"The money is expected to be split between the NHS and social care, with a suggestion that it will go first towards clearing backlogs and then increasingly into care. But what guarantee is there that it won’t all be swallowed up by a health service that can never have enough funding?"
(Camilla Tominey - Telegraph)
Which is exactly what I said on here yesterday morning.
So both unfair and ineffective.
And just kicks the can down the road.
Typical of this government.
A solution that progressively raises the tax burden by 1-2% every 10 years to "save the NHS" is not a sustainable solution, and this looks like it's happening under both Labour and Conservative governments now.
When do we get the empty waiting rooms and luxurious surroundings featured in that vote leave video, we should be asking?
My local surgery waiting room is empty. There are no appointments...
Mine too - they only let you in when the gp is ready to see you...
My GP service is no longer accessible. Slightly less importantly, Royal Mail doesn’t really seem to work anymore either.
Property prices in Upminster should be even higher than they are. We have been getting GP appts same day, or next at worst, and there are no empty shelves in any of the supermarkets.
A quick google suggests the local windmill is the third best thing to do in Upminster. Sounds to me like one of the places that will suffer most from wfh in the long run.
Outer suburban London is pleasant enough if you like that sort of thing. There is a risk of some London fringe places falling between multiple stools; too far out from London to really enjoy the fun, too close to London to get the positive vibes of space and remoteness, too diffuse and insufficient people to generate a life of their own. Just outside the M25 (the sort of places that were developed in the 21st century) might be more at risk than inter-War places just inside.
Not sure it is about the side of M25. In that part of the world Brentwood (outside) is imo nicer and has more to do than Upminster, Romford or Hornchurch (all inside) but has a worse commute into town. Without daily commuting I fail to see how the ratio of Brentwood prices vs the others doesn't move in Brentwood's direction.
What is harder to predict is the ratio of prices to the surrounding smaller villages or indeed to zone 1/2 London.
It's a while ago now, but in the last few years of my working life, (ie around the Millennium) I used to have to go to a site in Brentwood two or three times a week. Going from Basildon wasn't too bad, but when I moved to N. Essex approaching Wilsons Corner, the junction in the middle of the town, through which I had to go could be a nightmare, especially when parents were dropping off their children at one or other of the highly regarded schools in the area. Of which there seemed to be at least 20!
The excellent long article in the NS on 10 big reasons for 20 years of Labour decline can be helpfully distilled in chronological order for those without time to read it:
1) 2001 GE turnout 2) Iraq 3) 2004 Romanians etc FOM 4) 2007 No GE 5) 2008 Crash 6) 2010 Clegg turns Tory 7) 2010 The wrong brother 8) 2015 SNP 9) 2017 etc Corbyn delusion 10) 2016 (and continuing ad infinitum) Brexit
7) was the point I left the party, and 2019 the first GE in which I didn’t even vote Labour.
You lasted a long time. The fact that at this moment Labour have something like a 45-50% chance of forming or leading the next government is about as startling as the fact that the Tories have about a 45-50% chance of forming or leading the next government.
Furthermore , my membership of the conservative party has now lapsed and I am a free political spirit
Come on over to the Greens. 🌻
BigG always has PC if the Greens are too chlorophyll-laden.
I was being serious. Big G is the sort of fundamentally decent pragmatist which is occasionally in short supply among the ranks of hunt sabbers, XR tensegrity architects, druids, mad scientists, women of a certain age with plenty of cats, naturists, homebrew solar panel experts and detectorists with which the party is abundantly blessed.
You realise Big G "quits" the Tory party about five times every year, whilst professing to have supported it for decades, don't you?
If your weathervane at @Dura_Ace towers is broken then get him stuffed and stick him on the roof. He'll be more accurate than an atomic clock.
"The money is expected to be split between the NHS and social care, with a suggestion that it will go first towards clearing backlogs and then increasingly into care. But what guarantee is there that it won’t all be swallowed up by a health service that can never have enough funding?"
(Camilla Tominey - Telegraph)
Which is exactly what I said on here yesterday morning.
So both unfair and ineffective.
And just kicks the can down the road.
Typical of this government.
A solution that progressively raises the tax burden by 1-2% every 10 years to "save the NHS" is not a sustainable solution, and this looks like it's happening under both Labour and Conservative governments now.
A useful discussion would be to talk about what proportion of GDP is required properly to fund the NHS and social care so that a real figure can be put into the discussion of how it shall be funded. A discussion for grown ups can then take place.
"The money is expected to be split between the NHS and social care, with a suggestion that it will go first towards clearing backlogs and then increasingly into care. But what guarantee is there that it won’t all be swallowed up by a health service that can never have enough funding?"
(Camilla Tominey - Telegraph)
Which is exactly what I said on here yesterday morning.
So both unfair and ineffective.
And just kicks the can down the road.
Typical of this government.
What is the difference between this government and a chocolate furnace?
One is something that doesn’t really exist in practice, is completely useless and sensible people use in sarcastic moments as an example of a joke.
The other is made of chocolate.
Trouble is that this government does exist. And then by its own lights (attaining and maintaining status for itself) it's incredibly effective.
Boris always wanted to be World King. I don't think he ever said anything about being a wise king, or a benevolent one.
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
"The money is expected to be split between the NHS and social care, with a suggestion that it will go first towards clearing backlogs and then increasingly into care. But what guarantee is there that it won’t all be swallowed up by a health service that can never have enough funding?"
(Camilla Tominey - Telegraph)
Which is exactly what I said on here yesterday morning.
This is eminently possible, of course. If things carry on as they are then, eventually, local authorities will be able to afford to do nothing other than wipe the backsides of the demented, if they haven't already gone bankrupt trying to keep non-essential fripparies (e.g. libraries, bin collections and child social services) going before that point. But we're still some distance from that point.
So long as the councils are still there to blame for any deficiencies in elderly arse wiping, the temptation to funnel away all the money to correct deficiencies in hospital care, for which the Government is more likely to be blamed directly, must be huge.
All those other items are (alongside planning) legally required.
Up north we know all about this because Austerity took away any spare money for councils with lots of cheap (council tax band A-C) housing.
That's part of the problem, but there's also the council tax capping introduced by the Coalition.
Even before that, things were tight. I've a relative who was a senior councillor about 20 years ago; even then, there was very little spending on anything discretionary. Now councils have cut pretty much everything they can- bus contracts, branch libraries, everything that isn't explicitly required by law- to try to keep social care bumping along in some form.
Because we don't like paying enough tax. And when shysters come along and say we don't need to pay, we've endorsed them rather than saying "chinny reckon".
There was plenty of waste to cut. But it's been cut. Social care smothers all now.
Furthermore , my membership of the conservative party has now lapsed and I am a free political spirit
Come on over to the Greens. 🌻
Are you the founding member of the Petrolheads division of the Green Party?
I've never bought a new car out of the showroom (despite owning 120+ cars) and most of them are almost always in bits and I go everywhere by bike in all weathers so my Green credentials are intact.
Having said that I did roll race an RS6 (I hate those fucking things) in my 997 turbo last week after I put the new turbos in it. I got out of it at the top of 4th (so 140mph+) and I had only gapped it by and length and a half. They must be very aerodynamically efficient and have fuck all downforce.
Blockquotes were all to fuck on this. The RS6 belonged to a fellow party member and has this sticker on it:
TheProle’s insurance proposal for social care is along the right lines. Should be compulsory though to prevent moral hazard of people only taking it out when needed. And I suspect the insurance scheme needs to be a state organised one.
A hypothecated one off wealth tax at age 60, payable in one go or spread over the rest of your life, would do it. Max’s feckless baby boomers would have to pay for their own costs without leaning on the next generation. And Cyclefree’s ungrateful Gen X to Alpha will pay too, when the time comes. Everyone’s a winner.
boomers are way past 60 now so wouldn't be affected.
1946-64. Youngest are 56.
It has always been ridiculous to count those born in early 1960s as boomers imho.
Agreed. I was born in 61 and have always thought of the boomers as being 5-10 years older than me.
I was born in autumn 1964, as a tail end of the Boomers. Mrs Foxy is a year younger, so Gen X, but really quite an artificial divide. I think I am a better fit sociologically for Gen X.
Exactly. In no way do I consider myself a boomer, born 64. My parents and the extended family of that generation are the post-war boomers.
"The money is expected to be split between the NHS and social care, with a suggestion that it will go first towards clearing backlogs and then increasingly into care. But what guarantee is there that it won’t all be swallowed up by a health service that can never have enough funding?"
(Camilla Tominey - Telegraph)
Which is exactly what I said on here yesterday morning.
So both unfair and ineffective.
And just kicks the can down the road.
Typical of this government.
A solution that progressively raises the tax burden by 1-2% every 10 years to "save the NHS" is not a sustainable solution, and this looks like it's happening under both Labour and Conservative governments now.
A useful discussion would be to talk about what proportion of GDP is required properly to fund the NHS and social care so that a real figure can be put into the discussion of how it shall be funded. A discussion for grown ups can then take place.
Part of the problem is that neither cost is fixed. Researchers find new medicines and techniques, and the former are expensive, because a) they're expensive to find and b) for every 'breakthrough' there are about 10 failures and you don't know that an idea won't work until it doesn't. The the population is increasing, and as we get better at keeping people alive we don't necessarily get as clever at keeping them productive.
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
It's completely regressive, leaves older workers off scot free; hits strivers hard. And it won't actually solve anything. Every diversity post in the NHS needs scrapping 1st
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
It's only popular at the moment because people haven't thought about it and because people don't know who the winners and losers are.
As I've pointed out multiple times, Social Care is the perfect reason to introduce a wealth / land value tax which we need as we tax income far too much and wealth nowhere near enough.
Heck there is already a precept on Council tax for Social Care so if taxing property (wealth) was the preferred approach in 2016 what has changed.
Thanks for the link to the NS Labour article - very interesting. Ironically in a long list of period length structural failings we have a single point where Labour could have turned all the rest of it around - the 2007 general election.
It seems likely that Brown would have been PM afterwards, likely with a majority, with Cameron and all he stood for swept away by the Tories and 5 years to fix the global financial crisis and its aftermath.
A Point Of Departure where all the things that followed - the rise of the SNP, the referendum, Brexit, Corbyn - would not have done. All because Brown was frit.
TheProle’s insurance proposal for social care is along the right lines. Should be compulsory though to prevent moral hazard of people only taking it out when needed. And I suspect the insurance scheme needs to be a state organised one.
A hypothecated one off wealth tax at age 60, payable in one go or spread over the rest of your life, would do it. Max’s feckless baby boomers would have to pay for their own costs without leaning on the next generation. And Cyclefree’s ungrateful Gen X to Alpha will pay too, when the time comes. Everyone’s a winner.
boomers are way past 60 now so wouldn't be affected.
1946-64. Youngest are 56.
In that case as a tail-end boomer I can tell you it feels like we have had the short end of the stick throughout.
From high unemployment in the late 1970s and 1980s meaning we took what jobs were available rather than what we wanted, to having the pension rug pulled from under us. This in terms of both quality of schemes available (death of the final salary) and an uplifting of the claimant age for the state pension.
My late father and his colleagues were taking their substantial employment pensions so they could be on the golf course every morning at 09.00 from the age of 61.
I remember in my 30s as a young teacher all the talk was that everyone would soon be retiring in the 50s. Many teachers then retired at 50 on very generous schemes. By the time I was 50 in 2004 it was all change. I got out 4 years later with most of the benefits intact. I got my state pension 6 months after age 65 so did ok then as well. However, there is from many a victim mentality here which assumes the 'system' has deliberately targetted them - while conveniently forgetting to good things. I have several right on waspi women friends who pretend they knew nowt about the pension age changes announced in the 90s. One in particular goes on an on about the unfairness while forgetting she chose to stop work in her late 40s and gorge on the cheap booze in Spain while making no prep for the pension age change. My view is we all win some and lose some -- and get on with it.
TheProle’s insurance proposal for social care is along the right lines. Should be compulsory though to prevent moral hazard of people only taking it out when needed. And I suspect the insurance scheme needs to be a state organised one.
A hypothecated one off wealth tax at age 60, payable in one go or spread over the rest of your life, would do it. Max’s feckless baby boomers would have to pay for their own costs without leaning on the next generation. And Cyclefree’s ungrateful Gen X to Alpha will pay too, when the time comes. Everyone’s a winner.
boomers are way past 60 now so wouldn't be affected.
1946-64. Youngest are 56.
It has always been ridiculous to count those born in early 1960s as boomers imho.
Agreed. I was born in 61 and have always thought of the boomers as being 5-10 years older than me.
I was born in autumn 1964, as a tail end of the Boomers. Mrs Foxy is a year younger, so Gen X, but really quite an artificial divide. I think I am a better fit sociologically for Gen X.
Exactly. In no way do I consider myself a boomer, born 64. My parents and the extended family of that generation are the post-war boomers.
My elder two children were born in the early 60's, but I was born just before the War and my wife, and incidentally my sister, soon after it started. IMHO 'boomers' were the babies conceived after the lads came home..... 1945, up 1950 or so.
Personally I have found the lack of clarity on long Covid very frustrating. I have seen published figures varying from 14% to 0.2% of those infected quoted by apparently reputable sources. The difference that makes to our health system going forward is truly massive.
When it was thought that majority of those vaccinated would be immune this was an issue. Now that it is apparent that the vast majority of those vaccinated, possibly all, are likely to catch Covid in the medium term it is arguably the largest single issue we face.
Some of the difference is definitional and it doesn't help that long Covid seems to take so many forms but we really need better information on whether the NHS is going to be dominated by the sequelae of this disease for the next 10 years or not.
