Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Axing the triple lock could be another #dementia tax debacle – politicalbetting.com

245678

Comments

  • Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    Defending the triple lock just seems like another Waspi women situation to me. You can find problem cases in any policy proposal without it making the proposal itself not the right thing to do, but opponents present as if it is a moral outrage and I just have not been persuaded it is.

    Good comparison.
    And it reminds us that many women will not be receiving the full state pension which is already low.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,792
    I know it’s the Mail, but nonetheless a good piece trying to analyse the logistics issues. Speaking to many people across a number of industries.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9927671/Whats-really-driving-food-shelves-HARRY-WALLOP-goes-scenes-investigate.html

    It does appear to be a number of smaller issues, that have all come up at the same time.
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 710
    An interesting article on why NZ's Covid cases are not growing exponentially:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/300390979/covid19-daily-case-numbers-are-increasing-quickly-this-simple-mathematical-concept-gives-us-reason-for-optimism

    Personally, I am a bit skeptical of this. We will know in the next 2 weeks but it is clearly crunch time for NZ.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 18,175
    kle4 said:

    "I dont remember anyone promising X bad thing" works better making the same point.

    I don't think that's true

    The bus, like Brexit itself, is something the Brexiteers are desperate to forget.

    They were duped by a slogan on the side of a bus. That will always be true, and relevant.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,467
    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    I'm a pensioner, ffs!

    Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
    Even worse they think that they have "earned" it by paying NI (and electing governments which spent that money and ran a deficit overall). Another serious upside of the abolition of NI and its incorporation into IT is that this particular delusion will fade over time.
    They have 'earned' it by paying NI. That has been an explicit and very well publicised promise made by all governments since the war. It was indeed part of the basis of NationalI Insurance.The link is made explicit on the government websites today:

    To get the full basic State Pension you need a total of 30 qualifying years of National Insurance contributions or credits. ...
    If you have fewer than 30 qualifying years, your basic State Pension will be less than £137.60 per week but you might be able to top up by paying voluntary National Insurance contributions.


    https://www.gov.uk/state-pension/eligibility

    What's more some of the entitlement is under the now-abandoned SERPS introduced by Labour in 1968. For a while you could opt out of that and get a reduced rate of NI provided you put the equivalent into a private pensions. Any fooling with state pensions will unfairly disadvantage those that didn't opt out.

    All of which means that state pensions will have to continue as a universal 'benefit', whether or not that's a good use of public money

    But that doesn't mean that the triple lock is a good idea (it isn't, now, although it was in 2010 when first introduced at a time when pensions had fallen far behind earnings), nor that pensioners will be angry if they don't get the distorted 8% this year (they won't, I think Mike is wrong on this).
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 21,189

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    I'm a pensioner, ffs!

    Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
    One of the odder things is the number of reduced prices pensioners get.

    Something which started when there were far fewer pensioners and when they tended to be far poorer.

    But why should a pensioner now get lower priced entry to a sports match for example.
    Boils my piss. Arsenal insist on OAPs sitting in the family section (i.e. with the junior gooners). They do this because they want to be seen to provide an option for OAPs, but they clearly think that they shouldn't get special treatment.

    Of course, the older fans tend be the most vocal on fan groups and so they complain about being forced to choose between paying the full price or sitting with the kids. These are people who had the luxury of paying much lower prices when they were younger to stand on terraces (okay, maybe not much fun, but youngsters today don't have that option).
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,904

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    I'm a pensioner, ffs!

    Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
    Even worse they think that they have "earned" it by paying NI (and electing governments which spent that money and ran a deficit overall). Another serious upside of the abolition of NI and its incorporation into IT is that this particular delusion will fade over time.
    Well, I lived through the War and the troubles of the later 40's, so you might argue.....

    Not that I am. Although I had some seriously ill-fortune at one time in my life, as a result of prudence and good luck in eventually getting a public service job I'm comfortable enough.
    So If the triple lock goes, so be it. I'd rather that than the cut in Universal Credit.
    Absolutely. And Pension credit for those in hardship should be prioritised too. I have several friends who are now retiring on state or NHS pensions in excess of £60k a year plus a very nice lump sum to fund the holidoddles and I just don't see why they are getting the state pension at all. I would far rather have a more generous pension for those with no alternative sources of income and means test it for those who do. But then, I don't need to get elected.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,792

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    If you want an arbitrary rise in the level of the state pension, that can be in the next manifesto.

    The triple lock was designed to ensure that current pensioners did not miss out on the wealth of their employed peers.
    An increase can be in the next manifesto but maintaining the triple lock was in the 2019 manifesto on which this government was elected.
    Since which time, there’s been a once-in-a-century pandemic - the recovery from which has produced a statistical anomaly in the earnings numbers.
    Has there been a "once-in-a century pandemic" since Boris pledged to retain the triple lock just two months ago?
    Did he? Hadn’t seen that, something of a hostage to fortune then!
  • kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    What on earth is a big majority for if not to be able to take unpopular but necessary decisions sometimes?

    If you continue to run scared at every whiff of unpopularity theres no point to winning big in the first place.

    What Boris and co should also learn from Cameron / Osborne, take some unpopular decisions quickly and move on. Labour spent 5 years screaming about back to wigan pier austerity, bedroom tax, etc, and it didn't do them any good.

    The problem you have is if you keep trying to put those decisions off or fudge them so it neither does much while still upsetting people.
    I think that is an interesting point. Certainly I think dragging things out does not help and gives little time to attempt recovery if you take a hit.
    But Boris needs to be liked. Which is true of all of us, and especially of politicians. But BoJo is an extreme case. Which is why he's hopeless in situations where decisiveness and upsetting people who aren't already on his "dead to me" list are needed. (Johnson so has a list like that. Like the multiple "Bastards" books bought from Rymans in the Private Eye John Major diaries.)

    After all, conversations about the Triple Lock have been bubbling around here for months. A truly ruthless government would have done something about this on the fourth page of one of the furlough packages at the height of the crisis.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    I'm a pensioner, ffs!

    Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
    Even worse they think that they have "earned" it by paying NI (and electing governments which spent that money and ran a deficit overall). Another serious upside of the abolition of NI and its incorporation into IT is that this particular delusion will fade over time.
    Well, I lived through the War and the troubles of the later 40's, so you might argue.....

    Not that I am. Although I had some seriously ill-fortune at one time in my life, as a result of prudence and good luck in eventually getting a public service job I'm comfortable enough.
    So If the triple lock goes, so be it. I'd rather that than the cut in Universal Credit.
    But then, I don't need to get elected.
    Not yet.

    I think we can all agree that what politics needs more of is lawyers holding office.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,904

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    I'm a pensioner, ffs!

    Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
    Even worse they think that they have "earned" it by paying NI (and electing governments which spent that money and ran a deficit overall). Another serious upside of the abolition of NI and its incorporation into IT is that this particular delusion will fade over time.
    They have 'earned' it by paying NI. That has been an explicit and very well publicised promise made by all governments since the war. It was indeed part of the basis of NationalI Insurance.The link is made explicit on the government websites today:

    To get the full basic State Pension you need a total of 30 qualifying years of National Insurance contributions or credits. ...
    If you have fewer than 30 qualifying years, your basic State Pension will be less than £137.60 per week but you might be able to top up by paying voluntary National Insurance contributions.


    https://www.gov.uk/state-pension/eligibility

    What's more some of the entitlement is under the now-abandoned SERPS introduced by Labour in 1968. For a while you could opt out of that and get a reduced rate of NI provided you put the equivalent into a private pensions. Any fooling with state pensions will unfairly disadvantage those that didn't opt out.

    All of which means that state pensions will have to continue as a universal 'benefit', whether or not that's a good use of public money

    But that doesn't mean that the triple lock is a good idea (it isn't, now, although it was in 2010 when first introduced at a time when pensions had fallen far behind earnings), nor that pensioners will be angry if they don't get the distorted 8% this year (they won't, I think Mike is wrong on this).
    I really need to go and do some work but for the last several years I had to repay the "universal" child benefit in my tax bills. I am not really seeing the difference. Why are rich pensioners not obliged to refund their state pension in their tax returns too?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,693
    Mr. Sandpit, that reminds me of.... extinction, I think.

    There was a programme I watched ages ago that was very interesting. Forget if it were about dinosaurs, woolly mammoths, or a general look at extinction, but it found that multiple changes occurring all at once were the worst for species.

    Lots of little factors can add up. As Maurice's stingy approach to new sandals for the soldiery made clear.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,693
    F1: in not shocking news, Alonso has a contract extension:
    https://twitter.com/autosport/status/1430805308385935415

    Turns out the team want to retain their really good driver.
  • Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    "I dont remember anyone promising X bad thing" works better making the same point.

    I don't think that's true

    The bus, like Brexit itself, is something the Brexiteers are desperate to forget.

    They were duped by a slogan on the side of a bus. That will always be true, and relevant.
    Its one of those irregular verbs:

    I tell the truth
    You dupe

    Was anyone duped by Cameron's promise to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands ?

    Or was anyone duped by claims that Brexit would lead to mass unemployment ?

    And so on and so on and so on.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,467
    edited August 2021
    DavidL said:



    I really need to go and do some work but for the last several years I had to repay the "universal" child benefit in my tax bills. I am not really seeing the difference. Why are rich pensioners not obliged to refund their state pension in their tax returns too?

    The difference is, as I said, that they've 'earned' it by paying NI over decades, and they were promised by all governments of both main parties that that would entitle them to the state pension when they retired (in full, if they paid for the requisite number of years). No-one ever promised you that child benefit would remain a permanent benefit linked to what you pay.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,987

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    I'm a pensioner, ffs!

    Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
    One of the odder things is the number of reduced prices pensioners get.

    Something which started when there were far fewer pensioners and when they tended to be far poorer.

    But why should a pensioner now get lower priced entry to a sports match for example.
    Another greedy envious git whining and whinging.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,693
    Mr. Richard, the importance of the word 'dupe' is that it means you don't have to bother engaging with an argument. It's similar to throwing out accusations of bigotry or telling people to educate themselves.

    Winning an argument can be hard. But if your opponent's view is bigoted or deceitful, then you don't need to try.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,692
    The new 'centrist' and 'liberal' Taliban promises to merely ban music and require women to have a male chaperone if they travel alone
    https://twitter.com/MailOnline/status/1430778284464353280?s=20
  • Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    If you want an arbitrary rise in the level of the state pension, that can be in the next manifesto.

    The triple lock was designed to ensure that current pensioners did not miss out on the wealth of their employed peers.
    An increase can be in the next manifesto but maintaining the triple lock was in the 2019 manifesto on which this government was elected.
    Since which time, there’s been a once-in-a-century pandemic - the recovery from which has produced a statistical anomaly in the earnings numbers.
    Has there been a "once-in-a century pandemic" since Boris pledged to retain the triple lock just two months ago?
    Did he? Hadn’t seen that, something of a hostage to fortune then!
    Everywhere is paywalled but a quick search finds, from the FT:-

    Downing Street on Monday [21st June, 2021] vowed to “stick” to the government’s “triple lock” pledge for uprating the state pension, brushing aside Treasury concerns about how this could add £4bn to the annual cost of the policy.

    Boris Johnson’s spokesman reiterated the commitment despite chancellor Rishi Sunak having questioned how the government could afford it given growing public spending pressures after the coronavirus pandemic.

    https://www.ft.com/content/98c7e44f-f769-44ea-b37b-4803ec8d2c83 (£££)
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,792
    edited August 2021
    HYUFD said:

    The new 'centrist' and 'liberal' Taliban promises to merely ban music and require women to have a male chaperone if they travel alone
    https://twitter.com/MailOnline/status/1430778284464353280?s=20

    Ah, introducing two things that Saudi Arabia - SAUDI ARABIA - has recently abolished!
  • theProletheProle Posts: 588
    edited August 2021
    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    "I dont remember anyone promising X bad thing" works better making the same point.

    I don't think that's true

    The bus, like Brexit itself, is something the Brexiteers are desperate to forget.

    They were duped by a slogan on the side of a bus. That will always be true, and relevant.
    No. People were not "duped". And you know it.
    Remainers were furious because they knew that it didn't actually matter what the number was. If the bus had said £100million a week, it would have probably shifted as many votes.

    But what made the Remainers really angry (and this was its genius) is that having gone for the largest possible plausible number (pretty much standard advertising practice), when they tried saying "but its only half that" what people heard was "half of an awful lot of money = still an awful lot of money".

    The best thing the Remainers could have done was ignore it - it probably wouldn't have got much traction. Instead, they spent days running round the media complaining about it, apparently not realising every time they brought it up they were just reinforcing the message that the EU was costing us a lot of money.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,987
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    I'm a pensioner, ffs!

    Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
    Even worse they think that they have "earned" it by paying NI (and electing governments which spent that money and ran a deficit overall). Another serious upside of the abolition of NI and its incorporation into IT is that this particular delusion will fade over time.
    Well, I lived through the War and the troubles of the later 40's, so you might argue.....

    Not that I am. Although I had some seriously ill-fortune at one time in my life, as a result of prudence and good luck in eventually getting a public service job I'm comfortable enough.
    So If the triple lock goes, so be it. I'd rather that than the cut in Universal Credit.
    Absolutely. And Pension credit for those in hardship should be prioritised too. I have several friends who are now retiring on state or NHS pensions in excess of £60k a year plus a very nice lump sum to fund the holidoddles and I just don't see why they are getting the state pension at all. I would far rather have a more generous pension for those with no alternative sources of income and means test it for those who do. But then, I don't need to get elected.
    My State Pension is round about the same as my Personal Allowance, so basically I'm paying tax on all my 'other' pensions. Which seems to me to be fair enough, although I'm by no means in the £60k pa category.
    I also get a bus pass, which under normal circumstances was worth about £3-4 pw, on average. And of course there's a bit off costs at various sports clubs and so on, Winter Fuel Allowance and £10 Christmas bonus.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 46,159

    John Rentoul
    @JohnRentoul
    ·
    1h
    Anyone who gets rid of repeat cookie requests will win a landslide at the subsequent election
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,693
    Mr. Prole, they should be angry at themselves for taking such a stupid approach. That would, however, entail being critical of the Virtuous (it's always easier to spot motes in an adversary's eye and miss the beam in your own).

    The Romans used to decry the dreadful approach of Hannibal to warfare, because he had the audacity to use smart tactics rather than just lining up his army to be demolished by the legions.

    I partly agree, though I think the better response would've been focusing on trade benefits (the economic argument was a plus for the EU, but one would never have guessed that from the campaign).

  • John Rentoul
    @JohnRentoul
    ·
    1h
    Anyone who gets rid of repeat cookie requests will win a landslide at the subsequent election

    Tell the silly sod to untick the "delete cookies when closing browser" option.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 11,709
    edited August 2021

    Given the UK took massively expensive economic measures and imposed huge restrictions on personal freedoms largely to save the pensioners from dying, it is seriously adrift for those same pensioners to get a Covid windfall. 3% is enough. Especially with inflation down to 2% this month.

    If you compare costs of COVID measures afaics there is actually little difference between the UK and say France or Germany.
    Carnyx said:

    AlistairM said:

    One of my childhood memories (I was born in 1977) was after budgets was what the state pension would be per week. It always seemed to be a talking point and there was always a complaint that it wasn't enough. At some point this just seems to have faded away and the state pension doesn't seem to be much discussed. Does the lack of conversation on it mean that generally it is ok? Certainly it seems to me that with the triple lock pensioners have done well.

    The full SP is £179.60 pw, a bit under £9400 pa (they have a weird way of calculating per week rather than by month or year).

    However that assumes you've made enough full years of NI contributions. Many people have not.

    The State basically admits that the state pension is not enough to live on by adding dole money aka Pension Credit to those who have to rely on it.I'm not sue what the trigger level is - I imagine it depends on renting costs etc. as well as savings.

    https://www.gov.uk/pension-credit

    Edit: SP is also taxable, as is pension credit I believe. And many occupational pensions are quite small.
    I was looking into that a little. From a recent 2021 HoC report. * This is pension income for a median salary private sector employee retiring and does *not* include benefits for pensioners.



    Whereas this shows income sources for pensioners.



    Complicated subject.

    * https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00290/SN00290.pdf
  • malcolmg said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    I'm a pensioner, ffs!

    Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
    One of the odder things is the number of reduced prices pensioners get.

    Something which started when there were far fewer pensioners and when they tended to be far poorer.

    But why should a pensioner now get lower priced entry to a sports match for example.
    Another greedy envious git whining and whinging.
    Have you ever surprised on the upside Malcolm ?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,987
    theProle said:

    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    "I dont remember anyone promising X bad thing" works better making the same point.

    I don't think that's true

    The bus, like Brexit itself, is something the Brexiteers are desperate to forget.

    They were duped by a slogan on the side of a bus. That will always be true, and relevant.
    No. People were not "duped". And you know it.
    Remainers were furious because they knew that it didn't actually matter what the number was. If the bus had said £100million a week, it would have probably shifted as many votes.

    But what made the Remainers really angry (and this was its genius) is that having gone for the largest possible plausible number (pretty much standard advertising practice), when they tried saying "but its only half that" what people heard was "half of an awful lot of money = still an awful lot of money".

    The best thing the Remainers could have done was ignore it - it probably wouldn't have got much traction. Instead, they spent days running round the media complaining about it, apparently not realising every time they brought it up they were just reinforcing the message that the EU was costing us a lot of money.
    Our Remain campaign was very badly handled indeed. IIRC Cameron insisted on being in charge. In contrast to 1975 where Wilson wisely stood above the fray and let two 'non-party' groups slug it out.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,783

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    I'm a pensioner, ffs!

    Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
    One of the odder things is the number of reduced prices pensioners get.

    Something which started when there were far fewer pensioners and when they tended to be far poorer.

    But why should a pensioner now get lower priced entry to a sports match for example.
    Agree, although HYUFD seems to think it will help me survive on my state pension. As if.

    I am really bugged by London regarding this (probably because being outside London I don't get it so I am irrationally bitter). All that free transport in London for people who can afford it being paid for by I assume London tax payers. Well I get the same for buses here, but I haven't seen a bus here since I retired so it is pretty academic.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,613
    edited August 2021
    Are voters motivated by policy preferences or partisan identities? In this paper, we argue that the British Conservative Party’s sudden change in Brexit policy (following the surprising result of the 2016 referendum on EU membership) offers a unique opportunity to study partisanship in the context of a natural experiment. Using an interrupted time series design, we find evidence that voters care primarily about policy: Europhilic Conservatives disaffiliated from the party, while Euroskeptics became more likely to identify with the Conservatives. These findings suggest that voters are sufficiently policy motivated to change parties if they disagree with their party on important issues. But we find that partisan identities do play a role in the development of voter preferences in another issue area: voters who joined the Conservatives immediately after the referendum subsequently adopted more right-wing views on economic redistribution.

