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

Black_Rook said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

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

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

MD , depends on where you stop, fact that Scotland is paying part of it and it will never ever reach here means it is far from popular here for certain.

So the Scottish Government is lieing?

The Scottish Government has not contributed any funds to the HS2 rail link budget; this is wholly funded by the UK Government.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202000015934/

Well, it's not the English Government that pays for it. So it presumably comes out of UK taxation - ergo our Scottish pockets (rather more than the CI pockets, no douby).

HS2 is paid for from the common pot; however, a population proportionate share of the cost is returned to Scotland under Barnett, so Scottish taxpayers effectively contribute nothing to it. Ditto the Northern Irish.

However, if what I've read is correct, HS2 counts as a project benefitting England and Wales rather than England alone, so the Welsh Government doesn't get any extra money. Cardiff gets the shit end of the stick once again.

Thanks for that. How very odd. Presumably Crewe is counted as Wales ...

Northern_Al said:

I note that the well-heeled denizens of PB are on absolutely cracking form today.

Pensioners: £10K is plenty to live on assuming you're mortgage free and don't want to do anything at all; an 8% rise would be a total disgrace that the nation can't afford.

Workers: £100K+ salary: marginal tax rates are a total disgrace. Barely worth me getting out of bed to earn any more. May as well spend the day contributing to PB.

Can you argue with HYUFD then please because I am getting tired and as an old age pensioner I will need my afternoon kip and Horlicks before going to do a puzzle and then off to bed at 9 pm.

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

Pensions should rise in line with inflation not earnings but the Tories are bound by their manifesto commitment until the next general election

Why? Do you want people who rely on the state pension only to keep getting poorer compared to the rest of the population.

Only if they are also prepared to face a cut in the state pension too as there was a large fall in average earnings over the last year and a half state pensioners were protected from.

Inflation reflects rises in prices in the shops so is what pensions should be based on

So you would be happy if your current pay was equally to the pay for the same job in 1910 plus inflation would you?

Inflation by definition means it would not be the same as pay for a job in 1910

Sorry I have no idea what you are saying. I was giving you an analogy. You seem happy that one group in society should only have their pay increased by inflation only forever, so I was asking you if you would be happy with that for yourself by accepting the pay for your job based upon the 1910 pay for it plus inflation.

You do appreciate don't you that, that would almost certainly be a much lower figure than you get now? Yet you are happy to impose that on others in society.

That's right. The earnings link is key. Without that, in a society growing more prosperous, a pension linked only to inflation would condemn those relying on it to abject relative poverty - and relative is the only meaningful metric here - over the long run. Time would work its magic and in this case it would be of the black variety.

No it wouldn't, as most pensioners do not have to pay rent or a mortgage unlike those working and earning as they own their own properties outright.

The only non tax payments most pensioners have to pay on a monthly basis are for shopping and the odd meal or trip out, which can be linked to inflation and they get free bus passes and Freedom Passes for London travel anyway

It would over time. That's certain given growth. We're talking relativities. It's why the earnings link was introduced.

It wouldn't, provided the state pension increased with inflation there would be no impact on spending in the shops and cafes which is what most pensioners spend most of their money on, inflation also rises with energy costs anyway too

Bonkers, absolutely bonkers. Suggest you look at a few stats.

Also not only do you want to impose what funding a pensioner gets you seem to want to impose what they do with it which is limited to spending in shops and cafes. We are not all doddering old gits you know. Life doesn't stop at 65.

So you effectively want taxpayers who have rents or mortgages to pay to subsidise earnings linked state pensions for the 3/4 of pensioners who own their own home outright.

Plus pensioners get concessionary tickets to museums, cinemas etc too

Oh for goodness sake read my bloody posts.

A pension is not equivalent to a salary. It is always significantly less. This caters for your difference re mortgages.

Taxpayers are not being asked to subsidies pensions any more at all by linking pensions to earnings, because doh they are linked to earnings.

Status Quo is maintained, although many would argue the state pension should be a bigger percentage of average earning.

You on the other hand want to link the state pension to inflation which will reduce the percentage link to earnings every year making pensioners poorer and reducing the burden on the taxpayer year after year.

So thanks for confirming you want state pensions to continue to be linked to rises in earnings not inflation for the 3/4 of pensioners who own their own homes outright and for taxpayers who still have mortgages and rents to pay to fund it.

Not to mention most of those 3/4 will also have private pensions to call on too, indeed some will still have final salary pensions so no different to when they were earning.

Well that was clear from the beginning. Do you mean we didn't have to have this discussion?

Unlike you I have no desire to slowly put pensioners who rely on a state pension into poverty. The rest of us who have significant income have contributed generously to our state pension and will continue to do so through our taxes.

I have no desire to make those less fortunate than me worse off.

Re your comment about private and final salary schemes at the end of your post - You do realise don't you that when you retire you don't get the same amount as when you are working. This last post in particular and your other posts seem to imply you think you get the same money when retired as when working if you are in one of these schemes. You don't really believe that do you?

You are willing to put the burden on average earners with rents or mortgages to pay or even low earners struggling with rent to pay through taxation paying the earnings linked pensions of owner occupier pensioners often with substantial private pensions to call on too.

If you have worked for the same employer all your life and are on a final salary scheme, then that final salary will be very close to what you were earning when you retired.

First sentence: No I am not. Read my posts. The burden as a percentage is unchanged.

Second sentence: No it won't be. 2/3 at best and not many will be in that situation. What is more very few people outside of the public sector are on final salary schemes (and I think they are on 1/80 calculation, but I am no expert so that might be wrong) nor do most tend to work for the same employer for their whole life (except in public sector). However I won't disagree that the few that have this benefit are extremely lucky and probably more lucky than they deserve, but that doesn't mean that the rest should be penalised because of their good fortune.

It is still a burden the working rent and mortgage paying population have to continue to pay through their taxes to subsidise earnings related state pensions for owner occupying pensioners who often have substantial private pensions to call on too.

Linking the state pension to inflation would do fine for them and pensioners who do need the extra income as they are still paying rent can have that through increases in their housing benefit not a one size fits all state pension earnings related rise.

HYUFD I give up. You just keep saying the same thing over and over again.

re your 1st sentence - All tax is a burden. It is a judgement call. Do you want to get rid of the state pension? if so, say so. It is a valid position to take, but be honest about it. If not what you are proposing is bonkers.

Re your 2nd sentence - How many times have you said that and how many times have I responded?

Equally, defenders of the triple lock should be honest about what they want. An ever increasing share of national income to be transferred from workers to the retired, with that impact then significantly compounded by our demographics.

dixiedean said:

12 serving police officers under investigation re Sarah Everard case.
Not good at all.

It’s quite astonishing that Commissioner Dick hasn’t gone, and a terrible example of a lack of responsibility in public service.

As was her not going in 2005 to be fair, but to then get promoted after that incident?

HYUFD said:

Endillion said:

HYUFD said:

Floater said:

Bloody hell - these Spaniards are even more unhinged by Brexit than Scott

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-9771965/Bitter-TV-presenters-Spain-claim-pathetic-Euro-2020-conditioned-England-win.html

'A poll in French paper L'Equipe - in English, The Team - revealed that of 80,000 respondents, 69 per cent said they would support Italy while 11 per cent said they would support neither side.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen threwhas also thrown her support behind the Italian team on Friday.

Her spokesperson told reporters: 'Her heart is with the Squadra Azzurra so she will be supporting Italy on Sunday.'

No surprise there the EU and the French and Spanish want Italy to win
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-9771965/Bitter-TV-presenters-Spain-claim-pathetic-Euro-2020-conditioned-England-win.html

No-one tell Southgate. He'll probably throw the match on purpose to burnish his extreme left wing credentials.

He was a Remainer I believe.

I doubt any of the other European nations will be supporting us in the Euros final, with the possible exception of Malta. I would expect the Irish to back Italy too post Brexit.

Italy is a relatively popular country anyway

There is also the widespread perception (well the truth), Italy have been the better team and played the more attractive football throughout.

Neutrals generally don't root for the boring functional but effective team. We aren't all fans of Brazilian football, because they aim to minimize chaotic situations in games and win every game 1-0.

Southgate's approach has been determined by a combination of his own preferences and the fact England central midfielders are quite limited and the central defenders slow. They can't play an expansion game without potentially exposing areas of weakness and so Southgate has designed an approach that revolves around slowing the game down....which is not what neutrals enjoy...

England fans are obviously biased, but it is very frustrating to see them consistently pass it backwards (they are the team who does it most in the tournament). Often they can be at the edge of the opposition box and 5s later Pickford is passing to Maguire, to Pickford, to Maguire, to Rice all at walking pace...

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

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

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

MD , depends on where you stop, fact that Scotland is paying part of it and it will never ever reach here means it is far from popular here for certain.

So the Scottish Government is lieing?

The Scottish Government has not contributed any funds to the HS2 rail link budget; this is wholly funded by the UK Government.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202000015934/

Well, it's not the English Government that pays for it. So it presumably comes out of UK taxation - ergo our Scottish pockets (rather more than the CI pockets, no douby).

So nothing different wrt infrastructure spending in Scotland then, or any other part of the country.

So the fact that the Scottish Government had to fully fund the Forth Crossing was just the same then.

The Third crossing, surely?

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

CD13 said:

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

It won't happen.

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

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

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

Why can other countries , supposedly inferior to Greta Britain , even small ones pay significantly higher pensions. This country has the smallest pension in the developed world.