Yes, I agree, and even for victims it's really hard to tell. I have a 35-year-old colleague who caught Covid a few months back and had a week feeling terrible - no taste or smell, sleeping nearly all the time, but no breathing trouble. She then sort of recovered, but feels abnormally tired nearly every day, as well as having taste somewhat impaired. She says she honestly can't decide if it's long Covid or her body slowly recovering from the shock or just happenstance, and as she was lucky enough to recover feels a bit shy about even mentioning it. She hopes she won't feel abnormally tired forever, but has no way of telling, and as you say public information is delphic on the matter.
Thanks for the link to the NS Labour article - very interesting. Ironically in a long list of period length structural failings we have a single point where Labour could have turned all the rest of it around - the 2007 general election.
It seems likely that Brown would have been PM afterwards, likely with a majority, with Cameron and all he stood for swept away by the Tories and 5 years to fix the global financial crisis and its aftermath.
A Point Of Departure where all the things that followed - the rise of the SNP, the referendum, Brexit, Corbyn - would not have done. All because Brown was frit.
It was, of course, sight of private polling of marginals that showed Brown he would most likely lose his majority that caused him to bottle it.
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
It's only popular at the moment because people haven't thought about it and because people don't know who the winners and losers are.
As I've pointed out multiple times, Social Care is the perfect reason to introduce a wealth / land value tax which we need as we tax income far too much and wealth nowhere near enough.
Heck there is already a precept on Council tax for Social Care so if taxing property (wealth) was the preferred approach in 2016 what has changed.
The Council Tax bands only go up to H, so the social care precept is a fairly token amount, which is why it doesn't really solve the problem.
An actual Wealth Tax would have the potential to hit properly wealthy people (bands W to Z and then on to the Greek alphabet) properly hard.
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
It's completely regressive, leaves older workers off scot free; hits strivers hard. And it won't actually solve anything. Every diversity post in the NHS needs scrapping 1st
The first thing step would be to point out that if this money is going to be spent on social care not a single penny of it should be going to the NHS...
TheProle’s insurance proposal for social care is along the right lines. Should be compulsory though to prevent moral hazard of people only taking it out when needed. And I suspect the insurance scheme needs to be a state organised one.
A hypothecated one off wealth tax at age 60, payable in one go or spread over the rest of your life, would do it. Max’s feckless baby boomers would have to pay for their own costs without leaning on the next generation. And Cyclefree’s ungrateful Gen X to Alpha will pay too, when the time comes. Everyone’s a winner.
boomers are way past 60 now so wouldn't be affected.
1946-64. Youngest are 56.
In that case as a tail-end boomer I can tell you it feels like we have had the short end of the stick throughout.
From high unemployment in the late 1970s and 1980s meaning we took what jobs were available rather than what we wanted, to having the pension rug pulled from under us. This in terms of both quality of schemes available (death of the final salary) and an uplifting of the claimant age for the state pension.
My late father and his colleagues were taking their substantial employment pensions so they could be on the golf course every morning at 09.00 from the age of 61.
I remember in my 30s as a young teacher all the talk was that everyone would soon be retiring in the 50s. Many teachers then retired at 50 on very generous schemes. By the time I was 50 in 2004 it was all change. I got out 4 years later with most of the benefits intact. I got my state pension 6 months after age 65 so did ok then as well. However, there is from many a victim mentality here which assumes the 'system' has deliberately targetted them - while conveniently forgetting to good things. I have several right on waspi women friends who pretend they knew nowt about the pension age changes announced in the 90s. One in particular goes on an on about the unfairness while forgetting she chose to stop work in her late 40s and gorge on the cheap booze in Spain while making no prep for the pension age change. My view is we all win some and lose some -- and get on with it.
There were, I seem to recall, quite a lot of teachers about then who retired 'early' with quite substantial 'golden handshakes'; one of my cousins was one of them. They were at the top of the salary scales and the idea was that they would be replaced by people at the bottom of the scale, who would be cheaper. Applied, IIRC, in the NHS and in private industry too.
TheProle’s insurance proposal for social care is along the right lines. Should be compulsory though to prevent moral hazard of people only taking it out when needed. And I suspect the insurance scheme needs to be a state organised one.
A hypothecated one off wealth tax at age 60, payable in one go or spread over the rest of your life, would do it. Max’s feckless baby boomers would have to pay for their own costs without leaning on the next generation. And Cyclefree’s ungrateful Gen X to Alpha will pay too, when the time comes. Everyone’s a winner.
I think this is right. Essentially an Obamacare system for social care. Government determines the minimum policy terms. Insurance companies offer policies on an equal access basis, compete on cost for the basic policy and upsell premium policies to those that can afford them. Participation is compulsory to avoid cherry-picking. Government subsidises premiums on the basic policy for those that can't afford them.
On who is a baby-boomer. Politically they are a group of people who expect the system to provide: funded healthcare, defined benefit pensions etc. Gen-X are Thatcher's children. The divide is whether you absorbed that revolution or rejected it.
"The money is expected to be split between the NHS and social care, with a suggestion that it will go first towards clearing backlogs and then increasingly into care. But what guarantee is there that it won’t all be swallowed up by a health service that can never have enough funding?"
(Camilla Tominey - Telegraph)
Which is exactly what I said on here yesterday morning.
So both unfair and ineffective.
And just kicks the can down the road.
Typical of this government.
A solution that progressively raises the tax burden by 1-2% every 10 years to "save the NHS" is not a sustainable solution, and this looks like it's happening under both Labour and Conservative governments now.
A useful discussion would be to talk about what proportion of GDP is required properly to fund the NHS and social care so that a real figure can be put into the discussion of how it shall be funded. A discussion for grown ups can then take place.
Part of the problem is that neither cost is fixed. Researchers find new medicines and techniques, and the former are expensive, because a) they're expensive to find and b) for every 'breakthrough' there are about 10 failures and you don't know that an idea won't work until it doesn't. The the population is increasing, and as we get better at keeping people alive we don't necessarily get as clever at keeping them productive.
Of course this qualification of my point is true. But how can you rationally discuss something spending hundreds of billions unless you are prepared to cost it for this year and the next few years as a proportion of GDP.
What needs to go is the endless discussion consisting if 'Whatever is being spent it needs more right now and I am not interested in how the money is found'. A grown up discussion in which needs, funding and future planning are integrated and shroud waving is put to the margins would be a start.
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
It's only popular at the moment because people haven't thought about it and because people don't know who the winners and losers are.
As I've pointed out multiple times, Social Care is the perfect reason to introduce a wealth / land value tax which we need as we tax income far too much and wealth nowhere near enough.
Heck there is already a precept on Council tax for Social Care so if taxing property (wealth) was the preferred approach in 2016 what has changed.
The Council Tax bands only go up to H, so the social care precept is a fairly token amount, which is why it doesn't really solve the problem.
An actual Wealth Tax would have the potential to hit properly wealthy people (bands W to Z and then on to the Greek alphabet) properly hard.
Over to you, Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Oh I know the council precept doesn't solve anything - the entire point is that we have reached maximum tax on income which means they need another way to solve a problem, especially when the current approach explicitly avoids impacting the people who will benefit from it.
I voted remain and am happy to accept the vote of the referendum
I watched GB news for 48 hours and have not watched it since and could not care less about Andrew Neil
Furthermore , my membership of the conservative party has now lapsed and I am a free political spirit
Welcome out of the dark! Joking, but will be interesting to see where your thoughts take you. Could you imagine voting Labour again, and what would Starmer need to do/say to peersuade you?
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
It's completely regressive, leaves older workers off scot free; hits strivers hard. And it won't actually solve anything. Every diversity post in the NHS needs scrapping 1st
I'd have more respect for a party that taxed asset wealth, which is hideously undertaxed, rather than progressively squeezing the incomes of those in their 20s and 30s who are trying to get on.
I mean, does the government realise that if you're a graduate in your 20s these days you effectively pay 41% tax (NI+IT+SL) *plus* at least 5% of your pension, and that this will last for virtually all of your working life? That house prices are high and that getting a deposit together is really hard work? That childcare costs are extortionate? That transport and energy costs keep inflating ahead of RPI each year too?
No, because the oldies get all the baubles and are entirely shameless about it.
Young people voted Conservative in 1979 because they thought it would help them get on. I see virtually no reason for them to vote Conservative today and, lo and behold, they don't.
TheProle’s insurance proposal for social care is along the right lines. Should be compulsory though to prevent moral hazard of people only taking it out when needed. And I suspect the insurance scheme needs to be a state organised one.
A hypothecated one off wealth tax at age 60, payable in one go or spread over the rest of your life, would do it. Max’s feckless baby boomers would have to pay for their own costs without leaning on the next generation. And Cyclefree’s ungrateful Gen X to Alpha will pay too, when the time comes. Everyone’s a winner.
boomers are way past 60 now so wouldn't be affected.
1946-64. Youngest are 56.
In that case as a tail-end boomer I can tell you it feels like we have had the short end of the stick throughout.
From high unemployment in the late 1970s and 1980s meaning we took what jobs were available rather than what we wanted, to having the pension rug pulled from under us. This in terms of both quality of schemes available (death of the final salary) and an uplifting of the claimant age for the state pension.
My late father and his colleagues were taking their substantial employment pensions so they could be on the golf course every morning at 09.00 from the age of 61.
I remember in my 30s as a young teacher all the talk was that everyone would soon be retiring in the 50s. Many teachers then retired at 50 on very generous schemes. By the time I was 50 in 2004 it was all change. I got out 4 years later with most of the benefits intact. I got my state pension 6 months after age 65 so did ok then as well. However, there is from many a victim mentality here which assumes the 'system' has deliberately targetted them - while conveniently forgetting to good things. I have several right on waspi women friends who pretend they knew nowt about the pension age changes announced in the 90s. One in particular goes on an on about the unfairness while forgetting she chose to stop work in her late 40s and gorge on the cheap booze in Spain while making no prep for the pension age change. My view is we all win some and lose some -- and get on with it.
There were, I seem to recall, quite a lot of teachers about then who retired 'early' with quite substantial 'golden handshakes'; one of my cousins was one of them. They were at the top of the salary scales and the idea was that they would be replaced by people at the bottom of the scale, who would be cheaper. Applied, IIRC, in the NHS and in private industry too.
My dad retired from the police at 56, with a superb pay off and pension. At the time there was a lot of restructuring, and thinning of higher ranks. No question he worked hard in the grenadier guards and then 30 years of police, but he has reaped the rewards for 26 years so far of a fantastic retirement. I find it astonishing that I am only 8 years short of his retirement age, but probably 18 years from getting to do it...
Thanks for the link to the NS Labour article - very interesting. Ironically in a long list of period length structural failings we have a single point where Labour could have turned all the rest of it around - the 2007 general election.
It seems likely that Brown would have been PM afterwards, likely with a majority, with Cameron and all he stood for swept away by the Tories and 5 years to fix the global financial crisis and its aftermath.
A Point Of Departure where all the things that followed - the rise of the SNP, the referendum, Brexit, Corbyn - would not have done. All because Brown was frit.
It was, of course, sight of private polling of marginals that showed Brown he would most likely lose his majority that caused him to bottle it.
Yes, I wasn't convinced by that point in the article, it felt like confusing cause with effect. Surely we've learned the lesson in recent years that polling might look good, but when tested in an election things will change rapidly if the underlying situation is weak - so it might have looked promising for him, but if he'd tried it the inherent problems that led to his defeat would probably have still been there.
Thanks for the link to the NS Labour article - very interesting. Ironically in a long list of period length structural failings we have a single point where Labour could have turned all the rest of it around - the 2007 general election.
It seems likely that Brown would have been PM afterwards, likely with a majority, with Cameron and all he stood for swept away by the Tories and 5 years to fix the global financial crisis and its aftermath.
A Point Of Departure where all the things that followed - the rise of the SNP, the referendum, Brexit, Corbyn - would not have done. All because Brown was frit.
It is certainly one to cut out and keep. If it proves to be the case that we don't ever have a Labour government again (which is not quite impossible) it will turn into an enduring journalistic gem.
The interesting question for the increasingly decent NS would be where on earth does the sane centre left go next? It needs votes as well as honest journalism.
When do we get the empty waiting rooms and luxurious surroundings featured in that vote leave video, we should be asking?
My local surgery waiting room is empty. There are no appointments...
Mine too - they only let you in when the gp is ready to see you...
My GP service is no longer accessible. Slightly less importantly, Royal Mail doesn’t really seem to work anymore either.
Property prices in Upminster should be even higher than they are. We have been getting GP appts same day, or next at worst, and there are no empty shelves in any of the supermarkets.
A quick google suggests the local windmill is the third best thing to do in Upminster. Sounds to me like one of the places that will suffer most from wfh in the long run.
Outer suburban London is pleasant enough if you like that sort of thing. There is a risk of some London fringe places falling between multiple stools; too far out from London to really enjoy the fun, too close to London to get the positive vibes of space and remoteness, too diffuse and insufficient people to generate a life of their own. Just outside the M25 (the sort of places that were developed in the 21st century) might be more at risk than inter-War places just inside.
Not sure it is about the side of M25. In that part of the world Brentwood (outside) is imo nicer and has more to do than Upminster, Romford or Hornchurch (all inside) but has a worse commute into town. Without daily commuting I fail to see how the ratio of Brentwood prices vs the others doesn't move in Brentwood's direction.
What is harder to predict is the ratio of prices to the surrounding smaller villages or indeed to zone 1/2 London.
