're 85 then die in your sleep, or you might spend 20 years in a specialist nursing home costing thousands a week.
If it cost about the same for everyone, then it would be reasonable and fair to expect everyone to just pay their way, with some sort of safety net to rescue those who genuinely couldn't pay.
As things stand, what is left in someone's estate is essentially random. My parents are in their late 60s - it's literally anyones guess at this stage if they will need lots of old age care, or none.
Rather than a situation where its luck of the draw if their entire estate is swallowed by care costs, or if it escapes entirely, surely the cure is insurance.
Optional insurance, no need to take it out, but if you don't, then every penny you have can be spent on your care if necessary. Insurance that could have different levels of excesss you chose before the cover kicked in - you could choose pay the first £50k, or £10k or £100k of any costs yourself. Obviously the higher your chosen excess, the lower the premium. If the system was well designed, the whole thing could become part of the normal pension draw-down /annuity purchasing process - your insurance premium could perhaps come tax free from your pension pot in some way.
Obviously the only complex part is the "pre-existing condition" issue, as you don't want everyone holding off buying insurance until they are almost certain they are going to need it - normalising taking out a policy at retirement age is probably the best solution to this.
The great benefit of this system include that it puts the cost of old age care where it belongs - with the old - but gives them plenty of options about exactly how they want to pay for it. No one is bankrupted in the present (if you've no insurance, your liabilities incurred become a charge on your estate).
The other great benefit is that the state doesn't have to have much involvement at all, beyond ensuring stable market conditions (I'd imagine this sort of insurance is almost impossible to obtain at present, as who knows what liabilities you might be assuming). The state will have to pick up the tab for those with no assets, but that's pretty inevitable anyway.
Why is Camilla Tomney surprised that a Government which is obviously not Thatcherite, is erh not Thatcherite?
The fact it is ideologically and morally bankrupt is irrelevant, it frankly beggars belief that she believed it would somehow implement a Thatcherite agenda, when it was elected to do specifically the opposite.
Is she just an idiot?
Occam's Razor. There is an entire cohort who believe Tory = Thatcherite. It isn't their fault. That is all they've experienced. Older folk know Tory = what will gain them and keep them in power.
There are plenty on here who say the government should break (or was right to have broken) its manifesto pledges on foreign aid, income tax and national insurance. Why should we be surprised if other, far more cynical government supporters believe its election pledges were all lies in the first place designed to sucker the red wall into voting for a party which would afterwards revert to its Thatcherite core?
Comments
- Jeff Goldblum in "Jurastic Park".
I proceed from the assumption that the Government will hear the special pleading of those who vote for it, and thus the old will be treated as special sunflowers and the young will be bled white. This may continue for some decades. There are huge numbers of old people and the population is still ageing. Demography is destiny.
Just tell me one thing, Sunil. You're going out there to destroy them, right? Not to study. Not to bring back. But to wipe them out.
On a related note, we saw the dutch take sandwiches from truck drivers coming from the UK post brexit. Are they really going to go through the fridges of dutch motohoke owners coming back from the UK to check for cheddar?
Walk up Mt Pilatus to see the lake where legend says Pontus Pilate was drowned
How many of these pensioners would honestly vote Labour or LD or Green at a future election? I suppose they might choose to stay at home but the newly-elected northern Tories have big majorities so it can't just be the pensioner vote sustaining an 80-seat majority.
Yes, there may be some heavy local losses in Council seats but to what extent have governing parties ever really worried about their local Government base? It becomes a problem when you have to rebuild after a defeat but you soon get supporters from those fed up with the new Government.
I suppose the political risk is Farage sets himself up as the pensioners' friend and threatens to run Reform candidates against sitting Conservatives but I don't see it.
What I object to - rightly - is my views being incorrectly described, indeed being made out to be the opposite of what I have stated - and then attacked in nasty and unpleasantly personal terms.
The government does not appear to have a clue on social care. It appears to be doing too little, too late and in an unfair way. It is ignoring the young, which is unconscionable. But that is hardly news. It is not a good government. It is not a government I support. Those who do might perhaps ask themselves a few tough questions rather than lashing out at those who have criticised the government for its failings (and faced a lot of criticism from some on here for not acting as its cheerleaders).