Not once you include private pensions it doesn't and more and more are now included in contributory workplace pensions through compulsory enrolment

yes it is no matter what you include

Stocky said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

Pensions should rise in line with inflation not earnings but the Tories are bound by their manifesto commitment until the next general election

Why? Do you want people who rely on the state pension only to keep getting poorer compared to the rest of the population.

Only if they are also prepared to face a cut in the state pension too as there was a large fall in average earnings over the last year and a half state pensioners were protected from.

Inflation reflects rises in prices in the shops so is what pensions should be based on

So you would be happy if your current pay was equally to the pay for the same job in 1910 plus inflation would you?

Inflation by definition means it would not be the same as pay for a job in 1910

Sorry I have no idea what you are saying. I was giving you an analogy. You seem happy that one group in society should only have their pay increased by inflation only forever, so I was asking you if you would be happy with that for yourself by accepting the pay for your job based upon the 1910 pay for it plus inflation.

You do appreciate don't you that, that would almost certainly be a much lower figure than you get now? Yet you are happy to impose that on others in society.

That's right. The earnings link is key. Without that, in a society growing more prosperous, a pension linked only to inflation would condemn those relying on it to abject relative poverty - and relative is the only meaningful metric here - over the long run. Time would work its magic and in this case it would be of the black variety.

No it wouldn't, as most pensioners do not have to pay rent or a mortgage unlike those working and earning as they own their own properties outright.

The only non tax payments most pensioners have to pay on a monthly basis are for shopping and the odd meal or trip out, which can be linked to inflation and they get free bus passes and Freedom Passes for London travel anyway

It would over time. That's certain given growth. We're talking relativities. It's why the earnings link was introduced.

It wouldn't, provided the state pension increased with inflation there would be no impact on spending in the shops and cafes which is what most pensioners spend most of their money on, inflation also rises with energy costs anyway too

H, you are arguing with maths not me. Given growth and people getting better off, earnings beating inflation, if your income rises only by inflation you will sink - all else being equal and in the long run - into abject relative poverty.

You will in comparison to a young earner but you won't with regard to what you can buy with your pension. The latter is what is relevant. I agree with HYUFD on this. I don't quite see why pensions should keep up with earnings - it is the basket of goods you need to buy that matters - and current earners will be pensioners one day.

The problem Sunak has is not whether to break the triple lock per se (it is obvious that it should be removed) - it is whether to break a manifesto pledge. The CP would be hammered for doing so, both within and outside of the party.

My view is that manifest pledges are for the birds in the Covid crisis. Set them aside. The CP should get a free pass on this. But this is logic speaking not political reality.

I think they will keep the lock but not make the pledge again in the next manifesto.

Ok. But I'm talking about the category 'people relying on the state pension'. If that pension they rely on is linked only to inflation (and assuming long term economic growth) this category of people will fall into abject relative poverty. They just will. It's inevitable.

The Triple Lock? I can see the argument for it going, yes. But it's the 2.5% that looks the most illogical to me. The inflation link guards against absolute poverty, the earnings link guards against creeping relative poverty, the 2.5% looks frivolous. I'd chop that one, leaving a double lock, inflation and earnings.

In local news:

https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/business/1-6-million-square-feet-of-lab-space-in-the-works-in-montgomery-county/

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

CD13 said:

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

It won't happen.

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

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

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

Why can other countries , supposedly inferior to Greta Britain , even small ones pay significantly higher pensions. This country has the smallest pension in the developed world.

Not once you include private pensions it doesn't and more and more are now included in contributory workplace pensions through compulsory enrolment

yes it is no matter what you include

Once you include Occupational transfer pensions ie private pensions, the UK has the same average pension as Germany and a higher average pension than Spain. That is even though Germany and Spain have a higher state pension than the UK.

Only France of the big European nations has a higher pension than the UK pension combining state and private pensions. Macron of course is trying to reduce the vast public sector pensions the French get.

https://fullfact.org/online/pensions-countries-comparisons/

DecrepiterJohnL said:

TOPPING said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

justin124 said:

Andy_JS said:

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

Just for England? What about Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland?

We get one if Italy win

*banter*

Pizza and Birra Moretti for you on Sunday night?

Well Birra Moretti is made in Scotland....these days a fake Italian beer, owned by Heineken in many markets. Like so many major beer brands, it is just branding.

I had a friend who used to do PR for Highland Spring. About the only unbreakable rule was that no one mentioned anywhere, least of all on the bottle, that it had an Arab owner.

Tell your mate to get the delivery lorry round to Sainsbury's pronto. They were out of Highland Spring on Wednesday. And Coke. And some other stuff. Normally I'd blame Covid, Brexit and IR35 but Sainsbury's seems to have this sort of problem every summer, as if they did not know consumption might change with summer holidays and weather.

Purchasing of drinks is through the roof because of the football. I think Sainsburys said they are selling 50% more beer than usual.

kinabalu said:

Stocky said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

Pensions should rise in line with inflation not earnings but the Tories are bound by their manifesto commitment until the next general election

Why? Do you want people who rely on the state pension only to keep getting poorer compared to the rest of the population.

Only if they are also prepared to face a cut in the state pension too as there was a large fall in average earnings over the last year and a half state pensioners were protected from.

Inflation reflects rises in prices in the shops so is what pensions should be based on

So you would be happy if your current pay was equally to the pay for the same job in 1910 plus inflation would you?

Inflation by definition means it would not be the same as pay for a job in 1910

Sorry I have no idea what you are saying. I was giving you an analogy. You seem happy that one group in society should only have their pay increased by inflation only forever, so I was asking you if you would be happy with that for yourself by accepting the pay for your job based upon the 1910 pay for it plus inflation.

You do appreciate don't you that, that would almost certainly be a much lower figure than you get now? Yet you are happy to impose that on others in society.

That's right. The earnings link is key. Without that, in a society growing more prosperous, a pension linked only to inflation would condemn those relying on it to abject relative poverty - and relative is the only meaningful metric here - over the long run. Time would work its magic and in this case it would be of the black variety.

No it wouldn't, as most pensioners do not have to pay rent or a mortgage unlike those working and earning as they own their own properties outright.

The only non tax payments most pensioners have to pay on a monthly basis are for shopping and the odd meal or trip out, which can be linked to inflation and they get free bus passes and Freedom Passes for London travel anyway

It would over time. That's certain given growth. We're talking relativities. It's why the earnings link was introduced.

It wouldn't, provided the state pension increased with inflation there would be no impact on spending in the shops and cafes which is what most pensioners spend most of their money on, inflation also rises with energy costs anyway too

H, you are arguing with maths not me. Given growth and people getting better off, earnings beating inflation, if your income rises only by inflation you will sink - all else being equal and in the long run - into abject relative poverty.

You will in comparison to a young earner but you won't with regard to what you can buy with your pension. The latter is what is relevant. I agree with HYUFD on this. I don't quite see why pensions should keep up with earnings - it is the basket of goods you need to buy that matters - and current earners will be pensioners one day.

The problem Sunak has is not whether to break the triple lock per se (it is obvious that it should be removed) - it is whether to break a manifesto pledge. The CP would be hammered for doing so, both within and outside of the party.

My view is that manifest pledges are for the birds in the Covid crisis. Set them aside. The CP should get a free pass on this. But this is logic speaking not political reality.

I think they will keep the lock but not make the pledge again in the next manifesto.

Ok. But I'm talking about the category 'people relying on the state pension'. If that pension they rely on is linked only to inflation (and assuming long term economic growth) this category of people will fall into abject relative poverty. They just will. It's inevitable.

The Triple Lock? I can see the argument for it going, yes. But it's the 2.5% that looks the most illogical to me. The inflation link guards against absolute poverty, the earnings link guards against creeping relative poverty, the 2.5% looks frivolous. I'd chop that one, leaving a double lock, inflation and earnings.

Yeah? If both go negative during a recession, you'd be comfortable presiding over an absolute reduction in pensioner income?

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

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

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

MD , depends on where you stop, fact that Scotland is paying part of it and it will never ever reach here means it is far from popular here for certain.

So the Scottish Government is lieing?

The Scottish Government has not contributed any funds to the HS2 rail link budget; this is wholly funded by the UK Government.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202000015934/

Well, it's not the English Government that pays for it. So it presumably comes out of UK taxation - ergo our Scottish pockets (rather more than the CI pockets, no douby).

when the UK government increases spending which doesn't affect a devolved nation, that devolved nation receives money, equivalent to its population share, back to spend itself. This is the case with HS2 and Scotland which means that, in effect, all money spent on HS2 which is raised by Scottish taxes will be returned via something called the Barnett formula.

https://fullfact.org/online/hs2-scotland/

Thanks for that - wasn't sure of the situation there.

She is talking bollox Carnyx, they regularly exclude items from being included and HS2 is likely to be one of them. They often exclude large projects spending in England so they don't have to give Scotland any benefit.

malcolmg said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

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

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

MD , depends on where you stop, fact that Scotland is paying part of it and it will never ever reach here means it is far from popular here for certain.

So the Scottish Government is lieing?

The Scottish Government has not contributed any funds to the HS2 rail link budget; this is wholly funded by the UK Government.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202000015934/

Well, it's not the English Government that pays for it. So it presumably comes out of UK taxation - ergo our Scottish pockets (rather more than the CI pockets, no douby).

when the UK government increases spending which doesn't affect a devolved nation, that devolved nation receives money, equivalent to its population share, back to spend itself. This is the case with HS2 and Scotland which means that, in effect, all money spent on HS2 which is raised by Scottish taxes will be returned via something called the Barnett formula.

https://fullfact.org/online/hs2-scotland/

Thanks for that - wasn't sure of the situation there.