I’ve lived in Hornchurch, Romford and Upminster nearly all my life, and Upminster is by far the best of the three, although I think there are signs of decay there too - I doubt I will ever willingly go to Romford again in my life, it is horrible. Brentwood feels like Rommo from the 80s, it’s much less countrified than it used to be. I blame TOWIE
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
It's completely regressive, leaves older workers off scot free; hits strivers hard. And it won't actually solve anything. Every diversity post in the NHS needs scrapping 1st
If you want to scrap the "diversity posts" you really need to do a couple of things:
1) repeal equalities legislation, for which they monitor targets.
2) cease to target reluctant and hard to reach groups for health promotion such as vaccine uptake.
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
It's completely regressive, leaves older workers off scot free; hits strivers hard. And it won't actually solve anything. Every diversity post in the NHS needs scrapping 1st
I'd have more respect for a party that taxed asset wealth, which is hideously undertaxed, rather than progressively squeezing the incomes of those in their 20s and 30s who are trying to get on.
I mean, does the government realise that if you're a graduate in your 20s these days you effectively pay 41% tax (NI+IT+SL) *plus* at least 5% of your pension, and that this will last for virtually all of your working life? That house prices are high and that getting a deposit together is really hard work? That childcare costs are extortionate? That transport and energy costs keep inflating ahead of RPI each year too?
No, because the oldies get all the baubles and are entirely shameless about it.
Young people voted Conservative in 1979 because they thought it would help them get on. I see virtually no reason for them to vote Conservative today and, lo and behold, they don't.
Personally I don't see any reason to tax capital gains differently from income. Happy to be informed if I'm missing something.
"The money is expected to be split between the NHS and social care, with a suggestion that it will go first towards clearing backlogs and then increasingly into care. But what guarantee is there that it won’t all be swallowed up by a health service that can never have enough funding?"
(Camilla Tominey - Telegraph)
Which is exactly what I said on here yesterday morning.
So both unfair and ineffective.
And just kicks the can down the road.
Typical of this government.
A solution that progressively raises the tax burden by 1-2% every 10 years to "save the NHS" is not a sustainable solution, and this looks like it's happening under both Labour and Conservative governments now.
A useful discussion would be to talk about what proportion of GDP is required properly to fund the NHS and social care so that a real figure can be put into the discussion of how it shall be funded. A discussion for grown ups can then take place.
Part of the problem is that neither cost is fixed. Researchers find new medicines and techniques, and the former are expensive, because a) they're expensive to find and b) for every 'breakthrough' there are about 10 failures and you don't know that an idea won't work until it doesn't. The the population is increasing, and as we get better at keeping people alive we don't necessarily get as clever at keeping them productive.
Of course this qualification of my point is true. But how can you rationally discuss something spending hundreds of billions unless you are prepared to cost it for this year and the next few years as a proportion of GDP.
What needs to go is the endless discussion consisting if 'Whatever is being spent it needs more right now and I am not interested in how the money is found'. A grown up discussion in which needs, funding and future planning are integrated and shroud waving is put to the margins would be a start.
Indeed. Interestingly we have some vary accurate figures of current operational costs, whether it be hip replacements, heart attacks or psychotic medicine. What we don't do is have a sensible discussion about total costs.
It's a long while ago now, but I recall sitting in a meeting discussing the closure of an Old Peoples Podiatric service, and it was agreed that it was too expensive. Someone asked what would happen to the people who used it and it was accepted that they would become more housebound, through having more foot problems, so would require more social support 'but that didn't come out of our budget'!
I voted remain and am happy to accept the vote of the referendum
I watched GB news for 48 hours and have not watched it since and could not care less about Andrew Neil
Furthermore , my membership of the conservative party has now lapsed and I am a free political spirit
Welcome out of the dark! Joking, but will be interesting to see where your thoughts take you. Could you imagine voting Labour again, and what would Starmer need to do/say to peersuade you?
Having just come from CA and talked to various people in Sacramento and LA I'd agree with this assessment.
I'd also add the utterly dismal quality of the Republican candidate, whom even some of his supporters have acknowleged is unfit for the post. If the Republicans had had an Arnie waiting, they might be favourites.
It shows how far the GOP have fallen into the sewer that its almost impossible to imagine the Governator for the GOP today.
Thanks for the link to the NS Labour article - very interesting. Ironically in a long list of period length structural failings we have a single point where Labour could have turned all the rest of it around - the 2007 general election.
It seems likely that Brown would have been PM afterwards, likely with a majority, with Cameron and all he stood for swept away by the Tories and 5 years to fix the global financial crisis and its aftermath.
A Point Of Departure where all the things that followed - the rise of the SNP, the referendum, Brexit, Corbyn - would not have done. All because Brown was frit.
It was, of course, sight of private polling of marginals that showed Brown he would most likely lose his majority that caused him to bottle it.
Yes, I wasn't convinced by that point in the article, it felt like confusing cause with effect. Surely we've learned the lesson in recent years that polling might look good, but when tested in an election things will change rapidly if the underlying situation is weak - so it might have looked promising for him, but if he'd tried it the inherent problems that led to his defeat would probably have still been there.
To be and stay PM requires genius. Brown never had a better opportunity than when first appointed PM, and if he had been half as decent a chancellor as he told us he was should have known that the events of 2008 were on the way. The genius of being and staying PM requires seeing ahead what others only see in hindsight.
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
It's completely regressive, leaves older workers off scot free; hits strivers hard. And it won't actually solve anything. Every diversity post in the NHS needs scrapping 1st
I'd have more respect for a party that taxed asset wealth, which is hideously undertaxed, rather than progressively squeezing the incomes of those in their 20s and 30s who are trying to get on.
I mean, does the government realise that if you're a graduate in your 20s these days you effectively pay 41% tax (NI+IT+SL) *plus* at least 5% of your pension, and that this will last for virtually all of your working life? That house prices are high and that getting a deposit together is really hard work? That childcare costs are extortionate? That transport and energy costs keep inflating ahead of RPI each year too?
No, because the oldies get all the baubles and are entirely shameless about it.
Young people voted Conservative in 1979 because they thought it would help them get on. I see virtually no reason for them to vote Conservative today and, lo and behold, they don't.
Personally I don't see any reason to tax capital gains differently from income. Happy to be informed if I'm missing something.
The excellent long article in the NS on 10 big reasons for 20 years of Labour decline can be helpfully distilled in chronological order for those without time to read it:
1) 2001 GE turnout 2) Iraq 3) 2004 Romanians etc FOM 4) 2007 No GE 5) 2008 Crash 6) 2010 Clegg turns Tory 7) 2010 The wrong brother 8) 2015 SNP 9) 2017 etc Corbyn delusion 10) 2016 (and continuing ad infinitum) Brexit
That’s a great read. ‘Seeking converts (in the 1990’s) not hunting traitors (today)’ is a really well thought out comment on how labours approach has changed.
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
It's only popular at the moment because people haven't thought about it and because people don't know who the winners and losers are.
As I've pointed out multiple times, Social Care is the perfect reason to introduce a wealth / land value tax which we need as we tax income far too much and wealth nowhere near enough.
Heck there is already a precept on Council tax for Social Care so if taxing property (wealth) was the preferred approach in 2016 what has changed.
I agree with you. Unless we find a way of annually skimming off a proportion (small as % but large in aggregate) of private wealth into the public coffers, we'll have to trim our expectations of what services the state can and should provide. But the political challenge is formidable. There's an illogical but deeply ingrained sentiment (not confined to wealthy people) that wealth has already been taxed during its making, therefore it's an outrage for government to come in for second dibs.
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
It's completely regressive, leaves older workers off scot free; hits strivers hard. And it won't actually solve anything. Every diversity post in the NHS needs scrapping 1st
If you want to scrap the "diversity posts" you really need to do a couple of things:
1) repeal equalities legislation, for which they monitor targets.
2) cease to target reluctant and hard to reach groups for health promotion such as vaccine uptake.
To save the princely sum of £7 million.
Either that or just rebadge them as generic HR.
Rebadge them as generic HR would be a start - it would prevent everyone being treated by what "group" they fall into based upon immutable characteristics rather than as individuals.
Did we miss the news that Andrew Neil is off from GBTV?
Seems like he was used by the owners to get an OFCOM license and now that they’re up and running they can pursue the alt-right digital meme generator they always wanted to.
I used to love This Week, but he got carried away towards the end with his opening monologues. A bit long of himself. It got a bit too silly overall as well.
GB News won’t suffer any of that nonsense - only hard hitting news and opinion from serious heavyweights
Christopher Biggins (rumoured to post on here as Big G) says he voted for Brexit, then says he has “lots of friends with businesses who have suffered badly”.
You are just ridiculous and question my integrity
I voted remain and am happy to accept the vote of the referendum
I watched GB news for 48 hours and have not watched it since and could not care less about Andrew Neil
Furthermore , my membership of the conservative party has now lapsed and I am a free political spirit
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
It's completely regressive, leaves older workers off scot free; hits strivers hard. And it won't actually solve anything. Every diversity post in the NHS needs scrapping 1st
I'd have more respect for a party that taxed asset wealth, which is hideously undertaxed, rather than progressively squeezing the incomes of those in their 20s and 30s who are trying to get on.
I mean, does the government realise that if you're a graduate in your 20s these days you effectively pay 41% tax (NI+IT+SL) *plus* at least 5% of your pension, and that this will last for virtually all of your working life? That house prices are high and that getting a deposit together is really hard work? That childcare costs are extortionate? That transport and energy costs keep inflating ahead of RPI each year too?
No, because the oldies get all the baubles and are entirely shameless about it.
Young people voted Conservative in 1979 because they thought it would help them get on. I see virtually no reason for them to vote Conservative today and, lo and behold, they don't.
Very well said.
I am not a social conservative and could even be considered "woke" but have almost always backed the Conservatives because I believe low taxes enable people to better get on, provide for themselves and live their own lives.
If the Conservatives abandon that principle to further featherbed a generation that pretty much by definition owns their own home and has no mortgage or rent (since if they didn't, they wouldn't have to sell it in the first place), has no childcare costs, didn't pay tuition fees and didn't pay for or save for this welfare - then why the hell should I support my own party anymore?
When do we get the empty waiting rooms and luxurious surroundings featured in that vote leave video, we should be asking?
My local surgery waiting room is empty. There are no appointments...
I wonder which politician (if any) will be brave enough to publicly differentiate the excellent work still being done by the NHS in hospitals with the poor service being provided by many GPs?
The excellent long article in the NS on 10 big reasons for 20 years of Labour decline can be helpfully distilled in chronological order for those without time to read it:
1) 2001 GE turnout 2) Iraq 3) 2004 Romanians etc FOM 4) 2007 No GE 5) 2008 Crash 6) 2010 Clegg turns Tory 7) 2010 The wrong brother 8) 2015 SNP 9) 2017 etc Corbyn delusion 10) 2016 (and continuing ad infinitum) Brexit
That’s a great read. ‘Seeking converts (in the 1990’s) not hunting traitors (today)’ is a really well thought out comment on how labours approach has changed.
Quite. I vote Labour in local elections for people I know and respect, but won't vote for them in a GE until their members as a whole are plainly opposed to and absolutely hostile to anti Semites and don't speak of 'Tory scum' 'Never kissed a Tory' and all that nonsense.
And they need to have a coherent post-Brexit policy too. This is a generation long enterprise. Fudge and silence won't do.
Thanks for the link to the NS Labour article - very interesting. Ironically in a long list of period length structural failings we have a single point where Labour could have turned all the rest of it around - the 2007 general election.
It seems likely that Brown would have been PM afterwards, likely with a majority, with Cameron and all he stood for swept away by the Tories and 5 years to fix the global financial crisis and its aftermath.
A Point Of Departure where all the things that followed - the rise of the SNP, the referendum, Brexit, Corbyn - would not have done. All because Brown was frit.
It was, of course, sight of private polling of marginals that showed Brown he would most likely lose his majority that caused him to bottle it.
Yes, I wasn't convinced by that point in the article, it felt like confusing cause with effect. Surely we've learned the lesson in recent years that polling might look good, but when tested in an election things will change rapidly if the underlying situation is weak - so it might have looked promising for him, but if he'd tried it the inherent problems that led to his defeat would probably have still been there.
To be and stay PM requires genius. Brown never had a better opportunity than when first appointed PM, and if he had been half as decent a chancellor as he told us he was should have known that the events of 2008 were on the way. The genius of being and staying PM requires seeing ahead what others only see in hindsight.
If Brown had as he'd claimed "abolished boom and bust" then 2008 couldn't have happened.
If Brown hadn't "abolished boom and bust" then he shouldn't have been running bust-levels of deficits during the boom time, having had a budget surplus and squandered it pre-bust.
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
It's completely regressive, leaves older workers off scot free; hits strivers hard. And it won't actually solve anything. Every diversity post in the NHS needs scrapping 1st
I'd have more respect for a party that taxed asset wealth, which is hideously undertaxed, rather than progressively squeezing the incomes of those in their 20s and 30s who are trying to get on.
I mean, does the government realise that if you're a graduate in your 20s these days you effectively pay 41% tax (NI+IT+SL) *plus* at least 5% of your pension, and that this will last for virtually all of your working life? That house prices are high and that getting a deposit together is really hard work? That childcare costs are extortionate? That transport and energy costs keep inflating ahead of RPI each year too?
No, because the oldies get all the baubles and are entirely shameless about it.
Young people voted Conservative in 1979 because they thought it would help them get on. I see virtually no reason for them to vote Conservative today and, lo and behold, they don't.