    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57b3ced6b8a79b78f934ff9f/t/610c4b9acab3a41d243c62d6/1628195739659/JOP+Brexit.pdf
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    edited August 2021

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    I'm a pensioner, ffs!

    Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
    Even worse they think that they have "earned" it by paying NI (and electing governments which spent that money and ran a deficit overall). Another serious upside of the abolition of NI and its incorporation into IT is that this particular delusion will fade over time.
    They have 'earned' it by paying NI. That has been an explicit and very well publicised promise made by all governments since the war. It was indeed part of the basis of NationalI Insurance.The link is made explicit on the government websites today:

    To get the full basic State Pension you need a total of 30 qualifying years of National Insurance contributions or credits. ...
    If you have fewer than 30 qualifying years, your basic State Pension will be less than £137.60 per week but you might be able to top up by paying voluntary National Insurance contributions.


    https://www.gov.uk/state-pension/eligibility

    What's more some of the entitlement is under the now-abandoned SERPS introduced by Labour in 1968. For a while you could opt out of that and get a reduced rate of NI provided you put the equivalent into a private pensions. Any fooling with state pensions will unfairly disadvantage those that didn't opt out.

    All of which means that state pensions will have to continue as a universal 'benefit', whether or not that's a good use of public money

    But that doesn't mean that the triple lock is a good idea (it isn't, now, although it was in 2010 when first introduced at a time when pensions had fallen far behind earnings), nor that pensioners will be angry if they don't get the distorted 8% this year (they won't, I think Mike is wrong on this).
    Iirc voluntary conts mean you need to live to 175 to justify paying them their exorbitant costsper yr...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,613
    Westminster Voting Intention:

    CON: 37% (-7)
    LAB: 34% (+3)
    LDM: 14% (+2)
    GRN: 5% (+1)
    SNP: 4% (-2)
    REF: 2% (+1)

    Via @Kantar_UKI, 19-23 August, Changes w/ 12 July.


    Another one showing an SNP drop.....(probably noise, but you never know...)
  • CookieCookie Posts: 5,046
    theProle said:

    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    "I dont remember anyone promising X bad thing" works better making the same point.

    I don't think that's true

    The bus, like Brexit itself, is something the Brexiteers are desperate to forget.

    They were duped by a slogan on the side of a bus. That will always be true, and relevant.
    No. People were not "duped". And you know it.
    Remainers were furious because they knew that it didn't actually matter what the number was. If the bus had said £100million a week, it would have probably shifted as many votes.

    But what made the Remainers really angry (and this was its genius) is that having gone for the largest possible plausible number (pretty much standard advertising practice), when they tried saying "but its only half that" what people heard was "half of an awful lot of money = still an awful lot of money".

    The best thing the Remainers could have done was ignore it - it probably wouldn't have got much traction. Instead, they spent days running round the media complaining about it, apparently not realising every time they brought it up they were just reinforcing the message that the EU was costing us a lot of money.
    I agree. I could not believe the amount of airtime that Remainers gave that bus. It's as if they expected the argument to go:
    Leave: the EU costs us £350m a week.
    Electorate: That's terrible, we'll all vote leave.
    Remain: Aha - but due to a complex mechanism argued for 35 years ago by Mrs. Thatcher...
    Electorate, Remain and Leave:
    Chorus of cheers and boos, to taste
    Remain (continuing, in increasingly triumphant tone):
    ...we get some of that back in the form of a rebate, so the net figure is that the EU costs us £250m a week.
    Electorate: Hooray: The EU is terrific value, we'll all vote Remain.
    Remain (more loudly now): £250m a week, it costs us. Remember that.

  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 1,229

    theProle said:

    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    "I dont remember anyone promising X bad thing" works better making the same point.

    I don't think that's true

    The bus, like Brexit itself, is something the Brexiteers are desperate to forget.

    They were duped by a slogan on the side of a bus. That will always be true, and relevant.
    No. People were not "duped". And you know it.
    Remainers were furious because they knew that it didn't actually matter what the number was. If the bus had said £100million a week, it would have probably shifted as many votes.

    But what made the Remainers really angry (and this was its genius) is that having gone for the largest possible plausible number (pretty much standard advertising practice), when they tried saying "but its only half that" what people heard was "half of an awful lot of money = still an awful lot of money".

    The best thing the Remainers could have done was ignore it - it probably wouldn't have got much traction. Instead, they spent days running round the media complaining about it, apparently not realising every time they brought it up they were just reinforcing the message that the EU was costing us a lot of money.
    Our Remain campaign was very badly handled indeed. IIRC Cameron insisted on being in charge. In contrast to 1975 where Wilson wisely stood above the fray and let two 'non-party' groups slug it out.
    The same was true of Farage's Turkey poster. Instead of ignoring it, and maybe presenting a more positive euro-message, remainers fanned the flames by arguing that it wasn't true, it wasn't fair and immigration is a good thing anyway.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 6,488
    Just cast my vote:

    - “Are you in favour of the Draft Co-operation Agreement that has been reached between the SNP Scottish Government and the Scottish Green Party Parliamentary Group?”

    I voted yes.

    Voting will close at 10am on Saturday 28 August 2021.
  • Think even with these polls being all over the shop, we will see a Labour lead anyway, feeling good about my bet
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,792

    Westminster Voting Intention:

    CON: 37% (-7)
    LAB: 34% (+3)
    LDM: 14% (+2)
    GRN: 5% (+1)
    SNP: 4% (-2)
    REF: 2% (+1)

    Via @Kantar_UKI, 19-23 August, Changes w/ 12 July.


    Another one showing an SNP drop.....(probably noise, but you never know...)
    Well that’s somewhat more than MoE, albeit with changes over a month. August effect, or something more worrying for the government?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,692

    Westminster Voting Intention:

    CON: 37% (-7)
    LAB: 34% (+3)
    LDM: 14% (+2)
    GRN: 5% (+1)
    SNP: 4% (-2)
    REF: 2% (+1)

    Via @Kantar_UKI, 19-23 August, Changes w/ 12 July.


    Another one showing an SNP drop.....(probably noise, but you never know...)
    LDs there on 14% which would be their highest voteshare since 2010.

    Labour up but still only at Kinnock 1992 levels, SNP down as well as the Tories
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,613
    Draft EU declaration on Afghanistan:

    https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1430825596410597376?s=20

    TLDR: "Keep 'em out, keep 'em there"
  • ComRes was 20-22 Aug, 41 34.

    Kantar was 19-23, 37 34.

    Doesn't seem to be any significant difference in fieldwork dates?
  • CookieCookie Posts: 5,046


    John Rentoul
    @JohnRentoul
    ·
    1h
    Anyone who gets rid of repeat cookie requests will win a landslide at the subsequent election

    Tell the silly sod to untick the "delete cookies when closing browser" option.
    Hey!
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,783

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    I'm a pensioner, ffs!

    Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
    Even worse they think that they have "earned" it by paying NI (and electing governments which spent that money and ran a deficit overall). Another serious upside of the abolition of NI and its incorporation into IT is that this particular delusion will fade over time.
    Well, I lived through the War and the troubles of the later 40's, so you might argue.....

    Not that I am. Although I had some seriously ill-fortune at one time in my life, as a result of prudence and good luck in eventually getting a public service job I'm comfortable enough.
    So If the triple lock goes, so be it. I'd rather that than the cut in Universal Credit.
    Absolutely. And Pension credit for those in hardship should be prioritised too. I have several friends who are now retiring on state or NHS pensions in excess of £60k a year plus a very nice lump sum to fund the holidoddles and I just don't see why they are getting the state pension at all. I would far rather have a more generous pension for those with no alternative sources of income and means test it for those who do. But then, I don't need to get elected.
    My State Pension is round about the same as my Personal Allowance, so basically I'm paying tax on all my 'other' pensions. Which seems to me to be fair enough, although I'm by no means in the £60k pa category.
    I also get a bus pass, which under normal circumstances was worth about £3-4 pw, on average. And of course there's a bit off costs at various sports clubs and so on, Winter Fuel Allowance and £10 Christmas bonus.
    Mine is quite a bit lower than the PA (I get the basic state pension). No bus pass as, as per previous post we don't really have buses! No winter fuel allowance (just missed it by a few weeks). Get the £10 Xmas bonus. No occupational pension. So no additional benefits really, but I am fine with that as they are small anyway. I do have a personal pension fund, but don't take a pension yet, other than a small lump sum to take me up to the PA each year and what I guess most would consider substantial assets to fall back on as I get older. Currently live on surplus cash.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,987
    theProle said:

    malcolmg said:

    AlistairM said:

    One of my childhood memories (I was born in 1977) was after budgets was what the state pension would be per week. It always seemed to be a talking point and there was always a complaint that it wasn't enough. At some point this just seems to have faded away and the state pension doesn't seem to be much discussed. Does the lack of conversation on it mean that generally it is ok? Certainly it seems to me that with the triple lock pensioners have done well.

    YOU would soon know if you had to live on it. If that is your only income you are in poverty for sure.
    I think one of the issues (and its not straightforward to fix) is that the state pension is fairly stingy if you're single, and actually quite generous if you're a couple, as most of the time a couple gets 2x what the single does.

    The other factor is that if you are a home owner, or in old fashioned subsidised social housing, a pension shouldn't be too bad to live on, and if you are renting privately it's going to be grim.

    My parents - married, home owners - are looking at what they'll get in a couple of years when they're both eligible to draw their pensions, and thinking they will be really comfortably off.

    But I can imagine say a recent divorcee whose just lost his house in the divorce having a pretty rough time of it.