She is talking bollox Carnyx, they regularly exclude items from being included and HS2 is likely to be one of them. They often exclude large projects spending in England so they don't have to give Scotland any benefit.

The link explicitly states HS2 is included.

TimT said:

In local news:

https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/business/1-6-million-square-feet-of-lab-space-in-the-works-in-montgomery-county/

That is what we need more of. Not billionaire-owned big pharma benefiting from public subsidies per se but solid investment in science-based industries.

No change for last three days in daily new cases staying around 33000 . But drop in unvaccinated cases and continued increase in milder vaccinated cases. Roughly half are now in fully vaccinated people.

https://twitter.com/timspector/status/1413477389481529345?s=20

I think he has got this tweet wrong....according to his own chart it is half in those with at least one dose (which isn't fully vaccinated).

If it really is 50% of cases are fully vaccinated people, that would mean massive vaccine escape.

malcolmg said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

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

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

MD , depends on where you stop, fact that Scotland is paying part of it and it will never ever reach here means it is far from popular here for certain.

So the Scottish Government is lieing?

The Scottish Government has not contributed any funds to the HS2 rail link budget; this is wholly funded by the UK Government.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202000015934/

Well, it's not the English Government that pays for it. So it presumably comes out of UK taxation - ergo our Scottish pockets (rather more than the CI pockets, no douby).

when the UK government increases spending which doesn't affect a devolved nation, that devolved nation receives money, equivalent to its population share, back to spend itself. This is the case with HS2 and Scotland which means that, in effect, all money spent on HS2 which is raised by Scottish taxes will be returned via something called the Barnett formula.

https://fullfact.org/online/hs2-scotland/

Thanks for that - wasn't sure of the situation there.

She is talking bollox Carnyx, they regularly exclude items from being included and HS2 is likely to be one of them. They often exclude large projects spending in England so they don't have to give Scotland any benefit.

It's not "me" it's the Scottish Government and FullFact, but you're the chap who believes there's a vault in the Bank of England with "Scotland's Pension Contributions" in it......

Carnyx said:

Black_Rook said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

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

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

MD , depends on where you stop, fact that Scotland is paying part of it and it will never ever reach here means it is far from popular here for certain.

So the Scottish Government is lieing?

The Scottish Government has not contributed any funds to the HS2 rail link budget; this is wholly funded by the UK Government.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202000015934/

Well, it's not the English Government that pays for it. So it presumably comes out of UK taxation - ergo our Scottish pockets (rather more than the CI pockets, no douby).

HS2 is paid for from the common pot; however, a population proportionate share of the cost is returned to Scotland under Barnett, so Scottish taxpayers effectively contribute nothing to it. Ditto the Northern Irish.

However, if what I've read is correct, HS2 counts as a project benefitting England and Wales rather than England alone, so the Welsh Government doesn't get any extra money. Cardiff gets the shit end of the stick once again.

Thanks for that. How very odd. Presumably Crewe is counted as Wales ...

Reading further, Wales has fallen victim in this case to the consequences of asymmetric, piecemeal and ill thought-out devolution. The maintenance of railway infrastructure is a devolved competence in Scotland but not in Wales. The disparity stems from this.

Sandpit said:

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

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

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

MD , depends on where you stop, fact that Scotland is paying part of it and it will never ever reach here means it is far from popular here for certain.

So the Scottish Government is lieing?

The Scottish Government has not contributed any funds to the HS2 rail link budget; this is wholly funded by the UK Government.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202000015934/

Well, it's not the English Government that pays for it. So it presumably comes out of UK taxation - ergo our Scottish pockets (rather more than the CI pockets, no douby).

So nothing different wrt infrastructure spending in Scotland then, or any other part of the country.

So the fact that the Scottish Government had to fully fund the Forth Crossing was just the same then.

The Third crossing, surely?

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

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

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

MD , depends on where you stop, fact that Scotland is paying part of it and it will never ever reach here means it is far from popular here for certain.

So the Scottish Government is lieing?

The Scottish Government has not contributed any funds to the HS2 rail link budget; this is wholly funded by the UK Government.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202000015934/

Well, it's not the English Government that pays for it. So it presumably comes out of UK taxation - ergo our Scottish pockets (rather more than the CI pockets, no douby).

when the UK government increases spending which doesn't affect a devolved nation, that devolved nation receives money, equivalent to its population share, back to spend itself. This is the case with HS2 and Scotland which means that, in effect, all money spent on HS2 which is raised by Scottish taxes will be returned via something called the Barnett formula.

https://fullfact.org/online/hs2-scotland/

Thanks for that - wasn't sure of the situation there.

She is talking bollox Carnyx, they regularly exclude items from being included and HS2 is likely to be one of them. They often exclude large projects spending in England so they don't have to give Scotland any benefit.

It's not "me" it's the Scottish Government and FullFact, but you're the chap who believes there's a vault in the Bank of England with "Scotland's Pension Contributions" in it......

I already posted the relevant part in that they have no clue how much we paid and many ( ie expensive ) projects are excluded from Barnett. As to your other point more lies , I believe the UK pension liabilities lie with the Westminster government and their central bank.
You think they can welch on their responsibilities , surprise surprise. How many contracts did you get.

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

Pensions should rise in line with inflation not earnings but the Tories are bound by their manifesto commitment until the next general election

Why? Do you want people who rely on the state pension only to keep getting poorer compared to the rest of the population.

Only if they are also prepared to face a cut in the state pension too as there was a large fall in average earnings over the last year and a half state pensioners were protected from.

Inflation reflects rises in prices in the shops so is what pensions should be based on

So you would be happy if your current pay was equally to the pay for the same job in 1910 plus inflation would you?

Inflation by definition means it would not be the same as pay for a job in 1910

Sorry I have no idea what you are saying. I was giving you an analogy. You seem happy that one group in society should only have their pay increased by inflation only forever, so I was asking you if you would be happy with that for yourself by accepting the pay for your job based upon the 1910 pay for it plus inflation.

You do appreciate don't you that, that would almost certainly be a much lower figure than you get now? Yet you are happy to impose that on others in society.

That's right. The earnings link is key. Without that, in a society growing more prosperous, a pension linked only to inflation would condemn those relying on it to abject relative poverty - and relative is the only meaningful metric here - over the long run. Time would work its magic and in this case it would be of the black variety.

No it wouldn't, as most pensioners do not have to pay rent or a mortgage unlike those working and earning as they own their own properties outright.

The only non tax payments most pensioners have to pay on a monthly basis are for shopping and the odd meal or trip out, which can be linked to inflation and they get free bus passes and Freedom Passes for London travel anyway

It would over time. That's certain given growth. We're talking relativities. It's why the earnings link was introduced.

It wouldn't, provided the state pension increased with inflation there would be no impact on spending in the shops and cafes which is what most pensioners spend most of their money on, inflation also rises with energy costs anyway too

H, you are arguing with maths not me. Given growth and people getting better off, earnings beating inflation, if your income rises only by inflation you will sink - all else being equal and in the long run - into abject relative poverty.

No you won't, given as a pensioner you will likely own your own home unlike those earning who will still have to pay mortgage or rent and you get free bus passes, cheap museum, cinema, theatre tickets, Freedom Passes in London etc too.

Cross purposes, I think. Not so much any one individual over the short term but the 'poor pensioner' category - ie those reliant on the state pension - over the long term. Slowly but surely their living standards will decline cf the rest of the population. Abject relative poverty awaits. This is why the earnings link was invented.

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

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

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

MD , depends on where you stop, fact that Scotland is paying part of it and it will never ever reach here means it is far from popular here for certain.

So the Scottish Government is lieing?

The Scottish Government has not contributed any funds to the HS2 rail link budget; this is wholly funded by the UK Government.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202000015934/

Well, it's not the English Government that pays for it. So it presumably comes out of UK taxation - ergo our Scottish pockets (rather more than the CI pockets, no douby).

when the UK government increases spending which doesn't affect a devolved nation, that devolved nation receives money, equivalent to its population share, back to spend itself. This is the case with HS2 and Scotland which means that, in effect, all money spent on HS2 which is raised by Scottish taxes will be returned via something called the Barnett formula.

https://fullfact.org/online/hs2-scotland/

Thanks for that - wasn't sure of the situation there.

She is talking bollox Carnyx, they regularly exclude items from being included and HS2 is likely to be one of them. They often exclude large projects spending in England so they don't have to give Scotland any benefit.

It's not "me" it's the Scottish Government and FullFact, but you're the chap who believes there's a vault in the Bank of England with "Scotland's Pension Contributions" in it......

I already posted the relevant part in that they have no clue how much we paid and many ( ie expensive ) projects are excluded from Barnett. As to your other point more lies , I believe the UK pension liabilities lie with the Westminster government and their central bank.
You think they can welch on their responsibilities , surprise surprise. How many contracts did you get.

There are no pensions liabilities. They all come out of the current account.

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

Pensions should rise in line with inflation not earnings but the Tories are bound by their manifesto commitment until the next general election

Why? Do you want people who rely on the state pension only to keep getting poorer compared to the rest of the population.

Only if they are also prepared to face a cut in the state pension too as there was a large fall in average earnings over the last year and a half state pensioners were protected from.