Agreed. A point that only really struck me after I passed 65 is that if you have a good workplace pension you can claim it and carry on working, and then you'll be better off than you've ever been. Not paying the same level of tax/NI as anyone else is an embarassing bonus.
That said, for a few years I've been caught in the £100-125K trap with disappearing personal allowance (which creates a 60% tax band that goes away above £125K) which was absent-mindedly created by Gordon and I equally absent-mindedly voted for. (Karma, innit.) It would be sensible to create a 50% tax band from £100K instead of withdrawing the PA - there's no logical reason why the effective tax bounces in that particular bracket. But there's virtually nobody in that tax bracket who is really suffering so it never gets fixed.
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
It's completely regressive, leaves older workers off scot free; hits strivers hard. And it won't actually solve anything. Every diversity post in the NHS needs scrapping 1st
I'd have more respect for a party that taxed asset wealth, which is hideously undertaxed, rather than progressively squeezing the incomes of those in their 20s and 30s who are trying to get on.
I mean, does the government realise that if you're a graduate in your 20s these days you effectively pay 41% tax (NI+IT+SL) *plus* at least 5% of your pension, and that this will last for virtually all of your working life? That house prices are high and that getting a deposit together is really hard work? That childcare costs are extortionate? That transport and energy costs keep inflating ahead of RPI each year too?
No, because the oldies get all the baubles and are entirely shameless about it.
Young people voted Conservative in 1979 because they thought it would help them get on. I see virtually no reason for them to vote Conservative today and, lo and behold, they don't.
Those young people that voted Conservative in 1979 did do well. They are the retired of today, and still voting Conservative.
The population pyramid of the UK is such that the projected growth in the population is entirely of the elderly over the next 15 years. The working age population is stable, though projections were based on pre Brexit levels of immigration, so may actually be declining. That is the reality that politicians have to grapple with. Work longer, pay more, get less is the future for the current workers.
Similarly we are in a phase of economic development based on a service economy where productivity increases are minimal. Those workers cannot simultaneously be working in social care, picking vegetables, driving lorries and serving in hospitality. Sure, some will get pay rises, but some industries will just become uncompetitive and disappear. Demographics are going to be one of the big challenges for all advanced economies, but also for middle income countries like China and Brazil etc.
Just got back from my first cruise since the lockdown. Mostly cruising around the islands off Scotland (Arran, Islay, Iona, Mull) - and the weather was great! Curious covid regulations through - masks around the ship but no masks in the bars and restaurants.
Thanks for the link to the NS Labour article - very interesting. Ironically in a long list of period length structural failings we have a single point where Labour could have turned all the rest of it around - the 2007 general election.
It seems likely that Brown would have been PM afterwards, likely with a majority, with Cameron and all he stood for swept away by the Tories and 5 years to fix the global financial crisis and its aftermath.
A Point Of Departure where all the things that followed - the rise of the SNP, the referendum, Brexit, Corbyn - would not have done. All because Brown was frit.
A lucky escape from a Brown Government.
The rise of the SNP or something like it was more likely wired in by the devolution settlement.
Just got back from my first cruise since the lockdown. Mostly cruising around the islands off Scotland (Arran, Islay, Iona, Mull) - and the weather was great! Curious covid regulations through - masks around the ship but no masks in the bars and restaurants.
The virus knows to avoid the bars and restaurants! Unless you are on your way to the table or bathrooms of course.
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
It's completely regressive, leaves older workers off scot free; hits strivers hard. And it won't actually solve anything. Every diversity post in the NHS needs scrapping 1st
I'd have more respect for a party that taxed asset wealth, which is hideously undertaxed, rather than progressively squeezing the incomes of those in their 20s and 30s who are trying to get on.
I mean, does the government realise that if you're a graduate in your 20s these days you effectively pay 41% tax (NI+IT+SL) *plus* at least 5% of your pension, and that this will last for virtually all of your working life? That house prices are high and that getting a deposit together is really hard work? That childcare costs are extortionate? That transport and energy costs keep inflating ahead of RPI each year too?
No, because the oldies get all the baubles and are entirely shameless about it.
Young people voted Conservative in 1979 because they thought it would help them get on. I see virtually no reason for them to vote Conservative today and, lo and behold, they don't.
Agreed. A point that only really struck me after I passed 65 is that if you have a good workplace pension you can claim it and carry on working, and then you'll be better off than you've ever been. Not paying the same level of tax/NI as anyone else is an embarassing bonus.
That said, for a few years I've been caught in the £100-125K trap with disappearing personal allowance (which creates a 60% tax band that goes away above £125K) which was absent-mindedly created by Gordon and I equally absent-mindedly voted for. (Karma, innit.) It would be sensible to create a 50% tax band from £100K instead of withdrawing the PA - there's no logical reason why the effective tax bounces in that particular bracket. But there's virtually nobody in that tax bracket who is really suffering so it never gets fixed.
Yes, keeping personal allowances and lowering the 45% band to £100 000 would make a lot of sense. I have been bouncing around that bracket for some time, using various legitimate means to avoid the 60% band as far as possible.
Just got back from my first cruise since the lockdown. Mostly cruising around the islands off Scotland (Arran, Islay, Iona, Mull) - and the weather was great! Curious covid regulations through - masks around the ship but no masks in the bars and restaurants.
The virus knows to avoid the bars and restaurants! Unless you are on your way to the table or bathrooms of course.
It avoids people on holiday too, or at least in the minds of the heaving crowds on the Red Funnel yesterday...
Thanks for the link to the NS Labour article - very interesting. Ironically in a long list of period length structural failings we have a single point where Labour could have turned all the rest of it around - the 2007 general election.
It seems likely that Brown would have been PM afterwards, likely with a majority, with Cameron and all he stood for swept away by the Tories and 5 years to fix the global financial crisis and its aftermath.
A Point Of Departure where all the things that followed - the rise of the SNP, the referendum, Brexit, Corbyn - would not have done. All because Brown was frit.
It was, of course, sight of private polling of marginals that showed Brown he would most likely lose his majority that caused him to bottle it.
Yes, I wasn't convinced by that point in the article, it felt like confusing cause with effect. Surely we've learned the lesson in recent years that polling might look good, but when tested in an election things will change rapidly if the underlying situation is weak - so it might have looked promising for him, but if he'd tried it the inherent problems that led to his defeat would probably have still been there.
To be and stay PM requires genius. Brown never had a better opportunity than when first appointed PM, and if he had been half as decent a chancellor as he told us he was should have known that the events of 2008 were on the way. The genius of being and staying PM requires seeing ahead what others only see in hindsight.
If Brown had as he'd claimed "abolished boom and bust" then 2008 couldn't have happened.
If Brown hadn't "abolished boom and bust" then he shouldn't have been running bust-levels of deficits during the boom time, having had a budget surplus and squandered it pre-bust.
Isn't that 'Tory Story' book due back in the kids' library now? You'll get a fine if you're not careful.
Good morning everyone. Interesting comments above about disillusionment with Biden and the 'dismal' Republican candidate . Looks like the US isn't in a good place at all.
Slight improvement in the weather here; some sun yesterday and 12degC early this morning. Cloud cover looks a bit thinner, too.
However, all is not well chez Cole; plumber came to service the boiler yesterday and some work needs to be done. Not very expensive, but enough to be disturbing.
OKC, one good thing is that it is at least being done before winter sets in. Weather here grey and cool, supposedly to get to 17degC later. SUN usually gets through in afternoon mind you. You can feel the change now and getting darker at night as well.
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
It's completely regressive, leaves older workers off scot free; hits strivers hard. And it won't actually solve anything. Every diversity post in the NHS needs scrapping 1st
I'd have more respect for a party that taxed asset wealth, which is hideously undertaxed, rather than progressively squeezing the incomes of those in their 20s and 30s who are trying to get on.
I mean, does the government realise that if you're a graduate in your 20s these days you effectively pay 41% tax (NI+IT+SL) *plus* at least 5% of your pension, and that this will last for virtually all of your working life? That house prices are high and that getting a deposit together is really hard work? That childcare costs are extortionate? That transport and energy costs keep inflating ahead of RPI each year too?
No, because the oldies get all the baubles and are entirely shameless about it.
Young people voted Conservative in 1979 because they thought it would help them get on. I see virtually no reason for them to vote Conservative today and, lo and behold, they don't.
Those young people that voted Conservative in 1979 did do well. They are the retired of today, and still voting Conservative.
The population pyramid of the UK is such that the projected growth in the population is entirely of the elderly over the next 15 years. The working age population is stable, though projections were based on pre Brexit levels of immigration, so may actually be declining. That is the reality that politicians have to grapple with. Work longer, pay more, get less is the future for the current workers.
Similarly we are in a phase of economic development based on a service economy where productivity increases are minimal. Those workers cannot simultaneously be working in social care, picking vegetables, driving lorries and serving in hospitality. Sure, some will get pay rises, but some industries will just become uncompetitive and disappear. Demographics are going to be one of the big challenges for all advanced economies, but also for middle income countries like China and Brazil etc.
Perhaps our restaurants will become like the Swiss ones berated earlier, extortionately overpriced and decidedly average due to high labour costs. A shame as they have massively improved over recent decades.
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
It's completely regressive, leaves older workers off scot free; hits strivers hard. And it won't actually solve anything. Every diversity post in the NHS needs scrapping 1st
If you want to scrap the "diversity posts" you really need to do a couple of things:
1) repeal equalities legislation, for which they monitor targets.
2) cease to target reluctant and hard to reach groups for health promotion such as vaccine uptake.
To save the princely sum of £7 million.
Either that or just rebadge them as generic HR.
Rebadge them as generic HR would be a start - it would prevent everyone being treated by what "group" they fall into based upon immutable characteristics rather than as individuals.
First need to repeal that equalises legislation then, with its "protected characteristics".
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
It's completely regressive, leaves older workers off scot free; hits strivers hard. And it won't actually solve anything. Every diversity post in the NHS needs scrapping 1st
I'd have more respect for a party that taxed asset wealth, which is hideously undertaxed, rather than progressively squeezing the incomes of those in their 20s and 30s who are trying to get on.
I mean, does the government realise that if you're a graduate in your 20s these days you effectively pay 41% tax (NI+IT+SL) *plus* at least 5% of your pension, and that this will last for virtually all of your working life? That house prices are high and that getting a deposit together is really hard work? That childcare costs are extortionate? That transport and energy costs keep inflating ahead of RPI each year too?
No, because the oldies get all the baubles and are entirely shameless about it.
Young people voted Conservative in 1979 because they thought it would help them get on. I see virtually no reason for them to vote Conservative today and, lo and behold, they don't.
Agreed. A point that only really struck me after I passed 65 is that if you have a good workplace pension you can claim it and carry on working, and then you'll be better off than you've ever been. Not paying the same level of tax/NI as anyone else is an embarassing bonus.
That said, for a few years I've been caught in the £100-125K trap with disappearing personal allowance (which creates a 60% tax band that goes away above £125K) which was absent-mindedly created by Gordon and I equally absent-mindedly voted for. (Karma, innit.) It would be sensible to create a 50% tax band from £100K instead of withdrawing the PA - there's no logical reason why the effective tax bounces in that particular bracket. But there's virtually nobody in that tax bracket who is really suffering so it never gets fixed.
Absent-mindedly?
Sure?
I have that one down as just another Brown stealth tax, to match all the rest, and damn the consequences. One of the baleful impacts is that it stops people creating extra wealth because of the disjuncture, which itself would be taxed...
However, I make no claim to neutrality on Brown.
Perhaps Mr Starmer needs to put removal of such in the next manifesto?
One thought that does occur is whether NI should be extended to *working* pensioners (or is it already?).
Good morning everyone. Interesting comments above about disillusionment with Biden and the 'dismal' Republican candidate . Looks like the US isn't in a good place at all.
Slight improvement in the weather here; some sun yesterday and 12degC early this morning. Cloud cover looks a bit thinner, too.
However, all is not well chez Cole; plumber came to service the boiler yesterday and some work needs to be done. Not very expensive, but enough to be disturbing.
OKC, one good thing is that it is at least being done before winter sets in. Weather here grey and cool, supposedly to get to 17degC later. SUN usually gets through in afternoon mind you. You can feel the change now and getting darker at night as well.
That, Malc, is why we book a regular service from one of our local plumbers every year at around the end of August.
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
It's completely regressive, leaves older workers off scot free; hits strivers hard. And it won't actually solve anything. Every diversity post in the NHS needs scrapping 1st
I'd have more respect for a party that taxed asset wealth, which is hideously undertaxed, rather than progressively squeezing the incomes of those in their 20s and 30s who are trying to get on.
I mean, does the government realise that if you're a graduate in your 20s these days you effectively pay 41% tax (NI+IT+SL) *plus* at least 5% of your pension, and that this will last for virtually all of your working life? That house prices are high and that getting a deposit together is really hard work? That childcare costs are extortionate? That transport and energy costs keep inflating ahead of RPI each year too?
No, because the oldies get all the baubles and are entirely shameless about it.
Young people voted Conservative in 1979 because they thought it would help them get on. I see virtually no reason for them to vote Conservative today and, lo and behold, they don't.
Those young people that voted Conservative in 1979 did do well. They are the retired of today, and still voting Conservative.
The population pyramid of the UK is such that the projected growth in the population is entirely of the elderly over the next 15 years. The working age population is stable, though projections were based on pre Brexit levels of immigration, so may actually be declining. That is the reality that politicians have to grapple with. Work longer, pay more, get less is the future for the current workers.