    Good assessment , there will be a lot of people not well off for sure.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,693
    Con vote falling rather rapidly. In 6 months, they'll be on -5% if the trend continues.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,987
    kjh said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    I'm a pensioner, ffs!

    Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
    One of the odder things is the number of reduced prices pensioners get.

    Something which started when there were far fewer pensioners and when they tended to be far poorer.

    But why should a pensioner now get lower priced entry to a sports match for example.
    Agree, although HYUFD seems to think it will help me survive on my state pension. As if.

    I am really bugged by London regarding this (probably because being outside London I don't get it so I am irrationally bitter). All that free transport in London for people who can afford it being paid for by I assume London tax payers. Well I get the same for buses here, but I haven't seen a bus here since I retired so it is pretty academic.
    This isn't an urban area but we have enough buses for a local u3a to run a Bus Safari Group.
    Under normal times, that is, of course.
    Half price at our local football club, free at the cricket club, but so is everyone else.
  • Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    "I dont remember anyone promising X bad thing" works better making the same point.

    I don't think that's true

    The bus, like Brexit itself, is something the Brexiteers are desperate to forget.

    They were duped by a slogan on the side of a bus. That will always be true, and relevant.
    Its one of those irregular verbs:

    I tell the truth
    You dupe

    Was anyone duped by Cameron's promise to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands ?

    Or was anyone duped by claims that Brexit would lead to mass unemployment ?

    And so on and so on and so on.
    Yeah, cheers for that mass unemployment, immediate recession bollocks that didn’t happen and that Leavers continually point to with glee.

    Wonder where that bollocks came from?

    Ah, from the Osborne-led Treasury - https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36355564.amp

    The Tories fucked us all with their endless internecine warfare over Europe, and they really fucked up the shite Remain campaign that Cameron and Osborne had ultimate responsibility for.
  • Is the trend that the Tory vote is slowly falling now?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 5,407
    Scott_xP said:

    day in, day out, dawn to dusk, Brexit, Brexit, Brexit...

    This is what we voted for.

    Suck it up...
    I didn't vote a fool to spam pb with endless repeats of the same selective quotation...
  • On Brexit (I know, I know...) there is a lot of guffawing at people like Jimmy Buchan who campaigned for Brexit and now says it has't delivered for his seafood industry.

    https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/1430578846894592016

    For me they miss the obvious - so many people voted for Brexit because the status quo did not work for them. Seafood and fishing and farming were all tied up in CFP and CAP knots and were promised that free of EU regulations they would thrive. That the knots have been replaced by newer bigger knots is a huge source of frustration for them - they just wanted things to get better.

    For Mr Buchan read millions of people in the red wall who voted Brexit and then Tory to make things better. Unless they are given tangible and obvious improvements to their lives, they aren't going to stick around backing Boris.

    So, with an increasing list of practical things not working and two huge deteriorations even in that coming by new year, what does the government do? "Shut up moaning" won't cut it, nor will painting lipstick on the pig.
  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,133

    The UK state pension is the worst in the OECD, and now they want to hold it down, again. Voters are getting ripped off.

    It won't be if Scotland become independent!
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,783
    Cookie said:

    theProle said:

    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    "I dont remember anyone promising X bad thing" works better making the same point.

    I don't think that's true

    The bus, like Brexit itself, is something the Brexiteers are desperate to forget.

    They were duped by a slogan on the side of a bus. That will always be true, and relevant.
    No. People were not "duped". And you know it.
    Remainers were furious because they knew that it didn't actually matter what the number was. If the bus had said £100million a week, it would have probably shifted as many votes.

    But what made the Remainers really angry (and this was its genius) is that having gone for the largest possible plausible number (pretty much standard advertising practice), when they tried saying "but its only half that" what people heard was "half of an awful lot of money = still an awful lot of money".

    The best thing the Remainers could have done was ignore it - it probably wouldn't have got much traction. Instead, they spent days running round the media complaining about it, apparently not realising every time they brought it up they were just reinforcing the message that the EU was costing us a lot of money.
    I agree. I could not believe the amount of airtime that Remainers gave that bus. It's as if they expected the argument to go:
    Leave: the EU costs us £350m a week.
    Electorate: That's terrible, we'll all vote leave.
    Remain: Aha - but due to a complex mechanism argued for 35 years ago by Mrs. Thatcher...
    Electorate, Remain and Leave:
    Chorus of cheers and boos, to taste
    Remain (continuing, in increasingly triumphant tone):
    ...we get some of that back in the form of a rebate, so the net figure is that the EU costs us £250m a week.
    Electorate: Hooray: The EU is terrific value, we'll all vote Remain.
    Remain (more loudly now): £250m a week, it costs us. Remember that.

    Well you are absolutely right of course, but I can understand it. You just have to respond. You just have to. You can't resist. Can you?

    We once found in a local election we were filling our leaflet up with so much rebuttal we weren't getting any of our stuff in and of course the electorate then doesn't know who to believe anyway, after all they are all a bunch of liars. Eventually we thought enough is enough and stopped. But before doing that we put in a leaflet that we were going to stop and why and surprisingly that went down well.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,987
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    I'm a pensioner, ffs!

    Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
    Even worse they think that they have "earned" it by paying NI (and electing governments which spent that money and ran a deficit overall). Another serious upside of the abolition of NI and its incorporation into IT is that this particular delusion will fade over time.
    Well, I lived through the War and the troubles of the later 40's, so you might argue.....

    Not that I am. Although I had some seriously ill-fortune at one time in my life, as a result of prudence and good luck in eventually getting a public service job I'm comfortable enough.
    So If the triple lock goes, so be it. I'd rather that than the cut in Universal Credit.
    Absolutely. And Pension credit for those in hardship should be prioritised too. I have several friends who are now retiring on state or NHS pensions in excess of £60k a year plus a very nice lump sum to fund the holidoddles and I just don't see why they are getting the state pension at all. I would far rather have a more generous pension for those with no alternative sources of income and means test it for those who do. But then, I don't need to get elected.
    David if that was the case then they should stop taking NI off when people reach a certain salary and advise them they do not get a state pension. You cannot take the money off people for up to 50 years and then say , "you have done ok so you are not getting what you have paid dearly for". Your chums will pay over 40% tax on their pensions so are in fact NOT getting much of it in any case.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 11,709
    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    I'm a pensioner, ffs!

    Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
    One of the odder things is the number of reduced prices pensioners get.

    Something which started when there were far fewer pensioners and when they tended to be far poorer.

    But why should a pensioner now get lower priced entry to a sports match for example.
    I think that is also a timing thing - get the pensioners in on Thursday for their hairdoes and keep Friday clear for da yoof and the weekends for working parents with families.
    Is it odder than NHS staff getting a 10% discount at Morrisons and 20% off at Iceland?
    https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/nhs-staff-offers/

    I think such are all driven by supply / demand / marketing.

  • MattWMattW Posts: 11,709

    malcolmg said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    I'm a pensioner, ffs!

    Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
    One of the odder things is the number of reduced prices pensioners get.

    Something which started when there were far fewer pensioners and when they tended to be far poorer.

    But why should a pensioner now get lower priced entry to a sports match for example.
    Another greedy envious git whining and whinging.
    Have you ever surprised on the upside Malcolm ?
    Yes. Sometimes.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,987
    kjh said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    I'm a pensioner, ffs!

    Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
    Even worse they think that they have "earned" it by paying NI (and electing governments which spent that money and ran a deficit overall). Another serious upside of the abolition of NI and its incorporation into IT is that this particular delusion will fade over time.
    Well, I lived through the War and the troubles of the later 40's, so you might argue.....

    Not that I am. Although I had some seriously ill-fortune at one time in my life, as a result of prudence and good luck in eventually getting a public service job I'm comfortable enough.
    So If the triple lock goes, so be it. I'd rather that than the cut in Universal Credit.
    Absolutely. And Pension credit for those in hardship should be prioritised too. I have several friends who are now retiring on state or NHS pensions in excess of £60k a year plus a very nice lump sum to fund the holidoddles and I just don't see why they are getting the state pension at all. I would far rather have a more generous pension for those with no alternative sources of income and means test it for those who do. But then, I don't need to get elected.
    My State Pension is round about the same as my Personal Allowance, so basically I'm paying tax on all my 'other' pensions. Which seems to me to be fair enough, although I'm by no means in the £60k pa category.
    I also get a bus pass, which under normal circumstances was worth about £3-4 pw, on average. And of course there's a bit off costs at various sports clubs and so on, Winter Fuel Allowance and £10 Christmas bonus.
    Mine is quite a bit lower than the PA (I get the basic state pension). No bus pass as, as per previous post we don't really have buses! No winter fuel allowance (just missed it by a few weeks). Get the £10 Xmas bonus. No occupational pension. So no additional benefits really, but I am fine with that as they are small anyway. I do have a personal pension fund, but don't take a pension yet, other than a small lump sum to take me up to the PA each year and what I guess most would consider substantial assets to fall back on as I get older. Currently live on surplus cash.
    Can I suggest getting a bus pass anyway, as even if you don't have buses, if you go 'away', in England, it'll be valid there. Includes London. Also photographic evidence for voting, and for other benefits.... sports clubs, theatres and so on.!
    You'll get WFA next year.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    I'm a pensioner, ffs!

    Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
    Even worse they think that they have "earned" it by paying NI (and electing governments which spent that money and ran a deficit overall). Another serious upside of the abolition of NI and its incorporation into IT is that this particular delusion will fade over time.
    They have 'earned' it by paying NI. That has been an explicit and very well publicised promise made by all governments since the war. It was indeed part of the basis of NationalI Insurance.The link is made explicit on the government websites today:

    To get the full basic State Pension you need a total of 30 qualifying years of National Insurance contributions or credits. ...
    If you have fewer than 30 qualifying years, your basic State Pension will be less than £137.60 per week but you might be able to top up by paying voluntary National Insurance contributions.


    https://www.gov.uk/state-pension/eligibility

    What's more some of the entitlement is under the now-abandoned SERPS introduced by Labour in 1968. For a while you could opt out of that and get a reduced rate of NI provided you put the equivalent into a private pensions. Any fooling with state pensions will unfairly disadvantage those that didn't opt out.

    All of which means that state pensions will have to continue as a universal 'benefit', whether or not that's a good use of public money

    But that doesn't mean that the triple lock is a good idea (it isn't, now, although it was in 2010 when first introduced at a time when pensions had fallen far behind earnings), nor that pensioners will be angry if they don't get the distorted 8% this year (they won't, I think Mike is wrong on this).
    I really need to go and do some work but for the last several years I had to repay the "universal" child benefit in my tax bills. I am not really seeing the difference. Why are rich pensioners not obliged to refund their state pension in their tax returns too?
    Because they have earned it and are entitled to it. Likely, they as a group will have paid far more for their pension than anyone else.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,693
    Mr. kjh, that sounds like the Sonic the Hedgehog approach, somewhat.

    The recent CGI depiction of the aforementioned hedgehog went down terribly. And the firm behind the film decided to acknowledge that, and take the time to change things for the better, explaining to the fans and potential fans that's what they were doing. Bought them a bucketload of goodwill.

    Maybe this is the other side of the 'it's the cover up that gets you' coin. A straightforward and honest explanation can go a long way.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 18,175
    The UK is being hit by a super combo of trucker shortages, recruitment challenges, new post-EU paperwork and rising prices in supply chains. This is resulting in shortages of everything from blood collection tubes to peri-peri chicken.

    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-faces-supply-chains-crunch-caused-by-brexit-and-coronavirus/
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,987
    Sandpit said:

    Westminster Voting Intention:

    CON: 37% (-7)
    LAB: 34% (+3)
    LDM: 14% (+2)
    GRN: 5% (+1)
    SNP: 4% (-2)
    REF: 2% (+1)

    Via @Kantar_UKI, 19-23 August, Changes w/ 12 July.


    Another one showing an SNP drop.....(probably noise, but you never know...)
    Well that’s somewhat more than MoE, albeit with changes over a month. August effect, or something more worrying for the government?
    SNP heading for the buffers with their maniacal focus on GRA and self ID with no intention on independence. They are shipping members at a great rate. Chickens coming home to roost.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,904

    Just cast my vote:

    - “Are you in favour of the Draft Co-operation Agreement that has been reached between the SNP Scottish Government and the Scottish Green Party Parliamentary Group?”

    I voted yes.

    Voting will close at 10am on Saturday 28 August 2021.

    I think that there is a typo Stuart, its not a "draft" Co-operation Agreement. Close though.
  • OT – old parliamentary salaries. Chris Bryant's book The Glamour Boys – about the largely gay, mainly Conservative MPs who supported Churchill's opposition to the Nazis – mentions that in 1939 an MP was paid £600 a year but a parliamentary under secretary (the most junior of junior ministers) got an additional £1,500 – about £100,000 in 2018 money.

    So since then, MPs have done better but ministers and the Prime Minister (who would now be on about half a million) worse.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,783

    kjh said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    I'm a pensioner, ffs!

    Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
    Even worse they think that they have "earned" it by paying NI (and electing governments which spent that money and ran a deficit overall). Another serious upside of the abolition of NI and its incorporation into IT is that this particular delusion will fade over time.
    Well, I lived through the War and the troubles of the later 40's, so you might argue.....

    Not that I am. Although I had some seriously ill-fortune at one time in my life, as a result of prudence and good luck in eventually getting a public service job I'm comfortable enough.
    So If the triple lock goes, so be it. I'd rather that than the cut in Universal Credit.
    Absolutely. And Pension credit for those in hardship should be prioritised too. I have several friends who are now retiring on state or NHS pensions in excess of £60k a year plus a very nice lump sum to fund the holidoddles and I just don't see why they are getting the state pension at all. I would far rather have a more generous pension for those with no alternative sources of income and means test it for those who do. But then, I don't need to get elected.
    My State Pension is round about the same as my Personal Allowance, so basically I'm paying tax on all my 'other' pensions. Which seems to me to be fair enough, although I'm by no means in the £60k pa category.
    I also get a bus pass, which under normal circumstances was worth about £3-4 pw, on average. And of course there's a bit off costs at various sports clubs and so on, Winter Fuel Allowance and £10 Christmas bonus.
    Mine is quite a bit lower than the PA (I get the basic state pension). No bus pass as, as per previous post we don't really have buses! No winter fuel allowance (just missed it by a few weeks). Get the £10 Xmas bonus. No occupational pension. So no additional benefits really, but I am fine with that as they are small anyway. I do have a personal pension fund, but don't take a pension yet, other than a small lump sum to take me up to the PA each year and what I guess most would consider substantial assets to fall back on as I get older. Currently live on surplus cash.
    Can I suggest getting a bus pass anyway, as even if you don't have buses, if you go 'away', in England, it'll be valid there. Includes London. Also photographic evidence for voting, and for other benefits.... sports clubs, theatres and so on.!
    You'll get WFA next year.
    Cheers for that, very useful.

    Re WFA - Nope I never get it I'm afraid. Rules changed and missed getting it by a few weeks. Although if I am wrong I would love to know about it.
  • Is the trend that the Tory vote is slowly falling now?

    Probably has been for a while, from about 42% in mid-May (peak of the Hartlepool bump) back to 40% now, with more of that going to Lib Dems than Labour.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election_after_2019_(LOESS).svg/1000px-Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election_after_2019_(LOESS).svg.png

    As @HYUFD noted above, 34% was Labour's score in 1992, which allowed John Major a narrow but mostly workable majority on 42%.

    40% is getting to the point where the Conservatives need to be careful. At 42%, it's really hard for them to lose, and they can win bigly. At 40%, there's a window of risk, depending on how the other 60% is distributed. And whilst there are lots of things in the Conservatives' favour, the current trend and the contents of the intray aren't among them.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,783

    Mr. kjh, that sounds like the Sonic the Hedgehog approach, somewhat.

    The recent CGI depiction of the aforementioned hedgehog went down terribly. And the firm behind the film decided to acknowledge that, and take the time to change things for the better, explaining to the fans and potential fans that's what they were doing. Bought them a bucketload of goodwill.

    Maybe this is the other side of the 'it's the cover up that gets you' coin. A straightforward and honest explanation can go a long way.

    Hi MD. Not sure which post you are referring to or whether you have got me mixed up with someone else.

    Or of course I could be making posts that I have no idea I have done. Always possible, we are on a pensioners thread after all.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,821
    edited August 2021

    On Brexit (I know, I know...) there is a lot of guffawing at people like Jimmy Buchan who campaigned for Brexit and now says it has't delivered for his seafood industry.

    https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/1430578846894592016

    For me they miss the obvious - so many people voted for Brexit because the status quo did not work for them. Seafood and fishing and farming were all tied up in CFP and CAP knots and were promised that free of EU regulations they would thrive. That the knots have been replaced by newer bigger knots is a huge source of frustration for them - they just wanted things to get better.

    For Mr Buchan read millions of people in the red wall who voted Brexit and then Tory to make things better. Unless they are given tangible and obvious improvements to their lives, they aren't going to stick around backing Boris.

    So, with an increasing list of practical things not working and two huge deteriorations even in that coming by new year, what does the government do? "Shut up moaning" won't cut it, nor will painting lipstick on the pig.

    They are likely already reading David Skelton's new book, The New Snobbery (as they did with his previous Little Platoons) and we might well see some action from them as a result.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Snobbery-David-Skelton/dp/1785906577
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,792
    edited August 2021

    OT – old parliamentary salaries. Chris Bryant's book The Glamour Boys – about the largely gay, mainly Conservative MPs who supported Churchill's opposition to the Nazis – mentions that in 1939 an MP was paid £600 a year but a parliamentary under secretary (the most junior of junior ministers) got an additional £1,500 – about £100,000 in 2018 money.

    So since then, MPs have done better but ministers and the Prime Minister (who would now be on about half a million) worse.

    Ministerial salaries are a really interesting one. They’ve barely moved in the past decade, and the PM’s salary is I think still unchanged since Brown cut it just before the election in 2010.

    There’s arguments that, given how unstable the job and how difficult it is to attract quality applicants, ministers should be paid a lot more than they are now. Against that, is that they’re already earning five or six times the average wage, plus generous expenses, and raising their salaries would give a bad impression to the public.

    There’s also the question of how former ministers earn their money - could a higher salary in office be offset by stricter rules on post-ministerial earnings, for example?

    It’s a genuine conundrum, but any attempt to change anything would be met by vocal opposition, so the status quo remains. Especially given the incumbent PM’s obvious struggles with money.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,987
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    I'm a pensioner, ffs!

    Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
    Even worse they think that they have "earned" it by paying NI (and electing governments which spent that money and ran a deficit overall). Another serious upside of the abolition of NI and its incorporation into IT is that this particular delusion will fade over time.
    Well, I lived through the War and the troubles of the later 40's, so you might argue.....