Inflation reflects rises in prices in the shops so is what pensions should be based on

So you would be happy if your current pay was equally to the pay for the same job in 1910 plus inflation would you?

Inflation by definition means it would not be the same as pay for a job in 1910

Sorry I have no idea what you are saying. I was giving you an analogy. You seem happy that one group in society should only have their pay increased by inflation only forever, so I was asking you if you would be happy with that for yourself by accepting the pay for your job based upon the 1910 pay for it plus inflation.

You do appreciate don't you that, that would almost certainly be a much lower figure than you get now? Yet you are happy to impose that on others in society.

That's right. The earnings link is key. Without that, in a society growing more prosperous, a pension linked only to inflation would condemn those relying on it to abject relative poverty - and relative is the only meaningful metric here - over the long run. Time would work its magic and in this case it would be of the black variety.

No it wouldn't, as most pensioners do not have to pay rent or a mortgage unlike those working and earning as they own their own properties outright.

The only non tax payments most pensioners have to pay on a monthly basis are for shopping and the odd meal or trip out, which can be linked to inflation and they get free bus passes and Freedom Passes for London travel anyway

It would over time. That's certain given growth. We're talking relativities. It's why the earnings link was introduced.

It wouldn't, provided the state pension increased with inflation there would be no impact on spending in the shops and cafes which is what most pensioners spend most of their money on, inflation also rises with energy costs anyway too

H, you are arguing with maths not me. Given growth and people getting better off, earnings beating inflation, if your income rises only by inflation you will sink - all else being equal and in the long run - into abject relative poverty.

No you won't, given as a pensioner you will likely own your own home unlike those earning who will still have to pay mortgage or rent and you get free bus passes, cheap museum, cinema, theatre tickets, Freedom Passes in London etc too.

Good god you keep saying the same thing over and over again.

Do the maths. The actual value of the pension will diminish relative to earnings every year. Its maths!!! Eventually in many many years time it will be worthless if you do what you want.

All these freebies you mention: Do you want to know how many I have used since being retired - Zero, not one. Don't live in London, don't use a bus, rare as hens teeth here, never got a freebie or discount at a cinema or theatre cos I don't want to go to the matinee. You live in cloud cuckooland as far as pensioners are concerned. My life is no different to before I retired other than I have given up dangerous sports like skiing and catamaran sailing and squash, but I gave those up well before 65 and wish I could do them again but I might die if I did. other than that I lead a proper life and I'm not tucked up with my Ovaltine at 9 pm.

So what, most pensioners do not have mortgages or rents to pay which is the main outgoing cost earners in the workforce have to pay. It is the inflation rate in the shops pensioners need to worry about and the inflation link would be kept.

So you don't go to the cinema, theatre or museum and you don't use the bus and never travel to London and benefit from a Freedom pass, does not seem like you are living as full a life as a pensioner as you could.

Pensioners also get free sessions at the swimming pool and concessions for classes at the gym too if sport is your thing.

Some golf courses also offer discounted membership for over 65s too

You really don't read my posts do you? Did I say I didn't go to the theatre and cinema? Did I? No I didn't.

And I don't live in London so I am not entitled to the freedom pass either.

And I don't use a bus, cos they don't exist here.

Try actually reading what I post.

165 over 95 -

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Malmesbury said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

It is no surprise Southgate is more popular than Churchill.

Churchill was a fascist (keeping people under dominion of the UK against their will is fascism.)

Churchill was an Imperialist and quite definitely not a Fascist.

The fact that you can't detect the difference suggests that your terrible taste in clothes has caused structural damage - Long Fashion?

Imperialism is fascism.

Forcible suppression of opponents is a key characteristic of fascism, look at all the arrests of Indian independence figures.

Churchill had promised India dominion status after the war but of course that fell short of independence.

The time for the former was post WW1 not WW2. India might still be a Commonwealth realm today, and you could enjoy toasting the Queen across the subcontinent.

Well fully taking back control from unelected rulers was popular in India.

Who would want dominion status? It’s like being in the EU.

If the British Empire had continued, I think it's safe to assume that Britain would have voted to leave it by now, over free movement.

Not necessarily, I would expect most Britons would now live in Australia if we still had an Empire with free movement

Then the Aussies would have left!

Unlikely given Australia has one of the lowest population densities in the world unlike us and a higher average income and better weather

We have a higher average income than Poland. That didn't stop people moaning when they showed up over here.
We've just negotiated a trade deal with Australia, I am sure if they had any appetite to open their borders to us it would have been on the table. I'm not totally sure about this, but I believe they have a points based immigration system, and I am sure any Brits who meet the criteria are welcome in.

Yes but few Britons moved to Poland did they as it had a lower average income than we do and is even colder than we are in winter.

Britons would be far more likely to take advantage of free movement to Australia if they could, Australians however would largely stay put.

Of course Australia now will not introduce free movement with us but base it on skills, the possibility was only if we still had the Empire

The point I was making was exactly that - the movement would be UK -> Oz primarily and that's why they would opt out of it. If Britons had wanted to move to Poland we'd still be in the EU.

Would they? Brits still want to move to the continent

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

Pensions should rise in line with inflation not earnings but the Tories are bound by their manifesto commitment until the next general election

Why? Do you want people who rely on the state pension only to keep getting poorer compared to the rest of the population.

Only if they are also prepared to face a cut in the state pension too as there was a large fall in average earnings over the last year and a half state pensioners were protected from.

Inflation reflects rises in prices in the shops so is what pensions should be based on

So you would be happy if your current pay was equally to the pay for the same job in 1910 plus inflation would you?

Inflation by definition means it would not be the same as pay for a job in 1910

Sorry I have no idea what you are saying. I was giving you an analogy. You seem happy that one group in society should only have their pay increased by inflation only forever, so I was asking you if you would be happy with that for yourself by accepting the pay for your job based upon the 1910 pay for it plus inflation.

You do appreciate don't you that, that would almost certainly be a much lower figure than you get now? Yet you are happy to impose that on others in society.

That's right. The earnings link is key. Without that, in a society growing more prosperous, a pension linked only to inflation would condemn those relying on it to abject relative poverty - and relative is the only meaningful metric here - over the long run. Time would work its magic and in this case it would be of the black variety.

No it wouldn't, as most pensioners do not have to pay rent or a mortgage unlike those working and earning as they own their own properties outright.

The only non tax payments most pensioners have to pay on a monthly basis are for shopping and the odd meal or trip out, which can be linked to inflation and they get free bus passes and Freedom Passes for London travel anyway

It would over time. That's certain given growth. We're talking relativities. It's why the earnings link was introduced.

It wouldn't, provided the state pension increased with inflation there would be no impact on spending in the shops and cafes which is what most pensioners spend most of their money on, inflation also rises with energy costs anyway too

H, you are arguing with maths not me. Given growth and people getting better off, earnings beating inflation, if your income rises only by inflation you will sink - all else being equal and in the long run - into abject relative poverty.

No you won't, given as a pensioner you will likely own your own home unlike those earning who will still have to pay mortgage or rent and you get free bus passes, cheap museum, cinema, theatre tickets, Freedom Passes in London etc too.

Cross purposes, I think. Not so much any one individual over the short term but the 'poor pensioner' category - ie those reliant on the state pension - over the long term. Slowly but surely their living standards will decline cf the rest of the population. Abject relative poverty awaits. This is why the earnings link was invented.

Most pensioners have private pensions now as well as the state pension and most pensioners own their own homes too.

I can see the case for targeted higher increases in Pension Credit linked to earnings for poorer pensioners or housing benefit for pensioners who still rent but not for an across the board increase in the state pension for all pensioners linked to earnings rather than inflation

dixiedean said:

Sandpit said:

dixiedean said:

12 serving police officers under investigation re Sarah Everard case.
Not good at all.

It’s quite astonishing that Commissioner Dick hasn’t gone, and a terrible example of a lack of responsibility in public service.

As was her not going in 2005 to be fair, but to then get promoted after that incident?

I can't help thinking there must be something not in the public domain.

On the current case, the guy has apparently said nothing to investigators, but has pleaded guilty to the court, which thankfully spares the family a trial. Three charges: kidnap, rape and murder, for which he will receive a life sentence.

Maybe we’ll find out more details at the inquest, but on the face of it a serving policeman, possibly in uniform, pulled a woman off the street into a car, and a few days later she was found dead. Now we have a dozen police officers under investigation, presumably for some sort of coverup or failure to report something related to the case. There doesn’t appear to be any suggestion that the murderer acted other than alone.

As for Dick, it seems to be the standard culture in public bodies, that no-one ever takes responsibility for anything, and once at a level they generally manage to fail upwards.

The case IMO raises huge questions about how someone so clearly disturbed can remain in work as a serving police officer, I suspect there will be some sort of investigation into his record by HM Inspector of Constabulary.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/09/keir-starmer-tweaking-nhs-covid-app-taking-batteries-smoke-alarm

So Starmer was complaining too many people will be asked to isolate, but tweaking the app is also wrong....but offers no real solutions above wear a mask on a train and open a few windows.

I literally have no idea what Labour's position is. Everything is too risky and rushed, but also too restrictive. At least with non-independent SAGE we know they are absolutely against opening up, until everybody offered vaccination , and even then probably not...as discriminatory against those who are against vaccination (racism yadda yadda yadda) and danger of long covid.

