I’ve spend time with both Labour and the Treasury on tax and regulation policy in recent months and there is a clear credibility gap between what Labour is starting to develop and the incoherent mess that HMT have had to deal with from this government.
The country badly needs infrastructure investment, a coherent policy on public services (including meaningful spending increases) that avoids us descending into a spiral of ill health and further educational apartheid, and a corporate tax system that targets capital spending. Labour shadow ministers are having grown up conversations about this stuff. All we’ve heard from Tory ministers since 2019 is pure sound bites.
I think, noting the comments above, that we are seeing where the floor of Tory support is. No matter how badly they actually govern, despite actual provable damage to livelihoods and public services, some will always have the reflexive instinct that a hypothetical Labour government would always be worse despite pretty clear evidence to the contrary from 1997 to 2010 even during a global financial crisis.
I say this as a Lib Dem member with no innate love of Labour, who have a history of bullying and ridiculing us as a party. The fact is it’s time for a change, and Starmer’s party will do a better job than the clown show of the last 6 years. The bar is pretty low.
To a large degree it doesn't really matter what the labour party policy is. Of course Starmer is doing a really good job, that is not in doubt. But to understand the labour party and how they would govern, you need to look at their membership and their MPs. To me it seems Starmer does not have the same grip and dominance that Blair did. It is fine to say yes, they are going to invest in infrastructure. But how do they respond to the demands for pay increases from the public sector and manage the 'crises' in all areas of public services; whilst acting within the constraints on financial spending imposed by the markets?
I am not absolutely sure that I will vote Conservative in the next election. I always see these decisions in the context of choosing between 'least worst options'. But this is what I am looking at, in the labour party, and I imagine others will too when genuinely confronted with the choice. If the tories get rid of Truss and put in a competent successor and stay on track, then I would say the next election will be closer than you think.
The Labour Party will continue to be the Party of the Public Sector. They will probably improve the public sector marginally, but the return on investment will be poor as it was under the last Labour administration. Expect to see and even bigger gap between private sector pensions and public sector ones, with public "servants" gloating about their ability to retire in their 50s and some of them at the top end retiring on monthly pensions that many working people can only dream of having as salary.
You really don't understand how most public sector pensions work nowadays do you?
Nor do you grasp that public sector pay after 12 years of Government is now in many cases dire. HMRC are giving their workers 3% and wondering why the vaguely good ones are leaving to go to the private sector (the good ones left years ago by the way when the Government merged offices and any good in a closed office went to the private sector)
Please show me the average public sector pension v private of those due to retire in the next ten years? Please also explain the pension availability for police service? The gold-plated pensions for hospital doctors, GPs and NHS senior managers and many civil servants. As mentioned, these give pension provision, at the tax payers expense, that are vastly over what many people will ever receive as monthly salary. Pretending they don't exist show that you clearly don't understand the cost to the country. The country cannot afford these pensions, but nothing will be done about their fundamental unfairness and the greed of those that demand them because the politicians benefit from them themselves. I guess you are someone that is looking forward to drawing on one yourself. Or perhaps you think you have a "right" to a pension that is massively better than your fellow citizens in the private sector?
No but unlike you and MaxPB, I think that people should be given what they were contractually offered and accepted when their signed up to work in the public sector.
And if you think the public sector gets a great deal - there was nothing stopping you trying to get on that bandwagon. The fact you now look enviously at their pensions is your problem.
They should be given what they were contractually offered, but they should also be equitably taxed on that too. If they have higher remuneration then that should be taxed accordingly, just as anyone else's would be.
At present pension incomes aren't as heavily taxed as other people's incomes. They evade National Insurance and despite many being graduates they evade the graduate tax known as student loans too. A young graduate working for a living can be paying 22% more tax per pound they earn than a retired graduate on the exact same income.
We should merge all income related taxes into one and have a fair equitable tax rate applied to all incomes evenly. No dodging NI or anything else for pensioners.
Why it makes sense to put Mordaunt in the top job.
Mordaunt is on -17%.
So Sir Keir beats all of them, just Mordaunt and Sunak save a few Tory MPs seats
You have the choice HY, choose sensibly and perhaps (not guaranteed) lose the next election. 15 years is, after all a long time in power.
Or choose Braverman who goes crazy-ape-bonkers populist. Hanging, flogging, routinely arming the police to shoot down Dartford Crossing protesters and strafing Avon inflatables in the Channel so they sink. You might well win handsomely in 2024, but it won't be what the people want once they experience it, and you will be consigned to oblivion (unless you Putinise the electoral system- something not beyond the wit of Braverman, I daresay).
We were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010, I have seen it before. Labour have been out of power for 12 years already and were out for 18 years from 1979 to 1997.
Once you lose power you are normally out for a decade or more unless the Government can't deliver on the economy as in 1970, 1974 or 1979.
I would note on today's Yougov though Braverman has a higher net favourability rating than Truss and Hunt, even if still less than Rishi and Penny
I’ve spend time with both Labour and the Treasury on tax and regulation policy in recent months and there is a clear credibility gap between what Labour is starting to develop and the incoherent mess that HMT have had to deal with from this government.
The country badly needs infrastructure investment, a coherent policy on public services (including meaningful spending increases) that avoids us descending into a spiral of ill health and further educational apartheid, and a corporate tax system that targets capital spending. Labour shadow ministers are having grown up conversations about this stuff. All we’ve heard from Tory ministers since 2019 is pure sound bites.
I think, noting the comments above, that we are seeing where the floor of Tory support is. No matter how badly they actually govern, despite actual provable damage to livelihoods and public services, some will always have the reflexive instinct that a hypothetical Labour government would always be worse despite pretty clear evidence to the contrary from 1997 to 2010 even during a global financial crisis.
I say this as a Lib Dem member with no innate love of Labour, who have a history of bullying and ridiculing us as a party. The fact is it’s time for a change, and Starmer’s party will do a better job than the clown show of the last 6 years. The bar is pretty low.
To a large degree it doesn't really matter what the labour party policy is. Of course Starmer is doing a really good job, that is not in doubt. But to understand the labour party and how they would govern, you need to look at their membership and their MPs. To me it seems Starmer does not have the same grip and dominance that Blair did. It is fine to say yes, they are going to invest in infrastructure. But how do they respond to the demands for pay increases from the public sector and manage the 'crises' in all areas of public services; whilst acting within the constraints on financial spending imposed by the markets?
I am not absolutely sure that I will vote Conservative in the next election. I always see these decisions in the context of choosing between 'least worst options'. But this is what I am looking at, in the labour party, and I imagine others will too when genuinely confronted with the choice. If the tories get rid of Truss and put in a competent successor and stay on track, then I would say the next election will be closer than you think.
The Labour Party will continue to be the Party of the Public Sector. They will probably improve the public sector marginally, but the return on investment will be poor as it was under the last Labour administration. Expect to see and even bigger gap between private sector pensions and public sector ones, with public "servants" gloating about their ability to retire in their 50s and some of them at the top end retiring on monthly pensions that many working people can only dream of having as salary.
You really don't understand how most public sector pensions work nowadays do you?
Nor do you grasp that public sector pay after 12 years of Government is now in many cases dire. HMRC are giving their workers 3% and wondering why the vaguely good ones are leaving to go to the private sector (the good ones left years ago by the way when the Government merged offices and any good in a closed office went to the private sector)
Please show me the average public sector pension v private of those due to retire in the next ten years? Please also explain the pension availability for police service? The gold-plated pensions for hospital doctors, GPs and NHS senior managers and many civil servants. As mentioned, these give pension provision, at the tax payers expense, that are vastly over what many people will ever receive as monthly salary. Pretending they don't exist show that you clearly don't understand the cost to the country. The country cannot afford these pensions, but nothing will be done about their fundamental unfairness and the greed of those that demand them because the politicians benefit from them themselves. I guess you are someone that is looking forward to drawing on one yourself. Or perhaps you think you have a "right" to a pension that is massively better than your fellow citizens in the private sector?
I worked for just over a decade in the public sector and now work in the private sector.
I'm now being paid twice as much in the private sector as I would be being paid if I'd stayed in the public sector, and the work is less complex and less demanding. The pension provision in my public sector job was a lot better, but not to the value of doubling my salary.
My Dad and Grandad did very well out of their public sector pensions, but they were some of the lucky few who ended their careers in senior positions, and so did best out of a final salary scheme. With the new career average pensions you won't get the same distortions for a small number of lucky recipients. I did pretty well to leave when I did as my pension entitlement is accruing more quickly with CPI uprating then it would have done from pay increases.
In the past a model of pay less now, pay more in pensions later made sense because growth was strong enough that it was cheaper to pay later than in advance. A lot of private sector companies did the same.
The demographic transition changes this calculus, because it unavoidably results in lower growth. This probably means it makes more sense to reduce the value of public sector pensions in exchange for better pay now, but making that transition is hard when you have to pay out the accrued pensions at the same time.
It's not some huge conspiracy to defraud taxpayers. I really don't know why you're so aggressive and unpleasant about it.
That is because he is an aggressive , unpleasant , nasty nasty person.
Why it makes sense to put Mordaunt in the top job.
Mordaunt is on -17%.
So Sir Keir beats all of them, just Mordaunt and Sunak save a few Tory MPs seats
You have become a Farage apologist and simply have no credibility when it comes to supporting a one nation conservative party
You do remember I voted for Sunak over Truss? My only warning is that Hunt as Leader means a Farage return and given Hunt is less popular with the public on today's Yougov than Sunak and Mordaunt wouldn't win back many voters from Labour either
A Farage return might not hurt the Tory Party as much as you fear.
Farage is an expert tactician. I suspect that, like last time, his party would seek not to fight against Tories in Tory marginals but would seek to attract Labour votes in Labour marginals.
Can we assume, for the purpose of argument, that the present government staggers on until the spring. Managing somehow to avoid any further car crashes! By April gas and electricity prices have dropped… further assumption… and the government claims credit for same. Is it not likely that they will get that credit with the voters? Or has too much damage already been done?
So Ben Wallace becomes PM but in a Chairman of the Board type of way (but focussing on Ukraine) but having strong CEO, COO, and CFO.
So Sunak, Mordaunt, and Hunt.
But Zahawi is the COO...
Stop giggling at the back
^^^ Did the mods not see this racist post?
How is it racist ?
ScottXP was calling Nadhim Zahawi a coon. If you don't know why that's racist, I'd suggest you ask someone what racism is. Get a clue.
It's weird how your mind jumped straight to that word. I don't think I've heard or seen its use in the UK.
I have recently come acxross the four-letter word in the UK, outside historical context and American literature: but in reference to a breed of cat. Or, in the three-letter form, a cow in Northumberland and Scotland. Which brought me to a halt momentarily, till I realised the meaning was clear from the capitalisation and the preceding sentence.
In The UK it was quite common in the 70s and persisted a bit into the 80s although by then it was certainy only used to be deliberately offensive. I had a girlfriend who moved to Bristol in the early 90's, more exactly to St. Pauls a predominantly black area of Bristol. her uncle organised the move and hired a van from a company called cxxx's. Girlfriend was not amused and she suspected her uncle of choosing that company deliberately.
Oddly in Australia it is not offensive at all, it is a brand of very cheap cheese.
That made me look up the origins of Maine Coon, which is the super-large cat.
It turns out to probably be a breed derived from the Norwegian Forest Cat, taken to Maine by sailors, bred with local cats, and named the Maine Coon because the tail is thought to be like a raccoon.
Though it will presumably be beeped out by prissy American forum software.
Highlights that it is important not to fall for Outrage Pedal Cars based on alleged offence spreading sideways without any justification.
I have to admit that I had not even noticed that @DJ41 had arrived 5 days ago, never mind exited stage left like a cat who's fur had been brushed backwards.
Why it makes sense to put Mordaunt in the top job.
Mordaunt is on -17%.
So Sir Keir beats all of them, just Mordaunt and Sunak save a few Tory MPs seats
You have the choice HY, choose sensibly and perhaps (not guaranteed) lose the next election. 15 years is, after all a long time in power.
Or choose Braverman who goes crazy-ape-bonkers populist. Hanging, flogging, routinely arming the police to shoot down Dartford Crossing protesters and strafing Avon inflatables in the Channel so they sink. You might well win handsomely in 2024, but it won't be what the people want once they experience it, and you will be consigned to oblivion (unless you Putinise the electoral system- something not beyond the wit of Braverman, I daresay).
Completely wrong.
If there were any prospect of Braverman and a victory on a programme like that, HY would sign up in a shot....
Fortunately, there isn't. Their choice is to move back toward the sensible centre and try and salvage something, or stick with the loopy PM and loony policy, and don't.
Just a thought on Truss being less popular than Prince Andrew. The more unpopular you are I imagine the harder it is to redeem yourself. Given that, Prince Andrew has a higher chance of redeeming himself than Truss does.
Tory MPs - consider that when sitting on your hands on the off-chance of a miracle.
I’ve spend time with both Labour and the Treasury on tax and regulation policy in recent months and there is a clear credibility gap between what Labour is starting to develop and the incoherent mess that HMT have had to deal with from this government.
The country badly needs infrastructure investment, a coherent policy on public services (including meaningful spending increases) that avoids us descending into a spiral of ill health and further educational apartheid, and a corporate tax system that targets capital spending. Labour shadow ministers are having grown up conversations about this stuff. All we’ve heard from Tory ministers since 2019 is pure sound bites.
I think, noting the comments above, that we are seeing where the floor of Tory support is. No matter how badly they actually govern, despite actual provable damage to livelihoods and public services, some will always have the reflexive instinct that a hypothetical Labour government would always be worse despite pretty clear evidence to the contrary from 1997 to 2010 even during a global financial crisis.
I say this as a Lib Dem member with no innate love of Labour, who have a history of bullying and ridiculing us as a party. The fact is it’s time for a change, and Starmer’s party will do a better job than the clown show of the last 6 years. The bar is pretty low.
To a large degree it doesn't really matter what the labour party policy is. Of course Starmer is doing a really good job, that is not in doubt. But to understand the labour party and how they would govern, you need to look at their membership and their MPs. To me it seems Starmer does not have the same grip and dominance that Blair did. It is fine to say yes, they are going to invest in infrastructure. But how do they respond to the demands for pay increases from the public sector and manage the 'crises' in all areas of public services; whilst acting within the constraints on financial spending imposed by the markets?
I am not absolutely sure that I will vote Conservative in the next election. I always see these decisions in the context of choosing between 'least worst options'. But this is what I am looking at, in the labour party, and I imagine others will too when genuinely confronted with the choice. If the tories get rid of Truss and put in a competent successor and stay on track, then I would say the next election will be closer than you think.
The Labour Party will continue to be the Party of the Public Sector. They will probably improve the public sector marginally, but the return on investment will be poor as it was under the last Labour administration. Expect to see and even bigger gap between private sector pensions and public sector ones, with public "servants" gloating about their ability to retire in their 50s and some of them at the top end retiring on monthly pensions that many working people can only dream of having as salary.
You really don't understand how most public sector pensions work nowadays do you?
Nor do you grasp that public sector pay after 12 years of Government is now in many cases dire. HMRC are giving their workers 3% and wondering why the vaguely good ones are leaving to go to the private sector (the good ones left years ago by the way when the Government merged offices and any good in a closed office went to the private sector)
Please show me the average public sector pension v private of those due to retire in the next ten years? Please also explain the pension availability for police service? The gold-plated pensions for hospital doctors, GPs and NHS senior managers and many civil servants. As mentioned, these give pension provision, at the tax payers expense, that are vastly over what many people will ever receive as monthly salary. Pretending they don't exist show that you clearly don't understand the cost to the country. The country cannot afford these pensions, but nothing will be done about their fundamental unfairness and the greed of those that demand them because the politicians benefit from them themselves. I guess you are someone that is looking forward to drawing on one yourself. Or perhaps you think you have a "right" to a pension that is massively better than your fellow citizens in the private sector?
In the past at least, there was an explicit trade-off for many potential workers between the security, work-life balance and pension of the public sector versus the higher salary, bonus and career opportunities/mobility in the private sector. And don't forget that, while the way you describe public sector pensions suggests you're thinking of some hypothetical top manager, most public sector pensions are pretty small, paid to front-line and relatively junior workers such as nurses, postmen, admin staff, council employees, teachers, etc. - and the size of the burden is because there are millions of such people rather than because they're all getting tens of £thousands.
My wife was a teacher for 23 years and she finished her career as a deputy head. Her monthly pension is around £700.
Seems extraordinarily generous to me, given that’s the equivalent or working from 21 and retiring at only 44. £700 a month is equivalent to a pot of around £400k if that’s an index linked pension.
Why it makes sense to put Mordaunt in the top job.
Mordaunt is on -17%.
So Sir Keir beats all of them, just Mordaunt and Sunak save a few Tory MPs seats
You have become a Farage apologist and simply have no credibility when it comes to supporting a one nation conservative party
You do remember I voted for Sunak over Truss? My only warning is that Hunt as Leader means a Farage return and given Hunt is less popular with the public on today's Yougov than Sunak and Mordaunt wouldn't win back many voters from Labour either
Your posts for many weeks have affirmed your Farage tendencies and you simply are part of the right-wing of the conservative party, including the ERG, who are actively destroying the conservative party and I reject any protestations from you that you have any support for a one nation conservative party
No, unlike you I can analyse what would happen even if I wouldn't necessarily support it myself
You cannot even analyse what would happen with your ridiculous claims of popular support for your new found hero Farage
I don't think HYUFD supports Farage. Rather he fears him and what he might do to the Tory Party.
Starmer has a fine line to judge tomorrow. It will not look good fro him if he is seen to kick Truss while she's down, but he must exploit the situation to the utmost.
I’ve spend time with both Labour and the Treasury on tax and regulation policy in recent months and there is a clear credibility gap between what Labour is starting to develop and the incoherent mess that HMT have had to deal with from this government.
The country badly needs infrastructure investment, a coherent policy on public services (including meaningful spending increases) that avoids us descending into a spiral of ill health and further educational apartheid, and a corporate tax system that targets capital spending. Labour shadow ministers are having grown up conversations about this stuff. All we’ve heard from Tory ministers since 2019 is pure sound bites.
I think, noting the comments above, that we are seeing where the floor of Tory support is. No matter how badly they actually govern, despite actual provable damage to livelihoods and public services, some will always have the reflexive instinct that a hypothetical Labour government would always be worse despite pretty clear evidence to the contrary from 1997 to 2010 even during a global financial crisis.
I say this as a Lib Dem member with no innate love of Labour, who have a history of bullying and ridiculing us as a party. The fact is it’s time for a change, and Starmer’s party will do a better job than the clown show of the last 6 years. The bar is pretty low.