And now goodnight all.
Lay Rishi. His star is about to crash to Earth.
We have another decade of retrenchment on the way. Folk haven't realised yet. They are in no mood for it.
One of the interesting things about Switzerland is how English is becoming a kind of dominant elite language. As it unites them all, and no one feels hard-done-by
In 20-30 years maybe most Swiss will speak English most of the time at work, on the Net, at Uni, etc
The other languages will become quaint mother tongues, like Welsh or Gaelic. OR we will all talk Astro-Neptune-speak BSYalpha%%## as imposed by our AI overlords run by the creepy cow-fucking UFO dudes
Quite a few have wafer thin ones.
If subject matter experts are happy to refer to synthetically created viruses as a concept, which by the way I don't think exist in this case because they are of natural origin, I am happy to do so too. Sorry.
Put yourself in the Government's position. According to research published in April 2019 - and I doubt that the situation has changed much since - almost half of Tory support is drawn from the over 65s, and less than 10% from the under 35s: the mean age of a Tory voter is probably now over 60. The population is still ageing, so the elderly demographic is growing as a share of the electorate. It votes religiously and it likes you; the young hate you and vote Labour.
So, who is going to get the sweeties and who is going to pay for them? It's a no-brainer.
One of my main memories of my one and only trip to Norway was the four of us (a flint knapping media team) opting for a "cheap burger lunch" before getting to work.
Four burgers and chips: £60. I kid you not. They weren't even very good burgers
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02385-x
India has approved a new COVID vaccine that uses circular strands of DNA to prime the immune system against the virus SARS-CoV-2. Researchers have welcomed news of the first DNA vaccine for people to receive approval anywhere in the world, and say many other DNA vaccines may soon be hot on its heels.
ZyCoV-D, which is administered into the skin without an injection, has been found to be 67% protective against symptomatic COVID-19 in clinical trials, and will likely start to be administered in India this month. Although the efficacy is not particularly high compared to that of many other COVID-19 vaccines, the fact that it is a DNA vaccine is significant, say researchers.
It is proof of the principle that DNA vaccines work and can help in controlling the pandemic, says Peter Richmond, a paediatric immunologist at the University of Western Australia in Perth. “This is a really important step forward in the fight to defeat COVID-19 globally, because it demonstrates that we have another class of vaccines that we can use.”…
I would prefer it to be income tax that is paid by all age groups but far better to go down this route than Mays proposal
It makes me more likely to vote for him
One obvious step is to integrate NI into IT so the advantage of not paying NI disappears. It also means the same tax is paid on earned income and investment income, surely another no brainer.
A second step is to require the elderly to contribute to their care. It is really not obvious why a generation drowning in student debt should be asked to subsidise this so that a relatively small percentage of them can have meaningful inheritances.
A third step is to look at some of the freebies the elderly receive on a non means tested basis. In fairness this has already started with TV licences but there are more to go. Bus passes, which I will qualify for this month, are absurd.
I do not regard this as an attack on the elderly which as I have indicated I nearly am. But there must be some rebalancing of the load which is all the heavier after Covid.
It combines property and particularly affects the young who have managed to get on the housing ladder but now find themselves trapped and facing ruinous bills and/or bankruptcy.
I am surprised that this is not more of a political issue. But I do wonder whether it might not blow up in the government's faces at some point.
Good to mix things up every decade or so…
You're not a stupid person, by any means. You're smart. I genuinely believe that if you spent a few days reading everything you could, you would end up - like me - thinking Lab Leak (of some sort, there are many, as we agree) is really the most likely hypothesis by a considerable distance.
Of course, unlike me, most people don't have the time or inclination to spend days reading obscure stuff, so there we are. I do. I am the sort of relatively leisured, manic person that gets an obsession then reads EVERYTHING. The advantage is that I can often form a correct opinion early, the disadvantage is that I sometimes waste much time with a false thesis, and I also get bored and want to move on to the next controversy, and I end up missing major and obvious developments and I look like a fool.