Carnyx said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sandpit said:

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

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

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

MD , depends on where you stop, fact that Scotland is paying part of it and it will never ever reach here means it is far from popular here for certain.

So the Scottish Government is lieing?

The Scottish Government has not contributed any funds to the HS2 rail link budget; this is wholly funded by the UK Government.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202000015934/

Well, it's not the English Government that pays for it. So it presumably comes out of UK taxation - ergo our Scottish pockets (rather more than the CI pockets, no douby).

So nothing different wrt infrastructure spending in Scotland then, or any other part of the country.

So the fact that the Scottish Government had to fully fund the Forth Crossing was just the same then.

The Third crossing, surely?

There was a fourth Forth crossing; good luck trying to get through it now, though ...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/scotland-blog/2014/apr/30/scotland-firthofforth-coal

And the fifth Forth vehicular crossing (not chronologically) - you will recognise the name of the engineer... but rather mean to make the human self-loading cargo get off for the crossing. Cattle had a more luxurious time.

http://www.grantonhistory.org/transport/train_ferry.htm

Bouch designed a rail crossing for the Forth too and I believe work had started on it when his Tay bridge collapsed, and his spindly looking design was abandoned, replaced by the superbly over-engineered thing of beauty that was put up in its place. A bridge that is designed to state unambiguously to all who see it, I will not get blown down in a gale.*

* actually the first Tay Bridge may have been hit by a derailing train I think, but blown down in a gale is how it's remembered.

RobD said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

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

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

MD , depends on where you stop, fact that Scotland is paying part of it and it will never ever reach here means it is far from popular here for certain.

So the Scottish Government is lieing?

The Scottish Government has not contributed any funds to the HS2 rail link budget; this is wholly funded by the UK Government.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202000015934/

Well, it's not the English Government that pays for it. So it presumably comes out of UK taxation - ergo our Scottish pockets (rather more than the CI pockets, no douby).

when the UK government increases spending which doesn't affect a devolved nation, that devolved nation receives money, equivalent to its population share, back to spend itself. This is the case with HS2 and Scotland which means that, in effect, all money spent on HS2 which is raised by Scottish taxes will be returned via something called the Barnett formula.

https://fullfact.org/online/hs2-scotland/

Thanks for that - wasn't sure of the situation there.

She is talking bollox Carnyx, they regularly exclude items from being included and HS2 is likely to be one of them. They often exclude large projects spending in England so they don't have to give Scotland any benefit.

It's not "me" it's the Scottish Government and FullFact, but you're the chap who believes there's a vault in the Bank of England with "Scotland's Pension Contributions" in it......

I already posted the relevant part in that they have no clue how much we paid and many ( ie expensive ) projects are excluded from Barnett. As to your other point more lies , I believe the UK pension liabilities lie with the Westminster government and their central bank.
You think they can welch on their responsibilities , surprise surprise. How many contracts did you get.

There are no pensions liabilities. They all come out of the current account.

They are still liabilities. If you have to pay something and pay it cash , just because it does not come out of your bank account does not mean you do not have to pay it. You can try to spin it any way you like but the UK has liability to pay citizens who contributed to state pensions, regardless of where they reside. Hence why people all over the world receive state pensions from UK.

RobD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Malmesbury said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

It is no surprise Southgate is more popular than Churchill.

Churchill was a fascist (keeping people under dominion of the UK against their will is fascism.)

Churchill was an Imperialist and quite definitely not a Fascist.

The fact that you can't detect the difference suggests that your terrible taste in clothes has caused structural damage - Long Fashion?

Imperialism is fascism.

Forcible suppression of opponents is a key characteristic of fascism, look at all the arrests of Indian independence figures.

Churchill had promised India dominion status after the war but of course that fell short of independence.

The time for the former was post WW1 not WW2. India might still be a Commonwealth realm today, and you could enjoy toasting the Queen across the subcontinent.

Well fully taking back control from unelected rulers was popular in India.

Who would want dominion status? It’s like being in the EU.

If the British Empire had continued, I think it's safe to assume that Britain would have voted to leave it by now, over free movement.

Not necessarily, I would expect most Britons would now live in Australia if we still had an Empire with free movement

Then the Aussies would have left!

Unlikely given Australia has one of the lowest population densities in the world unlike us and a higher average income and better weather

We have a higher average income than Poland. That didn't stop people moaning when they showed up over here.
We've just negotiated a trade deal with Australia, I am sure if they had any appetite to open their borders to us it would have been on the table. I'm not totally sure about this, but I believe they have a points based immigration system, and I am sure any Brits who meet the criteria are welcome in.

Yes but few Britons moved to Poland did they as it had a lower average income than we do and is even colder than we are in winter.

Britons would be far more likely to take advantage of free movement to Australia if they could, Australians however would largely stay put.

Of course Australia now will not introduce free movement with us but base it on skills, the possibility was only if we still had the Empire

The point I was making was exactly that - the movement would be UK -> Oz primarily and that's why they would opt out of it. If Britons had wanted to move to Poland we'd still be in the EU.

Would they? Brits still want to move to the continent

Not enough of them. And some of those that do think they will still be able to anyway (some correctly, others not).

HYUFD said:

Endillion said:

HYUFD said:

Floater said:

Bloody hell - these Spaniards are even more unhinged by Brexit than Scott

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-9771965/Bitter-TV-presenters-Spain-claim-pathetic-Euro-2020-conditioned-England-win.html

'A poll in French paper L'Equipe - in English, The Team - revealed that of 80,000 respondents, 69 per cent said they would support Italy while 11 per cent said they would support neither side.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen threwhas also thrown her support behind the Italian team on Friday.

Her spokesperson told reporters: 'Her heart is with the Squadra Azzurra so she will be supporting Italy on Sunday.'

No surprise there the EU and the French and Spanish want Italy to win
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-9771965/Bitter-TV-presenters-Spain-claim-pathetic-Euro-2020-conditioned-England-win.html

No-one tell Southgate. He'll probably throw the match on purpose to burnish his extreme left wing credentials.

He was a Remainer I believe.

I doubt any of the other European nations will be supporting us in the Euros final, with the possible exception of Malta. I would expect the Irish to back Italy too post Brexit.

Italy is a relatively popular country anyway and the Italians popular and friendly people

But they cheat at football. They give masterclasses to the rest of us.

If England win - it shows Brexit has freed us from our shackles. Unlashed our chained potential.

If England lose - it's down to cheating Europeans. We were spot on to Brexit and to get out from under.

Or something close to that.

FrancisUrquhart said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/09/keir-starmer-tweaking-nhs-covid-app-taking-batteries-smoke-alarm

So Starmer was complaining too many people will be asked to isolate, but tweaking the app is also wrong....but offers no real solutions above wear a mask on a train and open a few windows.

I literally have no idea what Labour's position is. Everything is too risky and rushed, but also too restrictive. At least with non-independent SAGE we know they are absolutely against opening up, until everybody offered vaccination , and even then probably not...as discriminatory against those who are against vaccination (racism yadda yadda yadda) and danger of long covid.

From your link:-
Labour has suggested rules on mask-wearing should be maintained, and repeated calls for better financial support for people forced to self-isolate. It would also like tougher guidance on ventilation in workplaces and public venues, to reflect the most up-to-date understanding of how the virus is spread.

Not that it really matters because they are not the government.

FrancisUrquhart said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/09/keir-starmer-tweaking-nhs-covid-app-taking-batteries-smoke-alarm

So Starmer was complaining too many people will be asked to isolate, but tweaking the app is also wrong....but offers no real solutions above wear a mask on a train and open a few windows.

I literally have no idea what Labour's position is. Everything is too risky and rushed, but also too restrictive. At least with non-independent SAGE we know they are absolutely against opening up, until everybody offered vaccination , and even then probably not...as discriminatory against those who are against vaccination (racism yadda yadda yadda) and danger of long covid.

I think Labour would have done a worse job than the Tories tackling covid. Their instincts are simply wrong for such a crisis. They would get the state to do everything, join the EU vaccine scheme, take no risks no matter how costly, and spend way to much time worrying about how "fair" everything they do is.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Malmesbury said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

It is no surprise Southgate is more popular than Churchill.

Churchill was a fascist (keeping people under dominion of the UK against their will is fascism.)

Churchill was an Imperialist and quite definitely not a Fascist.

The fact that you can't detect the difference suggests that your terrible taste in clothes has caused structural damage - Long Fashion?

Imperialism is fascism.

Forcible suppression of opponents is a key characteristic of fascism, look at all the arrests of Indian independence figures.

Churchill had promised India dominion status after the war but of course that fell short of independence.

The time for the former was post WW1 not WW2. India might still be a Commonwealth realm today, and you could enjoy toasting the Queen across the subcontinent.

Well fully taking back control from unelected rulers was popular in India.

Who would want dominion status? It’s like being in the EU.

If the British Empire had continued, I think it's safe to assume that Britain would have voted to leave it by now, over free movement.

Not necessarily, I would expect most Britons would now live in Australia if we still had an Empire with free movement

Then the Aussies would have left!

Unlikely given Australia has one of the lowest population densities in the world unlike us and a higher average income and better weather

We have a higher average income than Poland. That didn't stop people moaning when they showed up over here.
We've just negotiated a trade deal with Australia, I am sure if they had any appetite to open their borders to us it would have been on the table. I'm not totally sure about this, but I believe they have a points based immigration system, and I am sure any Brits who meet the criteria are welcome in.