To a large degree it doesn't really matter what the labour party policy is. Of course Starmer is doing a really good job, that is not in doubt. But to understand the labour party and how they would govern, you need to look at their membership and their MPs. To me it seems Starmer does not have the same grip and dominance that Blair did. It is fine to say yes, they are going to invest in infrastructure. But how do they respond to the demands for pay increases from the public sector and manage the 'crises' in all areas of public services; whilst acting within the constraints on financial spending imposed by the markets?
I am not absolutely sure that I will vote Conservative in the next election. I always see these decisions in the context of choosing between 'least worst options'. But this is what I am looking at, in the labour party, and I imagine others will too when genuinely confronted with the choice. If the tories get rid of Truss and put in a competent successor and stay on track, then I would say the next election will be closer than you think.
The Labour Party will continue to be the Party of the Public Sector. They will probably improve the public sector marginally, but the return on investment will be poor as it was under the last Labour administration. Expect to see and even bigger gap between private sector pensions and public sector ones, with public "servants" gloating about their ability to retire in their 50s and some of them at the top end retiring on monthly pensions that many working people can only dream of having as salary.
You really don't understand how most public sector pensions work nowadays do you?
Nor do you grasp that public sector pay after 12 years of Government is now in many cases dire. HMRC are giving their workers 3% and wondering why the vaguely good ones are leaving to go to the private sector (the good ones left years ago by the way when the Government merged offices and any good in a closed office went to the private sector)
It is a bad idea to make generalisations about public sector pay. There is actually a lot of variation. If you count Network Rail as the public sector, there are jobs advertised there in my own field that require about 5 years experience from graduation that pay 65k per year and a career average defined benefit pension. This is about 10-20k more than equivalent private sector jobs with basic workplace pensions. On the other hand Natural England try and recruit people in to a similar role at the same level of experience for £25k. It is really all over the place when you dig in to it. Another issue is that organisations will try and recruit at very low pay then eventually they realise they need to pay more to get the right people, usually a long, painful and traumatic process.
People do vote with their feet though and maybe this isn't such a bad thing. The public sector really needs to pay something close to the market rate and reward good performance.
So Ben Wallace becomes PM but in a Chairman of the Board type of way (but focussing on Ukraine) but having strong CEO, COO, and CFO.
So Sunak, Mordaunt, and Hunt.
But Zahawi is the COO...
Stop giggling at the back
^^^ Did the mods not see this racist post?
How is it racist ?
ScottXP was calling Nadhim Zahawi a coon. If you don't know why that's racist, I'd suggest you ask someone what racism is. Get a clue.
It's weird how your mind jumped straight to that word. I don't think I've heard or seen its use in the UK.
I have recently come acxross the four-letter word in the UK, outside historical context and American literature: but in reference to a breed of cat. Or, in the three-letter form, a cow in Northumberland and Scotland. Which brought me to a halt momentarily, till I realised the meaning was clear from the capitalisation and the preceding sentence.
In The UK it was quite common in the 70s and persisted a bit into the 80s although by then it was certainy only used to be deliberately offensive. I had a girlfriend who moved to Bristol in the early 90's, more exactly to St. Pauls a predominantly black area of Bristol. her uncle organised the move and hired a van from a company called cxxx's. Girlfriend was not amused and she suspected her uncle of choosing that company deliberately.
Oddly in Australia it is not offensive at all, it is a brand of very cheap cheese.
That made me look up the origins of Maine Coon, which is the super-large cat.
It turns out to probably be a breed derived from the Norwegian Forest Cat, taken to Maine by sailors, bred with local cats, and named the Maine Coon because the tail is thought to be like a raccoon.
Though it will presumably be beeped out by prissy American forum software.
Highlights that it is important not to fall for Outrage Pedal Cars based on alleged offence spreading sideways without any justification.
I have to admit that I had not even noticed that @DJ41 had arrived 5 days ago, never mind exited stage left like a cat who's fur had been brushed backwards.
Had to do a double-take there after initially reading it as "Nottingham Forest Cat".
I’ve spend time with both Labour and the Treasury on tax and regulation policy in recent months and there is a clear credibility gap between what Labour is starting to develop and the incoherent mess that HMT have had to deal with from this government.
The country badly needs infrastructure investment, a coherent policy on public services (including meaningful spending increases) that avoids us descending into a spiral of ill health and further educational apartheid, and a corporate tax system that targets capital spending. Labour shadow ministers are having grown up conversations about this stuff. All we’ve heard from Tory ministers since 2019 is pure sound bites.
I think, noting the comments above, that we are seeing where the floor of Tory support is. No matter how badly they actually govern, despite actual provable damage to livelihoods and public services, some will always have the reflexive instinct that a hypothetical Labour government would always be worse despite pretty clear evidence to the contrary from 1997 to 2010 even during a global financial crisis.
I say this as a Lib Dem member with no innate love of Labour, who have a history of bullying and ridiculing us as a party. The fact is it’s time for a change, and Starmer’s party will do a better job than the clown show of the last 6 years. The bar is pretty low.
To a large degree it doesn't really matter what the labour party policy is. Of course Starmer is doing a really good job, that is not in doubt. But to understand the labour party and how they would govern, you need to look at their membership and their MPs. To me it seems Starmer does not have the same grip and dominance that Blair did. It is fine to say yes, they are going to invest in infrastructure. But how do they respond to the demands for pay increases from the public sector and manage the 'crises' in all areas of public services; whilst acting within the constraints on financial spending imposed by the markets?
I am not absolutely sure that I will vote Conservative in the next election. I always see these decisions in the context of choosing between 'least worst options'. But this is what I am looking at, in the labour party, and I imagine others will too when genuinely confronted with the choice. If the tories get rid of Truss and put in a competent successor and stay on track, then I would say the next election will be closer than you think.
The Labour Party will continue to be the Party of the Public Sector. They will probably improve the public sector marginally, but the return on investment will be poor as it was under the last Labour administration. Expect to see and even bigger gap between private sector pensions and public sector ones, with public "servants" gloating about their ability to retire in their 50s and some of them at the top end retiring on monthly pensions that many working people can only dream of having as salary.
You really don't understand how most public sector pensions work nowadays do you?
Nor do you grasp that public sector pay after 12 years of Government is now in many cases dire. HMRC are giving their workers 3% and wondering why the vaguely good ones are leaving to go to the private sector (the good ones left years ago by the way when the Government merged offices and any good in a closed office went to the private sector)
Please show me the average public sector pension v private of those due to retire in the next ten years? Please also explain the pension availability for police service? The gold-plated pensions for hospital doctors, GPs and NHS senior managers and many civil servants. As mentioned, these give pension provision, at the tax payers expense, that are vastly over what many people will ever receive as monthly salary. Pretending they don't exist show that you clearly don't understand the cost to the country. The country cannot afford these pensions, but nothing will be done about their fundamental unfairness and the greed of those that demand them because the politicians benefit from them themselves. I guess you are someone that is looking forward to drawing on one yourself. Or perhaps you think you have a "right" to a pension that is massively better than your fellow citizens in the private sector?
But hang on, whatever you think about them, they are payable under contract just as much as salary is.
@nigelforman Anyone who complains its too good in the Public Sector should get a job there. Well over a Million Vacancies in key roles.
Get off your arse and train as a Doctor, Nurse Teacher take one of the vacant roles and pay your up to 14.5% contribution to your pension as well as your NI and your 40|% Tax.
If its so rosy why are there no takers from the poor old private sector apart from your IR35 tax avoiding types who dont seem to want an NHS Pension with all the downsides of 12 years of pay cuts and contribution hikes.
Funny that.
Um if we are talking the NHS - it's not been possible for a doctor / nurse to be a locum except via PAYE since 2017 (it's a big reason why there are staff shortages because people are no longer able to justify taking those awkward weekend fill in shifts 2 hours away from home).
And the people who do switch to being a locum have usually done so to avoid the paperwork and management that is otherwise forced upon them even though all they want to do is deal with patients.
Why it makes sense to put Mordaunt in the top job.
Mordaunt is on -17%.
So Sir Keir beats all of them, just Mordaunt and Sunak save a few Tory MPs seats
You have the choice HY, choose sensibly and perhaps (not guaranteed) lose the next election. 15 years is, after all a long time in power.
Or choose Braverman who goes crazy-ape-bonkers populist. Hanging, flogging, routinely arming the police to shoot down Dartford Crossing protesters and strafing Avon inflatables in the Channel so they sink. You might well win handsomely in 2024, but it won't be what the people want once they experience it, and you will be consigned to oblivion (unless you Putinise the electoral system- something not beyond the wit of Braverman, I daresay).
If I am mistaken, has not the government, in one or other of its incarnations since the 2015 elections already started to 'Putinise' the electoral system?
Why it makes sense to put Mordaunt in the top job.
Mordaunt is on -17%.
So Sir Keir beats all of them, just Mordaunt and Sunak save a few Tory MPs seats
You have the choice HY, choose sensibly and perhaps (not guaranteed) lose the next election. 15 years is, after all a long time in power.
Or choose Braverman who goes crazy-ape-bonkers populist. Hanging, flogging, routinely arming the police to shoot down Dartford Crossing protesters and strafing Avon inflatables in the Channel so they sink. You might well win handsomely in 2024, but it won't be what the people want once they experience it, and you will be consigned to oblivion (unless you Putinise the electoral system- something not beyond the wit of Braverman, I daresay).
We were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010, I have seen it before. Labour have been out of power for 12 years already and were out for 18 years from 1979 to 1997.
Once you lose power you are normally out for a decade or more unless the Government can't deliver on the economy as in 1970, 1974 or 1979.
I would note on today's Yougov though Braverman has a higher net favourability rating than Truss and Hunt, even if still less than Rishi and Penny
Again touting the right wing Braverman who turns off the one nation conservatives and needs sidelining along with all her like
Starmer has a fine line to judge tomorrow. It will not look good fro him if he is seen to kick Truss while she's down, but he must exploit the situation to the utmost.
Must he? Truss hanging on a while suits him. Like Johnson - you know the next 'issue' is only weeks away at most.
Johnny Mercer is one of the good guys. If he is considering defecting to Labour then you know you're on the wrong track. It's not difficult. Be competent. Be boring. Look after our military and veterans. It should be the Conservative way.
Tory MPs can't turn back the clock on what they did (i.e. putting Truss into last 2). They can remove their mistake. Get Penny in now.
I’ve spend time with both Labour and the Treasury on tax and regulation policy in recent months and there is a clear credibility gap between what Labour is starting to develop and the incoherent mess that HMT have had to deal with from this government.
The country badly needs infrastructure investment, a coherent policy on public services (including meaningful spending increases) that avoids us descending into a spiral of ill health and further educational apartheid, and a corporate tax system that targets capital spending. Labour shadow ministers are having grown up conversations about this stuff. All we’ve heard from Tory ministers since 2019 is pure sound bites.
I think, noting the comments above, that we are seeing where the floor of Tory support is. No matter how badly they actually govern, despite actual provable damage to livelihoods and public services, some will always have the reflexive instinct that a hypothetical Labour government would always be worse despite pretty clear evidence to the contrary from 1997 to 2010 even during a global financial crisis.
I say this as a Lib Dem member with no innate love of Labour, who have a history of bullying and ridiculing us as a party. The fact is it’s time for a change, and Starmer’s party will do a better job than the clown show of the last 6 years. The bar is pretty low.
To a large degree it doesn't really matter what the labour party policy is. Of course Starmer is doing a really good job, that is not in doubt. But to understand the labour party and how they would govern, you need to look at their membership and their MPs. To me it seems Starmer does not have the same grip and dominance that Blair did. It is fine to say yes, they are going to invest in infrastructure. But how do they respond to the demands for pay increases from the public sector and manage the 'crises' in all areas of public services; whilst acting within the constraints on financial spending imposed by the markets?
I am not absolutely sure that I will vote Conservative in the next election. I always see these decisions in the context of choosing between 'least worst options'. But this is what I am looking at, in the labour party, and I imagine others will too when genuinely confronted with the choice. If the tories get rid of Truss and put in a competent successor and stay on track, then I would say the next election will be closer than you think.
The Labour Party will continue to be the Party of the Public Sector. They will probably improve the public sector marginally, but the return on investment will be poor as it was under the last Labour administration. Expect to see and even bigger gap between private sector pensions and public sector ones, with public "servants" gloating about their ability to retire in their 50s and some of them at the top end retiring on monthly pensions that many working people can only dream of having as salary.
You really don't understand how most public sector pensions work nowadays do you?
Nor do you grasp that public sector pay after 12 years of Government is now in many cases dire. HMRC are giving their workers 3% and wondering why the vaguely good ones are leaving to go to the private sector (the good ones left years ago by the way when the Government merged offices and any good in a closed office went to the private sector)
Please show me the average public sector pension v private of those due to retire in the next ten years? Please also explain the pension availability for police service? The gold-plated pensions for hospital doctors, GPs and NHS senior managers and many civil servants. As mentioned, these give pension provision, at the tax payers expense, that are vastly over what many people will ever receive as monthly salary. Pretending they don't exist show that you clearly don't understand the cost to the country. The country cannot afford these pensions, but nothing will be done about their fundamental unfairness and the greed of those that demand them because the politicians benefit from them themselves. I guess you are someone that is looking forward to drawing on one yourself. Or perhaps you think you have a "right" to a pension that is massively better than your fellow citizens in the private sector?
I worked for just over a decade in the public sector and now work in the private sector.
I'm now being paid twice as much in the private sector as I would be being paid if I'd stayed in the public sector, and the work is less complex and less demanding. The pension provision in my public sector job was a lot better, but not to the value of doubling my salary.
My Dad and Grandad did very well out of their public sector pensions, but they were some of the lucky few who ended their careers in senior positions, and so did best out of a final salary scheme. With the new career average pensions you won't get the same distortions for a small number of lucky recipients. I did pretty well to leave when I did as my pension entitlement is accruing more quickly with CPI uprating then it would have done from pay increases.
In the past a model of pay less now, pay more in pensions later made sense because growth was strong enough that it was cheaper to pay later than in advance. A lot of private sector companies did the same.
The demographic transition changes this calculus, because it unavoidably results in lower growth. This probably means it makes more sense to reduce the value of public sector pensions in exchange for better pay now, but making that transition is hard when you have to pay out the accrued pensions at the same time.
It's not some huge conspiracy to defraud taxpayers. I really don't know why you're so aggressive and unpleasant about it.
That is because he is an aggressive , unpleasant , nasty nasty person.
Clearly brought on by his bad life choices of not working in a sector with "gold plated" Pensions!!
Not too late for him though as their is a 30% vacancy rate in Social Care despite the fantastic Pension
Why it makes sense to put Mordaunt in the top job.
Mordaunt is on -17%.
So Sir Keir beats all of them, just Mordaunt and Sunak save a few Tory MPs seats
You have become a Farage apologist and simply have no credibility when it comes to supporting a one nation conservative party
You do remember I voted for Sunak over Truss? My only warning is that Hunt as Leader means a Farage return and given Hunt is less popular with the public on today's Yougov than Sunak and Mordaunt wouldn't win back many voters from Labour either
Your posts for many weeks have affirmed your Farage tendencies and you simply are part of the right-wing of the conservative party, including the ERG, who are actively destroying the conservative party and I reject any protestations from you that you have any support for a one nation conservative party
No, unlike you I can analyse what would happen even if I wouldn't necessarily support it myself
You cannot even analyse what would happen with your ridiculous claims of popular support for your new found hero Farage
I don't think HYUFD supports Farage. Rather he fears him and what he might do to the Tory Party.
@HYUFD does not fear Farage as he reflects his little Englander views and it is why he has become so fixated with him
I’ve spend time with both Labour and the Treasury on tax and regulation policy in recent months and there is a clear credibility gap between what Labour is starting to develop and the incoherent mess that HMT have had to deal with from this government.
The country badly needs infrastructure investment, a coherent policy on public services (including meaningful spending increases) that avoids us descending into a spiral of ill health and further educational apartheid, and a corporate tax system that targets capital spending. Labour shadow ministers are having grown up conversations about this stuff. All we’ve heard from Tory ministers since 2019 is pure sound bites.
I think, noting the comments above, that we are seeing where the floor of Tory support is. No matter how badly they actually govern, despite actual provable damage to livelihoods and public services, some will always have the reflexive instinct that a hypothetical Labour government would always be worse despite pretty clear evidence to the contrary from 1997 to 2010 even during a global financial crisis.
I say this as a Lib Dem member with no innate love of Labour, who have a history of bullying and ridiculing us as a party. The fact is it’s time for a change, and Starmer’s party will do a better job than the clown show of the last 6 years. The bar is pretty low.
To a large degree it doesn't really matter what the labour party policy is. Of course Starmer is doing a really good job, that is not in doubt. But to understand the labour party and how they would govern, you need to look at their membership and their MPs. To me it seems Starmer does not have the same grip and dominance that Blair did. It is fine to say yes, they are going to invest in infrastructure. But how do they respond to the demands for pay increases from the public sector and manage the 'crises' in all areas of public services; whilst acting within the constraints on financial spending imposed by the markets?
I am not absolutely sure that I will vote Conservative in the next election. I always see these decisions in the context of choosing between 'least worst options'. But this is what I am looking at, in the labour party, and I imagine others will too when genuinely confronted with the choice. If the tories get rid of Truss and put in a competent successor and stay on track, then I would say the next election will be closer than you think.
The Labour Party will continue to be the Party of the Public Sector. They will probably improve the public sector marginally, but the return on investment will be poor as it was under the last Labour administration. Expect to see and even bigger gap between private sector pensions and public sector ones, with public "servants" gloating about their ability to retire in their 50s and some of them at the top end retiring on monthly pensions that many working people can only dream of having as salary.
You really don't understand how most public sector pensions work nowadays do you?
Nor do you grasp that public sector pay after 12 years of Government is now in many cases dire. HMRC are giving their workers 3% and wondering why the vaguely good ones are leaving to go to the private sector (the good ones left years ago by the way when the Government merged offices and any good in a closed office went to the private sector)
It is a bad idea to make generalisations about public sector pay. There is actually a lot of variation. If you count Network Rail as the public sector, there are jobs advertised there in my own field that require about 5 years experience from graduation that pay 65k per year and a career average defined benefit pension. This is about 10-20k more than equivalent private sector jobs with basic workplace pensions. On the other hand Natural England try and recruit people in to a similar role at the same level of experience for £25k. It is really all over the place when you dig in to it. Another issue is that organisations will try and recruit at very low pay then eventually they realise they need to pay more to get the right people, usually a long, painful and traumatic process.
People do vote with their feet though and maybe this isn't such a bad thing. The public sector really needs to pay something close to the market rate and reward good performance.
Worth looking at those examples
The Rail unions are good at making sure their members are well paid.
The Unions of workers at Natural England and similar just don't have the same power to justify decent pay.