    Not that I am. Although I had some seriously ill-fortune at one time in my life, as a result of prudence and good luck in eventually getting a public service job I'm comfortable enough.
    So If the triple lock goes, so be it. I'd rather that than the cut in Universal Credit.
    Absolutely. And Pension credit for those in hardship should be prioritised too. I have several friends who are now retiring on state or NHS pensions in excess of £60k a year plus a very nice lump sum to fund the holidoddles and I just don't see why they are getting the state pension at all. I would far rather have a more generous pension for those with no alternative sources of income and means test it for those who do. But then, I don't need to get elected.
    My State Pension is round about the same as my Personal Allowance, so basically I'm paying tax on all my 'other' pensions. Which seems to me to be fair enough, although I'm by no means in the £60k pa category.
    I also get a bus pass, which under normal circumstances was worth about £3-4 pw, on average. And of course there's a bit off costs at various sports clubs and so on, Winter Fuel Allowance and £10 Christmas bonus.
    Mine is quite a bit lower than the PA (I get the basic state pension). No bus pass as, as per previous post we don't really have buses! No winter fuel allowance (just missed it by a few weeks). Get the £10 Xmas bonus. No occupational pension. So no additional benefits really, but I am fine with that as they are small anyway. I do have a personal pension fund, but don't take a pension yet, other than a small lump sum to take me up to the PA each year and what I guess most would consider substantial assets to fall back on as I get older. Currently live on surplus cash.
    Can I suggest getting a bus pass anyway, as even if you don't have buses, if you go 'away', in England, it'll be valid there. Includes London. Also photographic evidence for voting, and for other benefits.... sports clubs, theatres and so on.!
    You'll get WFA next year.
    Cheers for that, very useful.

    Re WFA - Nope I never get it I'm afraid. Rules changed and missed getting it by a few weeks. Although if I am wrong I would love to know about it.
    Gov.uk site says you get it if:
    you were born on or before 26 September 1955
    you lived in the UK for at least one day during the week of 20 to 26 September 2021 - this is called the ‘qualifying week’

    But AFAIK that's the rule for 2021. Someone born before 26 September 1955 would now, or almost be, 66.
    2022 will just move the year on one.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,766

    Scott_xP said:

    day in, day out, dawn to dusk, Brexit, Brexit, Brexit...

    This is what we voted for.

    Suck it up...
    I didn't vote a fool to spam pb with endless repeats of the same selective quotation...
    I didn't vote for endless bleating about said repeats, yet here we are..

    Though tbf I didn't see the 'what kind of web content do you want' options on the voting paper.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 11,288
    edited August 2021
    TOPPING said:

    On Brexit (I know, I know...) there is a lot of guffawing at people like Jimmy Buchan who campaigned for Brexit and now says it has't delivered for his seafood industry.

    https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/1430578846894592016

    For me they miss the obvious - so many people voted for Brexit because the status quo did not work for them. Seafood and fishing and farming were all tied up in CFP and CAP knots and were promised that free of EU regulations they would thrive. That the knots have been replaced by newer bigger knots is a huge source of frustration for them - they just wanted things to get better.

    For Mr Buchan read millions of people in the red wall who voted Brexit and then Tory to make things better. Unless they are given tangible and obvious improvements to their lives, they aren't going to stick around backing Boris.

    So, with an increasing list of practical things not working and two huge deteriorations even in that coming by new year, what does the government do? "Shut up moaning" won't cut it, nor will painting lipstick on the pig.

    They are likely already reading David Skelton's new book, The New Snobbery (as they did with his previous Little Platoons) and we might well see some action from them as a result.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Snobbery-David-Skelton/dp/1785906577
    Others who got that Brexit was about taking back control and levelling up rather than anti-Europeanism included Dominic Cummings. Brexit was not won by sovereignty hawks or small state free traders like Bill Cash or John Redwood. The offer was – your life sucks because your town's been screwed over by London luvvies and Boris will fix it.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,987

    Is the trend that the Tory vote is slowly falling now?

    Probably has been for a while, from about 42% in mid-May (peak of the Hartlepool bump) back to 40% now, with more of that going to Lib Dems than Labour.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election_after_2019_(LOESS).svg/1000px-Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election_after_2019_(LOESS).svg.png

    As @HYUFD noted above, 34% was Labour's score in 1992, which allowed John Major a narrow but mostly workable majority on 42%.

    40% is getting to the point where the Conservatives need to be careful. At 42%, it's really hard for them to lose, and they can win bigly. At 40%, there's a window of risk, depending on how the other 60% is distributed. And whilst there are lots of things in the Conservatives' favour, the current trend and the contents of the intray aren't among them.
    At what point do they lose Uxbridge?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,783
    Sandpit said:

    OT – old parliamentary salaries. Chris Bryant's book The Glamour Boys – about the largely gay, mainly Conservative MPs who supported Churchill's opposition to the Nazis – mentions that in 1939 an MP was paid £600 a year but a parliamentary under secretary (the most junior of junior ministers) got an additional £1,500 – about £100,000 in 2018 money.

    So since then, MPs have done better but ministers and the Prime Minister (who would now be on about half a million) worse.

    Ministerial salaries are a really interesting one. They’ve barely moved in the past decade, and the PM’s salary is I think still unchanged since Brown cut it just before the election in 2010.

    There’s arguments that, given how unstable the job and how difficult it is to attract quality applicants, ministers should be paid a lot more than they are now. Against that, is that they’re already earning five or six times the average wage, plus generous expenses, and raising their salaries would give a bad impression to the public.

    It’s a genuine conundrum, but any attempt to change anything would be met by vocal opposition, so the status quo remains.
    I pretty well agree with your post.

    I'm pretty happy with the status quo. One doesn't go into politics for the money, or at least one shouldn't, but equally the salary shouldn't be such that only well off people can enter. I am not convinced that the unstable argument either. I agree it is true for ministers as you point out, but many MPs argue the same for themselves which is nonsense compared to the real world. Even in a marginal you tend to get 4 years and many have jobs for life. Compare that to the private sector.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 5,407

    Is the trend that the Tory vote is slowly falling now?

    Taking the individual polls just as data points it looks like a drop from 43% in June to 41% now, with a modest 1 % rise for labour.

    https://politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/
  • TOPPING said:

    On Brexit (I know, I know...) there is a lot of guffawing at people like Jimmy Buchan who campaigned for Brexit and now says it has't delivered for his seafood industry.

    https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/1430578846894592016

    For me they miss the obvious - so many people voted for Brexit because the status quo did not work for them. Seafood and fishing and farming were all tied up in CFP and CAP knots and were promised that free of EU regulations they would thrive. That the knots have been replaced by newer bigger knots is a huge source of frustration for them - they just wanted things to get better.

    For Mr Buchan read millions of people in the red wall who voted Brexit and then Tory to make things better. Unless they are given tangible and obvious improvements to their lives, they aren't going to stick around backing Boris.

    So, with an increasing list of practical things not working and two huge deteriorations even in that coming by new year, what does the government do? "Shut up moaning" won't cut it, nor will painting lipstick on the pig.

    They are likely already reading David Skelton's new book, The New Snobbery (as they did with his previous Little Platoons) and we might well see some action from them as a result.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Snobbery-David-Skelton/dp/1785906577
    That snobbery he writes about is absolutely there. My point is more that having won these voters over the Tories now need to deliver. And they seem determined to pretend that the very real problems aren't there at all or are someone else's fault. Red wall voters aren't stupid.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 18,175
    Countries where coronavirus is being handled most effectively with the least social and economic disruption: 1. Norway
    2. Netherlands
    3. Finland
    4. Ireland
    5. Austria
    6. Belgium
    7. Germany
    8. Singapore
    9. Switzerland
    10. Spain.

    US ranks 25th.

    UK 22nd


    @business
    https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-resilience-ranking/?terminal=true
  • Team GB smashing it in the Paralympics. 12 medals already.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,792

    Team GB smashing it in the Paralympics. 12 medals already.

    Good to see. So who do we think are the likely SPoTY nominees from the Paralympics?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 11,288
    edited August 2021
    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    The new 'centrist' and 'liberal' Taliban promises to merely ban music and require women to have a male chaperone if they travel alone
    https://twitter.com/MailOnline/status/1430778284464353280?s=20

    Ah, introducing two things that Saudi Arabia - SAUDI ARABIA - has recently abolished!
    Frank Skinner on Osama Bin Laden – All music's banned by the Taliban so he always misses the ice cream van.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,200
    edited August 2021
    Scott_xP said:

    Countries where coronavirus is being handled most effectively with the least social and economic disruption: 1. Norway
    2. Netherlands
    3. Finland
    4. Ireland
    5. Austria
    6. Belgium
    7. Germany
    8. Singapore
    9. Switzerland
    10. Spain.

    US ranks 25th.

    UK 22nd


    @business
    https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-resilience-ranking/?terminal=true

    2# Netherlands......least social disruption...That place where they were rioting?

    I would have thought sensibly Germany has to be above all the rest of those countries.

    Also looks well dodgy their rankings, given Israel has somehow gone from #1 to #36 in a few weeks. And China is #24....China has officially bugger all COVID and has been back to normal for over a year. New Zealand #29....

    Sounds like total bollocks to me.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,830

    Think even with these polls being all over the shop, we will see a Labour lead anyway, feeling good about my bet

    As someone with the opposite bet, I'm inclined to agree with you. The 'true' Tory lead is barely large enough at the moment to stop statistical noise from giving a Labour leader with the odd outlier, and it seems to be slightly shrinking.


  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,692
    edited August 2021
    Sandpit said:

    OT – old parliamentary salaries. Chris Bryant's book The Glamour Boys – about the largely gay, mainly Conservative MPs who supported Churchill's opposition to the Nazis – mentions that in 1939 an MP was paid £600 a year but a parliamentary under secretary (the most junior of junior ministers) got an additional £1,500 – about £100,000 in 2018 money.