Similarly we are in a phase of economic development based on a service economy where productivity increases are minimal. Those workers cannot simultaneously be working in social care, picking vegetables, driving lorries and serving in hospitality. Sure, some will get pay rises, but some industries will just become uncompetitive and disappear. Demographics are going to be one of the big challenges for all advanced economies, but also for middle income countries like China and Brazil etc.
Perhaps our restaurants will become like the Swiss ones berated earlier, extortionately overpriced and decidedly average due to high labour costs. A shame as they have massively improved over recent decades.
I think it was Jay Rayner in the Observer who was recently bemoaning the practice of some restaurants to absurdly mark up the price of wine.
The excellent long article in the NS on 10 big reasons for 20 years of Labour decline can be helpfully distilled in chronological order for those without time to read it:
1) 2001 GE turnout 2) Iraq 3) 2004 Romanians etc FOM 4) 2007 No GE 5) 2008 Crash 6) 2010 Clegg turns Tory 7) 2010 The wrong brother 8) 2015 SNP 9) 2017 etc Corbyn delusion 10) 2016 (and continuing ad infinitum) Brexit
That’s a great read. ‘Seeking converts (in the 1990’s) not hunting traitors (today)’ is a really well thought out comment on how labours approach has changed.
Quite. I vote Labour in local elections for people I know and respect, but won't vote for them in a GE until their members as a whole are plainly opposed to and absolutely hostile to anti Semites and don't speak of 'Tory scum' 'Never kissed a Tory' and all that nonsense.
And they need to have a coherent post-Brexit policy too. This is a generation long enterprise. Fudge and silence won't do.
I vote labour at a national level as an endorsement of my local MP who I have a lot of time for. Many labour MPs in the North East are just hopeless though. I’d find it hard to vote for a fair few of them. I was brought up to believe the Tories were not for the working class but it’s hard to see what labour is for these days and what it offers working class communities and people apart from demonisation.
I vote locally for whoever I think will do the best job for the ward. Last time out it was Tory and Indy.
Labours online supporters with all this Tory scum, never kissed a Tory stuff I agree with you. It’s nonsense. Abusing people for voting the wrong way and wishing communities who voted Brexit suffer mass unemployment and hardship then wondering why they won’t vote labour is just madness.
You’re right, labour needs a coherent position on Brexit. Blair has started to articulate one. But labour is miles away from that or from offering anything other than not being the Tories.
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
It's completely regressive, leaves older workers off scot free; hits strivers hard. And it won't actually solve anything. Every diversity post in the NHS needs scrapping 1st
I'd have more respect for a party that taxed asset wealth, which is hideously undertaxed, rather than progressively squeezing the incomes of those in their 20s and 30s who are trying to get on.
I mean, does the government realise that if you're a graduate in your 20s these days you effectively pay 41% tax (NI+IT+SL) *plus* at least 5% of your pension, and that this will last for virtually all of your working life? That house prices are high and that getting a deposit together is really hard work? That childcare costs are extortionate? That transport and energy costs keep inflating ahead of RPI each year too?
No, because the oldies get all the baubles and are entirely shameless about it.
Young people voted Conservative in 1979 because they thought it would help them get on. I see virtually no reason for them to vote Conservative today and, lo and behold, they don't.
Agreed. A point that only really struck me after I passed 65 is that if you have a good workplace pension you can claim it and carry on working, and then you'll be better off than you've ever been. Not paying the same level of tax/NI as anyone else is an embarassing bonus.
That said, for a few years I've been caught in the £100-125K trap with disappearing personal allowance (which creates a 60% tax band that goes away above £125K) which was absent-mindedly created by Gordon and I equally absent-mindedly voted for. (Karma, innit.) It would be sensible to create a 50% tax band from £100K instead of withdrawing the PA - there's no logical reason why the effective tax bounces in that particular bracket. But there's virtually nobody in that tax bracket who is really suffering so it never gets fixed.
Yes, keeping personal allowances and lowering the 45% band to £100 000 would make a lot of sense. I have been bouncing around that bracket for some time, using various legitimate means to avoid the 60% band as far as possible.
Absolutely correct. The withdrawal of the personal allowance beyond £100,000pa is an absolute abomination and has cost me a lot of money! Much better to restore the personal allowance and have the 45% band start at £100,000.
Good morning everyone. Interesting comments above about disillusionment with Biden and the 'dismal' Republican candidate . Looks like the US isn't in a good place at all.
Slight improvement in the weather here; some sun yesterday and 12degC early this morning. Cloud cover looks a bit thinner, too.
However, all is not well chez Cole; plumber came to service the boiler yesterday and some work needs to be done. Not very expensive, but enough to be disturbing.
OKC, one good thing is that it is at least being done before winter sets in. Weather here grey and cool, supposedly to get to 17degC later. SUN usually gets through in afternoon mind you. You can feel the change now and getting darker at night as well.
Morning Malky, we had a fine smirr off the hills (probably off the North Sea originally) for the post-breakfast walkies but it has settled to a somewhat brighter but overcast day here on the east.
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
It's completely regressive, leaves older workers off scot free; hits strivers hard. And it won't actually solve anything. Every diversity post in the NHS needs scrapping 1st
I'd have more respect for a party that taxed asset wealth, which is hideously undertaxed, rather than progressively squeezing the incomes of those in their 20s and 30s who are trying to get on.
I mean, does the government realise that if you're a graduate in your 20s these days you effectively pay 41% tax (NI+IT+SL) *plus* at least 5% of your pension, and that this will last for virtually all of your working life? That house prices are high and that getting a deposit together is really hard work? That childcare costs are extortionate? That transport and energy costs keep inflating ahead of RPI each year too?
No, because the oldies get all the baubles and are entirely shameless about it.
Young people voted Conservative in 1979 because they thought it would help them get on. I see virtually no reason for them to vote Conservative today and, lo and behold, they don't.
Those young people that voted Conservative in 1979 did do well. They are the retired of today, and still voting Conservative.
The population pyramid of the UK is such that the projected growth in the population is entirely of the elderly over the next 15 years. The working age population is stable, though projections were based on pre Brexit levels of immigration, so may actually be declining. That is the reality that politicians have to grapple with. Work longer, pay more, get less is the future for the current workers.
Similarly we are in a phase of economic development based on a service economy where productivity increases are minimal. Those workers cannot simultaneously be working in social care, picking vegetables, driving lorries and serving in hospitality. Sure, some will get pay rises, but some industries will just become uncompetitive and disappear. Demographics are going to be one of the big challenges for all advanced economies, but also for middle income countries like China and Brazil etc.
Perhaps our restaurants will become like the Swiss ones berated earlier, extortionately overpriced and decidedly average due to high labour costs. A shame as they have massively improved over recent decades.
I think it was Jay Rayner in the Observer who was recently bemoaning the practice of some restaurants to absurdly mark up the price of wine.
Puddings now seem to be priced at 8 to 9 quid where we go. About 25% higher than previously.
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
It's completely regressive, leaves older workers off scot free; hits strivers hard. And it won't actually solve anything. Every diversity post in the NHS needs scrapping 1st
I'd have more respect for a party that taxed asset wealth, which is hideously undertaxed, rather than progressively squeezing the incomes of those in their 20s and 30s who are trying to get on.
I mean, does the government realise that if you're a graduate in your 20s these days you effectively pay 41% tax (NI+IT+SL) *plus* at least 5% of your pension, and that this will last for virtually all of your working life? That house prices are high and that getting a deposit together is really hard work? That childcare costs are extortionate? That transport and energy costs keep inflating ahead of RPI each year too?
No, because the oldies get all the baubles and are entirely shameless about it.
Young people voted Conservative in 1979 because they thought it would help them get on. I see virtually no reason for them to vote Conservative today and, lo and behold, they don't.
Those young people that voted Conservative in 1979 did do well. They are the retired of today, and still voting Conservative.
The population pyramid of the UK is such that the projected growth in the population is entirely of the elderly over the next 15 years. The working age population is stable, though projections were based on pre Brexit levels of immigration, so may actually be declining. That is the reality that politicians have to grapple with. Work longer, pay more, get less is the future for the current workers.
Similarly we are in a phase of economic development based on a service economy where productivity increases are minimal. Those workers cannot simultaneously be working in social care, picking vegetables, driving lorries and serving in hospitality. Sure, some will get pay rises, but some industries will just become uncompetitive and disappear. Demographics are going to be one of the big challenges for all advanced economies, but also for middle income countries like China and Brazil etc.
Perhaps our restaurants will become like the Swiss ones berated earlier, extortionately overpriced and decidedly average due to high labour costs. A shame as they have massively improved over recent decades.
I think it was Jay Rayner in the Observer who was recently bemoaning the practice of some restaurants to absurdly mark up the price of wine.
I think they were complaining about that when it was amphorae in which they served up the vino in Londinium!
When do we get the empty waiting rooms and luxurious surroundings featured in that vote leave video, we should be asking?
My local surgery waiting room is empty. There are no appointments...
Mine too - they only let you in when the gp is ready to see you...
My GP service is no longer accessible. Slightly less importantly, Royal Mail doesn’t really seem to work anymore either.
Property prices in Upminster should be even higher than they are. We have been getting GP appts same day, or next at worst, and there are no empty shelves in any of the supermarkets.
A quick google suggests the local windmill is the third best thing to do in Upminster. Sounds to me like one of the places that will suffer most from wfh in the long run.
Outer suburban London is pleasant enough if you like that sort of thing. There is a risk of some London fringe places falling between multiple stools; too far out from London to really enjoy the fun, too close to London to get the positive vibes of space and remoteness, too diffuse and insufficient people to generate a life of their own. Just outside the M25 (the sort of places that were developed in the 21st century) might be more at risk than inter-War places just inside.
Not sure it is about the side of M25. In that part of the world Brentwood (outside) is imo nicer and has more to do than Upminster, Romford or Hornchurch (all inside) but has a worse commute into town. Without daily commuting I fail to see how the ratio of Brentwood prices vs the others doesn't move in Brentwood's direction.
What is harder to predict is the ratio of prices to the surrounding smaller villages or indeed to zone 1/2 London.
I’ve lived in Hornchurch, Romford and Upminster nearly all my life, and Upminster is by far the best of the three, although I think there are signs of decay there too - I doubt I will ever willingly go to Romford again in my life, it is horrible. Brentwood feels like Rommo from the 80s, it’s much less countrified than it used to be. I blame TOWIE
Got to stick up for my adopted hometown here- it's never felt horrible, and any decay is as nothing compared with post-industrial towns.
Romford does have a problem to answer though- having bet the farm on being a shopping destination, what's it for now that Lakeside has eaten that particular lunch? Especially since some of the other stuff that makes a town centre (like the theatre) are in Hornchurch.
I suspect the answer has to be to embrace its London-ness, especially with the eventual completion of Crossrail. Having had a couple of years away, there's been something a bit like gentrification going on- retirees or their children selling up, younger families moving in and visibly doing their places up. Coupled to that is a different mix of shops and businesses. Our local shopping street has a new organic cafe, which would have been unthinkable a decade ago.
And I accept that that sort of change, driven by internal migration, is painful for some. But the cost of trying to stop it is greater.
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
It's completely regressive, leaves older workers off scot free; hits strivers hard. And it won't actually solve anything. Every diversity post in the NHS needs scrapping 1st
I'd have more respect for a party that taxed asset wealth, which is hideously undertaxed, rather than progressively squeezing the incomes of those in their 20s and 30s who are trying to get on.
I mean, does the government realise that if you're a graduate in your 20s these days you effectively pay 41% tax (NI+IT+SL) *plus* at least 5% of your pension, and that this will last for virtually all of your working life? That house prices are high and that getting a deposit together is really hard work? That childcare costs are extortionate? That transport and energy costs keep inflating ahead of RPI each year too?
No, because the oldies get all the baubles and are entirely shameless about it.
Young people voted Conservative in 1979 because they thought it would help them get on. I see virtually no reason for them to vote Conservative today and, lo and behold, they don't.
Those young people that voted Conservative in 1979 did do well. They are the retired of today, and still voting Conservative.
The population pyramid of the UK is such that the projected growth in the population is entirely of the elderly over the next 15 years. The working age population is stable, though projections were based on pre Brexit levels of immigration, so may actually be declining. That is the reality that politicians have to grapple with. Work longer, pay more, get less is the future for the current workers.
Similarly we are in a phase of economic development based on a service economy where productivity increases are minimal. Those workers cannot simultaneously be working in social care, picking vegetables, driving lorries and serving in hospitality. Sure, some will get pay rises, but some industries will just become uncompetitive and disappear. Demographics are going to be one of the big challenges for all advanced economies, but also for middle income countries like China and Brazil etc.
Perhaps our restaurants will become like the Swiss ones berated earlier, extortionately overpriced and decidedly average due to high labour costs. A shame as they have massively improved over recent decades.
I think it was Jay Rayner in the Observer who was recently bemoaning the practice of some restaurants to absurdly mark up the price of wine.
Puddings now seem to be priced at 8 to 9 quid where we go. About 25% higher than previously.
Going out shortly to lunch at what is claimed to be the best local restaurant. Not too long re-opened. Must admit we don't often go for the pudding; starter and main more to our taste.
TheProle’s insurance proposal for social care is along the right lines. Should be compulsory though to prevent moral hazard of people only taking it out when needed. And I suspect the insurance scheme needs to be a state organised one.
A hypothecated one off wealth tax at age 60, payable in one go or spread over the rest of your life, would do it. Max’s feckless baby boomers would have to pay for their own costs without leaning on the next generation. And Cyclefree’s ungrateful Gen X to Alpha will pay too, when the time comes. Everyone’s a winner.
boomers are way past 60 now so wouldn't be affected.
1946-64. Youngest are 56.