Minister admits entire Cabinet failed to spot the mini-Budget would be a car crash. "It would be completely disingenuous to claim that on that morning when the Cabinet was presented with the mini-Budget that there was anybody sat around the table who said that it was a bad idea." https://twitter.com/TimesRadio/status/1582278064297242626
I’ve spend time with both Labour and the Treasury on tax and regulation policy in recent months and there is a clear credibility gap between what Labour is starting to develop and the incoherent mess that HMT have had to deal with from this government.
The country badly needs infrastructure investment, a coherent policy on public services (including meaningful spending increases) that avoids us descending into a spiral of ill health and further educational apartheid, and a corporate tax system that targets capital spending. Labour shadow ministers are having grown up conversations about this stuff. All we’ve heard from Tory ministers since 2019 is pure sound bites.
I think, noting the comments above, that we are seeing where the floor of Tory support is. No matter how badly they actually govern, despite actual provable damage to livelihoods and public services, some will always have the reflexive instinct that a hypothetical Labour government would always be worse despite pretty clear evidence to the contrary from 1997 to 2010 even during a global financial crisis.
I say this as a Lib Dem member with no innate love of Labour, who have a history of bullying and ridiculing us as a party. The fact is it’s time for a change, and Starmer’s party will do a better job than the clown show of the last 6 years. The bar is pretty low.
To a large degree it doesn't really matter what the labour party policy is. Of course Starmer is doing a really good job, that is not in doubt. But to understand the labour party and how they would govern, you need to look at their membership and their MPs. To me it seems Starmer does not have the same grip and dominance that Blair did. It is fine to say yes, they are going to invest in infrastructure. But how do they respond to the demands for pay increases from the public sector and manage the 'crises' in all areas of public services; whilst acting within the constraints on financial spending imposed by the markets?
I am not absolutely sure that I will vote Conservative in the next election. I always see these decisions in the context of choosing between 'least worst options'. But this is what I am looking at, in the labour party, and I imagine others will too when genuinely confronted with the choice. If the tories get rid of Truss and put in a competent successor and stay on track, then I would say the next election will be closer than you think.
The Labour Party will continue to be the Party of the Public Sector. They will probably improve the public sector marginally, but the return on investment will be poor as it was under the last Labour administration. Expect to see and even bigger gap between private sector pensions and public sector ones, with public "servants" gloating about their ability to retire in their 50s and some of them at the top end retiring on monthly pensions that many working people can only dream of having as salary.
You really don't understand how most public sector pensions work nowadays do you?
Nor do you grasp that public sector pay after 12 years of Government is now in many cases dire. HMRC are giving their workers 3% and wondering why the vaguely good ones are leaving to go to the private sector (the good ones left years ago by the way when the Government merged offices and any good in a closed office went to the private sector)
Please show me the average public sector pension v private of those due to retire in the next ten years? Please also explain the pension availability for police service? The gold-plated pensions for hospital doctors, GPs and NHS senior managers and many civil servants. As mentioned, these give pension provision, at the tax payers expense, that are vastly over what many people will ever receive as monthly salary. Pretending they don't exist show that you clearly don't understand the cost to the country. The country cannot afford these pensions, but nothing will be done about their fundamental unfairness and the greed of those that demand them because the politicians benefit from them themselves. I guess you are someone that is looking forward to drawing on one yourself. Or perhaps you think you have a "right" to a pension that is massively better than your fellow citizens in the private sector?
In the past at least, there was an explicit trade-off for many potential workers between the security, work-life balance and pension of the public sector versus the higher salary, bonus and career opportunities/mobility in the private sector. And don't forget that, while the way you describe public sector pensions suggests you're thinking of some hypothetical top manager, most public sector pensions are pretty small, paid to front-line and relatively junior workers such as nurses, postmen, admin staff, council employees, teachers, etc. - and the size of the burden is because there are millions of such people rather than because they're all getting tens of £thousands.
My wife was a teacher for 23 years and she finished her career as a deputy head. Her monthly pension is around £700.
Seems extraordinarily generous to me, given that’s the equivalent or working from 21 and retiring at only 44. £700 a month is equivalent to a pot of around £400k if that’s an index linked pension.
Good luck retiring at 44 and living on £700 plus the state pension, when you qualify, for the rest of your life. I am sure what she gets is pretty good compared to what many in the private sector get, but she contributed to it and as a bilingual graduate she could have got a much higher paying job elsewhere if she’d chosen to. If you want good people to go into teaching you need to offer something that makes it worthwhile.
I’ve spend time with both Labour and the Treasury on tax and regulation policy in recent months and there is a clear credibility gap between what Labour is starting to develop and the incoherent mess that HMT have had to deal with from this government.
The country badly needs infrastructure investment, a coherent policy on public services (including meaningful spending increases) that avoids us descending into a spiral of ill health and further educational apartheid, and a corporate tax system that targets capital spending. Labour shadow ministers are having grown up conversations about this stuff. All we’ve heard from Tory ministers since 2019 is pure sound bites.
I think, noting the comments above, that we are seeing where the floor of Tory support is. No matter how badly they actually govern, despite actual provable damage to livelihoods and public services, some will always have the reflexive instinct that a hypothetical Labour government would always be worse despite pretty clear evidence to the contrary from 1997 to 2010 even during a global financial crisis.
I say this as a Lib Dem member with no innate love of Labour, who have a history of bullying and ridiculing us as a party. The fact is it’s time for a change, and Starmer’s party will do a better job than the clown show of the last 6 years. The bar is pretty low.
To a large degree it doesn't really matter what the labour party policy is. Of course Starmer is doing a really good job, that is not in doubt. But to understand the labour party and how they would govern, you need to look at their membership and their MPs. To me it seems Starmer does not have the same grip and dominance that Blair did. It is fine to say yes, they are going to invest in infrastructure. But how do they respond to the demands for pay increases from the public sector and manage the 'crises' in all areas of public services; whilst acting within the constraints on financial spending imposed by the markets?
I am not absolutely sure that I will vote Conservative in the next election. I always see these decisions in the context of choosing between 'least worst options'. But this is what I am looking at, in the labour party, and I imagine others will too when genuinely confronted with the choice. If the tories get rid of Truss and put in a competent successor and stay on track, then I would say the next election will be closer than you think.
The Labour Party will continue to be the Party of the Public Sector. They will probably improve the public sector marginally, but the return on investment will be poor as it was under the last Labour administration. Expect to see and even bigger gap between private sector pensions and public sector ones, with public "servants" gloating about their ability to retire in their 50s and some of them at the top end retiring on monthly pensions that many working people can only dream of having as salary.
You really don't understand how most public sector pensions work nowadays do you?
Nor do you grasp that public sector pay after 12 years of Government is now in many cases dire. HMRC are giving their workers 3% and wondering why the vaguely good ones are leaving to go to the private sector (the good ones left years ago by the way when the Government merged offices and any good in a closed office went to the private sector)
Please show me the average public sector pension v private of those due to retire in the next ten years? Please also explain the pension availability for police service? The gold-plated pensions for hospital doctors, GPs and NHS senior managers and many civil servants. As mentioned, these give pension provision, at the tax payers expense, that are vastly over what many people will ever receive as monthly salary. Pretending they don't exist show that you clearly don't understand the cost to the country. The country cannot afford these pensions, but nothing will be done about their fundamental unfairness and the greed of those that demand them because the politicians benefit from them themselves. I guess you are someone that is looking forward to drawing on one yourself. Or perhaps you think you have a "right" to a pension that is massively better than your fellow citizens in the private sector?
In the past at least, there was an explicit trade-off for many potential workers between the security, work-life balance and pension of the public sector versus the higher salary, bonus and career opportunities/mobility in the private sector. And don't forget that, while the way you describe public sector pensions suggests you're thinking of some hypothetical top manager, most public sector pensions are pretty small, paid to front-line and relatively junior workers such as nurses, postmen, admin staff, council employees, teachers, etc. - and the size of the burden is because there are millions of such people rather than because they're all getting tens of £thousands.
My wife was a teacher for 23 years and she finished her career as a deputy head. Her monthly pension is around £700.
Seems extraordinarily generous to me, given that’s the equivalent or working from 21 and retiring at only 44. £700 a month is equivalent to a pot of around £400k if that’s an index linked pension.
Good luck retiring at 44 and living on £700 plus the state pension, when you qualify, for the rest if your life. I am sure what she gets is pretty good compared to what many in the private sector get, but she contributed to it and as a bilingual graduate she could have got a much higher paying job elsewhere if she’d chosen to. If you want good people to go into teaching you need to offer something that makes it worthwhile.
I suspect the problem is the age old one of women stopping work for x years to have children.
I see down thread that abbreviating Chief Operating Officer to COO is racist now because - err - it's - err - scratches head - a bit like coon without the last letter.
Please can mods consider rank stupidity a valid reason for banning a poster?
It wouldn't be the first instance of this (though it tends to be an American phenomenon). Off the top of my head, there was the public sector finance bod who was forced out of his job after apologising for having to be 'niggardly' because, you know, it sounds a bit like...
Though the push back from all sides is thankfully forthright
"Julian Bond, then chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, deplored the offense that had been taken at Howard's use of the word. "You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people's lack of understanding" "
If nothing else, it's very boring.
And it's almost always born of the insecure who desperately want to show how much more Not Racist they are than everyone else, which is often a warning sign they slightly are.
Today in parliament ... a man I met in a lift - who I can only assume was a peer from his flamboyant dress sense - is offering out Heroes chocolates, but he's DIY-ed the box to read zeroes and stuck photos of Liz Truss and other cabinet ministers to it. Normal country. https://twitter.com/Geri_E_L_Scott/status/1582296918423928832
I’ve spend time with both Labour and the Treasury on tax and regulation policy in recent months and there is a clear credibility gap between what Labour is starting to develop and the incoherent mess that HMT have had to deal with from this government.
The country badly needs infrastructure investment, a coherent policy on public services (including meaningful spending increases) that avoids us descending into a spiral of ill health and further educational apartheid, and a corporate tax system that targets capital spending. Labour shadow ministers are having grown up conversations about this stuff. All we’ve heard from Tory ministers since 2019 is pure sound bites.
I think, noting the comments above, that we are seeing where the floor of Tory support is. No matter how badly they actually govern, despite actual provable damage to livelihoods and public services, some will always have the reflexive instinct that a hypothetical Labour government would always be worse despite pretty clear evidence to the contrary from 1997 to 2010 even during a global financial crisis.
I say this as a Lib Dem member with no innate love of Labour, who have a history of bullying and ridiculing us as a party. The fact is it’s time for a change, and Starmer’s party will do a better job than the clown show of the last 6 years. The bar is pretty low.
To a large degree it doesn't really matter what the labour party policy is. Of course Starmer is doing a really good job, that is not in doubt. But to understand the labour party and how they would govern, you need to look at their membership and their MPs. To me it seems Starmer does not have the same grip and dominance that Blair did. It is fine to say yes, they are going to invest in infrastructure. But how do they respond to the demands for pay increases from the public sector and manage the 'crises' in all areas of public services; whilst acting within the constraints on financial spending imposed by the markets?
I am not absolutely sure that I will vote Conservative in the next election. I always see these decisions in the context of choosing between 'least worst options'. But this is what I am looking at, in the labour party, and I imagine others will too when genuinely confronted with the choice. If the tories get rid of Truss and put in a competent successor and stay on track, then I would say the next election will be closer than you think.
The Labour Party will continue to be the Party of the Public Sector. They will probably improve the public sector marginally, but the return on investment will be poor as it was under the last Labour administration. Expect to see and even bigger gap between private sector pensions and public sector ones, with public "servants" gloating about their ability to retire in their 50s and some of them at the top end retiring on monthly pensions that many working people can only dream of having as salary.
You really don't understand how most public sector pensions work nowadays do you?
Nor do you grasp that public sector pay after 12 years of Government is now in many cases dire. HMRC are giving their workers 3% and wondering why the vaguely good ones are leaving to go to the private sector (the good ones left years ago by the way when the Government merged offices and any good in a closed office went to the private sector)
Please show me the average public sector pension v private of those due to retire in the next ten years? Please also explain the pension availability for police service? The gold-plated pensions for hospital doctors, GPs and NHS senior managers and many civil servants. As mentioned, these give pension provision, at the tax payers expense, that are vastly over what many people will ever receive as monthly salary. Pretending they don't exist show that you clearly don't understand the cost to the country. The country cannot afford these pensions, but nothing will be done about their fundamental unfairness and the greed of those that demand them because the politicians benefit from them themselves. I guess you are someone that is looking forward to drawing on one yourself. Or perhaps you think you have a "right" to a pension that is massively better than your fellow citizens in the private sector?
In the past at least, there was an explicit trade-off for many potential workers between the security, work-life balance and pension of the public sector versus the higher salary, bonus and career opportunities/mobility in the private sector. And don't forget that, while the way you describe public sector pensions suggests you're thinking of some hypothetical top manager, most public sector pensions are pretty small, paid to front-line and relatively junior workers such as nurses, postmen, admin staff, council employees, teachers, etc. - and the size of the burden is because there are millions of such people rather than because they're all getting tens of £thousands.
My wife was a teacher for 23 years and she finished her career as a deputy head. Her monthly pension is around £700.
Seems extraordinarily generous to me, given that’s the equivalent or working from 21 and retiring at only 44. £700 a month is equivalent to a pot of around £400k if that’s an index linked pension.
That's a 47x valuation? Seems a bit high. Even if we accept that, a 400k pension at 65 = £182k at 44 with a 4% real terms growth rate.
I’ve spend time with both Labour and the Treasury on tax and regulation policy in recent months and there is a clear credibility gap between what Labour is starting to develop and the incoherent mess that HMT have had to deal with from this government.
The country badly needs infrastructure investment, a coherent policy on public services (including meaningful spending increases) that avoids us descending into a spiral of ill health and further educational apartheid, and a corporate tax system that targets capital spending. Labour shadow ministers are having grown up conversations about this stuff. All we’ve heard from Tory ministers since 2019 is pure sound bites.
I think, noting the comments above, that we are seeing where the floor of Tory support is. No matter how badly they actually govern, despite actual provable damage to livelihoods and public services, some will always have the reflexive instinct that a hypothetical Labour government would always be worse despite pretty clear evidence to the contrary from 1997 to 2010 even during a global financial crisis.
I say this as a Lib Dem member with no innate love of Labour, who have a history of bullying and ridiculing us as a party. The fact is it’s time for a change, and Starmer’s party will do a better job than the clown show of the last 6 years. The bar is pretty low.
To a large degree it doesn't really matter what the labour party policy is. Of course Starmer is doing a really good job, that is not in doubt. But to understand the labour party and how they would govern, you need to look at their membership and their MPs. To me it seems Starmer does not have the same grip and dominance that Blair did. It is fine to say yes, they are going to invest in infrastructure. But how do they respond to the demands for pay increases from the public sector and manage the 'crises' in all areas of public services; whilst acting within the constraints on financial spending imposed by the markets?
I am not absolutely sure that I will vote Conservative in the next election. I always see these decisions in the context of choosing between 'least worst options'. But this is what I am looking at, in the labour party, and I imagine others will too when genuinely confronted with the choice. If the tories get rid of Truss and put in a competent successor and stay on track, then I would say the next election will be closer than you think.
The Labour Party will continue to be the Party of the Public Sector. They will probably improve the public sector marginally, but the return on investment will be poor as it was under the last Labour administration. Expect to see and even bigger gap between private sector pensions and public sector ones, with public "servants" gloating about their ability to retire in their 50s and some of them at the top end retiring on monthly pensions that many working people can only dream of having as salary.
You really don't understand how most public sector pensions work nowadays do you?
Nor do you grasp that public sector pay after 12 years of Government is now in many cases dire. HMRC are giving their workers 3% and wondering why the vaguely good ones are leaving to go to the private sector (the good ones left years ago by the way when the Government merged offices and any good in a closed office went to the private sector)
Please show me the average public sector pension v private of those due to retire in the next ten years? Please also explain the pension availability for police service? The gold-plated pensions for hospital doctors, GPs and NHS senior managers and many civil servants. As mentioned, these give pension provision, at the tax payers expense, that are vastly over what many people will ever receive as monthly salary. Pretending they don't exist show that you clearly don't understand the cost to the country. The country cannot afford these pensions, but nothing will be done about their fundamental unfairness and the greed of those that demand them because the politicians benefit from them themselves. I guess you are someone that is looking forward to drawing on one yourself. Or perhaps you think you have a "right" to a pension that is massively better than your fellow citizens in the private sector?
In the past at least, there was an explicit trade-off for many potential workers between the security, work-life balance and pension of the public sector versus the higher salary, bonus and career opportunities/mobility in the private sector. And don't forget that, while the way you describe public sector pensions suggests you're thinking of some hypothetical top manager, most public sector pensions are pretty small, paid to front-line and relatively junior workers such as nurses, postmen, admin staff, council employees, teachers, etc. -and the size of the burden is because there are millions of such people rather than because they're all getting tens of £thousands.
My wife was a teacher for 23 years and she finished her career as a deputy head. Her monthly pension is around £700.
Similarly my wife. Head of Department at a Technical College. A £35k lump sum and a grand a month (from 60). Had she stayed on for longer the system changed and she would have lost the final salary scheme. So she would have got less for longer service.
Pensions are a ticking time bomb, flagged up by the run on gilts a fortnight ago. The greater economy is in a bigger mess than we realise. Doubtless devout PB Tories can trace it back to Wilson failing to devalue in Autumn 1964, but we are where we are.
Minister admits entire Cabinet failed to spot the mini-Budget would be a car crash. "It would be completely disingenuous to claim that on that morning when the Cabinet was presented with the mini-Budget that there was anybody sat around the table who said that it was a bad idea." https://twitter.com/TimesRadio/status/1582278064297242626
That is not really all that surprising. The qualification for Cabinet appears to be loyalty to the Leader, not competence.
So a cabinet of "Yes Men" and sycophants agreed with their boss.
When I was unemployed, the Job Centre had adverts for combat instructors for the Saudi air force. Is this greatly different?
ETA tbh my first reaction was similar to yours, that this is deplorable.
I find it interesting that the authorities say that there is nothing in law they can do about it, in contrast to (eg) what Biden did to Us Citizens working in the semiconductor industry in China a few days ago.
Even passing new laws, will our Govt apply anything retrospective to cut off the presence of the estimated 30 former pilots who are alleged to be there already?
I’ve spend time with both Labour and the Treasury on tax and regulation policy in recent months and there is a clear credibility gap between what Labour is starting to develop and the incoherent mess that HMT have had to deal with from this government.
The country badly needs infrastructure investment, a coherent policy on public services (including meaningful spending increases) that avoids us descending into a spiral of ill health and further educational apartheid, and a corporate tax system that targets capital spending. Labour shadow ministers are having grown up conversations about this stuff. All we’ve heard from Tory ministers since 2019 is pure sound bites.