They have the holy grail, mentioned 100 times a day by Nigel Farage in the Brexit campaign, not just a points system, an Australian style points system. And how good must this be, given they are also the actual Australia?

Carnyx said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Carnyx said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sandpit said:

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

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

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

MD , depends on where you stop, fact that Scotland is paying part of it and it will never ever reach here means it is far from popular here for certain.

So the Scottish Government is lieing?

The Scottish Government has not contributed any funds to the HS2 rail link budget; this is wholly funded by the UK Government.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202000015934/

Well, it's not the English Government that pays for it. So it presumably comes out of UK taxation - ergo our Scottish pockets (rather more than the CI pockets, no douby).

So nothing different wrt infrastructure spending in Scotland then, or any other part of the country.

So the fact that the Scottish Government had to fully fund the Forth Crossing was just the same then.

The Third crossing, surely?

There was a fourth Forth crossing; good luck trying to get through it now, though ...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/scotland-blog/2014/apr/30/scotland-firthofforth-coal

And the fifth Forth vehicular crossing (not chronologically) - you will recognise the name of the engineer... but rather mean to make the human self-loading cargo get off for the crossing. Cattle had a more luxurious time.

http://www.grantonhistory.org/transport/train_ferry.htm

Bouch designed a rail crossing for the Forth too and I believe work had started on it when his Tay bridge collapsed, and his spindly looking design was abandoned, replaced by the superbly over-engineered thing of beauty that was put up in its place. A bridge that is designed to state unambiguously to all who see it, I will not get blown down in a gale.*

* actually the first Tay Bridge may have been hit by a derailing train I think, but blown down in a gale is how it's remembered.

Quite. They weren't messing around when they built the Forth Bridge. The Bouch design is terrifying ... rather nice pic here, C19 vapourware.

https://www.capitalcollections.org.uk/view-item?i=24563&WINID=1625837535141

Peter Lewis has written an interesting book - in short reckons that the Tay Bridge was so mickey mouse in design and execution it was rattling itself to bits, and bits falling off, every time a train ran along it, especially when the train met the kink where they dropped and bent a girder when erecting it (!). The accounts of quality control, or lack of, by the fabricator are terrifying.

Don't worry. Nothing like that could happen these days.

For example, there isn't a setting on concrete dispensing systems, that changes between metric (cubic metres) and cubic yards.So there is absolutely no way that a contractor can cheat when pouring a concrete foundation by flipping the switch and cheat on the concrete by 24%........

And there is definitely no way that contractors paid to dispose of "contaminated material"... dispose of much of it by putting it in concrete as aggregate....

Carnyx said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Carnyx said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sandpit said:

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

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

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

MD , depends on where you stop, fact that Scotland is paying part of it and it will never ever reach here means it is far from popular here for certain.

So the Scottish Government is lieing?

The Scottish Government has not contributed any funds to the HS2 rail link budget; this is wholly funded by the UK Government.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202000015934/

Well, it's not the English Government that pays for it. So it presumably comes out of UK taxation - ergo our Scottish pockets (rather more than the CI pockets, no douby).

So nothing different wrt infrastructure spending in Scotland then, or any other part of the country.

So the fact that the Scottish Government had to fully fund the Forth Crossing was just the same then.

The Third crossing, surely?

There was a fourth Forth crossing; good luck trying to get through it now, though ...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/scotland-blog/2014/apr/30/scotland-firthofforth-coal

And the fifth Forth vehicular crossing (not chronologically) - you will recognise the name of the engineer... but rather mean to make the human self-loading cargo get off for the crossing. Cattle had a more luxurious time.

http://www.grantonhistory.org/transport/train_ferry.htm

Bouch designed a rail crossing for the Forth too and I believe work had started on it when his Tay bridge collapsed, and his spindly looking design was abandoned, replaced by the superbly over-engineered thing of beauty that was put up in its place. A bridge that is designed to state unambiguously to all who see it, I will not get blown down in a gale.*

* actually the first Tay Bridge may have been hit by a derailing train I think, but blown down in a gale is how it's remembered.

Quite. They weren't messing around when they built the Forth Bridge. The Bouch design is terrifying ... rather nice pic here, C19 vapourware.

https://www.capitalcollections.org.uk/view-item?i=24563&WINID=1625837535141

Peter Lewis has written an interesting book - in short reckons that the Tay Bridge was so mickey mouse in design and execution it was rattling itself to bits, and bits falling off, every time a train ran along it, especially when the train met the kink where they dropped and bent a girder when erecting it (!). The accounts of quality control, or lack of, by the fabricator are terrifying.

PS Friday afternoon, so I add some nice photos (though i have to get back to work) - amaxing how the time exposure blanks out the waves:

https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/research/learning/features/the-forth-rail-bridge-portraits-of-a-scottish-icon
https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/research/learning/hall-of-fame/hall-of-fame-a-z/bouch-thomas

Gnud said:

Tunisian health system "has collapsed":

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210708-tunisia-virus-situation-catastrophic-health-ministry

https://www.rt.com/news/528733-tunisia-health-system-collaspe-covid/

Oxygen shortages. Difficulties getting dead bodies out of hospitals. "The boat is sinking," says health ministry spokesperson.

It's looking awful in Tunisia:

R: 1.4;
CFR: > 3% throughout 2021 so far;
new cases: ~0.3% of population per week, and rising;
vaccinated (1x, 2x): 12%, 5%.

Endillion said:

kinabalu said:

Stocky said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

Pensions should rise in line with inflation not earnings but the Tories are bound by their manifesto commitment until the next general election

Why? Do you want people who rely on the state pension only to keep getting poorer compared to the rest of the population.

Only if they are also prepared to face a cut in the state pension too as there was a large fall in average earnings over the last year and a half state pensioners were protected from.

Inflation reflects rises in prices in the shops so is what pensions should be based on

So you would be happy if your current pay was equally to the pay for the same job in 1910 plus inflation would you?

Inflation by definition means it would not be the same as pay for a job in 1910

Sorry I have no idea what you are saying. I was giving you an analogy. You seem happy that one group in society should only have their pay increased by inflation only forever, so I was asking you if you would be happy with that for yourself by accepting the pay for your job based upon the 1910 pay for it plus inflation.

You do appreciate don't you that, that would almost certainly be a much lower figure than you get now? Yet you are happy to impose that on others in society.

That's right. The earnings link is key. Without that, in a society growing more prosperous, a pension linked only to inflation would condemn those relying on it to abject relative poverty - and relative is the only meaningful metric here - over the long run. Time would work its magic and in this case it would be of the black variety.

No it wouldn't, as most pensioners do not have to pay rent or a mortgage unlike those working and earning as they own their own properties outright.

The only non tax payments most pensioners have to pay on a monthly basis are for shopping and the odd meal or trip out, which can be linked to inflation and they get free bus passes and Freedom Passes for London travel anyway

It would over time. That's certain given growth. We're talking relativities. It's why the earnings link was introduced.

It wouldn't, provided the state pension increased with inflation there would be no impact on spending in the shops and cafes which is what most pensioners spend most of their money on, inflation also rises with energy costs anyway too

H, you are arguing with maths not me. Given growth and people getting better off, earnings beating inflation, if your income rises only by inflation you will sink - all else being equal and in the long run - into abject relative poverty.

You will in comparison to a young earner but you won't with regard to what you can buy with your pension. The latter is what is relevant. I agree with HYUFD on this. I don't quite see why pensions should keep up with earnings - it is the basket of goods you need to buy that matters - and current earners will be pensioners one day.

The problem Sunak has is not whether to break the triple lock per se (it is obvious that it should be removed) - it is whether to break a manifesto pledge. The CP would be hammered for doing so, both within and outside of the party.

My view is that manifest pledges are for the birds in the Covid crisis. Set them aside. The CP should get a free pass on this. But this is logic speaking not political reality.

I think they will keep the lock but not make the pledge again in the next manifesto.

Ok. But I'm talking about the category 'people relying on the state pension'. If that pension they rely on is linked only to inflation (and assuming long term economic growth) this category of people will fall into abject relative poverty. They just will. It's inevitable.

The Triple Lock? I can see the argument for it going, yes. But it's the 2.5% that looks the most illogical to me. The inflation link guards against absolute poverty, the earnings link guards against creeping relative poverty, the 2.5% looks frivolous. I'd chop that one, leaving a double lock, inflation and earnings.

Yeah? If both go negative during a recession, you'd be comfortable presiding over an absolute reduction in pensioner income?

Probably not. So replace 2.5% with Zero.

Malmesbury said:

Carnyx said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Carnyx said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sandpit said:

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

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

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

MD , depends on where you stop, fact that Scotland is paying part of it and it will never ever reach here means it is far from popular here for certain.

So the Scottish Government is lieing?

The Scottish Government has not contributed any funds to the HS2 rail link budget; this is wholly funded by the UK Government.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202000015934/

Well, it's not the English Government that pays for it. So it presumably comes out of UK taxation - ergo our Scottish pockets (rather more than the CI pockets, no douby).

So nothing different wrt infrastructure spending in Scotland then, or any other part of the country.

So the fact that the Scottish Government had to fully fund the Forth Crossing was just the same then.

The Third crossing, surely?