It has always been ridiculous to count those born in early 1960s as boomers imho.
Agreed. I was born in 61 and have always thought of the boomers as being 5-10 years older than me.
Did we miss the news that Andrew Neil is off from GBTV?
Seems like he was used by the owners to get an OFCOM license and now that they’re up and running they can pursue the alt-right digital meme generator they always wanted to.
I used to love This Week, but he got carried away towards the end with his opening monologues. A bit long of himself. It got a bit too silly overall as well.
GB News won’t suffer any of that nonsense - only hard hitting news and opinion from serious heavyweights
UK's version of Fox News can begin in earnest. Another baleful moment in our recent history.
If it's any consolation, I doubt that it'll make very much difference in the grand scheme of things. Audiences for dedicated news channels aren't exactly huge, I doubt this one will be any different, and we already have a precedent in this country. Some taxi drivers, conspiracy theorists, former Scottish First Ministers and such like already swear that only Russia Today tells the truth about the world. There just aren't that many of them, that's all.
Al jazeera is much less biased on news than the BBC or any other UK outlet, and they actually cover events outside the UK and USA
WASHINGTON — Top federal health officials have told the White House to scale back a plan to offer coronavirus booster shots to the general public this month, saying that regulators need more time to collect and review all the necessary data, according to people familiar with the discussion.
Dr. Janet Woodcock, the acting commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, and Dr. Rochelle P. Walensky, who heads the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, warned the White House on Thursday that their agencies may be able to determine in the coming weeks whether to recommend boosters only for recipients of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine — and possibly just some of them to start.
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
It's completely regressive, leaves older workers off scot free; hits strivers hard. And it won't actually solve anything. Every diversity post in the NHS needs scrapping 1st
I'd have more respect for a party that taxed asset wealth, which is hideously undertaxed, rather than progressively squeezing the incomes of those in their 20s and 30s who are trying to get on.
I mean, does the government realise that if you're a graduate in your 20s these days you effectively pay 41% tax (NI+IT+SL) *plus* at least 5% of your pension, and that this will last for virtually all of your working life? That house prices are high and that getting a deposit together is really hard work? That childcare costs are extortionate? That transport and energy costs keep inflating ahead of RPI each year too?
No, because the oldies get all the baubles and are entirely shameless about it.
Young people voted Conservative in 1979 because they thought it would help them get on. I see virtually no reason for them to vote Conservative today and, lo and behold, they don't.
Those young people that voted Conservative in 1979 did do well. They are the retired of today, and still voting Conservative.
The population pyramid of the UK is such that the projected growth in the population is entirely of the elderly over the next 15 years. The working age population is stable, though projections were based on pre Brexit levels of immigration, so may actually be declining. That is the reality that politicians have to grapple with. Work longer, pay more, get less is the future for the current workers.
Similarly we are in a phase of economic development based on a service economy where productivity increases are minimal. Those workers cannot simultaneously be working in social care, picking vegetables, driving lorries and serving in hospitality. Sure, some will get pay rises, but some industries will just become uncompetitive and disappear. Demographics are going to be one of the big challenges for all advanced economies, but also for middle income countries like China and Brazil etc.
Perhaps our restaurants will become like the Swiss ones berated earlier, extortionately overpriced and decidedly average due to high labour costs. A shame as they have massively improved over recent decades.
I think it was Jay Rayner in the Observer who was recently bemoaning the practice of some restaurants to absurdly mark up the price of wine.
Puddings now seem to be priced at 8 to 9 quid where we go. About 25% higher than previously.
Going out shortly to lunch at what is claimed to be the best local restaurant. Not too long re-opened. Must admit we don't often go for the pudding; starter and main more to our taste.
Same with me, my wife prefers main and pudding, so we usually compromise by sharing a starter and a pud.
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
It's completely regressive, leaves older workers off scot free; hits strivers hard. And it won't actually solve anything. Every diversity post in the NHS needs scrapping 1st
I'd have more respect for a party that taxed asset wealth, which is hideously undertaxed, rather than progressively squeezing the incomes of those in their 20s and 30s who are trying to get on.
I mean, does the government realise that if you're a graduate in your 20s these days you effectively pay 41% tax (NI+IT+SL) *plus* at least 5% of your pension, and that this will last for virtually all of your working life? That house prices are high and that getting a deposit together is really hard work? That childcare costs are extortionate? That transport and energy costs keep inflating ahead of RPI each year too?
No, because the oldies get all the baubles and are entirely shameless about it.
Young people voted Conservative in 1979 because they thought it would help them get on. I see virtually no reason for them to vote Conservative today and, lo and behold, they don't.
Those young people that voted Conservative in 1979 did do well. They are the retired of today, and still voting Conservative.
The population pyramid of the UK is such that the projected growth in the population is entirely of the elderly over the next 15 years. The working age population is stable, though projections were based on pre Brexit levels of immigration, so may actually be declining. That is the reality that politicians have to grapple with. Work longer, pay more, get less is the future for the current workers.
Similarly we are in a phase of economic development based on a service economy where productivity increases are minimal. Those workers cannot simultaneously be working in social care, picking vegetables, driving lorries and serving in hospitality. Sure, some will get pay rises, but some industries will just become uncompetitive and disappear. Demographics are going to be one of the big challenges for all advanced economies, but also for middle income countries like China and Brazil etc.
Perhaps our restaurants will become like the Swiss ones berated earlier, extortionately overpriced and decidedly average due to high labour costs. A shame as they have massively improved over recent decades.
I think it was Jay Rayner in the Observer who was recently bemoaning the practice of some restaurants to absurdly mark up the price of wine.
I think they were complaining about that when it was amphorae in which they served up the vino in Londinium!
Back in the dear dead days when we had white van men doing 'runs' to supermarkets in the Pas de Calais and flogging off their purchases to pubs and restaurants I was in a pub with one such WVM, who remarked that he'd just sold a couple of cases on 'something French' to a local restaurant for about £5 a bottle, and he'd seen it on their wine list for £20.
Furthermore , my membership of the conservative party has now lapsed and I am a free political spirit
Come on over to the Greens. 🌻
BigG always has PC if the Greens are too chlorophyll-laden.
I was being serious. Big G is the sort of fundamentally decent pragmatist which is occasionally in short supply among the ranks of hunt sabbers, XR tensegrity architects, druids, mad scientists, women of a certain age with plenty of cats, naturists, homebrew solar panel experts and detectorists with which the party is abundantly blessed.
You realise Big G "quits" the Tory party about five times every year, whilst professing to have supported it for decades, don't you?
If your weathervane at @Dura_Ace towers is broken then get him stuffed and stick him on the roof. He'll be more accurate than an atomic clock.
Furthermore , my membership of the conservative party has now lapsed and I am a free political spirit
Come on over to the Greens. 🌻
BigG always has PC if the Greens are too chlorophyll-laden.
I was being serious. Big G is the sort of fundamentally decent pragmatist which is occasionally in short supply among the ranks of hunt sabbers, XR tensegrity architects, druids, mad scientists, women of a certain age with plenty of cats, naturists, homebrew solar panel experts and detectorists with which the party is abundantly blessed.
You realise Big G "quits" the Tory party about five times every year, whilst professing to have supported it for decades, don't you?
If your weathervane at @Dura_Ace towers is broken then get him stuffed and stick him on the roof. He'll be more accurate than an atomic clock.
Excuse me
My membership has lapsed this month and I am free to decide
However, if you want me to vote conservative maybe a little respect would help as I have done so in every ballot since 1962 when I was eligible to vote, apart from 1997 and 2001 when Blair was the only game in town
Good morning everyone. Interesting comments above about disillusionment with Biden and the 'dismal' Republican candidate . Looks like the US isn't in a good place at all.
Slight improvement in the weather here; some sun yesterday and 12degC early this morning. Cloud cover looks a bit thinner, too.
However, all is not well chez Cole; plumber came to service the boiler yesterday and some work needs to be done. Not very expensive, but enough to be disturbing.
OKC, one good thing is that it is at least being done before winter sets in. Weather here grey and cool, supposedly to get to 17degC later. SUN usually gets through in afternoon mind you. You can feel the change now and getting darker at night as well.
Morning Malky, we had a fine smirr off the hills (probably off the North Sea originally) for the post-breakfast walkies but it has settled to a somewhat brighter but overcast day here on the east.
Morning Carnyx, definitely a nip in the air early morning now. Given how dry a summer we have had I am dreading a wet winter. I miss the old days when it was really frosty and lots of snow, now just wind and rain.
I voted remain and am happy to accept the vote of the referendum
I watched GB news for 48 hours and have not watched it since and could not care less about Andrew Neil
Furthermore , my membership of the conservative party has now lapsed and I am a free political spirit
Welcome out of the dark! Joking, but will be interesting to see where your thoughts take you. Could you imagine voting Labour again, and what would Starmer need to do/say to peersuade you?
I voted for Blair twice but at present Starmer has simply had nothing to say and I have no idea what todays labour party stands for and I suspect that is a widely held view
Good morning everyone. Interesting comments above about disillusionment with Biden and the 'dismal' Republican candidate . Looks like the US isn't in a good place at all.
Slight improvement in the weather here; some sun yesterday and 12degC early this morning. Cloud cover looks a bit thinner, too.
However, all is not well chez Cole; plumber came to service the boiler yesterday and some work needs to be done. Not very expensive, but enough to be disturbing.
OKC, one good thing is that it is at least being done before winter sets in. Weather here grey and cool, supposedly to get to 17degC later. SUN usually gets through in afternoon mind you. You can feel the change now and getting darker at night as well.
That, Malc, is why we book a regular service from one of our local plumbers every year at around the end of August.
Too organised for me OKC, though mine is only coming up for a year old, but need to get a service later in year to keep up the 10 year warranty. Real pain as it is built inside a unit in utility room and I have to remove the unit so they can service it.
Did we miss the news that Andrew Neil is off from GBTV?
Seems like he was used by the owners to get an OFCOM license and now that they’re up and running they can pursue the alt-right digital meme generator they always wanted to.
I used to love This Week, but he got carried away towards the end with his opening monologues. A bit long of himself. It got a bit too silly overall as well.
GB News won’t suffer any of that nonsense - only hard hitting news and opinion from serious heavyweights
Christopher Biggins (rumoured to post on here as Big G) says he voted for Brexit, then says he has “lots of friends with businesses who have suffered badly”.
You are just ridiculous and question my integrity
I voted remain and am happy to accept the vote of the referendum
I watched GB news for 48 hours and have not watched it since and could not care less about Andrew Neil
Furthermore , my membership of the conservative party has now lapsed and I am a free political spirit
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
You would think it was going to beggar people , that is peanuts for the peace of mind it will give if you end up gaga.
When do we get the empty waiting rooms and luxurious surroundings featured in that vote leave video, we should be asking?
My local surgery waiting room is empty. There are no appointments...
Mine too - they only let you in when the gp is ready to see you...
My GP service is no longer accessible. Slightly less importantly, Royal Mail doesn’t really seem to work anymore either.
Property prices in Upminster should be even higher than they are. We have been getting GP appts same day, or next at worst, and there are no empty shelves in any of the supermarkets.
A quick google suggests the local windmill is the third best thing to do in Upminster. Sounds to me like one of the places that will suffer most from wfh in the long run.
Outer suburban London is pleasant enough if you like that sort of thing. There is a risk of some London fringe places falling between multiple stools; too far out from London to really enjoy the fun, too close to London to get the positive vibes of space and remoteness, too diffuse and insufficient people to generate a life of their own. Just outside the M25 (the sort of places that were developed in the 21st century) might be more at risk than inter-War places just inside.
Not sure it is about the side of M25. In that part of the world Brentwood (outside) is imo nicer and has more to do than Upminster, Romford or Hornchurch (all inside) but has a worse commute into town. Without daily commuting I fail to see how the ratio of Brentwood prices vs the others doesn't move in Brentwood's direction.
What is harder to predict is the ratio of prices to the surrounding smaller villages or indeed to zone 1/2 London.
I’ve lived in Hornchurch, Romford and Upminster nearly all my life, and Upminster is by far the best of the three, although I think there are signs of decay there too - I doubt I will ever willingly go to Romford again in my life, it is horrible. Brentwood feels like Rommo from the 80s, it’s much less countrified than it used to be. I blame TOWIE
Got to stick up for my adopted hometown here- it's never felt horrible, and any decay is as nothing compared with post-industrial towns.
Romford does have a problem to answer though- having bet the farm on being a shopping destination, what's it for now that Lakeside has eaten that particular lunch? Especially since some of the other stuff that makes a town centre (like the theatre) are in Hornchurch.
I suspect the answer has to be to embrace its London-ness, especially with the eventual completion of Crossrail. Having had a couple of years away, there's been something a bit like gentrification going on- retirees or their children selling up, younger families moving in and visibly doing their places up. Coupled to that is a different mix of shops and businesses. Our local shopping street has a new organic cafe, which would have been unthinkable a decade ago.
And I accept that that sort of change, driven by internal migration, is painful for some. But the cost of trying to stop it is greater.
We are having the age old conversation - someone who has grown up in an area mourning the loss of what it used to be vs someone who has moved in recently not knowing it any different. I guess from my side it has a fair bit to do with the nostalgia of growing up happily. Most people who grew up in Rom moved to Brentwood 10-15 years ago, Brentwood 2021 is comparable to Romford in the 80s/90s
Can you believe the market used to be banged out every Wed/Fri/Sat? The whole are open and not one empty stall. Very different now
A lot of normally sensible Conservative posters on here getting a little upset just because of a possible little tax increase.