I think, noting the comments above, that we are seeing where the floor of Tory support is. No matter how badly they actually govern, despite actual provable damage to livelihoods and public services, some will always have the reflexive instinct that a hypothetical Labour government would always be worse despite pretty clear evidence to the contrary from 1997 to 2010 even during a global financial crisis.
I say this as a Lib Dem member with no innate love of Labour, who have a history of bullying and ridiculing us as a party. The fact is it’s time for a change, and Starmer’s party will do a better job than the clown show of the last 6 years. The bar is pretty low.
To a large degree it doesn't really matter what the labour party policy is. Of course Starmer is doing a really good job, that is not in doubt. But to understand the labour party and how they would govern, you need to look at their membership and their MPs. To me it seems Starmer does not have the same grip and dominance that Blair did. It is fine to say yes, they are going to invest in infrastructure. But how do they respond to the demands for pay increases from the public sector and manage the 'crises' in all areas of public services; whilst acting within the constraints on financial spending imposed by the markets?
I am not absolutely sure that I will vote Conservative in the next election. I always see these decisions in the context of choosing between 'least worst options'. But this is what I am looking at, in the labour party, and I imagine others will too when genuinely confronted with the choice. If the tories get rid of Truss and put in a competent successor and stay on track, then I would say the next election will be closer than you think.
The Labour Party will continue to be the Party of the Public Sector. They will probably improve the public sector marginally, but the return on investment will be poor as it was under the last Labour administration. Expect to see and even bigger gap between private sector pensions and public sector ones, with public "servants" gloating about their ability to retire in their 50s and some of them at the top end retiring on monthly pensions that many working people can only dream of having as salary.
You really don't understand how most public sector pensions work nowadays do you?
Nor do you grasp that public sector pay after 12 years of Government is now in many cases dire. HMRC are giving their workers 3% and wondering why the vaguely good ones are leaving to go to the private sector (the good ones left years ago by the way when the Government merged offices and any good in a closed office went to the private sector)
Please show me the average public sector pension v private of those due to retire in the next ten years? Please also explain the pension availability for police service? The gold-plated pensions for hospital doctors, GPs and NHS senior managers and many civil servants. As mentioned, these give pension provision, at the tax payers expense, that are vastly over what many people will ever receive as monthly salary. Pretending they don't exist show that you clearly don't understand the cost to the country. The country cannot afford these pensions, but nothing will be done about their fundamental unfairness and the greed of those that demand them because the politicians benefit from them themselves. I guess you are someone that is looking forward to drawing on one yourself. Or perhaps you think you have a "right" to a pension that is massively better than your fellow citizens in the private sector?
In the past at least, there was an explicit trade-off for many potential workers between the security, work-life balance and pension of the public sector versus the higher salary, bonus and career opportunities/mobility in the private sector. And don't forget that, while the way you describe public sector pensions suggests you're thinking of some hypothetical top manager, most public sector pensions are pretty small, paid to front-line and relatively junior workers such as nurses, postmen, admin staff, council employees, teachers, etc. - and the size of the burden is because there are millions of such people rather than because they're all getting tens of £thousands.
My wife was a teacher for 23 years and she finished her career as a deputy head. Her monthly pension is around £700.
Why it makes sense to put Mordaunt in the top job.
Mordaunt is on -17%.
So Sir Keir beats all of them, just Mordaunt and Sunak save a few Tory MPs seats
You have the choice HY, choose sensibly and perhaps (not guaranteed) lose the next election. 15 years is, after all a long time in power.
Or choose Braverman who goes crazy-ape-bonkers populist. Hanging, flogging, routinely arming the police to shoot down Dartford Crossing protesters and strafing Avon inflatables in the Channel so they sink. You might well win handsomely in 2024, but it won't be what the people want once they experience it, and you will be consigned to oblivion (unless you Putinise the electoral system- something not beyond the wit of Braverman, I daresay).
If I am mistaken, has not the government, in one or other of its incarnations since the 2015 elections already started to 'Putinise' the electoral system?
You are mistaken. Unless you can provide any evidence, which doesn't include "bringing the electoral system in Great Britain in line with Northern Ireland" or "removing systemic imbalance in the constituency boundaries"?
Why it makes sense to put Mordaunt in the top job.
Mordaunt is on -17%.
So Sir Keir beats all of them, just Mordaunt and Sunak save a few Tory MPs seats
You have become a Farage apologist and simply have no credibility when it comes to supporting a one nation conservative party
You do remember I voted for Sunak over Truss? My only warning is that Hunt as Leader means a Farage return and given Hunt is less popular with the public on today's Yougov than Sunak and Mordaunt wouldn't win back many voters from Labour either
Farage is a fantasist, attention-seeking infant. He will always be looking for a pyramid of baked beans to pull down in aisle 5.
He has an impressive record of failing to get elected to Westminster. Ironically, the EU Parliament wasn't as fussy about letting him in.....
I see down thread that abbreviating Chief Operating Officer to COO is racist now because - err - it's - err - scratches head - a bit like coon without the last letter.
Please can mods consider rank stupidity a valid reason for banning a poster?
It wouldn't be the first instance of this (though it tends to be an American phenomenon). Off the top of my head, there was the public sector finance bod who was forced out of his job after apologising for having to be 'niggardly' because, you know, it sounds a bit like...
Though the push back from all sides is thankfully forthright
"Julian Bond, then chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, deplored the offense that had been taken at Howard's use of the word. "You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people's lack of understanding" "
If nothing else, it's very boring.
And it's almost always born of the insecure who desperately want to show how much more Not Racist they are than everyone else, which is often a warning sign they slightly are.
You and I have disagreed sometimes on racial issues, but on this I wholeheartedly agree with you. I doubt there's a single genuine person here, let alone Scott, who saw COO and thought anything other than Chief Operating Officer.
I could not comprehend why anyone would suggest COO was racist and its one of those things that seeing racism there, where none was intended, says more about DJ41 than it does about Scott or anyone else.
I’ve spend time with both Labour and the Treasury on tax and regulation policy in recent months and there is a clear credibility gap between what Labour is starting to develop and the incoherent mess that HMT have had to deal with from this government.
The country badly needs infrastructure investment, a coherent policy on public services (including meaningful spending increases) that avoids us descending into a spiral of ill health and further educational apartheid, and a corporate tax system that targets capital spending. Labour shadow ministers are having grown up conversations about this stuff. All we’ve heard from Tory ministers since 2019 is pure sound bites.
I think, noting the comments above, that we are seeing where the floor of Tory support is. No matter how badly they actually govern, despite actual provable damage to livelihoods and public services, some will always have the reflexive instinct that a hypothetical Labour government would always be worse despite pretty clear evidence to the contrary from 1997 to 2010 even during a global financial crisis.
I say this as a Lib Dem member with no innate love of Labour, who have a history of bullying and ridiculing us as a party. The fact is it’s time for a change, and Starmer’s party will do a better job than the clown show of the last 6 years. The bar is pretty low.
To a large degree it doesn't really matter what the labour party policy is. Of course Starmer is doing a really good job, that is not in doubt. But to understand the labour party and how they would govern, you need to look at their membership and their MPs. To me it seems Starmer does not have the same grip and dominance that Blair did. It is fine to say yes, they are going to invest in infrastructure. But how do they respond to the demands for pay increases from the public sector and manage the 'crises' in all areas of public services; whilst acting within the constraints on financial spending imposed by the markets?
I am not absolutely sure that I will vote Conservative in the next election. I always see these decisions in the context of choosing between 'least worst options'. But this is what I am looking at, in the labour party, and I imagine others will too when genuinely confronted with the choice. If the tories get rid of Truss and put in a competent successor and stay on track, then I would say the next election will be closer than you think.
The Labour Party will continue to be the Party of the Public Sector. They will probably improve the public sector marginally, but the return on investment will be poor as it was under the last Labour administration. Expect to see and even bigger gap between private sector pensions and public sector ones, with public "servants" gloating about their ability to retire in their 50s and some of them at the top end retiring on monthly pensions that many working people can only dream of having as salary.
You really don't understand how most public sector pensions work nowadays do you?
Nor do you grasp that public sector pay after 12 years of Government is now in many cases dire. HMRC are giving their workers 3% and wondering why the vaguely good ones are leaving to go to the private sector (the good ones left years ago by the way when the Government merged offices and any good in a closed office went to the private sector)
Please show me the average public sector pension v private of those due to retire in the next ten years? Please also explain the pension availability for police service? The gold-plated pensions for hospital doctors, GPs and NHS senior managers and many civil servants. As mentioned, these give pension provision, at the tax payers expense, that are vastly over what many people will ever receive as monthly salary. Pretending they don't exist show that you clearly don't understand the cost to the country. The country cannot afford these pensions, but nothing will be done about their fundamental unfairness and the greed of those that demand them because the politicians benefit from them themselves. I guess you are someone that is looking forward to drawing on one yourself. Or perhaps you think you have a "right" to a pension that is massively better than your fellow citizens in the private sector?
No but unlike you and MaxPB, I think that people should be given what they were contractually offered and accepted when their signed up to work in the public sector.
And if you think the public sector gets a great deal - there was nothing stopping you trying to get on that bandwagon. The fact you now look enviously at their pensions is your problem.
They should be given what they were contractually offered, but they should also be equitably taxed on that too. If they have higher remuneration then that should be taxed accordingly, just as anyone else's would be.
At present pension incomes aren't as heavily taxed as other people's incomes. They evade National Insurance and despite many being graduates they evade the graduate tax known as student loans too. A young graduate working for a living can be paying 22% more tax per pound they earn than a retired graduate on the exact same income.
We should merge all income related taxes into one and have a fair equitable tax rate applied to all incomes evenly. No dodging NI or anything else for pensioners.
You need to treat people fairly so you can't introduce a graduate tax on those who went to university when it didn't exist - and you can't do it now because
1) prior to student loans no-one has the paperwork to know who went to university 2) many people have paid off their loans and it would be utterly unfair to tax them twice.
In your desire to remove the NI increase you won't have noticed but you also removed the mechanism by which pensioners were from 6th April 2023 paying 1.25% (NI equivalent) on their taxable income. That would have allowed a future chancellor to change the split between NI and social care and increased pensioner contributions.
I’ve spend time with both Labour and the Treasury on tax and regulation policy in recent months and there is a clear credibility gap between what Labour is starting to develop and the incoherent mess that HMT have had to deal with from this government.
The country badly needs infrastructure investment, a coherent policy on public services (including meaningful spending increases) that avoids us descending into a spiral of ill health and further educational apartheid, and a corporate tax system that targets capital spending. Labour shadow ministers are having grown up conversations about this stuff. All we’ve heard from Tory ministers since 2019 is pure sound bites.
I think, noting the comments above, that we are seeing where the floor of Tory support is. No matter how badly they actually govern, despite actual provable damage to livelihoods and public services, some will always have the reflexive instinct that a hypothetical Labour government would always be worse despite pretty clear evidence to the contrary from 1997 to 2010 even during a global financial crisis.
I say this as a Lib Dem member with no innate love of Labour, who have a history of bullying and ridiculing us as a party. The fact is it’s time for a change, and Starmer’s party will do a better job than the clown show of the last 6 years. The bar is pretty low.
To a large degree it doesn't really matter what the labour party policy is. Of course Starmer is doing a really good job, that is not in doubt. But to understand the labour party and how they would govern, you need to look at their membership and their MPs. To me it seems Starmer does not have the same grip and dominance that Blair did. It is fine to say yes, they are going to invest in infrastructure. But how do they respond to the demands for pay increases from the public sector and manage the 'crises' in all areas of public services; whilst acting within the constraints on financial spending imposed by the markets?
I am not absolutely sure that I will vote Conservative in the next election. I always see these decisions in the context of choosing between 'least worst options'. But this is what I am looking at, in the labour party, and I imagine others will too when genuinely confronted with the choice. If the tories get rid of Truss and put in a competent successor and stay on track, then I would say the next election will be closer than you think.
The Labour Party will continue to be the Party of the Public Sector. They will probably improve the public sector marginally, but the return on investment will be poor as it was under the last Labour administration. Expect to see and even bigger gap between private sector pensions and public sector ones, with public "servants" gloating about their ability to retire in their 50s and some of them at the top end retiring on monthly pensions that many working people can only dream of having as salary.
You really don't understand how most public sector pensions work nowadays do you?
Nor do you grasp that public sector pay after 12 years of Government is now in many cases dire. HMRC are giving their workers 3% and wondering why the vaguely good ones are leaving to go to the private sector (the good ones left years ago by the way when the Government merged offices and any good in a closed office went to the private sector)
Please show me the average public sector pension v private of those due to retire in the next ten years? Please also explain the pension availability for police service? The gold-plated pensions for hospital doctors, GPs and NHS senior managers and many civil servants. As mentioned, these give pension provision, at the tax payers expense, that are vastly over what many people will ever receive as monthly salary. Pretending they don't exist show that you clearly don't understand the cost to the country. The country cannot afford these pensions, but nothing will be done about their fundamental unfairness and the greed of those that demand them because the politicians benefit from them themselves. I guess you are someone that is looking forward to drawing on one yourself. Or perhaps you think you have a "right" to a pension that is massively better than your fellow citizens in the private sector?
But hang on, whatever you think about them, they are payable under contract just as much as salary is.
@nigelforman Anyone who complains its too good in the Public Sector should get a job there. Well over a Million Vacancies in key roles.
Get off your arse and train as a Doctor, Nurse Teacher take one of the vacant roles and pay your up to 14.5% contribution to your pension as well as your NI and your 40|% Tax.
If its so rosy why are there no takers from the poor old private sector apart from your IR35 tax avoiding types who dont seem to want an NHS Pension with all the downsides of 12 years of pay cuts and contribution hikes.
Funny that.
Um if we are talking the NHS - it's not been possible for a doctor / nurse to be a locum except via PAYE since 2017 (it's a big reason why there are staff shortages because people are no longer able to justify taking those awkward weekend fill in shifts 2 hours away from home).
And the people who do switch to being a locum have usually done so to avoid the paperwork and management that is otherwise forced upon them even though all they want to do is deal with patients.
I used to get a queue of Directors and Senior Medics explaining to me why they werent employees as we went through the IR35 Criteria it dawned upon them that maybe they were.
I’ve spend time with both Labour and the Treasury on tax and regulation policy in recent months and there is a clear credibility gap between what Labour is starting to develop and the incoherent mess that HMT have had to deal with from this government.
The country badly needs infrastructure investment, a coherent policy on public services (including meaningful spending increases) that avoids us descending into a spiral of ill health and further educational apartheid, and a corporate tax system that targets capital spending. Labour shadow ministers are having grown up conversations about this stuff. All we’ve heard from Tory ministers since 2019 is pure sound bites.
I think, noting the comments above, that we are seeing where the floor of Tory support is. No matter how badly they actually govern, despite actual provable damage to livelihoods and public services, some will always have the reflexive instinct that a hypothetical Labour government would always be worse despite pretty clear evidence to the contrary from 1997 to 2010 even during a global financial crisis.
I say this as a Lib Dem member with no innate love of Labour, who have a history of bullying and ridiculing us as a party. The fact is it’s time for a change, and Starmer’s party will do a better job than the clown show of the last 6 years. The bar is pretty low.
To a large degree it doesn't really matter what the labour party policy is. Of course Starmer is doing a really good job, that is not in doubt. But to understand the labour party and how they would govern, you need to look at their membership and their MPs. To me it seems Starmer does not have the same grip and dominance that Blair did. It is fine to say yes, they are going to invest in infrastructure. But how do they respond to the demands for pay increases from the public sector and manage the 'crises' in all areas of public services; whilst acting within the constraints on financial spending imposed by the markets?
I am not absolutely sure that I will vote Conservative in the next election. I always see these decisions in the context of choosing between 'least worst options'. But this is what I am looking at, in the labour party, and I imagine others will too when genuinely confronted with the choice. If the tories get rid of Truss and put in a competent successor and stay on track, then I would say the next election will be closer than you think.
The Labour Party will continue to be the Party of the Public Sector. They will probably improve the public sector marginally, but the return on investment will be poor as it was under the last Labour administration. Expect to see and even bigger gap between private sector pensions and public sector ones, with public "servants" gloating about their ability to retire in their 50s and some of them at the top end retiring on monthly pensions that many working people can only dream of having as salary.
You really don't understand how most public sector pensions work nowadays do you?
Nor do you grasp that public sector pay after 12 years of Government is now in many cases dire. HMRC are giving their workers 3% and wondering why the vaguely good ones are leaving to go to the private sector (the good ones left years ago by the way when the Government merged offices and any good in a closed office went to the private sector)
It is a bad idea to make generalisations about public sector pay. There is actually a lot of variation. If you count Network Rail as the public sector, there are jobs advertised there in my own field that require about 5 years experience from graduation that pay 65k per year and a career average defined benefit pension. This is about 10-20k more than equivalent private sector jobs with basic workplace pensions. On the other hand Natural England try and recruit people in to a similar role at the same level of experience for £25k. It is really all over the place when you dig in to it. Another issue is that organisations will try and recruit at very low pay then eventually they realise they need to pay more to get the right people, usually a long, painful and traumatic process.
People do vote with their feet though and maybe this isn't such a bad thing. The public sector really needs to pay something close to the market rate and reward good performance.
Worth looking at those examples
The Rail unions are good at making sure their members are well paid.
The Unions of workers at Natural England and similar just don't have the same power to justify decent pay.
Also an organisation like Natural England has the soft benefit of being somewhere potentially attractive to work for reasons of values, so doesn't need to pay so much.
Why it makes sense to put Mordaunt in the top job.
Mordaunt is on -17%.
So Sir Keir beats all of them, just Mordaunt and Sunak save a few Tory MPs seats
You have the choice HY, choose sensibly and perhaps (not guaranteed) lose the next election. 15 years is, after all a long time in power.
Or choose Braverman who goes crazy-ape-bonkers populist. Hanging, flogging, routinely arming the police to shoot down Dartford Crossing protesters and strafing Avon inflatables in the Channel so they sink. You might well win handsomely in 2024, but it won't be what the people want once they experience it, and you will be consigned to oblivion (unless you Putinise the electoral system- something not beyond the wit of Braverman, I daresay).
Once you lose power you are normally out for a decade or more unless the Government can't deliver on the economy as in 1970, 1974 or 1979.
Thats true of Labour but in the modern era it has only ever applied to the Tories from 1997 to 2010, the sole occasion they were out for 10 years plus
I’ve spend time with both Labour and the Treasury on tax and regulation policy in recent months and there is a clear credibility gap between what Labour is starting to develop and the incoherent mess that HMT have had to deal with from this government.