Hey ho
I am now bloody good at fish risotto and allied seafood cookery, tho. That was one weird lockdown obsession which panned out well
In our defence, the menu of options in 2019 was incredibly unattractive. Though that's to the nation's discredit as well- we let our political parties shrivel to the point that the realistic choices (in most of England) were to vote for a candidate backing Boris Johnson or a candidate backing Jeremy Corbyn or a distant no-hoper.
And that's me as well. I could have stayed and fought for the soul of the party I yada yada. But instead, I thought "stuff it, I can't endorse this with my money or time" and wandered off. It's a consumerist attitude, I know.
Funnily enough a tax rise to solve the SC Crisis is something i believe Lab should support.
“ Stupid bureaucracy that is ruining lives
My colleague Keeba Critchlow is married to a junior doctor, Ben. They have had to move recently so that he can be close to the hospital where he works. Because of this, they have to pay for two homes at once and so they face bankruptcy.
They cannot sell their London flat, but they still have to pay for their new house near Ben’s nationally important work.
This is absurd. They have buyers who want the flat, but the buyers cannot get a mortgage because they do not have a form guaranteeing that the block is totally safe from a Grenfell-type fire.
The block is, in fact, safe. Its cladding has already been replaced and they have a certificate confirming that – but this is not enough.
They have to have the stupid form, even though it is not a legal requirement. But this country is now so Sovietised and scared that lenders will not lend in such a case. This problem affects huge numbers of people and is known to the Government. They could, in my view, solve it at a stroke by instructing all lenders to stop demanding the form.
But it seems that Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick is so busy planning to concrete over the countryside that he has not turned his mind to it.
He should talk to Keeba and Ben. Then he will grasp that this is a real problem which he has the power to fix. And fix it.”
https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2020/10/if-anyone-tries-to-keep-the-mourners-socially-distanced-at-my-funeral-i-will-come-back-from-wherever-i-may-be-to-haunt.html
Prof Francois Balloux
@BallouxFrancois
Replying to
@BallouxFrancois
The fact that the the JCVI committee did not cave in to pressure exerted by politicians, Pharma, and the shrill voices of self-appointed 'experts' and scientific populists is also something to celebrate, I believe.
5/
A few minutes looking at science tweets over the jab for under 15 year olds shows wide different views.
No more.
And yet when the next election rolls around - guess which age groups can't be arsed to turn up?
Again, this would not be happening if the affected homeowners were in their 60s and 70s rather than their 20s and 30s.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-poll-shows-three-quarters-of-canadians-dont-see-the-election-as/
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/jan/22/experience-my-dream-flat-became-a-nightmare
But in respect of assets;he proposal is aimed at protecting assets, which may otherwise be consumed by care costs, especially residential care - the big hitter financially. Only around 12% of the age cohort end up needing residential care so tax/NI funding is risk sharing. The protected assets aren't going to be consumed by elderly folk so frail/dependent they need residential care. The assets are being protected for their inheritors - most likely current, working age people (WAPs).
There is an element of intergenerational subsidy but more so of subsidy from WAPs who have the prospect of little or no inheritance to those who can expect to inherit substantial estates. So, for example, from the regions to the south east, where house prices are generally higher.
All the lakeside towns in central Switzerland are pretty, and travelling by paddlesteamer is an offbeat way to enjoy them. When I lived there I used to contribute to a charity that kept one of them running, for no reason that I could figure out - it so obviously wasn't a charity in more need of money than others, but the idea enticed me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qpr1F-UONI
She combines (and admits) ordinariness with a steely backbone in a very, very Swedish way. I'm fond of it, but I can see why not everyone is.
The form in question (called EWS1) isn't a statutory requirement, but mortgage lenders have got it lodged in their brains that they will be sued if they offer a mortgage on a property that ought to be covered by the form that subsequently bursts into flames, so they insist upon having it. That is, that form specifically. Not a letter that says there's no cladding, or a survey that says there's no cladding, or anything else. Only that form will do.