There was a fourth Forth crossing; good luck trying to get through it now, though ...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/scotland-blog/2014/apr/30/scotland-firthofforth-coal

And the fifth Forth vehicular crossing (not chronologically) - you will recognise the name of the engineer... but rather mean to make the human self-loading cargo get off for the crossing. Cattle had a more luxurious time.

http://www.grantonhistory.org/transport/train_ferry.htm

Bouch designed a rail crossing for the Forth too and I believe work had started on it when his Tay bridge collapsed, and his spindly looking design was abandoned, replaced by the superbly over-engineered thing of beauty that was put up in its place. A bridge that is designed to state unambiguously to all who see it, I will not get blown down in a gale.*

* actually the first Tay Bridge may have been hit by a derailing train I think, but blown down in a gale is how it's remembered.

Quite. They weren't messing around when they built the Forth Bridge. The Bouch design is terrifying ... rather nice pic here, C19 vapourware.

https://www.capitalcollections.org.uk/view-item?i=24563&WINID=1625837535141

Peter Lewis has written an interesting book - in short reckons that the Tay Bridge was so mickey mouse in design and execution it was rattling itself to bits, and bits falling off, every time a train ran along it, especially when the train met the kink where they dropped and bent a girder when erecting it (!). The accounts of quality control, or lack of, by the fabricator are terrifying.

Don't worry. Nothing like that could happen these days.

For example, there isn't a setting on concrete dispensing systems, that changes between metric (cubic metres) and cubic yards.So there is absolutely no way that a contractor can cheat when pouring a concrete foundation by flipping the switch and cheat on the concrete by 24%........

And there is definitely no way that contractors paid to dispose of "contaminated material"... dispose of much of it by putting it in concrete as aggregate....

So Beaumont Egg is still with us ... sometimes literally, I fgind.
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/engineering-and-technology/engineering/tay-bridge-disaster/content-section-5.6
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/archive/casting-flaws-found-in-failed-cast-iron-beam-22-08-2002/

eek said:

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Malmesbury said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

It is no surprise Southgate is more popular than Churchill.

Churchill was a fascist (keeping people under dominion of the UK against their will is fascism.)

Churchill was an Imperialist and quite definitely not a Fascist.

The fact that you can't detect the difference suggests that your terrible taste in clothes has caused structural damage - Long Fashion?

Imperialism is fascism.

Forcible suppression of opponents is a key characteristic of fascism, look at all the arrests of Indian independence figures.

Churchill had promised India dominion status after the war but of course that fell short of independence.

The time for the former was post WW1 not WW2. India might still be a Commonwealth realm today, and you could enjoy toasting the Queen across the subcontinent.

Well fully taking back control from unelected rulers was popular in India.

Who would want dominion status? It’s like being in the EU.

If the British Empire had continued, I think it's safe to assume that Britain would have voted to leave it by now, over free movement.

Not necessarily, I would expect most Britons would now live in Australia if we still had an Empire with free movement

Then the Aussies would have left!

Unlikely given Australia has one of the lowest population densities in the world unlike us and a higher average income and better weather

We have a higher average income than Poland. That didn't stop people moaning when they showed up over here.
We've just negotiated a trade deal with Australia, I am sure if they had any appetite to open their borders to us it would have been on the table. I'm not totally sure about this, but I believe they have a points based immigration system, and I am sure any Brits who meet the criteria are welcome in.

Yes but few Britons moved to Poland did they as it had a lower average income than we do and is even colder than we are in winter.

Britons would be far more likely to take advantage of free movement to Australia if they could, Australians however would largely stay put.

Of course Australia now will not introduce free movement with us but base it on skills, the possibility was only if we still had the Empire

The point I was making was exactly that - the movement would be UK -> Oz primarily and that's why they would opt out of it. If Britons had wanted to move to Poland we'd still be in the EU.

Would they? Brits still want to move to the continent

To Spain not Poland.

If free movement had only applied to western Europe still not Eastern Europe too we would likely narrowly have voted Remain

We are back to the age old argument - if Labour or the Tories had implemented a contributory based benefits system and implemented the EU's actual rules for freedom of movement, we woudn't have left the EU..

They didn't so we ended up doing so...

Blair's failure to introduce transition controls for the new accession nations like Germany was a big failure on his part

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

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

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

MD , depends on where you stop, fact that Scotland is paying part of it and it will never ever reach here means it is far from popular here for certain.

So the Scottish Government is lieing?

The Scottish Government has not contributed any funds to the HS2 rail link budget; this is wholly funded by the UK Government.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202000015934/

Well, it's not the English Government that pays for it. So it presumably comes out of UK taxation - ergo our Scottish pockets (rather more than the CI pockets, no douby).

when the UK government increases spending which doesn't affect a devolved nation, that devolved nation receives money, equivalent to its population share, back to spend itself. This is the case with HS2 and Scotland which means that, in effect, all money spent on HS2 which is raised by Scottish taxes will be returned via something called the Barnett formula.

https://fullfact.org/online/hs2-scotland/

Thanks for that - wasn't sure of the situation there.

She is talking bollox Carnyx, they regularly exclude items from being included and HS2 is likely to be one of them. They often exclude large projects spending in England so they don't have to give Scotland any benefit.

It's not "me" it's the Scottish Government and FullFact, but you're the chap who believes there's a vault in the Bank of England with "Scotland's Pension Contributions" in it......

I already posted the relevant part in that they have no clue how much we paid and many ( ie expensive ) projects are excluded from Barnett. As to your other point more lies , I believe the UK pension liabilities lie with the Westminster government and their central bank.
You think they can welch on their responsibilities , surprise surprise. How many contracts did you get.

There are no pensions liabilities. They all come out of the current account.

They are still liabilities. If you have to pay something and pay it cash , just because it does not come out of your bank account does not mean you do not have to pay it. You can try to spin it any way you like but the UK has liability to pay citizens who contributed to state pensions, regardless of where they reside. Hence why people all over the world receive state pensions from UK.

They are liable for pensions due at this moment, and not to citizens of a foreign country.

HYUFD said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Malmesbury said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

It is no surprise Southgate is more popular than Churchill.

Churchill was a fascist (keeping people under dominion of the UK against their will is fascism.)

Churchill was an Imperialist and quite definitely not a Fascist.

The fact that you can't detect the difference suggests that your terrible taste in clothes has caused structural damage - Long Fashion?

Imperialism is fascism.

Forcible suppression of opponents is a key characteristic of fascism, look at all the arrests of Indian independence figures.

Churchill had promised India dominion status after the war but of course that fell short of independence.

The time for the former was post WW1 not WW2. India might still be a Commonwealth realm today, and you could enjoy toasting the Queen across the subcontinent.

Well fully taking back control from unelected rulers was popular in India.

Who would want dominion status? It’s like being in the EU.

If the British Empire had continued, I think it's safe to assume that Britain would have voted to leave it by now, over free movement.

Not necessarily, I would expect most Britons would now live in Australia if we still had an Empire with free movement

Then the Aussies would have left!

Unlikely given Australia has one of the lowest population densities in the world unlike us and a higher average income and better weather

We have a higher average income than Poland. That didn't stop people moaning when they showed up over here.
We've just negotiated a trade deal with Australia, I am sure if they had any appetite to open their borders to us it would have been on the table. I'm not totally sure about this, but I believe they have a points based immigration system, and I am sure any Brits who meet the criteria are welcome in.

Yes but few Britons moved to Poland did they as it had a lower average income than we do and is even colder than we are in winter.

Britons would be far more likely to take advantage of free movement to Australia if they could, Australians however would largely stay put.

Of course Australia now will not introduce free movement with us but base it on skills, the possibility was only if we still had the Empire

The point I was making was exactly that - the movement would be UK -> Oz primarily and that's why they would opt out of it. If Britons had wanted to move to Poland we'd still be in the EU.

Would they? Brits still want to move to the continent

To Spain not Poland.

If free movement had only applied to western Europe still not Eastern Europe too we would likely narrowly have voted Remain

We are back to the age old argument - if Labour or the Tories had implemented a contributory based benefits system and implemented the EU's actual rules for freedom of movement, we woudn't have left the EU..

They didn't so we ended up doing so...

Blair's failure to introduce transition controls for the new accession nations like Germany was a big failure on his part

Nope that really wouldn't have made much difference - although it might have delayed things slightly. The issue does come down to our inability to actual enforce the EUs own rules and our willingness to pay benefits to anyone...

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Carnyx said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sandpit said:

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

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

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

MD , depends on where you stop, fact that Scotland is paying part of it and it will never ever reach here means it is far from popular here for certain.

So the Scottish Government is lieing?

The Scottish Government has not contributed any funds to the HS2 rail link budget; this is wholly funded by the UK Government.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202000015934/

Well, it's not the English Government that pays for it. So it presumably comes out of UK taxation - ergo our Scottish pockets (rather more than the CI pockets, no douby).

So nothing different wrt infrastructure spending in Scotland then, or any other part of the country.

So the fact that the Scottish Government had to fully fund the Forth Crossing was just the same then.

The Third crossing, surely?

There was a fourth Forth crossing; good luck trying to get through it now, though ...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/scotland-blog/2014/apr/30/scotland-firthofforth-coal

And the fifth Forth vehicular crossing (not chronologically) - you will recognise the name of the engineer... but rather mean to make the human self-loading cargo get off for the crossing. Cattle had a more luxurious time.

http://www.grantonhistory.org/transport/train_ferry.htm

Bouch designed a rail crossing for the Forth too and I believe work had started on it when his Tay bridge collapsed, and his spindly looking design was abandoned, replaced by the superbly over-engineered thing of beauty that was put up in its place. A bridge that is designed to state unambiguously to all who see it, I will not get blown down in a gale.*

* actually the first Tay Bridge may have been hit by a derailing train I think, but blown down in a gale is how it's remembered.