The country badly needs infrastructure investment, a coherent policy on public services (including meaningful spending increases) that avoids us descending into a spiral of ill health and further educational apartheid, and a corporate tax system that targets capital spending. Labour shadow ministers are having grown up conversations about this stuff. All we’ve heard from Tory ministers since 2019 is pure sound bites.
I think, noting the comments above, that we are seeing where the floor of Tory support is. No matter how badly they actually govern, despite actual provable damage to livelihoods and public services, some will always have the reflexive instinct that a hypothetical Labour government would always be worse despite pretty clear evidence to the contrary from 1997 to 2010 even during a global financial crisis.
I say this as a Lib Dem member with no innate love of Labour, who have a history of bullying and ridiculing us as a party. The fact is it’s time for a change, and Starmer’s party will do a better job than the clown show of the last 6 years. The bar is pretty low.
To a large degree it doesn't really matter what the labour party policy is. Of course Starmer is doing a really good job, that is not in doubt. But to understand the labour party and how they would govern, you need to look at their membership and their MPs. To me it seems Starmer does not have the same grip and dominance that Blair did. It is fine to say yes, they are going to invest in infrastructure. But how do they respond to the demands for pay increases from the public sector and manage the 'crises' in all areas of public services; whilst acting within the constraints on financial spending imposed by the markets?
I am not absolutely sure that I will vote Conservative in the next election. I always see these decisions in the context of choosing between 'least worst options'. But this is what I am looking at, in the labour party, and I imagine others will too when genuinely confronted with the choice. If the tories get rid of Truss and put in a competent successor and stay on track, then I would say the next election will be closer than you think.
The Labour Party will continue to be the Party of the Public Sector. They will probably improve the public sector marginally, but the return on investment will be poor as it was under the last Labour administration. Expect to see and even bigger gap between private sector pensions and public sector ones, with public "servants" gloating about their ability to retire in their 50s and some of them at the top end retiring on monthly pensions that many working people can only dream of having as salary.
You really don't understand how most public sector pensions work nowadays do you?
Nor do you grasp that public sector pay after 12 years of Government is now in many cases dire. HMRC are giving their workers 3% and wondering why the vaguely good ones are leaving to go to the private sector (the good ones left years ago by the way when the Government merged offices and any good in a closed office went to the private sector)
Please show me the average public sector pension v private of those due to retire in the next ten years? Please also explain the pension availability for police service? The gold-plated pensions for hospital doctors, GPs and NHS senior managers and many civil servants. As mentioned, these give pension provision, at the tax payers expense, that are vastly over what many people will ever receive as monthly salary. Pretending they don't exist show that you clearly don't understand the cost to the country. The country cannot afford these pensions, but nothing will be done about their fundamental unfairness and the greed of those that demand them because the politicians benefit from them themselves. I guess you are someone that is looking forward to drawing on one yourself. Or perhaps you think you have a "right" to a pension that is massively better than your fellow citizens in the private sector?
In the past at least, there was an explicit trade-off for many potential workers between the security, work-life balance and pension of the public sector versus the higher salary, bonus and career opportunities/mobility in the private sector. And don't forget that, while the way you describe public sector pensions suggests you're thinking of some hypothetical top manager, most public sector pensions are pretty small, paid to front-line and relatively junior workers such as nurses, postmen, admin staff, council employees, teachers, etc. - and the size of the burden is because there are millions of such people rather than because they're all getting tens of £thousands.
My wife was a teacher for 23 years and she finished her career as a deputy head. Her monthly pension is around £700.
Seems extraordinarily generous to me, given that’s the equivalent or working from 21 and retiring at only 44. £700 a month is equivalent to a pot of around £400k if that’s an index linked pension.
That's a 47x valuation? Seems a bit high. Even if we accept that, a 400k pension at 65 = £182k at 44 with a 4% real terms growth rate.
HMRC values them at twenty times for tax purposes - but that's something of a historical relic since longevity means they are now worth more.
Genuine question: has she sustained a head injury? She seems to have a bruise above her left eye. At first glance I thought it was a shading from the light, but it's not.
A few points. Is it only me who felt that Hunt, in his excellent performance yesterday, seemed to successfully convince all of the hacks and the opposition that huge pain lies down the way for all and sundry? Therefore anything less bad than armageddon is therefore relatively easy to portray in a positive light.
The TV news in particular went straight into overdrive about austerity and demands for guarantees that there'd be exceptions for everyone or the country would be engulfed in a bonfire of disasters - illustrating the now entrenched expectation that no matter what happens at home or in the wider world the government must cover it in full so no-one will endure any pain, anywhere, ever.
What a strange world I have grown old in.
On topic my party political point is that Truss must go with Mordaunt my preferred PM. Otherwise the landslide will be very severe indeed.
I’ve spend time with both Labour and the Treasury on tax and regulation policy in recent months and there is a clear credibility gap between what Labour is starting to develop and the incoherent mess that HMT have had to deal with from this government.
The country badly needs infrastructure investment, a coherent policy on public services (including meaningful spending increases) that avoids us descending into a spiral of ill health and further educational apartheid, and a corporate tax system that targets capital spending. Labour shadow ministers are having grown up conversations about this stuff. All we’ve heard from Tory ministers since 2019 is pure sound bites.
I think, noting the comments above, that we are seeing where the floor of Tory support is. No matter how badly they actually govern, despite actual provable damage to livelihoods and public services, some will always have the reflexive instinct that a hypothetical Labour government would always be worse despite pretty clear evidence to the contrary from 1997 to 2010 even during a global financial crisis.
I say this as a Lib Dem member with no innate love of Labour, who have a history of bullying and ridiculing us as a party. The fact is it’s time for a change, and Starmer’s party will do a better job than the clown show of the last 6 years. The bar is pretty low.
To a large degree it doesn't really matter what the labour party policy is. Of course Starmer is doing a really good job, that is not in doubt. But to understand the labour party and how they would govern, you need to look at their membership and their MPs. To me it seems Starmer does not have the same grip and dominance that Blair did. It is fine to say yes, they are going to invest in infrastructure. But how do they respond to the demands for pay increases from the public sector and manage the 'crises' in all areas of public services; whilst acting within the constraints on financial spending imposed by the markets?
I am not absolutely sure that I will vote Conservative in the next election. I always see these decisions in the context of choosing between 'least worst options'. But this is what I am looking at, in the labour party, and I imagine others will too when genuinely confronted with the choice. If the tories get rid of Truss and put in a competent successor and stay on track, then I would say the next election will be closer than you think.
The Labour Party will continue to be the Party of the Public Sector. They will probably improve the public sector marginally, but the return on investment will be poor as it was under the last Labour administration. Expect to see and even bigger gap between private sector pensions and public sector ones, with public "servants" gloating about their ability to retire in their 50s and some of them at the top end retiring on monthly pensions that many working people can only dream of having as salary.
You really don't understand how most public sector pensions work nowadays do you?
Nor do you grasp that public sector pay after 12 years of Government is now in many cases dire. HMRC are giving their workers 3% and wondering why the vaguely good ones are leaving to go to the private sector (the good ones left years ago by the way when the Government merged offices and any good in a closed office went to the private sector)
Please show me the average public sector pension v private of those due to retire in the next ten years? Please also explain the pension availability for police service? The gold-plated pensions for hospital doctors, GPs and NHS senior managers and many civil servants. As mentioned, these give pension provision, at the tax payers expense, that are vastly over what many people will ever receive as monthly salary. Pretending they don't exist show that you clearly don't understand the cost to the country. The country cannot afford these pensions, but nothing will be done about their fundamental unfairness and the greed of those that demand them because the politicians benefit from them themselves. I guess you are someone that is looking forward to drawing on one yourself. Or perhaps you think you have a "right" to a pension that is massively better than your fellow citizens in the private sector?
No but unlike you and MaxPB, I think that people should be given what they were contractually offered and accepted when their signed up to work in the public sector.
And if you think the public sector gets a great deal - there was nothing stopping you trying to get on that bandwagon. The fact you now look enviously at their pensions is your problem.
They should be given what they were contractually offered, but they should also be equitably taxed on that too. If they have higher remuneration then that should be taxed accordingly, just as anyone else's would be.
At present pension incomes aren't as heavily taxed as other people's incomes. They evade National Insurance and despite many being graduates they evade the graduate tax known as student loans too. A young graduate working for a living can be paying 22% more tax per pound they earn than a retired graduate on the exact same income.
We should merge all income related taxes into one and have a fair equitable tax rate applied to all incomes evenly. No dodging NI or anything else for pensioners.
You need to treat people fairly so you can't introduce a graduate tax on those who went to university when it didn't exist - and you can't do it now because
1) prior to student loans no-one has the paperwork to know who went to university 2) many people have paid off their loans and it would be utterly unfair to tax them twice.
In your desire to remove the NI increase you won't have noticed but you also removed the mechanism by which pensioners were from 6th April 2023 paying 1.25% (NI equivalent) on their taxable income. That would have allowed a future chancellor to change the split between NI and social care and increased pensioner contributions.
As someone said above, the argument for merging tax and NI and levying the latter on everyone and all income, like tax, is pretty strong. Those pensioners affected would be the better off ones, and they should be asked to pay, as should those getting income from property or investments, who currently are relatively under-taxed.
"If the Tories lurch from the one extreme of a giveaway budget to the other extreme of Austerity 2.0, they will be slaughtered in the next general election, and rightly so."
But fourthly, he unequivocally promised that debt would be falling as a share of GDP almost immediately.
That last one is going to be very hard to deliver when we have the cost of 6 months of the energy scheme to accommodate.
Are there any technical factors here, similar to eg inflation perhaps going to fall as the 12 month ago petrol price hikes fall out, and the impact of Energy Price Support (which was estd at -5% over what would have been).
If you go back a few months Debt to GDP ratio had started to fall across much of Europe.
My civil service defined benefit pension accrues I believe 2% of my annual salary per year. Can only be claimed once I reach state pension age which for me is 68. I think that's pretty good but the basic salary isn't great. Even at the bottom end now you'd probably get more money in the private sector.
I’ve spend time with both Labour and the Treasury on tax and regulation policy in recent months and there is a clear credibility gap between what Labour is starting to develop and the incoherent mess that HMT have had to deal with from this government.
The country badly needs infrastructure investment, a coherent policy on public services (including meaningful spending increases) that avoids us descending into a spiral of ill health and further educational apartheid, and a corporate tax system that targets capital spending. Labour shadow ministers are having grown up conversations about this stuff. All we’ve heard from Tory ministers since 2019 is pure sound bites.
I think, noting the comments above, that we are seeing where the floor of Tory support is. No matter how badly they actually govern, despite actual provable damage to livelihoods and public services, some will always have the reflexive instinct that a hypothetical Labour government would always be worse despite pretty clear evidence to the contrary from 1997 to 2010 even during a global financial crisis.
I say this as a Lib Dem member with no innate love of Labour, who have a history of bullying and ridiculing us as a party. The fact is it’s time for a change, and Starmer’s party will do a better job than the clown show of the last 6 years. The bar is pretty low.
To a large degree it doesn't really matter what the labour party policy is. Of course Starmer is doing a really good job, that is not in doubt. But to understand the labour party and how they would govern, you need to look at their membership and their MPs. To me it seems Starmer does not have the same grip and dominance that Blair did. It is fine to say yes, they are going to invest in infrastructure. But how do they respond to the demands for pay increases from the public sector and manage the 'crises' in all areas of public services; whilst acting within the constraints on financial spending imposed by the markets?
I am not absolutely sure that I will vote Conservative in the next election. I always see these decisions in the context of choosing between 'least worst options'. But this is what I am looking at, in the labour party, and I imagine others will too when genuinely confronted with the choice. If the tories get rid of Truss and put in a competent successor and stay on track, then I would say the next election will be closer than you think.
The Labour Party will continue to be the Party of the Public Sector. They will probably improve the public sector marginally, but the return on investment will be poor as it was under the last Labour administration. Expect to see and even bigger gap between private sector pensions and public sector ones, with public "servants" gloating about their ability to retire in their 50s and some of them at the top end retiring on monthly pensions that many working people can only dream of having as salary.
You really don't understand how most public sector pensions work nowadays do you?
Nor do you grasp that public sector pay after 12 years of Government is now in many cases dire. HMRC are giving their workers 3% and wondering why the vaguely good ones are leaving to go to the private sector (the good ones left years ago by the way when the Government merged offices and any good in a closed office went to the private sector)
Please show me the average public sector pension v private of those due to retire in the next ten years? Please also explain the pension availability for police service? The gold-plated pensions for hospital doctors, GPs and NHS senior managers and many civil servants. As mentioned, these give pension provision, at the tax payers expense, that are vastly over what many people will ever receive as monthly salary. Pretending they don't exist show that you clearly don't understand the cost to the country. The country cannot afford these pensions, but nothing will be done about their fundamental unfairness and the greed of those that demand them because the politicians benefit from them themselves. I guess you are someone that is looking forward to drawing on one yourself. Or perhaps you think you have a "right" to a pension that is massively better than your fellow citizens in the private sector?
But hang on, whatever you think about them, they are payable under contract just as much as salary is.
@nigelforman Anyone who complains its too good in the Public Sector should get a job there. Well over a Million Vacancies in key roles.
Get off your arse and train as a Doctor, Nurse Teacher take one of the vacant roles and pay your up to 14.5% contribution to your pension as well as your NI and your 40|% Tax.
If its so rosy why are there no takers from the poor old private sector apart from your IR35 tax avoiding types who dont seem to want an NHS Pension with all the downsides of 12 years of pay cuts and contribution hikes.
Funny that.
Um if we are talking the NHS - it's not been possible for a doctor / nurse to be a locum except via PAYE since 2017 (it's a big reason why there are staff shortages because people are no longer able to justify taking those awkward weekend fill in shifts 2 hours away from home).
And the people who do switch to being a locum have usually done so to avoid the paperwork and management that is otherwise forced upon them even though all they want to do is deal with patients.
I used to get a queue of Directors and Senior Medics explaining to me why they werent employees as we went through the IR35 Criteria it dawned upon them that maybe they were.
You may have missed my point yesterday - IR35 is a mess but until we actually have employment law that sanely defines what makes you employed / self-employed it's a complete mare for multiple reasons. And I hate IR35 as it currently is because
1) it doesn't work 2) HMRC lied to get it implemented as they wanted it by providing figures without context. Had the context been given they would have been told to actually do their job correctly and find a means of targeting the driver / social care employment agencies taking the mickey.
For example, under UK employment law I could easily make all cashiers at a supermarket self-employed (although they are clearly employees) but it's way harder to make an IT expert a company only needs for 9 months self-employed.
It's been known since at least 2005 that UK employment law is unfit for purpose but no Government is willing to change it for its a quagmire of detail and pain.
My civil service defined benefit pension accrues I believe 2% of my annual salary per year. Can only be claimed once I reach state pension age which for me is 68. I think that's pretty good but the basic salary isn't great. Even at the bottom end now you'd probably get more money in the private sector.
I am pretty sure you could take it early (currently 55 and on) if you wanted, actuarially reduced (about -5% per year paid early)
I’ve spend time with both Labour and the Treasury on tax and regulation policy in recent months and there is a clear credibility gap between what Labour is starting to develop and the incoherent mess that HMT have had to deal with from this government.
The country badly needs infrastructure investment, a coherent policy on public services (including meaningful spending increases) that avoids us descending into a spiral of ill health and further educational apartheid, and a corporate tax system that targets capital spending. Labour shadow ministers are having grown up conversations about this stuff. All we’ve heard from Tory ministers since 2019 is pure sound bites.
I think, noting the comments above, that we are seeing where the floor of Tory support is. No matter how badly they actually govern, despite actual provable damage to livelihoods and public services, some will always have the reflexive instinct that a hypothetical Labour government would always be worse despite pretty clear evidence to the contrary from 1997 to 2010 even during a global financial crisis.
I say this as a Lib Dem member with no innate love of Labour, who have a history of bullying and ridiculing us as a party. The fact is it’s time for a change, and Starmer’s party will do a better job than the clown show of the last 6 years. The bar is pretty low.
To a large degree it doesn't really matter what the labour party policy is. Of course Starmer is doing a really good job, that is not in doubt. But to understand the labour party and how they would govern, you need to look at their membership and their MPs. To me it seems Starmer does not have the same grip and dominance that Blair did. It is fine to say yes, they are going to invest in infrastructure. But how do they respond to the demands for pay increases from the public sector and manage the 'crises' in all areas of public services; whilst acting within the constraints on financial spending imposed by the markets?
I am not absolutely sure that I will vote Conservative in the next election. I always see these decisions in the context of choosing between 'least worst options'. But this is what I am looking at, in the labour party, and I imagine others will too when genuinely confronted with the choice. If the tories get rid of Truss and put in a competent successor and stay on track, then I would say the next election will be closer than you think.
The Labour Party will continue to be the Party of the Public Sector. They will probably improve the public sector marginally, but the return on investment will be poor as it was under the last Labour administration. Expect to see and even bigger gap between private sector pensions and public sector ones, with public "servants" gloating about their ability to retire in their 50s and some of them at the top end retiring on monthly pensions that many working people can only dream of having as salary.
You really don't understand how most public sector pensions work nowadays do you?
Nor do you grasp that public sector pay after 12 years of Government is now in many cases dire. HMRC are giving their workers 3% and wondering why the vaguely good ones are leaving to go to the private sector (the good ones left years ago by the way when the Government merged offices and any good in a closed office went to the private sector)
Please show me the average public sector pension v private of those due to retire in the next ten years? Please also explain the pension availability for police service? The gold-plated pensions for hospital doctors, GPs and NHS senior managers and many civil servants. As mentioned, these give pension provision, at the tax payers expense, that are vastly over what many people will ever receive as monthly salary. Pretending they don't exist show that you clearly don't understand the cost to the country. The country cannot afford these pensions, but nothing will be done about their fundamental unfairness and the greed of those that demand them because the politicians benefit from them themselves. I guess you are someone that is looking forward to drawing on one yourself. Or perhaps you think you have a "right" to a pension that is massively better than your fellow citizens in the private sector?
In the past at least, there was an explicit trade-off for many potential workers between the security, work-life balance and pension of the public sector versus the higher salary, bonus and career opportunities/mobility in the private sector. And don't forget that, while the way you describe public sector pensions suggests you're thinking of some hypothetical top manager, most public sector pensions are pretty small, paid to front-line and relatively junior workers such as nurses, postmen, admin staff, council employees, teachers, etc. - and the size of the burden is because there are millions of such people rather than because they're all getting tens of £thousands.
My wife was a teacher for 23 years and she finished her career as a deputy head. Her monthly pension is around £700.
Seems extraordinarily generous to me, given that’s the equivalent or working from 21 and retiring at only 44. £700 a month is equivalent to a pot of around £400k if that’s an index linked pension.