Social care needs to be sorted. It needs more money and taxpayers have to pay. Let's get it sorted.
Does it need sorting? I’m not saying the current set up is fair, indeed, what’s proposed may be better for people like me in Surrey.
But I’ve always thought that the biggest danger for social care is a house price crash, which would result in the state having to fund more of the care.
This has always been an issue that the media likes to talk about, but it never strikes me as being a pressing concern of ordinary people.
When do we get the empty waiting rooms and luxurious surroundings featured in that vote leave video, we should be asking?
My local surgery waiting room is empty. There are no appointments...
Mine too - they only let you in when the gp is ready to see you...
My GP service is no longer accessible. Slightly less importantly, Royal Mail doesn’t really seem to work anymore either.
Property prices in Upminster should be even higher than they are. We have been getting GP appts same day, or next at worst, and there are no empty shelves in any of the supermarkets.
A quick google suggests the local windmill is the third best thing to do in Upminster. Sounds to me like one of the places that will suffer most from wfh in the long run.
Outer suburban London is pleasant enough if you like that sort of thing. There is a risk of some London fringe places falling between multiple stools; too far out from London to really enjoy the fun, too close to London to get the positive vibes of space and remoteness, too diffuse and insufficient people to generate a life of their own. Just outside the M25 (the sort of places that were developed in the 21st century) might be more at risk than inter-War places just inside.
Not sure it is about the side of M25. In that part of the world Brentwood (outside) is imo nicer and has more to do than Upminster, Romford or Hornchurch (all inside) but has a worse commute into town. Without daily commuting I fail to see how the ratio of Brentwood prices vs the others doesn't move in Brentwood's direction.
What is harder to predict is the ratio of prices to the surrounding smaller villages or indeed to zone 1/2 London.
I’ve lived in Hornchurch, Romford and Upminster nearly all my life, and Upminster is by far the best of the three, although I think there are signs of decay there too - I doubt I will ever willingly go to Romford again in my life, it is horrible. Brentwood feels like Rommo from the 80s, it’s much less countrified than it used to be. I blame TOWIE
Got to stick up for my adopted hometown here- it's never felt horrible, and any decay is as nothing compared with post-industrial towns.
Romford does have a problem to answer though- having bet the farm on being a shopping destination, what's it for now that Lakeside has eaten that particular lunch? Especially since some of the other stuff that makes a town centre (like the theatre) are in Hornchurch.
I suspect the answer has to be to embrace its London-ness, especially with the eventual completion of Crossrail. Having had a couple of years away, there's been something a bit like gentrification going on- retirees or their children selling up, younger families moving in and visibly doing their places up. Coupled to that is a different mix of shops and businesses. Our local shopping street has a new organic cafe, which would have been unthinkable a decade ago.
And I accept that that sort of change, driven by internal migration, is painful for some. But the cost of trying to stop it is greater.
We are having the age old conversation - someone who has grown up in an area mourning the loss of what it used to be vs someone who has moved in recently not knowing it any different. I guess from my side it has a fair bit to do with the nostalgia of growing up happily. Most people who grew up in Rom moved to Brentwood 10-15 years ago, Brentwood 2021 is comparable to Romford in the 80s/90s
Can you believe the market used to be banged out every Wed/Fri/Sat? The whole are open and not one empty stall. Very different now
Amazing. One set of my grandparents lived in Grays in the 40's and used to talk about going to Romford Market.
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
It's completely regressive, leaves older workers off scot free; hits strivers hard. And it won't actually solve anything. Every diversity post in the NHS needs scrapping 1st
I'd have more respect for a party that taxed asset wealth, which is hideously undertaxed, rather than progressively squeezing the incomes of those in their 20s and 30s who are trying to get on.
I mean, does the government realise that if you're a graduate in your 20s these days you effectively pay 41% tax (NI+IT+SL) *plus* at least 5% of your pension, and that this will last for virtually all of your working life? That house prices are high and that getting a deposit together is really hard work? That childcare costs are extortionate? That transport and energy costs keep inflating ahead of RPI each year too?
No, because the oldies get all the baubles and are entirely shameless about it.
Young people voted Conservative in 1979 because they thought it would help them get on. I see virtually no reason for them to vote Conservative today and, lo and behold, they don't.
Was not long ago you were whining about not wanting to get into the dead zone and so wanted to stay on just over 100K a year, how greedy can you get whinging about a few hundred on NI.
A lot of normally sensible Conservative posters on here getting a little upset just because of a possible little tax increase.
Social care needs to be sorted. It needs more money and taxpayers have to pay. Let's get it sorted.
Does it need sorting? I’m not saying the current set up is fair, indeed, what’s proposed may be better for people like me in Surrey.
But I’ve always thought that the biggest danger for social care is a house price crash, which would result in the state having to fund more of the care.
This has always been an issue that the media likes to talk about, but it never strikes me as being a pressing concern of ordinary people.
Only because it affects people for certain periods of our lives, and some of us not at all. And many people cannot afford to do anything about it (e.g. to take out annuities) anyway.
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
It's completely regressive, leaves older workers off scot free; hits strivers hard. And it won't actually solve anything. Every diversity post in the NHS needs scrapping 1st
I'd have more respect for a party that taxed asset wealth, which is hideously undertaxed, rather than progressively squeezing the incomes of those in their 20s and 30s who are trying to get on.
I mean, does the government realise that if you're a graduate in your 20s these days you effectively pay 41% tax (NI+IT+SL) *plus* at least 5% of your pension, and that this will last for virtually all of your working life? That house prices are high and that getting a deposit together is really hard work? That childcare costs are extortionate? That transport and energy costs keep inflating ahead of RPI each year too?
No, because the oldies get all the baubles and are entirely shameless about it.
Young people voted Conservative in 1979 because they thought it would help them get on. I see virtually no reason for them to vote Conservative today and, lo and behold, they don't.
Those young people that voted Conservative in 1979 did do well. They are the retired of today, and still voting Conservative.
The population pyramid of the UK is such that the projected growth in the population is entirely of the elderly over the next 15 years. The working age population is stable, though projections were based on pre Brexit levels of immigration, so may actually be declining. That is the reality that politicians have to grapple with. Work longer, pay more, get less is the future for the current workers.
Similarly we are in a phase of economic development based on a service economy where productivity increases are minimal. Those workers cannot simultaneously be working in social care, picking vegetables, driving lorries and serving in hospitality. Sure, some will get pay rises, but some industries will just become uncompetitive and disappear. Demographics are going to be one of the big challenges for all advanced economies, but also for middle income countries like China and Brazil etc.
Perhaps our restaurants will become like the Swiss ones berated earlier, extortionately overpriced and decidedly average due to high labour costs. A shame as they have massively improved over recent decades.
What's a 'high labour cost' for a restaurant ?
If its £1 over minimum wage then its not high and not going to have an effect on the price of a meal.
If it is say £20, which equates to about £40k annually, then that's not high for highly skilled work.
Why should posho restaurants with rich owners and rich customers not be prepared to pay for the value added by top quality workers ?
Russian elections on the 19th. My understanding (others may know more?) is that the campaign is ludicrously biased, with nearly all the coverage given to the governing party and pliant opposition parties and awkward opposition parties effectively banned, but the count itself is more or less clean, and at local level opposition candidates sometimes win. The system is biased to big parties by a mix of FPTP and regional PR.
Given all that, it's still mildly interesting to look at the polls, which show a consistent collapse in support for Pjutin's United Russia, down from 54% to 34%. The Communists (part of the pliant opposition) are up 5 to 18 and the crazy nationalists under Zhirinovsky down from 13 to 10. The balance is mostly don't knows and won't votes, so Putin's drop won't be as dramatic at 20 points, and the FPTP element should deliver a 2/3 majority for United Russia anyway. Nonetheless, a drop of say 10 will be embarassing.
I voted remain and am happy to accept the vote of the referendum
I watched GB news for 48 hours and have not watched it since and could not care less about Andrew Neil
Furthermore , my membership of the conservative party has now lapsed and I am a free political spirit
Welcome out of the dark! Joking, but will be interesting to see where your thoughts take you. Could you imagine voting Labour again, and what would Starmer need to do/say to peersuade you?
I voted for Blair twice but at present Starmer has simply had nothing to say and I have no idea what todays labour party stands for and I suspect that is a widely held view
Agreed Starmer has no clear vision and there are significant doubts about the LAB 'team' as a whole. Sort the policies, clear out the rubbish and then LAB may be considered suitable for reasonable centre moderates like me! 👍
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
It's completely regressive, leaves older workers off scot free; hits strivers hard. And it won't actually solve anything. Every diversity post in the NHS needs scrapping 1st
I'd have more respect for a party that taxed asset wealth, which is hideously undertaxed, rather than progressively squeezing the incomes of those in their 20s and 30s who are trying to get on.
I mean, does the government realise that if you're a graduate in your 20s these days you effectively pay 41% tax (NI+IT+SL) *plus* at least 5% of your pension, and that this will last for virtually all of your working life? That house prices are high and that getting a deposit together is really hard work? That childcare costs are extortionate? That transport and energy costs keep inflating ahead of RPI each year too?
No, because the oldies get all the baubles and are entirely shameless about it.
Young people voted Conservative in 1979 because they thought it would help them get on. I see virtually no reason for them to vote Conservative today and, lo and behold, they don't.
Those young people that voted Conservative in 1979 did do well. They are the retired of today, and still voting Conservative.
The population pyramid of the UK is such that the projected growth in the population is entirely of the elderly over the next 15 years. The working age population is stable, though projections were based on pre Brexit levels of immigration, so may actually be declining. That is the reality that politicians have to grapple with. Work longer, pay more, get less is the future for the current workers.
Similarly we are in a phase of economic development based on a service economy where productivity increases are minimal. Those workers cannot simultaneously be working in social care, picking vegetables, driving lorries and serving in hospitality. Sure, some will get pay rises, but some industries will just become uncompetitive and disappear. Demographics are going to be one of the big challenges for all advanced economies, but also for middle income countries like China and Brazil etc.
Perhaps our restaurants will become like the Swiss ones berated earlier, extortionately overpriced and decidedly average due to high labour costs. A shame as they have massively improved over recent decades.
I think it was Jay Rayner in the Observer who was recently bemoaning the practice of some restaurants to absurdly mark up the price of wine.
I think they were complaining about that when it was amphorae in which they served up the vino in Londinium!
Back in the dear dead days when we had white van men doing 'runs' to supermarkets in the Pas de Calais and flogging off their purchases to pubs and restaurants I was in a pub with one such WVM, who remarked that he'd just sold a couple of cases on 'something French' to a local restaurant for about £5 a bottle, and he'd seen it on their wine list for £20.
300% markup is a little unambitious for a restaurant, but it all depends on the label design. A smattering of metallic 'gold' would be worth an extra £10. A coat of arms with a Latin tag £15 on top of that. As with everything else you get what you pay for - in this case the full-bodied aftertaste of conspicuous consumption.
I voted remain and am happy to accept the vote of the referendum
I watched GB news for 48 hours and have not watched it since and could not care less about Andrew Neil
Furthermore , my membership of the conservative party has now lapsed and I am a free political spirit
Welcome out of the dark! Joking, but will be interesting to see where your thoughts take you. Could you imagine voting Labour again, and what would Starmer need to do/say to peersuade you?
I voted for Blair twice but at present Starmer has simply had nothing to say and I have no idea what todays labour party stands for and I suspect that is a widely held view
I vote labour in general elections but I couldn’t agree more.
I don’t know what labour stands for or offers to me, my community or the country. Not being the Tories isn’t enough. Labour don’t deserve my vote at the moment. Nationally they seem to just have contempt for communities like mine.
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
It's completely regressive, leaves older workers off scot free; hits strivers hard. And it won't actually solve anything. Every diversity post in the NHS needs scrapping 1st
I'd have more respect for a party that taxed asset wealth, which is hideously undertaxed, rather than progressively squeezing the incomes of those in their 20s and 30s who are trying to get on.
I mean, does the government realise that if you're a graduate in your 20s these days you effectively pay 41% tax (NI+IT+SL) *plus* at least 5% of your pension, and that this will last for virtually all of your working life? That house prices are high and that getting a deposit together is really hard work? That childcare costs are extortionate? That transport and energy costs keep inflating ahead of RPI each year too?
No, because the oldies get all the baubles and are entirely shameless about it.
Young people voted Conservative in 1979 because they thought it would help them get on. I see virtually no reason for them to vote Conservative today and, lo and behold, they don't.
Those young people that voted Conservative in 1979 did do well. They are the retired of today, and still voting Conservative.
The population pyramid of the UK is such that the projected growth in the population is entirely of the elderly over the next 15 years. The working age population is stable, though projections were based on pre Brexit levels of immigration, so may actually be declining. That is the reality that politicians have to grapple with. Work longer, pay more, get less is the future for the current workers.
Similarly we are in a phase of economic development based on a service economy where productivity increases are minimal. Those workers cannot simultaneously be working in social care, picking vegetables, driving lorries and serving in hospitality. Sure, some will get pay rises, but some industries will just become uncompetitive and disappear. Demographics are going to be one of the big challenges for all advanced economies, but also for middle income countries like China and Brazil etc.
Perhaps our restaurants will become like the Swiss ones berated earlier, extortionately overpriced and decidedly average due to high labour costs. A shame as they have massively improved over recent decades.
What's a 'high labour cost' for a restaurant ?
If its £1 over minimum wage then its not high and not going to have an effect on the price of a meal.
If it is say £20, which equates to about £40k annually, then that's not high for highly skilled work.