EWS1 forms can only be completed by a small number of specially qualified professionals. Firstly, they have a backlog of years of requests for EWS1 surveys to get through. Secondly, I believe that the freeholder of the affected building has to order the EWS1, not the leaseholders - and the freeholders frequently refuse because EWS1 costs money and it isn't a statutory requirement. So the leasehold tenants can find themselves trapped in an endless, Kafkaesque nightmare. I've no idea how many leaseholders have already been driven to bankruptcy by all of this but I would imagine that such cases exist.
I believe that guidance has been issued recently by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, which also has a walk-on part in this tragedy, which gets the owners of most flats in blocks under about six storeys out of the EWS1 trap, but insofar as I'm aware anyone living in a taller building that doesn't have an EWS1 may still be affected. I don't know whether every tall block of flats in the land needs EWS1, or if the monster only rears its head if cladding is known to be present, or if it is suspected to be present.
I myself live in a flat but the building is clearly not clad and, most crucially, is only three storeys high - and the neighbours downstairs recently sold up with no problems of which I'm aware, thank Christ.
Best entrance in College Football
https://twitter.com/PFF_College/status/1433915558764945420?s=20
https://twitter.com/PFF_College/status/1433916402382090241?s=20
Tax is good. Because it is (or should be) spent on things that are for the common good, make our lives easier and better and, dare I say, a bit more equal. But the dominant discourse, particularly over the last 40 years or so, is that tax is bad, and increasing taxes is even worse.
This is particularly the case with income tax, where tax rates are much lower than they used to be. Because no government dare raise it, they just raise VAT, NI and other random taxes instead. But actually, raising income tax is the most efficient and fairest way to raise the amount available for (good) public spending. I'm all for it, and was even before I retired.
I did eat there, twice: the first was like Italy only more expensive, the second was in a mountain shack and was cheap and delicious though almost entirely lacking in choice. It felt like a relic from the 1950s.
I suppose that could mean an Autumn election, but it might be cutting it a bit fine, and (despite the most recent example) Winter elections are unusual. Spring 2024 therefore looks like a good bet, which would be unlikely to be regarded as going too early.
Life isn't easy for younger generations. But it hasn't been spectacularly hard as of yet He thought he would win? See May T also.
I tend to be quite defensive when people dismiss politicians en masse. Politicians are nothing more than the embodiment of a political consensus, and when we dismiss them we are dismissing the fact that other people disagree with us. What the last decade has showed is that delegating our disagreements to politicians shields us from being at permanent war with each other, which is probably less healthy. And I do actually think Boris, and four of his five predecessors carried out the job of embodying the consensus quite well. Boris's many detractors - and I am one - often kid ourselves that we are closer to the political centre ground on our issue of choice than he is. Almost always, we are not. But even so, I'm not convinced that our system - which came within a whisker of PM Corbyn is necessarily terribly optimal.
Expensive, even for simple fare. I was going to say it's possibly the worst value in Europe, but even that seems too kind. It's cheaper and easier to get a good meal in Beverly Hills than in much of Switzerland.
And even if you are prepared to pay up, it's usually not as good as the neighbours.
Alpine cuisine? Done better in France.
Italian cuisine? Done better in Italy.
German cuisine? Done better in Germany. Done better in Argentina, for that matter.
And even if you find somewhere with OK food, the atmosphere is usually very average. Or worse.
Ludicrously unbelievable, but so is Sherlock. Entertaining hokum with enough twists to keep me watching. Ultimately about a close family who support and look out for each other in the most trying circumstances.
Not an all time classic, but eminently watchable. Has had some really filthy reviews from some personally offended writers. No idea why at all.
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canadian-pm-trudeau-announces-federal-election-will-be-held-sept-20-2021-08-15/
The protected assets may not be consumed by the frail who need care, but the inheritors. But for those who have worked and saved all their lives to have an asset to pass on to the grandchildren this is hugely important. Hugely.
Public policy should perhaps cut through that kind of emotional gut feeling but boy it is bloody hard to deliver. look at the endless rows about IHT.
But people worked and saved all their lives to have an asset just as hard in Burnley or Rotherham, as in Camden or Cambridge. But the value of the assets don't reflect that.
And what about those who struggled all their life to pay the rent?