That's a 47x valuation? Seems a bit high. Even if we accept that, a 400k pension at 65 = £182k at 44 with a 4% real terms growth rate.
No -you are missing a few things.
The retiree would have had a tax free lump sum at the start of the retirement, there is a spouse's pension entitlement on death of the retiree, your example involves market risk whereas the DB scheme to the member does not, and 4% real return (I wish). You need to compare like with like and look at annuity comparisons with index linking and spouse's pension and include the lump sum: £400k equiv is probably about right.
If you are a member of a DB scheme for the whole of your working life, and hold a middle-management position only, you are likely to retire on a pension entitlement equivalent to £1m in the outside world.
I heard an intriguing idea yesterday for how the Tories could remove Liz Truss as PM but prevent party members choosing her successor. Not saying it's highly likely but worth a quick whimsical thread (1/n)
The key point is that party members do not elect the prime minister. They elect the party leader. It is merely assumed that if the Tories are in power that person becomes PM. (2/n)
So one theoretical option would be to leave Truss as party leader but for her MPs to choose a new candidate for PM. Since they are choosing a PM rather than a leader there is no need to ballot members. (3/n)
If Truss refuses to step aside as PM, Tories can allow her to lose a a confidence vote since they already have a replacement candidate to offer to the King as able to command a parliamentary majority. (4/n)
I see down thread that abbreviating Chief Operating Officer to COO is racist now because - err - it's - err - scratches head - a bit like coon without the last letter.
Please can mods consider rank stupidity a valid reason for banning a poster?
If one were being scrupulously fair, the combination of the ellipsis after COO together with "stop giggling', while innocent, was a bit unfortunate.
But it's hardly something to performatively flounce over.
Why it makes sense to put Mordaunt in the top job.
Mordaunt is on -17%.
So Sir Keir beats all of them, just Mordaunt and Sunak save a few Tory MPs seats
You have the choice HY, choose sensibly and perhaps (not guaranteed) lose the next election. 15 years is, after all a long time in power.
Or choose Braverman who goes crazy-ape-bonkers populist. Hanging, flogging, routinely arming the police to shoot down Dartford Crossing protesters and strafing Avon inflatables in the Channel so they sink. You might well win handsomely in 2024, but it won't be what the people want once they experience it, and you will be consigned to oblivion (unless you Putinise the electoral system- something not beyond the wit of Braverman, I daresay).
If I am mistaken, has not the government, in one or other of its incarnations since the 2015 elections already started to 'Putinise' the electoral system?
You are mistaken. Unless you can provide any evidence, which doesn't include "bringing the electoral system in Great Britain in line with Northern Ireland" or "removing systemic imbalance in the constituency boundaries"?
The question is, why did we have to be in line with Northern Ireland? There was, near as dammit, no evidence of personation in mainland UK. Secondly, while I accept that there is some imbalance in constituency boundaries, I am not convinced that the system chosen to correct that imbalance was appropriate.
Genuine question: has she sustained a head injury? She seems to have a bruise above her left eye. At first glance I thought it was a shading from the light, but it's not.
I don't know and nobody wants her to resign more than I do, but I also do have concerns for her wellbeing no matter how hapless she is, not least as my eldest son is living through serious PTSD problems following his attendance at ground zero in Christchurch's fatal earthquake of 2011
He is slowly recovering but it has been a long road and very painful for his family and loved ones to witness
Why it makes sense to put Mordaunt in the top job.
Mordaunt is on -17%.
So Sir Keir beats all of them, just Mordaunt and Sunak save a few Tory MPs seats
You have the choice HY, choose sensibly and perhaps (not guaranteed) lose the next election. 15 years is, after all a long time in power.
Or choose Braverman who goes crazy-ape-bonkers populist. Hanging, flogging, routinely arming the police to shoot down Dartford Crossing protesters and strafing Avon inflatables in the Channel so they sink. You might well win handsomely in 2024, but it won't be what the people want once they experience it, and you will be consigned to oblivion (unless you Putinise the electoral system- something not beyond the wit of Braverman, I daresay).
Once you lose power you are normally out for a decade or more unless the Government can't deliver on the economy as in 1970, 1974 or 1979.
Thats true of Labour but in the modern era it has only ever applied to the Tories from 1997 to 2010, the sole occasion they were out for 10 years plus
Because Blair and Brown ran the economy well.
If Starmer and Reeves run the economy well like New Labour pre 2008 Labour will also likely be in power for over a decade, if not then the Tories have a chance again
My God that's awful. An object lesson for anyone who takes freedom for granted. And an object lesson for anyone casually throwing around the word 'fascism'.
Now view it from a female perspective. Women are routinely abused the world over for the crime of being born female. The middle east is a cesspit of misogyny.
In this case state enforced misogyny, and state sanctioned murder to perpetuate it.
I’ve spend time with both Labour and the Treasury on tax and regulation policy in recent months and there is a clear credibility gap between what Labour is starting to develop and the incoherent mess that HMT have had to deal with from this government.
The country badly needs infrastructure investment, a coherent policy on public services (including meaningful spending increases) that avoids us descending into a spiral of ill health and further educational apartheid, and a corporate tax system that targets capital spending. Labour shadow ministers are having grown up conversations about this stuff. All we’ve heard from Tory ministers since 2019 is pure sound bites.
I think, noting the comments above, that we are seeing where the floor of Tory support is. No matter how badly they actually govern, despite actual provable damage to livelihoods and public services, some will always have the reflexive instinct that a hypothetical Labour government would always be worse despite pretty clear evidence to the contrary from 1997 to 2010 even during a global financial crisis.
I say this as a Lib Dem member with no innate love of Labour, who have a history of bullying and ridiculing us as a party. The fact is it’s time for a change, and Starmer’s party will do a better job than the clown show of the last 6 years. The bar is pretty low.
To a large degree it doesn't really matter what the labour party policy is. Of course Starmer is doing a really good job, that is not in doubt. But to understand the labour party and how they would govern, you need to look at their membership and their MPs. To me it seems Starmer does not have the same grip and dominance that Blair did. It is fine to say yes, they are going to invest in infrastructure. But how do they respond to the demands for pay increases from the public sector and manage the 'crises' in all areas of public services; whilst acting within the constraints on financial spending imposed by the markets?
I am not absolutely sure that I will vote Conservative in the next election. I always see these decisions in the context of choosing between 'least worst options'. But this is what I am looking at, in the labour party, and I imagine others will too when genuinely confronted with the choice. If the tories get rid of Truss and put in a competent successor and stay on track, then I would say the next election will be closer than you think.
The Labour Party will continue to be the Party of the Public Sector. They will probably improve the public sector marginally, but the return on investment will be poor as it was under the last Labour administration. Expect to see and even bigger gap between private sector pensions and public sector ones, with public "servants" gloating about their ability to retire in their 50s and some of them at the top end retiring on monthly pensions that many working people can only dream of having as salary.
You really don't understand how most public sector pensions work nowadays do you?
Nor do you grasp that public sector pay after 12 years of Government is now in many cases dire. HMRC are giving their workers 3% and wondering why the vaguely good ones are leaving to go to the private sector (the good ones left years ago by the way when the Government merged offices and any good in a closed office went to the private sector)
Please show me the average public sector pension v private of those due to retire in the next ten years? Please also explain the pension availability for police service? The gold-plated pensions for hospital doctors, GPs and NHS senior managers and many civil servants. As mentioned, these give pension provision, at the tax payers expense, that are vastly over what many people will ever receive as monthly salary. Pretending they don't exist show that you clearly don't understand the cost to the country. The country cannot afford these pensions, but nothing will be done about their fundamental unfairness and the greed of those that demand them because the politicians benefit from them themselves. I guess you are someone that is looking forward to drawing on one yourself. Or perhaps you think you have a "right" to a pension that is massively better than your fellow citizens in the private sector?
In the past at least, there was an explicit trade-off for many potential workers between the security, work-life balance and pension of the public sector versus the higher salary, bonus and career opportunities/mobility in the private sector. And don't forget that, while the way you describe public sector pensions suggests you're thinking of some hypothetical top manager, most public sector pensions are pretty small, paid to front-line and relatively junior workers such as nurses, postmen, admin staff, council employees, teachers, etc. - and the size of the burden is because there are millions of such people rather than because they're all getting tens of £thousands.
My wife was a teacher for 23 years and she finished her career as a deputy head. Her monthly pension is around £700.
That's a very large pot equivalent.
Back of an envelope pension fairness calculation:-
23 years at an average salary of, say, £50,000, with pension contributions of, say, 20 per cent (10 per cent from salary, matched by employer) is £230,000. Drawdown for 25 years till death (assuming retire at 60 and die at 85) gives £9,200 a year or £766 a month, which is roughly where we came in. You could get that in the private sector.
Johnny Mercer is one of the good guys. If he is considering defecting to Labour then you know you're on the wrong track. It's not difficult. Be competent. Be boring. Look after our military and veterans. It should be the Conservative way.
Tory MPs can't turn back the clock on what they did (i.e. putting Truss into last 2). They can remove their mistake. Get Penny in now.
Not surprised to see the lunatics are out in force below the line on that Guido article. Anyone left of Mosely is a pinko traitor. It pays to visit such sites momentarily to remind oneself such pond life still exists. We really are spoilt on PB.
Why it makes sense to put Mordaunt in the top job.
Mordaunt is on -17%.
So Sir Keir beats all of them, just Mordaunt and Sunak save a few Tory MPs seats
You have become a Farage apologist and simply have no credibility when it comes to supporting a one nation conservative party
You do remember I voted for Sunak over Truss? My only warning is that Hunt as Leader means a Farage return and given Hunt is less popular with the public on today's Yougov than Sunak and Mordaunt wouldn't win back many voters from Labour either
Your posts for many weeks have affirmed your Farage tendencies and you simply are part of the right-wing of the conservative party, including the ERG, who are actively destroying the conservative party and I reject any protestations from you that you have any support for a one nation conservative party
No, unlike you I can analyse what would happen even if I wouldn't necessarily support it myself
You cannot even analyse what would happen with your ridiculous claims of popular support for your new found hero Farage
I don't think HYUFD supports Farage. Rather he fears him and what he might do to the Tory Party.
@HYUFD does not fear Farage as he reflects his little Englander views and it is why he has become so fixated with him
Then why didn't I vote UKIP in 2015 when UKIP won 12% of the vote? Why didn't I vote Brexit Party in 2019 in the European elections either when they got 31%? I was one of the 9% who voted for the May Tories?
I didn’t even vote Leave in 2016 unlike 52% of voters though I respected the result
Badly - and probably not covering the killer part of it - which isn't so much IR35 but expenses.
Sorry to sound flippant but if there's a hotel bill surely the client just pays it directly to make life easier for everyone ?
If only that was possible - most large firms aren't set up in the UK to directly pay travel expenses - instead they want it to be expensed and claimed back.
Remember my tale about next week where 3 bank employees are coming North because the bank can't organise a hotel and train ticket for me so it's easier to get them to travel (at greater cost) themselves.
Now partly that's an issue of hybrid working but the simple fact is that if this was a contract I had to travel to I would need to find £1000 a week out of post tax income (£300 train fare, £600 London hotels, £100 food) and when shifted to pre-tax income that's £2000.
A few points. Is it only me who felt that Hunt, in his excellent performance yesterday, seemed to successfully convince all of the hacks and the opposition that huge pain lies down the way for all and sundry? Therefore anything less bad than armageddon is therefore relatively easy to portray in a positive light.
The TV news in particular went straight into overdrive about austerity and demands for guarantees that there'd be exceptions for everyone or the country would be engulfed in a bonfire of disasters - illustrating the now entrenched expectation that no matter what happens at home or in the wider world the government must cover it in full so no-one will endure any pain, anywhere, ever.
What a strange world I have grown old in.
On topic my party political point is that Truss must go with Mordaunt my preferred PM. Otherwise the landslide will be very severe indeed.
The no pain anywhere, ever mentality is a very dangerous path we have embarked upon. A Generation Entitlement effect. Older basics like make do and mend are where we should be headed.
Genuine question: has she sustained a head injury? She seems to have a bruise above her left eye. At first glance I thought it was a shading from the light, but it's not.
Yes just re watched you are right wonder what happened there?
I see down thread that abbreviating Chief Operating Officer to COO is racist now because - err - it's - err - scratches head - a bit like coon without the last letter.
Please can mods consider rank stupidity a valid reason for banning a poster?
If one were being scrupulously fair, the combination of the ellipsis after COO together with "stop giggling', while innocent, was a bit unfortunate.
But it's hardly something to performatively flounce over.
My reading of the "stop giggling" was that Scott was obviously referring to the absurdity of Zahawi as COO.
I’ve spend time with both Labour and the Treasury on tax and regulation policy in recent months and there is a clear credibility gap between what Labour is starting to develop and the incoherent mess that HMT have had to deal with from this government.
The country badly needs infrastructure investment, a coherent policy on public services (including meaningful spending increases) that avoids us descending into a spiral of ill health and further educational apartheid, and a corporate tax system that targets capital spending. Labour shadow ministers are having grown up conversations about this stuff. All we’ve heard from Tory ministers since 2019 is pure sound bites.
I think, noting the comments above, that we are seeing where the floor of Tory support is. No matter how badly they actually govern, despite actual provable damage to livelihoods and public services, some will always have the reflexive instinct that a hypothetical Labour government would always be worse despite pretty clear evidence to the contrary from 1997 to 2010 even during a global financial crisis.
I say this as a Lib Dem member with no innate love of Labour, who have a history of bullying and ridiculing us as a party. The fact is it’s time for a change, and Starmer’s party will do a better job than the clown show of the last 6 years. The bar is pretty low.
To a large degree it doesn't really matter what the labour party policy is. Of course Starmer is doing a really good job, that is not in doubt. But to understand the labour party and how they would govern, you need to look at their membership and their MPs. To me it seems Starmer does not have the same grip and dominance that Blair did. It is fine to say yes, they are going to invest in infrastructure. But how do they respond to the demands for pay increases from the public sector and manage the 'crises' in all areas of public services; whilst acting within the constraints on financial spending imposed by the markets?
I am not absolutely sure that I will vote Conservative in the next election. I always see these decisions in the context of choosing between 'least worst options'. But this is what I am looking at, in the labour party, and I imagine others will too when genuinely confronted with the choice. If the tories get rid of Truss and put in a competent successor and stay on track, then I would say the next election will be closer than you think.
The Labour Party will continue to be the Party of the Public Sector. They will probably improve the public sector marginally, but the return on investment will be poor as it was under the last Labour administration. Expect to see and even bigger gap between private sector pensions and public sector ones, with public "servants" gloating about their ability to retire in their 50s and some of them at the top end retiring on monthly pensions that many working people can only dream of having as salary.
You really don't understand how most public sector pensions work nowadays do you?
Nor do you grasp that public sector pay after 12 years of Government is now in many cases dire. HMRC are giving their workers 3% and wondering why the vaguely good ones are leaving to go to the private sector (the good ones left years ago by the way when the Government merged offices and any good in a closed office went to the private sector)
Please show me the average public sector pension v private of those due to retire in the next ten years? Please also explain the pension availability for police service? The gold-plated pensions for hospital doctors, GPs and NHS senior managers and many civil servants. As mentioned, these give pension provision, at the tax payers expense, that are vastly over what many people will ever receive as monthly salary. Pretending they don't exist show that you clearly don't understand the cost to the country. The country cannot afford these pensions, but nothing will be done about their fundamental unfairness and the greed of those that demand them because the politicians benefit from them themselves. I guess you are someone that is looking forward to drawing on one yourself. Or perhaps you think you have a "right" to a pension that is massively better than your fellow citizens in the private sector?
In the past at least, there was an explicit trade-off for many potential workers between the security, work-life balance and pension of the public sector versus the higher salary, bonus and career opportunities/mobility in the private sector. And don't forget that, while the way you describe public sector pensions suggests you're thinking of some hypothetical top manager, most public sector pensions are pretty small, paid to front-line and relatively junior workers such as nurses, postmen, admin staff, council employees, teachers, etc. - and the size of the burden is because there are millions of such people rather than because they're all getting tens of £thousands.
My wife was a teacher for 23 years and she finished her career as a deputy head. Her monthly pension is around £700.
That's about the same as one I'm drawing on which comes from just 4 years working for a bank in the mid 90s. I was amazed how much it was when I turned 60 and got the quote.
I heard an intriguing idea yesterday for how the Tories could remove Liz Truss as PM but prevent party members choosing her successor. Not saying it's highly likely but worth a quick whimsical thread (1/n)
The key point is that party members do not elect the prime minister. They elect the party leader. It is merely assumed that if the Tories are in power that person becomes PM. (2/n)
So one theoretical option would be to leave Truss as party leader but for her MPs to choose a new candidate for PM. Since they are choosing a PM rather than a leader there is no need to ballot members. (3/n)
If Truss refuses to step aside as PM, Tories can allow her to lose a a confidence vote since they already have a replacement candidate to offer to the King as able to command a parliamentary majority. (4/n)
But that falls apart as soon as Liz Truss resigns as party leader - at which point an election for a party leader needs to occur and that allows the loonies back into the game.
So Ben Wallace becomes PM but in a Chairman of the Board type of way (but focussing on Ukraine) but having strong CEO, COO, and CFO.
So Sunak, Mordaunt, and Hunt.
But Zahawi is the COO...
Stop giggling at the back
^^^ Did the mods not see this racist post?
How is it racist ?
ScottXP was calling Nadhim Zahawi a coon. If you don't know why that's racist, I'd suggest you ask someone what racism is. Get a clue.
It's weird how your mind jumped straight to that word. I don't think I've heard or seen its use in the UK.
I have recently come acxross the four-letter word in the UK, outside historical context and American literature: but in reference to a breed of cat. Or, in the three-letter form, a cow in Northumberland and Scotland. Which brought me to a halt momentarily, till I realised the meaning was clear from the capitalisation and the preceding sentence.
In The UK it was quite common in the 70s and persisted a bit into the 80s although by then it was certainy only used to be deliberately offensive. I had a girlfriend who moved to Bristol in the early 90's, more exactly to St. Pauls a predominantly black area of Bristol. her uncle organised the move and hired a van from a company called cxxx's. Girlfriend was not amused and she suspected her uncle of choosing that company deliberately.
Oddly in Australia it is not offensive at all, it is a brand of very cheap cheese.
That made me look up the origins of Maine Coon, which is the super-large cat.
In my experience, Maine Coons have very placid temperaments, which is good because they're powerful and heavy.
I see down thread that abbreviating Chief Operating Officer to COO is racist now because - err - it's - err - scratches head - a bit like coon without the last letter.
Please can mods consider rank stupidity a valid reason for banning a poster?
It wouldn't be the first instance of this (though it tends to be an American phenomenon). Off the top of my head, there was the public sector finance bod who was forced out of his job after apologising for having to be 'niggardly' because, you know, it sounds a bit like...