    So since then, MPs have done better but ministers and the Prime Minister (who would now be on about half a million) worse.

    Ministerial salaries are a really interesting one. They’ve barely moved in the past decade, and the PM’s salary is I think still unchanged since Brown cut it just before the election in 2010.

    There’s arguments that, given how unstable the job and how difficult it is to attract quality applicants, ministers should be paid a lot more than they are now. Against that, is that they’re already earning five or six times the average wage, plus generous expenses, and raising their salaries would give a bad impression to the public.

    There’s also the question of how former ministers earn their money - could a higher salary in office be offset by stricter rules on post-ministerial earnings, for example?

    It’s a genuine conundrum, but any attempt to change anything would be met by vocal opposition, so the status quo remains. Especially given the incumbent PM’s obvious struggles with money.
    Though to be fair the PM gets Chequers as a country residence, the Foreign Secretary gets Chevening and the Chancellor gets Dorneywood.

    They are all stately homes that would cost millions on the open market, so for top ministers the perks are not all via salary.

    Plus the PM gets a chef, personal protection and chauffeur driven car with police escort etc too and hefty pension as well
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,830

    Team GB smashing it in the Paralympics. 12 medals already.

    You love to see it. We are a genuine superpower at the Paralympics.



  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,574

    Scott_xP said:

    Countries where coronavirus is being handled most effectively with the least social and economic disruption: 1. Norway
    2. Netherlands
    3. Finland
    4. Ireland
    5. Austria
    6. Belgium
    7. Germany
    8. Singapore
    9. Switzerland
    10. Spain.

    US ranks 25th.

    UK 22nd


    @business
    https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-resilience-ranking/?terminal=true

    2# Netherlands......least social disruption...That place where they were rioting?

    I would have thought sensibly Germany has to be above all the rest of those countries.

    Also looks well dodgy their rankings, given Israel has somehow gone from #1 to #36. And China is #24....China has officially bugger all COVID and has been back to normal for over a year.
    Probably more someone’s opinion rather than a real scientific ranking.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,574
    edited August 2021

    Scott_xP said:

    Countries where coronavirus is being handled most effectively with the least social and economic disruption: 1. Norway
    2. Netherlands
    3. Finland
    4. Ireland
    5. Austria
    6. Belgium
    7. Germany
    8. Singapore
    9. Switzerland
    10. Spain.

    US ranks 25th.

    UK 22nd


    @business
    https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-resilience-ranking/?terminal=true

    2# Netherlands......least social disruption...That place where they were rioting?

    I would have thought sensibly Germany has to be above all the rest of those countries.

    Also looks well dodgy their rankings, given Israel has somehow gone from #1 to #36 in a few weeks. And China is #24....China has officially bugger all COVID and has been back to normal for over a year. New Zealand #29....

    Sounds like total bollocks to me.
    And, lol, the UK outperformed NZ. That’ll be news to some (many) on here. I agree with your assessment.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,200
    edited August 2021
    Make that 13 medals...

    Gold medal - Piers Gilliver (GB)
    Men's individual epee
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,821

    TOPPING said:

    On Brexit (I know, I know...) there is a lot of guffawing at people like Jimmy Buchan who campaigned for Brexit and now says it has't delivered for his seafood industry.

    https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/1430578846894592016

    For me they miss the obvious - so many people voted for Brexit because the status quo did not work for them. Seafood and fishing and farming were all tied up in CFP and CAP knots and were promised that free of EU regulations they would thrive. That the knots have been replaced by newer bigger knots is a huge source of frustration for them - they just wanted things to get better.

    For Mr Buchan read millions of people in the red wall who voted Brexit and then Tory to make things better. Unless they are given tangible and obvious improvements to their lives, they aren't going to stick around backing Boris.

    So, with an increasing list of practical things not working and two huge deteriorations even in that coming by new year, what does the government do? "Shut up moaning" won't cut it, nor will painting lipstick on the pig.

    They are likely already reading David Skelton's new book, The New Snobbery (as they did with his previous Little Platoons) and we might well see some action from them as a result.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Snobbery-David-Skelton/dp/1785906577
    Others who got that Brexit was about taking back control and levelling up rather than anti-Europeanism included Dominic Cummings. Brexit was not won by sovereignty hawks or small state free traders like Bill Cash or John Redwood. The offer was – your life sucks because your town's been screwed over by London luvvies and Boris will fix it.
    I struggle to think, however, of any alternative totemic issue that such voters could have registered those feelings. It had to be something cataclysmic and if not pulling down the house around themselves (some loose plasterwork and dodgy electricals at worst) they certainly pulled it down around the bien pensant metropolitan elite of both political wings.

    And because as you say it was less about anti-Europeanism I believe there is an opportunity to seek closer (read: sensible) ties to the EU in due course.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,821

    TOPPING said:

    On Brexit (I know, I know...) there is a lot of guffawing at people like Jimmy Buchan who campaigned for Brexit and now says it has't delivered for his seafood industry.

    https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/1430578846894592016

    For me they miss the obvious - so many people voted for Brexit because the status quo did not work for them. Seafood and fishing and farming were all tied up in CFP and CAP knots and were promised that free of EU regulations they would thrive. That the knots have been replaced by newer bigger knots is a huge source of frustration for them - they just wanted things to get better.

    For Mr Buchan read millions of people in the red wall who voted Brexit and then Tory to make things better. Unless they are given tangible and obvious improvements to their lives, they aren't going to stick around backing Boris.

    So, with an increasing list of practical things not working and two huge deteriorations even in that coming by new year, what does the government do? "Shut up moaning" won't cut it, nor will painting lipstick on the pig.

    They are likely already reading David Skelton's new book, The New Snobbery (as they did with his previous Little Platoons) and we might well see some action from them as a result.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Snobbery-David-Skelton/dp/1785906577
    That snobbery he writes about is absolutely there. My point is more that having won these voters over the Tories now need to deliver. And they seem determined to pretend that the very real problems aren't there at all or are someone else's fault. Red wall voters aren't stupid.
    Well that is of course the challenge. They will be judged on how much levelling up they actually are able to deliver (and also what it looks like). I think the starting gun was fired in 2019 and it remains to be seen how much of a time out they are allowed on account of the pandemic.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,783

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    I'm a pensioner, ffs!

    Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
    Even worse they think that they have "earned" it by paying NI (and electing governments which spent that money and ran a deficit overall). Another serious upside of the abolition of NI and its incorporation into IT is that this particular delusion will fade over time.
    Well, I lived through the War and the troubles of the later 40's, so you might argue.....

    Not that I am. Although I had some seriously ill-fortune at one time in my life, as a result of prudence and good luck in eventually getting a public service job I'm comfortable enough.
    So If the triple lock goes, so be it. I'd rather that than the cut in Universal Credit.
    Absolutely. And Pension credit for those in hardship should be prioritised too. I have several friends who are now retiring on state or NHS pensions in excess of £60k a year plus a very nice lump sum to fund the holidoddles and I just don't see why they are getting the state pension at all. I would far rather have a more generous pension for those with no alternative sources of income and means test it for those who do. But then, I don't need to get elected.
    My State Pension is round about the same as my Personal Allowance, so basically I'm paying tax on all my 'other' pensions. Which seems to me to be fair enough, although I'm by no means in the £60k pa category.
    I also get a bus pass, which under normal circumstances was worth about £3-4 pw, on average. And of course there's a bit off costs at various sports clubs and so on, Winter Fuel Allowance and £10 Christmas bonus.
    Mine is quite a bit lower than the PA (I get the basic state pension). No bus pass as, as per previous post we don't really have buses! No winter fuel allowance (just missed it by a few weeks). Get the £10 Xmas bonus. No occupational pension. So no additional benefits really, but I am fine with that as they are small anyway. I do have a personal pension fund, but don't take a pension yet, other than a small lump sum to take me up to the PA each year and what I guess most would consider substantial assets to fall back on as I get older. Currently live on surplus cash.
    Can I suggest getting a bus pass anyway, as even if you don't have buses, if you go 'away', in England, it'll be valid there. Includes London. Also photographic evidence for voting, and for other benefits.... sports clubs, theatres and so on.!
    You'll get WFA next year.
    Cheers for that, very useful.

    Re WFA - Nope I never get it I'm afraid. Rules changed and missed getting it by a few weeks. Although if I am wrong I would love to know about it.
    Gov.uk site says you get it if:
    you were born on or before 26 September 1955
    you lived in the UK for at least one day during the week of 20 to 26 September 2021 - this is called the ‘qualifying week’

    But AFAIK that's the rule for 2021. Someone born before 26 September 1955 would now, or almost be, 66.
    2022 will just move the year on one.
    Cheers. I will look into this. I have been around this loop several times. I think you have earned a few beers from me today.
  • RobD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Countries where coronavirus is being handled most effectively with the least social and economic disruption: 1. Norway
    2. Netherlands
    3. Finland
    4. Ireland
    5. Austria
    6. Belgium
    7. Germany
    8. Singapore
    9. Switzerland
    10. Spain.

    US ranks 25th.

    UK 22nd


    @business
    https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-resilience-ranking/?terminal=true

    2# Netherlands......least social disruption...That place where they were rioting?

    I would have thought sensibly Germany has to be above all the rest of those countries.

    Also looks well dodgy their rankings, given Israel has somehow gone from #1 to #36 in a few weeks. And China is #24....China has officially bugger all COVID and has been back to normal for over a year. New Zealand #29....