Prof Francois Balloux
@BallouxFrancois
·
2h
Please chip in if you hope to delay the end of the pandemic. Every penny helps to sustain our neuroses at keep us at home on zoom. We promise to continue stoking fear in the population. We will also undermine the efficacy of vaccines and maximise any side-effect of COVID-19.
https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1433887872038408207
After a lifetime of saving, the average UK pension pot stands at £61,897. [3] With current annuity rates, this would buy you an average retirement income of only around £3,000 extra per year from 67, which added to the maximum State Pension, makes just over £12,000 a year, just enough for a basic retirement lifestyle.
So you mean there is a policy position to bring the 12k closer to the 31k? And that is the policy that is basically under threat, because triple lock is replaced by something, likely double lock - triple lock minus average earnings.
I can appreciate now why this is a very important policy to have, especially for the Conservative party. It’s a question simply, how much of a nice to have policy is it, if, ahem, the sun is no longer shining and the roof needs fixing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brissago_Islands
If I was paying a single British penny of my own, I'd tell them to go jump in an Alpine lake
And the Tory vote is becoming more efficiently distributed as a result. Particularly in the Maritimes, Prairies and Ontario.
And the NDP have the most popular leader. The Libs traditionally rely on them undershooting their natural score out of fear of a Tory majority. And scooping up their tactical votes.This isn't happening as of yet, because no one is seriously contemplating a Tory majority, and the election was called purely and cynically to rid the NDP of influence.
Rigjt now it is a toss up. It is the leaders' debate in French tonight.
I agree. It is a strong gut feeling and the political follow through is seen both in the recurrent IHT debates, and Osborne's concession, and now in this proposal.
But is around the current issue that the notion of intergenerational inequity is being highlighted. My comment would be that the proposal delivers 'feel-good' to the elderly (their assets are preserved to pass on) but hard cash to some working age people cost to others.
dixidean makes a fair point to which we can add that the inflated value of property, which I believe accounts for around 40% of estates values overall, is not the result of anybody's hard work, but rather our failure to build enough houses.
Contrast it with what we did. We spent it on consumption.
The fact it is ideologically and morally bankrupt is irrelevant, it frankly beggars belief that she believed it would somehow implement a Thatcherite agenda, when it was elected to do specifically the opposite.
Is she just an idiot?
https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
There is an entire cohort who believe Tory = Thatcherite. It isn't their fault. That is all they've experienced.
Older folk know Tory = what will gain them and keep them in power.
As I understand it, the problem is that the cost of being old is essentially pretty random. You may be perfectly fit and live at home with virtually no medical intervention till you're 85 then die in your sleep, or you might spend 20 years in a specialist nursing home costing thousands a week.
If it cost about the same for everyone, then it would be reasonable and fair to expect everyone to just pay their way, with some sort of safety net to rescue those who genuinely couldn't pay.
As things stand, what is left in someone's estate is essentially random. My parents are in their late 60s - it's literally anyones guess at this stage if they will need lots of old age care, or none.
Rather than a situation where its luck of the draw if their entire estate is swallowed by care costs, or if it escapes entirely, surely the cure is insurance.
Optional insurance, no need to take it out, but if you don't, then every penny you have can be spent on your care if necessary.
Insurance that could have different levels of excesss you chose before the cover kicked in - you could choose pay the first £50k, or £10k or £100k of any costs yourself. Obviously the higher your chosen excess, the lower the premium.
If the system was well designed, the whole thing could become part of the normal pension draw-down /annuity purchasing process - your insurance premium could perhaps come tax free from your pension pot in some way.
Obviously the only complex part is the "pre-existing condition" issue, as you don't want everyone holding off buying insurance until they are almost certain they are going to need it - normalising taking out a policy at retirement age is probably the best solution to this.
The great benefit of this system include that it puts the cost of old age care where it belongs - with the old - but gives them plenty of options about exactly how they want to pay for it. No one is bankrupted in the present (if you've no insurance, your liabilities incurred become a charge on your estate).
The other great benefit is that the state doesn't have to have much involvement at all, beyond ensuring stable market conditions (I'd imagine this sort of insurance is almost impossible to obtain at present, as who knows what liabilities you might be assuming).
The state will have to pick up the tab for those with no assets, but that's pretty inevitable anyway.