Though the push back from all sides is thankfully forthright
"Julian Bond, then chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, deplored the offense that had been taken at Howard's use of the word. "You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people's lack of understanding" "
If nothing else, it's very boring.
And it's almost always born of the insecure who desperately want to show how much more Not Racist they are than everyone else, which is often a warning sign they slightly are.
After a (dawn) chorus of complaint from the goldfinch community Wilkos have this year rebranded their niger seeds as nyjer seeds.
Genuine question: has she sustained a head injury? She seems to have a bruise above her left eye. At first glance I thought it was a shading from the light, but it's not.
Certainly looks like a bruise. Seems to be square, though. Unusual.
Why it makes sense to put Mordaunt in the top job.
Mordaunt is on -17%.
So Sir Keir beats all of them, just Mordaunt and Sunak save a few Tory MPs seats
You have the choice HY, choose sensibly and perhaps (not guaranteed) lose the next election. 15 years is, after all a long time in power.
Or choose Braverman who goes crazy-ape-bonkers populist. Hanging, flogging, routinely arming the police to shoot down Dartford Crossing protesters and strafing Avon inflatables in the Channel so they sink. You might well win handsomely in 2024, but it won't be what the people want once they experience it, and you will be consigned to oblivion (unless you Putinise the electoral system- something not beyond the wit of Braverman, I daresay).
Completely wrong.
If there were any prospect of Braverman and a victory on a programme like that, HY would sign up in a shot....
Fortunately, there isn't. Their choice is to move back toward the sensible centre and try and salvage something, or stick with the loopy PM and loony policy, and don't.
It was more of a forewarning to him, a rabbit hole to avoid.
Lose the election and bat-sh*t crazy will be back on the table, and attractive to White Van Men and London Cabbies, who like HY's thought process. "Here, I had that HYUFD in the back of my cab".
I see down thread that abbreviating Chief Operating Officer to COO is racist now because - err - it's - err - scratches head - a bit like coon without the last letter.
Please can mods consider rank stupidity a valid reason for banning a poster?
It wouldn't be the first instance of this (though it tends to be an American phenomenon). Off the top of my head, there was the public sector finance bod who was forced out of his job after apologising for having to be 'niggardly' because, you know, it sounds a bit like...
Though the push back from all sides is thankfully forthright
"Julian Bond, then chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, deplored the offense that had been taken at Howard's use of the word. "You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people's lack of understanding" "
If nothing else, it's very boring.
And it's almost always born of the insecure who desperately want to show how much more Not Racist they are than everyone else, which is often a warning sign they slightly are.
After a (dawn) chorus of complaint from the goldfinch community Wilkos have this year rebranded their niger seeds as nyjer seeds.
There's a West African country with a similar name. What is to be done about that?
I’ve spend time with both Labour and the Treasury on tax and regulation policy in recent months and there is a clear credibility gap between what Labour is starting to develop and the incoherent mess that HMT have had to deal with from this government.
The country badly needs infrastructure investment, a coherent policy on public services (including meaningful spending increases) that avoids us descending into a spiral of ill health and further educational apartheid, and a corporate tax system that targets capital spending. Labour shadow ministers are having grown up conversations about this stuff. All we’ve heard from Tory ministers since 2019 is pure sound bites.
I think, noting the comments above, that we are seeing where the floor of Tory support is. No matter how badly they actually govern, despite actual provable damage to livelihoods and public services, some will always have the reflexive instinct that a hypothetical Labour government would always be worse despite pretty clear evidence to the contrary from 1997 to 2010 even during a global financial crisis.
I say this as a Lib Dem member with no innate love of Labour, who have a history of bullying and ridiculing us as a party. The fact is it’s time for a change, and Starmer’s party will do a better job than the clown show of the last 6 years. The bar is pretty low.
To a large degree it doesn't really matter what the labour party policy is. Of course Starmer is doing a really good job, that is not in doubt. But to understand the labour party and how they would govern, you need to look at their membership and their MPs. To me it seems Starmer does not have the same grip and dominance that Blair did. It is fine to say yes, they are going to invest in infrastructure. But how do they respond to the demands for pay increases from the public sector and manage the 'crises' in all areas of public services; whilst acting within the constraints on financial spending imposed by the markets?
I am not absolutely sure that I will vote Conservative in the next election. I always see these decisions in the context of choosing between 'least worst options'. But this is what I am looking at, in the labour party, and I imagine others will too when genuinely confronted with the choice. If the tories get rid of Truss and put in a competent successor and stay on track, then I would say the next election will be closer than you think.
The Labour Party will continue to be the Party of the Public Sector. They will probably improve the public sector marginally, but the return on investment will be poor as it was under the last Labour administration. Expect to see and even bigger gap between private sector pensions and public sector ones, with public "servants" gloating about their ability to retire in their 50s and some of them at the top end retiring on monthly pensions that many working people can only dream of having as salary.
You really don't understand how most public sector pensions work nowadays do you?
Nor do you grasp that public sector pay after 12 years of Government is now in many cases dire. HMRC are giving their workers 3% and wondering why the vaguely good ones are leaving to go to the private sector (the good ones left years ago by the way when the Government merged offices and any good in a closed office went to the private sector)
Please show me the average public sector pension v private of those due to retire in the next ten years? Please also explain the pension availability for police service? The gold-plated pensions for hospital doctors, GPs and NHS senior managers and many civil servants. As mentioned, these give pension provision, at the tax payers expense, that are vastly over what many people will ever receive as monthly salary. Pretending they don't exist show that you clearly don't understand the cost to the country. The country cannot afford these pensions, but nothing will be done about their fundamental unfairness and the greed of those that demand them because the politicians benefit from them themselves. I guess you are someone that is looking forward to drawing on one yourself. Or perhaps you think you have a "right" to a pension that is massively better than your fellow citizens in the private sector?
No but unlike you and MaxPB, I think that people should be given what they were contractually offered and accepted when their signed up to work in the public sector.
And if you think the public sector gets a great deal - there was nothing stopping you trying to get on that bandwagon. The fact you now look enviously at their pensions is your problem.
They should be given what they were contractually offered, but they should also be equitably taxed on that too. If they have higher remuneration then that should be taxed accordingly, just as anyone else's would be.
At present pension incomes aren't as heavily taxed as other people's incomes. They evade National Insurance and despite many being graduates they evade the graduate tax known as student loans too. A young graduate working for a living can be paying 22% more tax per pound they earn than a retired graduate on the exact same income.
We should merge all income related taxes into one and have a fair equitable tax rate applied to all incomes evenly. No dodging NI or anything else for pensioners.
You need to treat people fairly so you can't introduce a graduate tax on those who went to university when it didn't exist - and you can't do it now because
1) prior to student loans no-one has the paperwork to know who went to university 2) many people have paid off their loans and it would be utterly unfair to tax them twice.
In your desire to remove the NI increase you won't have noticed but you also removed the mechanism by which pensioners were from 6th April 2023 paying 1.25% (NI equivalent) on their taxable income. That would have allowed a future chancellor to change the split between NI and social care and increased pensioner contributions.
As someone said above, the argument for merging tax and NI and levying the latter on everyone and all income, like tax, is pretty strong. Those pensioners affected would be the better off ones, and they should be asked to pay, as should those getting income from property or investments, who currently are relatively under-taxed.
This shouldn't even be a party political issue at its most basic level. It is an issue of fairness, transparency and effectiveness in the tax system. We can have all the arguments about at what level such taxes should be set and who should pay more or less after we have sorted out a system that is actually fit for purpose.
Johnny Mercer is one of the good guys. If he is considering defecting to Labour then you know you're on the wrong track. It's not difficult. Be competent. Be boring. Look after our military and veterans. It should be the Conservative way.
Tory MPs can't turn back the clock on what they did (i.e. putting Truss into last 2). They can remove their mistake. Get Penny in now.
According to the Rest is Politics podcast, Liz Truss made a leadership campaign pledge on ex-soldiers but after she won, laughed at Mercer when she told him she was reneging on it. (And btw Mercer says he does not intend to defect.)
Why it makes sense to put Mordaunt in the top job.
Mordaunt is on -17%.
So Sir Keir beats all of them, just Mordaunt and Sunak save a few Tory MPs seats
You have the choice HY, choose sensibly and perhaps (not guaranteed) lose the next election. 15 years is, after all a long time in power.
Or choose Braverman who goes crazy-ape-bonkers populist. Hanging, flogging, routinely arming the police to shoot down Dartford Crossing protesters and strafing Avon inflatables in the Channel so they sink. You might well win handsomely in 2024, but it won't be what the people want once they experience it, and you will be consigned to oblivion (unless you Putinise the electoral system- something not beyond the wit of Braverman, I daresay).
Once you lose power you are normally out for a decade or more unless the Government can't deliver on the economy as in 1970, 1974 or 1979.
Thats true of Labour but in the modern era it has only ever applied to the Tories from 1997 to 2010, the sole occasion they were out for 10 years plus
Because Blair and Brown ran the economy well.
If Starmer and Reeves run the economy well like New Labour pre 2008 Labour will also likely be in power for over a decade, if not then the Tories have a chance again
Yes thars very possible, im just saying its in no way 'usually' the case the Tories are out for over a decade. Its happened once in 200 years (twice if you discount them being part of the Lloyd George coalition)
"Liz Truss believes she will lead Conservatives into the next election, which she also believes wont be til 2024. So why not put the £30Billion she just borrowed on that at 12/1 and hey presto, no deficit by 2024! Simples".
I see down thread that abbreviating Chief Operating Officer to COO is racist now because - err - it's - err - scratches head - a bit like coon without the last letter.
Please can mods consider rank stupidity a valid reason for banning a poster?
It wouldn't be the first instance of this (though it tends to be an American phenomenon). Off the top of my head, there was the public sector finance bod who was forced out of his job after apologising for having to be 'niggardly' because, you know, it sounds a bit like...
Though the push back from all sides is thankfully forthright
"Julian Bond, then chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, deplored the offense that had been taken at Howard's use of the word. "You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people's lack of understanding" "
If nothing else, it's very boring.
And it's almost always born of the insecure who desperately want to show how much more Not Racist they are than everyone else, which is often a warning sign they slightly are.
After a (dawn) chorus of complaint from the goldfinch community Wilkos have this year rebranded their niger seeds as nyjer seeds.
I see down thread that abbreviating Chief Operating Officer to COO is racist now because - err - it's - err - scratches head - a bit like coon without the last letter.
Please can mods consider rank stupidity a valid reason for banning a poster?
It wouldn't be the first instance of this (though it tends to be an American phenomenon). Off the top of my head, there was the public sector finance bod who was forced out of his job after apologising for having to be 'niggardly' because, you know, it sounds a bit like...
Though the push back from all sides is thankfully forthright
"Julian Bond, then chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, deplored the offense that had been taken at Howard's use of the word. "You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people's lack of understanding" "
If nothing else, it's very boring.
And it's almost always born of the insecure who desperately want to show how much more Not Racist they are than everyone else, which is often a warning sign they slightly are.
After a (dawn) chorus of complaint from the goldfinch community Wilkos have this year rebranded their niger seeds as nyjer seeds.
There's a West African country with a similar name. What is to be done about that?
I always pronounce them nee-zhairr seeds anyway. Seems only polite.
Genuine question: has she sustained a head injury? She seems to have a bruise above her left eye. At first glance I thought it was a shading from the light, but it's not.
She bumped her head on the desk when getting up from under it. Nothing to worry about.
Genuine question: has she sustained a head injury? She seems to have a bruise above her left eye. At first glance I thought it was a shading from the light, but it's not.
Certainly looks like a bruise. Seems to be square, though. Unusual.
I think it's just bad makeup that hasn't been blended properly. When she furrows her brow it looks normal and there's no sign of a plaster or swelling.
Why it makes sense to put Mordaunt in the top job.
Mordaunt is on -17%.
So Sir Keir beats all of them, just Mordaunt and Sunak save a few Tory MPs seats
You have the choice HY, choose sensibly and perhaps (not guaranteed) lose the next election. 15 years is, after all a long time in power.
Or choose Braverman who goes crazy-ape-bonkers populist. Hanging, flogging, routinely arming the police to shoot down Dartford Crossing protesters and strafing Avon inflatables in the Channel so they sink. You might well win handsomely in 2024, but it won't be what the people want once they experience it, and you will be consigned to oblivion (unless you Putinise the electoral system- something not beyond the wit of Braverman, I daresay).
If I am mistaken, has not the government, in one or other of its incarnations since the 2015 elections already started to 'Putinise' the electoral system?
You are mistaken. Unless you can provide any evidence, which doesn't include "bringing the electoral system in Great Britain in line with Northern Ireland" or "removing systemic imbalance in the constituency boundaries"?
The question is, why did we have to be in line with Northern Ireland? There was, near as dammit, no evidence of personation in mainland UK. Secondly, while I accept that there is some imbalance in constituency boundaries, I am not convinced that the system chosen to correct that imbalance was appropriate.
Badly - and probably not covering the killer part of it - which isn't so much IR35 but expenses.
Sorry to sound flippant but if there's a hotel bill surely the client just pays it directly to make life easier for everyone ?
If only that was possible - most large firms aren't set up in the UK to directly pay travel expenses - instead they want it to be expensed and claimed back.
Remember my tale about next week where 3 bank employees are coming North because the bank can't organise a hotel and train ticket for me so it's easier to get them to travel (at greater cost) themselves.
Now partly that's an issue of hybrid working but the simple fact is that if this was a contract I had to travel to I would need to find £1000 a week out of post tax income (£300 train fare, £600 London hotels, £100 food) and when shifted to pre-tax income that's £2000.
Does seem a bit unfair, these sorts of expenses are just paid directly if you're an employee of a firm. I think the problem is if the rules were changed people would claim the tax back on a regular train fare to somewhere they're working at for say 6 months as a contractor. Which clearly isn't the situation for your bank work.
Genuine question: has she sustained a head injury? She seems to have a bruise above her left eye. At first glance I thought it was a shading from the light, but it's not.
Certainly looks like a bruise. Seems to be square, though. Unusual.
PBers yesterday were saying the Prime Minister looked to be struggling to stay awake. It is possible she's fallen asleep from an upright position and smacked her head on the furniture. Or it could be as mundane as she declined professional BBC makeup.
This kind of analysis presupposes that Putin/Russia will only launch an offensive -
- with trained troops - in sufficient numbers - with sufficient equipment - with logistics to match
The evidence so far is that Russia/Putin will do all kinds of things that won't work.
The reasons are complex. Part of it is people lying up the chain of command, to keep their heads*. Part is people with no knowledge at the top mashing their thumbs into maps and declaring "hit this". Part is political desperation. If Kherson falls, big trouble. So must do Something. This is Something. Therefore.....
I heard an intriguing idea yesterday for how the Tories could remove Liz Truss as PM but prevent party members choosing her successor. Not saying it's highly likely but worth a quick whimsical thread (1/n)
The key point is that party members do not elect the prime minister. They elect the party leader. It is merely assumed that if the Tories are in power that person becomes PM. (2/n)
So one theoretical option would be to leave Truss as party leader but for her MPs to choose a new candidate for PM. Since they are choosing a PM rather than a leader there is no need to ballot members. (3/n)
If Truss refuses to step aside as PM, Tories can allow her to lose a a confidence vote since they already have a replacement candidate to offer to the King as able to command a parliamentary majority. (4/n)
But that falls apart as soon as Liz Truss resigns as party leader - at which point an election for a party leader needs to occur and that allows the loonies back into the game.
The 1922 then says 160 nominations required to get on the ballot.
Can we assume, for the purpose of argument, that the present government staggers on until the spring. Managing somehow to avoid any further car crashes! By April gas and electricity prices have dropped… further assumption… and the government claims credit for same. Is it not likely that they will get that credit with the voters? Or has too much damage already been done?
OKC , you cannot polish a turd
But you can roll it in glitter!
(Still stinks though, either way)
You can actually polish a turd. Liquid nitrogen to freeze it first etc etc. Done by some nerds at MIT, IIRC.
Why it makes sense to put Mordaunt in the top job.
Mordaunt is on -17%.
So Sir Keir beats all of them, just Mordaunt and Sunak save a few Tory MPs seats
You have become a Farage apologist and simply have no credibility when it comes to supporting a one nation conservative party
You do remember I voted for Sunak over Truss? My only warning is that Hunt as Leader means a Farage return and given Hunt is less popular with the public on today's Yougov than Sunak and Mordaunt wouldn't win back many voters from Labour either
Your posts for many weeks have affirmed your Farage tendencies and you simply are part of the right-wing of the conservative party, including the ERG, who are actively destroying the conservative party and I reject any protestations from you that you have any support for a one nation conservative party
No, unlike you I can analyse what would happen even if I wouldn't necessarily support it myself
You cannot even analyse what would happen with your ridiculous claims of popular support for your new found hero Farage
I don't think HYUFD supports Farage. Rather he fears him and what he might do to the Tory Party.
@HYUFD does not fear Farage as he reflects his little Englander views and it is why he has become so fixated with him
Then why didn't I vote UKIP in 2015 when UKIP won 12% of the vote? Why didn't I vote Brexit Party in 2019 in the European elections either when they got 31%? I was one of the 9% who voted for the May Tories?
I didn’t even vote Leave in 2016 unlike 52% of voters though I respected the result
You conversion to Farage and his like is a direct response to your anger at the loss of Johnson, and you seem to actively want the conservative party in opposition if one of your right wing ERG supporting mps is not PM, whereas some of us want the conservative party to take this opportunity of purging the right wing including the ERG and returning to a one nation conservative party whether that is under Hunt, Sunak or Mordaunt but certainly not Truss or Braverman
I see down thread that abbreviating Chief Operating Officer to COO is racist now because - err - it's - err - scratches head - a bit like coon without the last letter.
Please can mods consider rank stupidity a valid reason for banning a poster?
It wouldn't be the first instance of this (though it tends to be an American phenomenon). Off the top of my head, there was the public sector finance bod who was forced out of his job after apologising for having to be 'niggardly' because, you know, it sounds a bit like...
Though the push back from all sides is thankfully forthright
"Julian Bond, then chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, deplored the offense that had been taken at Howard's use of the word. "You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people's lack of understanding" "
If nothing else, it's very boring.
And it's almost always born of the insecure who desperately want to show how much more Not Racist they are than everyone else, which is often a warning sign they slightly are.
After a (dawn) chorus of complaint from the goldfinch community Wilkos have this year rebranded their niger seeds as nyjer seeds.
I’ve spend time with both Labour and the Treasury on tax and regulation policy in recent months and there is a clear credibility gap between what Labour is starting to develop and the incoherent mess that HMT have had to deal with from this government.