    Sounds like total bollocks to me.
    And, lol, the UK outperformed NZ. That’ll be news to some (many) on here. I agree with your assessment.
    It is a constantly shifting ranking, but it looks ridiculously over sensitive. Israel gets a bit of a COVID wave, straight down the rankings, not a little bit, to #36. Nobody thinks about this in these terms, we know every country gets waves at different times, but to imply Israel or China is doing badly in any way is just nonsense. China has been back to normal for ages now, but the past couple of weeks, they found a few cases and reacted, but over the 12 months, it is the least effected country economically or socially.
  • TOPPING said:

    On Brexit (I know, I know...) there is a lot of guffawing at people like Jimmy Buchan who campaigned for Brexit and now says it has't delivered for his seafood industry.

    https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/1430578846894592016

    For me they miss the obvious - so many people voted for Brexit because the status quo did not work for them. Seafood and fishing and farming were all tied up in CFP and CAP knots and were promised that free of EU regulations they would thrive. That the knots have been replaced by newer bigger knots is a huge source of frustration for them - they just wanted things to get better.

    For Mr Buchan read millions of people in the red wall who voted Brexit and then Tory to make things better. Unless they are given tangible and obvious improvements to their lives, they aren't going to stick around backing Boris.

    So, with an increasing list of practical things not working and two huge deteriorations even in that coming by new year, what does the government do? "Shut up moaning" won't cut it, nor will painting lipstick on the pig.

    They are likely already reading David Skelton's new book, The New Snobbery (as they did with his previous Little Platoons) and we might well see some action from them as a result.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Snobbery-David-Skelton/dp/1785906577
    Others who got that Brexit was about taking back control and levelling up rather than anti-Europeanism included Dominic Cummings. Brexit was not won by sovereignty hawks or small state free traders like Bill Cash or John Redwood. The offer was – your life sucks because your town's been screwed over by London luvvies and Boris will fix it.
    And very effective it was. Shame it’s a load of bullshit.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,578
    Quincel said:

    Think even with these polls being all over the shop, we will see a Labour lead anyway, feeling good about my bet

    As someone with the opposite bet, I'm inclined to agree with you. The 'true' Tory lead is barely large enough at the moment to stop statistical noise from giving a Labour leader with the odd outlier, and it seems to be slightly shrinking.


    I agree that there will be a poll with a Lab lead in not all that long. It seems to me that polling measures and relies upon two linked but separate factors: who you would vote for according to the hypothetical question; and also the degree of enthusiasm with which you would do so.

    My feeling is that Tory enthusiasm for voting Tory is less strong than it was, but that this does not especially pronounce itself in the polling. In a sense there is no mechanism for doing so, just as a vote in a real election is recorded as being either 100% in favour of X or 100% in favour of Y regardless of the depth of enthusiasm.

    Polling is less good at measuring depth. In particular both Tory and non Tory voters face a special situation - there is nothing attractive or stellar about the alternatives. Those who didn't like Boris 2 years ago are not going to start liking him. Tories have no interesting or compelling alternatives. The other options are both confused (Labour policy on post Brexit anyone?) and dull.

    There is an open door for an interesting politician who isn't Boris.

  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 11,645
    https://twitter.com/Wahlrecht_de/status/1430834845526204422

    Sonntagsfrage zur Bundestagswahl • Kantar/FOCUS: CDU/CSU 23 % +1 | SPD 23 % +2| GRÜNE 18 % | FDP 12 % | AfD 11 % | DIE LINKE 7 % | Sonstige 6 %

    SPD now level with Kantar - but no lead
  • Sandpit said:

    Team GB smashing it in the Paralympics. 12 medals already.

    Good to see. So who do we think are the likely SPoTY nominees from the Paralympics?
    The Paralympics have only been going two days – Britain got one gold on the first day and have now added five – so it is too early to tell who will make the SPotY shortlist.

    But someone (or ones) will which again shows why we should be cautious about piling into SPotY betting. From the Olympics, Beth Shriever has just this week added the world championship to her Olympic gold medal in BMX yet is not expected to make the cut for SPotY – she is not quoted by any of the bookmakers or Betfair. Even speculative trading bets are riskier than normal this year, despite the failures of our football, cricket and rugby teams.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 33,289
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The govt can fuck off with the triple lock

    It's complete bollox. I know that, Mike Smithson knows that, but do the vast majority of cretins who draw pensions and vote Tory know that?

    My experience of them is that they are beyond reason. Many of them read the Daily Mail, ffs.

    This is a tough one for Johnson.
    Funny how the people who call voters cretins themselves seem to miss this affects future pensioners as well as current pensioners.
    I'm a pensioner, ffs!

    Alright I was taking a swing. It's early morning and I have a headache, but I know from experience just how irrational such voters can be when it coes to this topic. Many seem to think being old gives them the right to be mollycoddled. You try explaining it to them.
    Even worse they think that they have "earned" it by paying NI (and electing governments which spent that money and ran a deficit overall). Another serious upside of the abolition of NI and its incorporation into IT is that this particular delusion will fade over time.
    Well, I lived through the War and the troubles of the later 40's, so you might argue.....

    Not that I am. Although I had some seriously ill-fortune at one time in my life, as a result of prudence and good luck in eventually getting a public service job I'm comfortable enough.
    So If the triple lock goes, so be it. I'd rather that than the cut in Universal Credit.
    Absolutely. And Pension credit for those in hardship should be prioritised too. I have several friends who are now retiring on state or NHS pensions in excess of £60k a year plus a very nice lump sum to fund the holidoddles and I just don't see why they are getting the state pension at all. I would far rather have a more generous pension for those with no alternative sources of income and means test it for those who do. But then, I don't need to get elected.
    This is what I was saying a few weeks ago when the subject last came up. Make if more generous for people with low private income, reduce or eliminate it for people in the higher tax rate. Any pensioner earning £50k+ from private sources just doesn't need the state pension. That's a huge saving which can be spent on actually helping those older people who need it because their careers didn't provide them with a solid retirement fund.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,830

    Sandpit said:

    Team GB smashing it in the Paralympics. 12 medals already.

    Good to see. So who do we think are the likely SPoTY nominees from the Paralympics?
    The Paralympics have only been going two days – Britain got one gold on the first day and have now added five – so it is too early to tell who will make the SPotY shortlist.

    But someone (or ones) will which again shows why we should be cautious about piling into SPotY betting. From the Olympics, Beth Shriever has just this week added the world championship to her Olympic gold medal in BMX yet is not expected to make the cut for SPotY – she is not quoted by any of the bookmakers or Betfair. Even speculative trading bets are riskier than normal this year, despite the failures of our football, cricket and rugby teams.
    From a betting perspective, does the Paralympic nominee/s matter? I say this making no moral judgement, but it seems extremely unlikely any paralympian will have the public profile to trouble the likes of Daley/Kenny/etc.
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    On Brexit (I know, I know...) there is a lot of guffawing at people like Jimmy Buchan who campaigned for Brexit and now says it has't delivered for his seafood industry.

    https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/1430578846894592016

    For me they miss the obvious - so many people voted for Brexit because the status quo did not work for them. Seafood and fishing and farming were all tied up in CFP and CAP knots and were promised that free of EU regulations they would thrive. That the knots have been replaced by newer bigger knots is a huge source of frustration for them - they just wanted things to get better.

    For Mr Buchan read millions of people in the red wall who voted Brexit and then Tory to make things better. Unless they are given tangible and obvious improvements to their lives, they aren't going to stick around backing Boris.

    So, with an increasing list of practical things not working and two huge deteriorations even in that coming by new year, what does the government do? "Shut up moaning" won't cut it, nor will painting lipstick on the pig.

    They are likely already reading David Skelton's new book, The New Snobbery (as they did with his previous Little Platoons) and we might well see some action from them as a result.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Snobbery-David-Skelton/dp/1785906577
    That snobbery he writes about is absolutely there. My point is more that having won these voters over the Tories now need to deliver. And they seem determined to pretend that the very real problems aren't there at all or are someone else's fault. Red wall voters aren't stupid.
    Well that is of course the challenge. They will be judged on how much levelling up they actually are able to deliver (and also what it looks like). I think the starting gun was fired in 2019 and it remains to be seen how much of a time out they are allowed on account of the pandemic.
    I get that most red wall voters don't care that we cast out NI and that you need a passport to take your dog there and soon won't be able to send a parcel there without £££. I get that most get irritated by Scott n'Paste type bleating. And that the growing supply crisis isn't severe enough or Brexity enough to make them go "hang on".

    It won't be one "crisis" that makes them stop and think (unless we get a massive collapse in supplies at Christmas and there is no hiding from it being Brexit supply / labour). But there will be a "so where's our fucking moon on a stick you promised" where different groups wanted and were promised a different flavour of moon.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 11,709
    edited August 2021
    Cyclefree said:

    FPT on religious courts -

    In principle there is nothing wrong with them but only provided that their rulings do not conflict with the law of the land or seek to usurp it.

    The difficulty is that sometimes they do or seek to use religious pressure to force women (and it is usually women) to give up rights they are legally entitled to. In such cases, I think the law should intervene.

    I think @Cyclefree has pretty much the top and bottom of it.

    Such courts can have a similar status as any other private consensual mechanism eg as happens for arbitration.

    Otherwise - no.

    There remains the issue that Mr Cameron failed to address when he introduced 'gay marriage' in such a godawful rush - the role of Religious Ministers in marriage registration.

    I know that CofE Ministers have that role. Do any others?
This discussion has been closed.