Why should posho restaurants with rich owners and rich customers not be prepared to pay for the value added by top quality workers ?
There is a balance to be found. The Swiss model is not good in terms of restaurants and the UK has created a brilliant restaurant sector that the demographic changes Foxy identifies puts at threat, that is all. I am not saying I have the answers, just it would be a shame if we lose that brilliant innovative sector that is good for peoples social lives.
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
It's completely regressive, leaves older workers off scot free; hits strivers hard. And it won't actually solve anything. Every diversity post in the NHS needs scrapping 1st
I'd have more respect for a party that taxed asset wealth, which is hideously undertaxed, rather than progressively squeezing the incomes of those in their 20s and 30s who are trying to get on.
I mean, does the government realise that if you're a graduate in your 20s these days you effectively pay 41% tax (NI+IT+SL) *plus* at least 5% of your pension, and that this will last for virtually all of your working life? That house prices are high and that getting a deposit together is really hard work? That childcare costs are extortionate? That transport and energy costs keep inflating ahead of RPI each year too?
No, because the oldies get all the baubles and are entirely shameless about it.
Young people voted Conservative in 1979 because they thought it would help them get on. I see virtually no reason for them to vote Conservative today and, lo and behold, they don't.
Was not long ago you were whining about not wanting to get into the dead zone and so wanted to stay on just over 100K a year, how greedy can you get whinging about a few hundred on NI.
How greedy can you get whinging that you might have to pay for your own care when you have hundreds of thousands in wealth?
So you want people with possibly no wealth, who have to pay rent and don't have their own home, to pay hundreds in extra tax each instead?
I think the planned NI rise will cost those on £40k £300 a year, and those on £50k £500 a year more. It will hit more than 25 million workers. And it may also do this just as inflation bites, tax thresholds are frozen, and commuting costs start to kick back in again.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
It's completely regressive, leaves older workers off scot free; hits strivers hard. And it won't actually solve anything. Every diversity post in the NHS needs scrapping 1st
I'd have more respect for a party that taxed asset wealth, which is hideously undertaxed, rather than progressively squeezing the incomes of those in their 20s and 30s who are trying to get on.
I mean, does the government realise that if you're a graduate in your 20s these days you effectively pay 41% tax (NI+IT+SL) *plus* at least 5% of your pension, and that this will last for virtually all of your working life? That house prices are high and that getting a deposit together is really hard work? That childcare costs are extortionate? That transport and energy costs keep inflating ahead of RPI each year too?
No, because the oldies get all the baubles and are entirely shameless about it.
Young people voted Conservative in 1979 because they thought it would help them get on. I see virtually no reason for them to vote Conservative today and, lo and behold, they don't.
Agreed. A point that only really struck me after I passed 65 is that if you have a good workplace pension you can claim it and carry on working, and then you'll be better off than you've ever been. Not paying the same level of tax/NI as anyone else is an embarassing bonus.
That said, for a few years I've been caught in the £100-125K trap with disappearing personal allowance (which creates a 60% tax band that goes away above £125K) which was absent-mindedly created by Gordon and I equally absent-mindedly voted for. (Karma, innit.) It would be sensible to create a 50% tax band from £100K instead of withdrawing the PA - there's no logical reason why the effective tax bounces in that particular bracket. But there's virtually nobody in that tax bracket who is really suffering so it never gets fixed.
Yes, keeping personal allowances and lowering the 45% band to £100 000 would make a lot of sense. I have been bouncing around that bracket for some time, using various legitimate means to avoid the 60% band as far as possible.
Absolutely correct. The withdrawal of the personal allowance beyond £100,000pa is an absolute abomination and has cost me a lot of money! Much better to restore the personal allowance and have the 45% band start at £100,000.
Restoring the personal allowance and reducing the 45% threshold to 100k would mean reducing the tax take I think, since 40% of the allowance is about 5k but 5% of 50k is only 2.5k, and that would only be received from people earning 150k plus, which many won't be.
I voted remain and am happy to accept the vote of the referendum
I watched GB news for 48 hours and have not watched it since and could not care less about Andrew Neil
Furthermore , my membership of the conservative party has now lapsed and I am a free political spirit
Welcome out of the dark! Joking, but will be interesting to see where your thoughts take you. Could you imagine voting Labour again, and what would Starmer need to do/say to peersuade you?
I voted for Blair twice but at present Starmer has simply had nothing to say and I have no idea what todays labour party stands for and I suspect that is a widely held view
I vote labour in general elections but I couldn’t agree more.
I don’t know what labour stands for or offers to me, my community or the country. Not being the Tories isn’t enough. Labour don’t deserve my vote at the moment. Nationally they seem to just have contempt for communities like mine.
I really don't like what the Tories (seem to) stand for.
Comments
Of which there seemed to be at least 20!
If your weathervane at @Dura_Ace towers is broken then get him stuffed and stick him on the roof. He'll be more accurate than an atomic clock.
Boris always wanted to be World King. I don't think he ever said anything about being a wise king, or a benevolent one.
We are facing a real-terms squeeze in incomes and the standard of living.
It will not be popular, despite what polling may currently suggest, and so now's the time to lay Dishy Rishi.
Blockquotes were all to fuck on this. The RS6 belonged to a fellow party member and has this sticker on it:
And it won't actually solve anything.
Every diversity post in the NHS needs scrapping 1st
As I've pointed out multiple times, Social Care is the perfect reason to introduce a wealth / land value tax which we need as we tax income far too much and wealth nowhere near enough.
Heck there is already a precept on Council tax for Social Care so if taxing property (wealth) was the preferred approach in 2016 what has changed.
It seems likely that Brown would have been PM afterwards, likely with a majority, with Cameron and all he stood for swept away by the Tories and 5 years to fix the global financial crisis and its aftermath.
A Point Of Departure where all the things that followed - the rise of the SNP, the referendum, Brexit, Corbyn - would not have done. All because Brown was frit.
IMHO 'boomers' were the babies conceived after the lads came home..... 1945, up 1950 or so.
Today's Times has the greatest Death Notice you will ever see (you can skip to the bit in blue highlight)
An actual Wealth Tax would have the potential to hit properly wealthy people (bands W to Z and then on to the Greek alphabet) properly hard.
Over to you, Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Applied, IIRC, in the NHS and in private industry too.
On who is a baby-boomer. Politically they are a group of people who expect the system to provide: funded healthcare, defined benefit pensions etc. Gen-X are Thatcher's children. The divide is whether you absorbed that revolution or rejected it.
What needs to go is the endless discussion consisting if 'Whatever is being spent it needs more right now and I am not interested in how the money is found'. A grown up discussion in which needs, funding and future planning are integrated and shroud waving is put to the margins would be a start.
I mean, does the government realise that if you're a graduate in your 20s these days you effectively pay 41% tax (NI+IT+SL) *plus* at least 5% of your pension, and that this will last for virtually all of your working life? That house prices are high and that getting a deposit together is really hard work? That childcare costs are extortionate? That transport and energy costs keep inflating ahead of RPI each year too?
No, because the oldies get all the baubles and are entirely shameless about it.
Young people voted Conservative in 1979 because they thought it would help them get on. I see virtually no reason for them to vote Conservative today and, lo and behold, they don't.
https://twitter.com/VictoriaCoren/status/1434064992299634690
The interesting question for the increasingly decent NS would be where on earth does the sane centre left go next? It needs votes as well as honest journalism.
1) repeal equalities legislation, for which they monitor targets.
2) cease to target reluctant and hard to reach groups for health promotion such as vaccine uptake.
To save the princely sum of £7 million.
Either that or just rebadge them as generic HR.
It's a long while ago now, but I recall sitting in a meeting discussing the closure of an Old Peoples Podiatric service, and it was agreed that it was too expensive. Someone asked what would happen to the people who used it and it was accepted that they would become more housebound, through having more foot problems, so would require more social support 'but that didn't come out of our budget'!
Edit - I think I prefer Baron Big G
I am not a social conservative and could even be considered "woke" but have almost always backed the Conservatives because I believe low taxes enable people to better get on, provide for themselves and live their own lives.
If the Conservatives abandon that principle to further featherbed a generation that pretty much by definition owns their own home and has no mortgage or rent (since if they didn't, they wouldn't have to sell it in the first place), has no childcare costs, didn't pay tuition fees and didn't pay for or save for this welfare - then why the hell should I support my own party anymore?
I am livid about this.
And they need to have a coherent post-Brexit policy too. This is a generation long enterprise. Fudge and silence won't do.
If Brown hadn't "abolished boom and bust" then he shouldn't have been running bust-levels of deficits during the boom time, having had a budget surplus and squandered it pre-bust.
That said, for a few years I've been caught in the £100-125K trap with disappearing personal allowance (which creates a 60% tax band that goes away above £125K) which was absent-mindedly created by Gordon and I equally absent-mindedly voted for. (Karma, innit.) It would be sensible to create a 50% tax band from £100K instead of withdrawing the PA - there's no logical reason why the effective tax bounces in that particular bracket. But there's virtually nobody in that tax bracket who is really suffering so it never gets fixed.
The population pyramid of the UK is such that the projected growth in the population is entirely of the elderly over the next 15 years. The working age population is stable, though projections were based on pre Brexit levels of immigration, so may actually be declining. That is the reality that politicians have to grapple with. Work longer, pay more, get less is the future for the current workers.
Similarly we are in a phase of economic development based on a service economy where productivity increases are minimal. Those workers cannot simultaneously be working in social care, picking vegetables, driving lorries and serving in hospitality. Sure, some will get pay rises, but some industries will just become uncompetitive and disappear. Demographics are going to be one of the big challenges for all advanced economies, but also for middle income countries like China and Brazil etc.
The rise of the SNP or something like it was more likely wired in by the devolution settlement.
Sure?
I have that one down as just another Brown stealth tax, to match all the rest, and damn the consequences. One of the baleful impacts is that it stops people creating extra wealth because of the disjuncture, which itself would be taxed...
However, I make no claim to neutrality on Brown.
Perhaps Mr Starmer needs to put removal of such in the next manifesto?
One thought that does occur is whether NI should be extended to *working* pensioners (or is it already?).
I vote locally for whoever I think will do the best job for the ward. Last time out it was Tory and Indy.
Labours online supporters with all this Tory scum, never kissed a Tory stuff I agree with you. It’s nonsense. Abusing people for voting the wrong way and wishing communities who voted Brexit suffer mass unemployment and hardship then wondering why they won’t vote labour is just madness.
You’re right, labour needs a coherent position on Brexit. Blair has started to articulate one. But labour is miles away from that or from offering anything other than not being the Tories.
Romford does have a problem to answer though- having bet the farm on being a shopping destination, what's it for now that Lakeside has eaten that particular lunch? Especially since some of the other stuff that makes a town centre (like the theatre) are in Hornchurch.
I suspect the answer has to be to embrace its London-ness, especially with the eventual completion of Crossrail. Having had a couple of years away, there's been something a bit like gentrification going on- retirees or their children selling up, younger families moving in and visibly doing their places up. Coupled to that is a different mix of shops and businesses. Our local shopping street has a new organic cafe, which would have been unthinkable a decade ago.
And I accept that that sort of change, driven by internal migration, is painful for some. But the cost of trying to stop it is greater.
Must admit we don't often go for the pudding; starter and main more to our taste.
WASHINGTON — Top federal health officials have told the White House to scale back a plan to offer coronavirus booster shots to the general public this month, saying that regulators need more time to collect and review all the necessary data, according to people familiar with the discussion.
Dr. Janet Woodcock, the acting commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, and Dr. Rochelle P. Walensky, who heads the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, warned the White House on Thursday that their agencies may be able to determine in the coming weeks whether to recommend boosters only for recipients of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine — and possibly just some of them to start.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/03/us/coronavirus-booster-shots.html
I know, I know, "they're both wrong....."
Same with me, my wife prefers main and pudding, so we usually compromise by sharing a starter and a pud.
My membership has lapsed this month and I am free to decide
However, if you want me to vote conservative maybe a little respect would help as I have done so in every ballot since 1962 when I was eligible to vote, apart from 1997 and 2001 when Blair was the only game in town
Social care needs to be sorted. It needs more money and taxpayers have to pay. Let's get it sorted.
Can you believe the market used to be banged out every Wed/Fri/Sat? The whole are open and not one empty stall. Very different now
But I’ve always thought that the biggest danger for social care is a house price crash, which would result in the state having to fund more of the care.
This has always been an issue that the media likes to talk about, but it never strikes me as being a pressing concern of ordinary people.
If its £1 over minimum wage then its not high and not going to have an effect on the price of a meal.
If it is say £20, which equates to about £40k annually, then that's not high for highly skilled work.
Why should posho restaurants with rich owners and rich customers not be prepared to pay for the value added by top quality workers ?
And if we do need to pay even more taxes, why do only workers need to pay?
Given all that, it's still mildly interesting to look at the polls, which show a consistent collapse in support for Pjutin's United Russia, down from 54% to 34%. The Communists (part of the pliant opposition) are up 5 to 18 and the crazy nationalists under Zhirinovsky down from 13 to 10. The balance is mostly don't knows and won't votes, so Putin's drop won't be as dramatic at 20 points, and the FPTP element should deliver a 2/3 majority for United Russia anyway. Nonetheless, a drop of say 10 will be embarassing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2021_Russian_legislative_election
I don’t know what labour stands for or offers to me, my community or the country. Not being the Tories isn’t enough. Labour don’t deserve my vote at the moment. Nationally they seem to just have contempt for communities like mine.
So you want people with possibly no wealth, who have to pay rent and don't have their own home, to pay hundreds in extra tax each instead?