PB pedant mode. What counts as a 'Forth' bridge when you actually start counting them? Asking on behalf of Kincardineshire and above.

I mean Dartford - that's unambiguous, Humber, well, there really is only one. Tyne, iffy, but nobody is trying to count.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dura_Ace said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Malmesbury said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

It is no surprise Southgate is more popular than Churchill.

Churchill was a fascist (keeping people under dominion of the UK against their will is fascism.)

Churchill was an Imperialist and quite definitely not a Fascist.

The fact that you can't detect the difference suggests that your terrible taste in clothes has caused structural damage - Long Fashion?

Imperialism is fascism.

Forcible suppression of opponents is a key characteristic of fascism, look at all the arrests of Indian independence figures.

Churchill had promised India dominion status after the war but of course that fell short of independence.

The time for the former was post WW1 not WW2. India might still be a Commonwealth realm today, and you could enjoy toasting the Queen across the subcontinent.

Possibly though the reason I think Canada, Australia and New Zealand are the only non UK nations of any significant size which still have the Queen as Head of State is most of their population have ancestors who originally came from the British Isles.

That does not apply to India

I'm mildly surprised that J❤️cinda hasn't held a referendum on becoming a republic. She's probably got enough popularity and political heft to get it done at the moment. Perhaps, like Australia, they are waiting for Brenda to drop off the twig.

I think the Aussies are waiting for a year of King Charles III.

George VII please.

eek said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Malmesbury said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

It is no surprise Southgate is more popular than Churchill.

Churchill was a fascist (keeping people under dominion of the UK against their will is fascism.)

Churchill was an Imperialist and quite definitely not a Fascist.

The fact that you can't detect the difference suggests that your terrible taste in clothes has caused structural damage - Long Fashion?

Imperialism is fascism.

Forcible suppression of opponents is a key characteristic of fascism, look at all the arrests of Indian independence figures.

Churchill had promised India dominion status after the war but of course that fell short of independence.

The time for the former was post WW1 not WW2. India might still be a Commonwealth realm today, and you could enjoy toasting the Queen across the subcontinent.

Well fully taking back control from unelected rulers was popular in India.

Who would want dominion status? It’s like being in the EU.

If the British Empire had continued, I think it's safe to assume that Britain would have voted to leave it by now, over free movement.

Not necessarily, I would expect most Britons would now live in Australia if we still had an Empire with free movement

Then the Aussies would have left!

Unlikely given Australia has one of the lowest population densities in the world unlike us and a higher average income and better weather

We have a higher average income than Poland. That didn't stop people moaning when they showed up over here.
We've just negotiated a trade deal with Australia, I am sure if they had any appetite to open their borders to us it would have been on the table. I'm not totally sure about this, but I believe they have a points based immigration system, and I am sure any Brits who meet the criteria are welcome in.

Yes but few Britons moved to Poland did they as it had a lower average income than we do and is even colder than we are in winter.

Britons would be far more likely to take advantage of free movement to Australia if they could, Australians however would largely stay put.

Of course Australia now will not introduce free movement with us but base it on skills, the possibility was only if we still had the Empire

The point I was making was exactly that - the movement would be UK -> Oz primarily and that's why they would opt out of it. If Britons had wanted to move to Poland we'd still be in the EU.

Would they? Brits still want to move to the continent

To Spain not Poland.

If free movement had only applied to western Europe still not Eastern Europe too we would likely narrowly have voted Remain

We are back to the age old argument - if Labour or the Tories had implemented a contributory based benefits system and implemented the EU's actual rules for freedom of movement, we woudn't have left the EU..

They didn't so we ended up doing so...

Blair's failure to introduce transition controls for the new accession nations like Germany was a big failure on his part

Nope that really wouldn't have made much difference - although it might have delayed things slightly. The issue does come down to our inability to actual enforce the EUs own rules and our willingness to pay benefits to anyone...

Maybe its good, maybe its bad; A million Poles are in the UK - that's 2.5% of the Polish state and more than one percent of ours. Was there a war I missed?

RobD said:

malcolmg said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

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

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

MD , depends on where you stop, fact that Scotland is paying part of it and it will never ever reach here means it is far from popular here for certain.

So the Scottish Government is lieing?

The Scottish Government has not contributed any funds to the HS2 rail link budget; this is wholly funded by the UK Government.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202000015934/

Well, it's not the English Government that pays for it. So it presumably comes out of UK taxation - ergo our Scottish pockets (rather more than the CI pockets, no douby).

when the UK government increases spending which doesn't affect a devolved nation, that devolved nation receives money, equivalent to its population share, back to spend itself. This is the case with HS2 and Scotland which means that, in effect, all money spent on HS2 which is raised by Scottish taxes will be returned via something called the Barnett formula.

https://fullfact.org/online/hs2-scotland/

Thanks for that - wasn't sure of the situation there.

She is talking bollox Carnyx, they regularly exclude items from being included and HS2 is likely to be one of them. They often exclude large projects spending in England so they don't have to give Scotland any benefit.

The link explicitly states HS2 is included.

It also explicitly states they have no clue what is allocated where. Large projects are often excluded to ensure Scotland does not get extra cash , fact. If through Barnett it is still only a portion of what we are paying in so she is still talking bollox as usual.

kinabalu said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

kinabalu said:

The Triple Lock? I can see the argument for it going, yes. But it's the 2.5% that looks the most illogical to me. The inflation link guards against absolute poverty, the earnings link guards against creeping relative poverty, the 2.5% looks frivolous. I'd chop that one, leaving a double lock, inflation and earnings.

That was what Theresa May proposed in the 2017 Conservative manifesto.

Needless to say, the usual suspects laid into her for it.

Good policy then. Almost as good as the Dementia Tax. And let's not forget her excellent Brexit deal.

Swapping her and her shower for Bozo and his shower has to be whatever is the opposite of a Great Leap Forward.

A policy that didn't kill millions upon millions? Sounds like a good deal.

eek said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Malmesbury said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

It is no surprise Southgate is more popular than Churchill.

Churchill was a fascist (keeping people under dominion of the UK against their will is fascism.)

Churchill was an Imperialist and quite definitely not a Fascist.

The fact that you can't detect the difference suggests that your terrible taste in clothes has caused structural damage - Long Fashion?

Imperialism is fascism.

Forcible suppression of opponents is a key characteristic of fascism, look at all the arrests of Indian independence figures.

Churchill had promised India dominion status after the war but of course that fell short of independence.

The time for the former was post WW1 not WW2. India might still be a Commonwealth realm today, and you could enjoy toasting the Queen across the subcontinent.

Well fully taking back control from unelected rulers was popular in India.

Who would want dominion status? It’s like being in the EU.

If the British Empire had continued, I think it's safe to assume that Britain would have voted to leave it by now, over free movement.

Not necessarily, I would expect most Britons would now live in Australia if we still had an Empire with free movement

Then the Aussies would have left!

Unlikely given Australia has one of the lowest population densities in the world unlike us and a higher average income and better weather

We have a higher average income than Poland. That didn't stop people moaning when they showed up over here.
We've just negotiated a trade deal with Australia, I am sure if they had any appetite to open their borders to us it would have been on the table. I'm not totally sure about this, but I believe they have a points based immigration system, and I am sure any Brits who meet the criteria are welcome in.

Yes but few Britons moved to Poland did they as it had a lower average income than we do and is even colder than we are in winter.

Britons would be far more likely to take advantage of free movement to Australia if they could, Australians however would largely stay put.

Of course Australia now will not introduce free movement with us but base it on skills, the possibility was only if we still had the Empire

The point I was making was exactly that - the movement would be UK -> Oz primarily and that's why they would opt out of it. If Britons had wanted to move to Poland we'd still be in the EU.

Would they? Brits still want to move to the continent

To Spain not Poland.

If free movement had only applied to western Europe still not Eastern Europe too we would likely narrowly have voted Remain

We are back to the age old argument - if Labour or the Tories had implemented a contributory based benefits system and implemented the EU's actual rules for freedom of movement, we woudn't have left the EU..

They didn't so we ended up doing so...

Blair's failure to introduce transition controls for the new accession nations like Germany was a big failure on his part

Nope that really wouldn't have made much difference - although it might have delayed things slightly. The issue does come down to our inability to actual enforce the EUs own rules and our willingness to pay benefits to anyone...

It would have done, Germany had transition controls for 7 years from 2004 for East European migrants.

It was also not just funding benefits that was an issue, many of the Leave voting working class were concerned about the competition for jobs and wages they faced so much from 2004, remember most Eastern Europeans were willing to work in any form rather than claim benefits.

Plus there was the pressure on housing and public services

FrancisUrquhart said:

Gnud said:

Gnud said:

Tunisian health system "has collapsed":

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210708-tunisia-virus-situation-catastrophic-health-ministry

https://www.rt.com/news/528733-tunisia-health-system-collaspe-covid/

Oxygen shortages. Difficulties getting dead bodies out of hospitals. "The boat is sinking," says health ministry spokesperson.

It's looking awful in Tunisia:

R: 1.4;
CFR: > 3% throughout 2021 so far;
new cases: ~0.3% of population per week, and rising;
vaccinated (1x, 2x): 12%, 5%.

Any country that has missed the brief respite window to do mass vaccination before being hit with the Indian variant is going to be in big trouble.

So the bodies will soon be piling up in the republican US states then?