The country badly needs infrastructure investment, a coherent policy on public services (including meaningful spending increases) that avoids us descending into a spiral of ill health and further educational apartheid, and a corporate tax system that targets capital spending. Labour shadow ministers are having grown up conversations about this stuff. All we’ve heard from Tory ministers since 2019 is pure sound bites.
I think, noting the comments above, that we are seeing where the floor of Tory support is. No matter how badly they actually govern, despite actual provable damage to livelihoods and public services, some will always have the reflexive instinct that a hypothetical Labour government would always be worse despite pretty clear evidence to the contrary from 1997 to 2010 even during a global financial crisis.
I say this as a Lib Dem member with no innate love of Labour, who have a history of bullying and ridiculing us as a party. The fact is it’s time for a change, and Starmer’s party will do a better job than the clown show of the last 6 years. The bar is pretty low.
To a large degree it doesn't really matter what the labour party policy is. Of course Starmer is doing a really good job, that is not in doubt. But to understand the labour party and how they would govern, you need to look at their membership and their MPs. To me it seems Starmer does not have the same grip and dominance that Blair did. It is fine to say yes, they are going to invest in infrastructure. But how do they respond to the demands for pay increases from the public sector and manage the 'crises' in all areas of public services; whilst acting within the constraints on financial spending imposed by the markets?
I am not absolutely sure that I will vote Conservative in the next election. I always see these decisions in the context of choosing between 'least worst options'. But this is what I am looking at, in the labour party, and I imagine others will too when genuinely confronted with the choice. If the tories get rid of Truss and put in a competent successor and stay on track, then I would say the next election will be closer than you think.
The Labour Party will continue to be the Party of the Public Sector. They will probably improve the public sector marginally, but the return on investment will be poor as it was under the last Labour administration. Expect to see and even bigger gap between private sector pensions and public sector ones, with public "servants" gloating about their ability to retire in their 50s and some of them at the top end retiring on monthly pensions that many working people can only dream of having as salary.
You really don't understand how most public sector pensions work nowadays do you?
Nor do you grasp that public sector pay after 12 years of Government is now in many cases dire. HMRC are giving their workers 3% and wondering why the vaguely good ones are leaving to go to the private sector (the good ones left years ago by the way when the Government merged offices and any good in a closed office went to the private sector)
Please show me the average public sector pension v private of those due to retire in the next ten years? Please also explain the pension availability for police service? The gold-plated pensions for hospital doctors, GPs and NHS senior managers and many civil servants. As mentioned, these give pension provision, at the tax payers expense, that are vastly over what many people will ever receive as monthly salary. Pretending they don't exist show that you clearly don't understand the cost to the country. The country cannot afford these pensions, but nothing will be done about their fundamental unfairness and the greed of those that demand them because the politicians benefit from them themselves. I guess you are someone that is looking forward to drawing on one yourself. Or perhaps you think you have a "right" to a pension that is massively better than your fellow citizens in the private sector?
No but unlike you and MaxPB, I think that people should be given what they were contractually offered and accepted when their signed up to work in the public sector.
And if you think the public sector gets a great deal - there was nothing stopping you trying to get on that bandwagon. The fact you now look enviously at their pensions is your problem.
They should be given what they were contractually offered, but they should also be equitably taxed on that too. If they have higher remuneration then that should be taxed accordingly, just as anyone else's would be.
At present pension incomes aren't as heavily taxed as other people's incomes. They evade National Insurance and despite many being graduates they evade the graduate tax known as student loans too. A young graduate working for a living can be paying 22% more tax per pound they earn than a retired graduate on the exact same income.
We should merge all income related taxes into one and have a fair equitable tax rate applied to all incomes evenly. No dodging NI or anything else for pensioners.
You need to treat people fairly so you can't introduce a graduate tax on those who went to university when it didn't exist - and you can't do it now because
1) prior to student loans no-one has the paperwork to know who went to university 2) many people have paid off their loans and it would be utterly unfair to tax them twice.
In your desire to remove the NI increase you won't have noticed but you also removed the mechanism by which pensioners were from 6th April 2023 paying 1.25% (NI equivalent) on their taxable income. That would have allowed a future chancellor to change the split between NI and social care and increased pensioner contributions.
We aren't treating people fairly, we have an age-discriminatory income tax. If you're a pensioner you pay one rate, if you're middle aged you pay a higher rate, and if you're young you pay an even higher rate.
We should abolish the age discrimination in our tax system. Have a tax rate for income that is applied to all income equitably.
The Health and Social Care levy wasn't levied on taxable income, it was levied on taxable earned incomes. Unearned incomes escaped the tax. So what we would see isn't a rebalance of NI to that, we would have seen income tax rebalanced to that, further lowering the tax on unearned incomes.
I see down thread that abbreviating Chief Operating Officer to COO is racist now because - err - it's - err - scratches head - a bit like coon without the last letter.
Please can mods consider rank stupidity a valid reason for banning a poster?
It wouldn't be the first instance of this (though it tends to be an American phenomenon). Off the top of my head, there was the public sector finance bod who was forced out of his job after apologising for having to be 'niggardly' because, you know, it sounds a bit like...
Though the push back from all sides is thankfully forthright
"Julian Bond, then chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, deplored the offense that had been taken at Howard's use of the word. "You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people's lack of understanding" "
If nothing else, it's very boring.
And it's almost always born of the insecure who desperately want to show how much more Not Racist they are than everyone else, which is often a warning sign they slightly are.
After a (dawn) chorus of complaint from the goldfinch community Wilkos have this year rebranded their niger seeds as nyjer seeds.
There's a West African country with a similar name. What is to be done about that?
The UN must tell Niger and Nigeria to rebrand as their racist country names have upset some Millenials so much theyve developed Soy intolerance. That's a war crime, actually.
I’ve spend time with both Labour and the Treasury on tax and regulation policy in recent months and there is a clear credibility gap between what Labour is starting to develop and the incoherent mess that HMT have had to deal with from this government.
The country badly needs infrastructure investment, a coherent policy on public services (including meaningful spending increases) that avoids us descending into a spiral of ill health and further educational apartheid, and a corporate tax system that targets capital spending. Labour shadow ministers are having grown up conversations about this stuff. All we’ve heard from Tory ministers since 2019 is pure sound bites.
I think, noting the comments above, that we are seeing where the floor of Tory support is. No matter how badly they actually govern, despite actual provable damage to livelihoods and public services, some will always have the reflexive instinct that a hypothetical Labour government would always be worse despite pretty clear evidence to the contrary from 1997 to 2010 even during a global financial crisis.
I say this as a Lib Dem member with no innate love of Labour, who have a history of bullying and ridiculing us as a party. The fact is it’s time for a change, and Starmer’s party will do a better job than the clown show of the last 6 years. The bar is pretty low.
To a large degree it doesn't really matter what the labour party policy is. Of course Starmer is doing a really good job, that is not in doubt. But to understand the labour party and how they would govern, you need to look at their membership and their MPs. To me it seems Starmer does not have the same grip and dominance that Blair did. It is fine to say yes, they are going to invest in infrastructure. But how do they respond to the demands for pay increases from the public sector and manage the 'crises' in all areas of public services; whilst acting within the constraints on financial spending imposed by the markets?
I am not absolutely sure that I will vote Conservative in the next election. I always see these decisions in the context of choosing between 'least worst options'. But this is what I am looking at, in the labour party, and I imagine others will too when genuinely confronted with the choice. If the tories get rid of Truss and put in a competent successor and stay on track, then I would say the next election will be closer than you think.
The Labour Party will continue to be the Party of the Public Sector. They will probably improve the public sector marginally, but the return on investment will be poor as it was under the last Labour administration. Expect to see and even bigger gap between private sector pensions and public sector ones, with public "servants" gloating about their ability to retire in their 50s and some of them at the top end retiring on monthly pensions that many working people can only dream of having as salary.
You really don't understand how most public sector pensions work nowadays do you?
Nor do you grasp that public sector pay after 12 years of Government is now in many cases dire. HMRC are giving their workers 3% and wondering why the vaguely good ones are leaving to go to the private sector (the good ones left years ago by the way when the Government merged offices and any good in a closed office went to the private sector)
Please show me the average public sector pension v private of those due to retire in the next ten years? Please also explain the pension availability for police service? The gold-plated pensions for hospital doctors, GPs and NHS senior managers and many civil servants. As mentioned, these give pension provision, at the tax payers expense, that are vastly over what many people will ever receive as monthly salary. Pretending they don't exist show that you clearly don't understand the cost to the country. The country cannot afford these pensions, but nothing will be done about their fundamental unfairness and the greed of those that demand them because the politicians benefit from them themselves. I guess you are someone that is looking forward to drawing on one yourself. Or perhaps you think you have a "right" to a pension that is massively better than your fellow citizens in the private sector?
No but unlike you and MaxPB, I think that people should be given what they were contractually offered and accepted when their signed up to work in the public sector.
And if you think the public sector gets a great deal - there was nothing stopping you trying to get on that bandwagon. The fact you now look enviously at their pensions is your problem.
They should be given what they were contractually offered, but they should also be equitably taxed on that too. If they have higher remuneration then that should be taxed accordingly, just as anyone else's would be.
At present pension incomes aren't as heavily taxed as other people's incomes. They evade National Insurance and despite many being graduates they evade the graduate tax known as student loans too. A young graduate working for a living can be paying 22% more tax per pound they earn than a retired graduate on the exact same income.
We should merge all income related taxes into one and have a fair equitable tax rate applied to all incomes evenly. No dodging NI or anything else for pensioners.
You need to treat people fairly so you can't introduce a graduate tax on those who went to university when it didn't exist - and you can't do it now because
1) prior to student loans no-one has the paperwork to know who went to university 2) many people have paid off their loans and it would be utterly unfair to tax them twice.
In your desire to remove the NI increase you won't have noticed but you also removed the mechanism by which pensioners were from 6th April 2023 paying 1.25% (NI equivalent) on their taxable income. That would have allowed a future chancellor to change the split between NI and social care and increased pensioner contributions.
As someone said above, the argument for merging tax and NI and levying the latter on everyone and all income, like tax, is pretty strong. Those pensioners affected would be the better off ones, and they should be asked to pay, as should those getting income from property or investments, who currently are relatively under-taxed.
This shouldn't even be a party political issue at its most basic level. It is an issue of fairness, transparency and effectiveness in the tax system. We can have all the arguments about at what level such taxes should be set and who should pay more or less after we have sorted out a system that is actually fit for purpose.
The problem there is once again
1) £70bn that the Government gets in Employer NI. 2) the fact NI is taxed on a periodic basis (weekly / monthly) and income tax on an annual basis.
And you probably want 2 left as it is for various reasons, some useful, other just because you can.
So the ideal fix was the introduction of the social care levy followed a year or so later by ramping it up and separating NI into separate NI and NHS taxes (the former paid by people under 67, the latter paid by absolutely everyone regardless of age).
Labour Party 507 seats Scottish National Party 52 seats Conservative & Unionist Party 48 seats Liberal Democrats 19 seats Plaid Cymru 4 seats Greens 1 seat NI 18 seats Speaker 1 seat
I heard an intriguing idea yesterday for how the Tories could remove Liz Truss as PM but prevent party members choosing her successor. Not saying it's highly likely but worth a quick whimsical thread (1/n)
The key point is that party members do not elect the prime minister. They elect the party leader. It is merely assumed that if the Tories are in power that person becomes PM. (2/n)
So one theoretical option would be to leave Truss as party leader but for her MPs to choose a new candidate for PM. Since they are choosing a PM rather than a leader there is no need to ballot members. (3/n)
If Truss refuses to step aside as PM, Tories can allow her to lose a a confidence vote since they already have a replacement candidate to offer to the King as able to command a parliamentary majority. (4/n)
But that falls apart as soon as Liz Truss resigns as party leader - at which point an election for a party leader needs to occur and that allows the loonies back into the game.
Except once they break the link between party leader and PM it doesn't matter.
They can elect Fabricant as Party leader, as long as Hunt/Sunak/Mordaunt/May remains PM
Genuine question: has she sustained a head injury? She seems to have a bruise above her left eye. At first glance I thought it was a shading from the light, but it's not.
Certainly looks like a bruise. Seems to be square, though. Unusual.
PBers yesterday were saying the Prime Minister looked to be struggling to stay awake. It is possible she's fallen asleep from an upright position and smacked her head on the furniture. Or it could be as mundane as she declined professional BBC makeup.
Now that I think of it, Truss had really bad makeup in the first leadership debate too. It made her skin look shiny and greasy.
Comments
At present pension incomes aren't as heavily taxed as other people's incomes. They evade National Insurance and despite many being graduates they evade the graduate tax known as student loans too. A young graduate working for a living can be paying 22% more tax per pound they earn than a retired graduate on the exact same income.
We should merge all income related taxes into one and have a fair equitable tax rate applied to all incomes evenly. No dodging NI or anything else for pensioners.
Once you lose power you are normally out for a decade or more unless the Government can't deliver on the economy as in 1970, 1974 or 1979.
I would note on today's Yougov though Braverman has a higher net favourability rating than Truss and Hunt, even if still less than Rishi and Penny
(Still stinks though, either way)
It turns out to probably be a breed derived from the Norwegian Forest Cat, taken to Maine by sailors, bred with local cats, and named the Maine Coon because the tail is thought to be like a raccoon.
Though it will presumably be beeped out by prissy American forum software.
Highlights that it is important not to fall for Outrage Pedal Cars based on alleged offence spreading sideways without any justification.
I have to admit that I had not even noticed that @DJ41 had arrived 5 days ago, never mind exited stage left like a cat who's fur had been brushed backwards.
If there were any prospect of Braverman and a victory on a programme like that, HY would sign up in a shot....
Fortunately, there isn't. Their choice is to move back toward the sensible centre and try and salvage something, or stick with the loopy PM and loony policy, and don't.
Tory MPs - consider that when sitting on your hands on the off-chance of a miracle.
People do vote with their feet though and maybe this isn't such a bad thing. The public sector really needs to pay something close to the market rate and reward good performance.
weekend fill in shifts 2 hours away from home).
And the people who do switch to being a locum have usually done so to avoid the paperwork and management that is otherwise forced upon them even though all they want to do is deal with patients.
Tory MPs can't turn back the clock on what they did (i.e. putting Truss into last 2). They can remove their mistake. Get Penny in now.
Johnny Mercer on Defecting to Labour https://t.co/9qJo9MonoE
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1582298035413188608
Not too late for him though as their is a 30% vacancy rate in Social Care despite the fantastic Pension
The Rail unions are good at making sure their members are well paid.
The Unions of workers at Natural England and similar just don't have the same power to justify decent pay.
"It would be completely disingenuous to claim that on that morning when the Cabinet was presented with the mini-Budget that there was anybody sat around the table who said that it was a bad idea." https://twitter.com/TimesRadio/status/1582278064297242626
And it's almost always born of the insecure who desperately want to show how much more Not Racist they are than everyone else, which is often a warning sign they slightly are.
https://twitter.com/Geri_E_L_Scott/status/1582296918423928832
Even if we accept that, a 400k pension at 65 = £182k at 44 with a 4% real terms growth rate.
Pensions are a ticking time bomb, flagged up by the run on gilts a fortnight ago. The greater economy is in a bigger mess than we realise. Doubtless devout PB Tories can trace it back to Wilson failing to devalue in Autumn 1964, but we are where we are.
So a cabinet of "Yes Men" and sycophants agreed with their boss.
Shocker!!!!
Even passing new laws, will our Govt apply anything retrospective to cut off the presence of the estimated 30 former pilots who are alleged to be there already?
He has an impressive record of failing to get elected to Westminster. Ironically, the EU Parliament wasn't as fussy about letting him in.....
I could not comprehend why anyone would suggest COO was racist and its one of those things that seeing racism there, where none was intended, says more about DJ41 than it does about Scott or anyone else.
1) prior to student loans no-one has the paperwork to know who went to university
2) many people have paid off their loans and it would be utterly unfair to tax them twice.
In your desire to remove the NI increase you won't have noticed but you also removed the mechanism by which pensioners were from 6th April 2023 paying 1.25% (NI equivalent) on their taxable income. That would have allowed a future chancellor to change the split between NI and social care and increased pensioner contributions.
Genuine question: has she sustained a head injury? She seems to have a bruise above her left eye. At first glance I thought it was a shading from the light, but it's not.
Is it only me who felt that Hunt, in his excellent performance yesterday, seemed to successfully convince all of the hacks and the opposition that huge pain lies down the way for all and sundry? Therefore anything less bad than armageddon is therefore relatively easy to portray in a positive light.
The TV news in particular went straight into overdrive about austerity and demands for guarantees that there'd be exceptions for everyone or the country would be engulfed in a bonfire of disasters - illustrating the now entrenched expectation that no matter what happens at home or in the wider world the government must cover it in full so no-one will endure any pain, anywhere, ever.
What a strange world I have grown old in.
On topic my party political point is that Truss must go with Mordaunt my preferred PM. Otherwise the landslide will be very severe indeed.
If you go back a few months Debt to GDP ratio had started to fall across much of Europe.
eg
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/14644644/2-21072022-AP-EN.pdf/ce72169d-1c4a-076c-d9da-4e87577a18dd
A significant recession would seem to be the main threat.
1) it doesn't work
2) HMRC lied to get it implemented as they wanted it by providing figures without context. Had the context been given they would have been told to actually do their job correctly and find a means of targeting the driver / social care employment agencies taking the mickey.
For example, under UK employment law I could easily make all cashiers at a supermarket self-employed (although they are clearly employees) but it's way harder to make an IT expert a company only needs for 9 months self-employed.
It's been known since at least 2005 that UK employment law is unfit for purpose but no Government is willing to change it for its a quagmire of detail and pain.
Is currently offering a £500 bonus if you stay in post for 6 months.
As well as the excellent £10.11 per hr Salary and the "gold plated " Pension obvs
Fill your boots!!
The retiree would have had a tax free lump sum at the start of the retirement, there is a spouse's pension entitlement on death of the retiree, your example involves market risk whereas the DB scheme to the member does not, and 4% real return (I wish). You need to compare like with like and look at annuity comparisons with index linking and spouse's pension and include the lump sum: £400k equiv is probably about right.
If you are a member of a DB scheme for the whole of your working life, and hold a middle-management position only, you are likely to retire on a pension entitlement equivalent to £1m in the outside world.
The key point is that party members do not elect the prime minister. They elect the party leader. It is merely assumed that if the Tories are in power that person becomes PM. (2/n)
So one theoretical option would be to leave Truss as party leader but for her MPs to choose a new candidate for PM. Since they are choosing a PM rather than a leader there is no need to ballot members. (3/n)
If Truss refuses to step aside as PM, Tories can allow her to lose a a confidence vote since they already have a replacement candidate to offer to the King as able to command a parliamentary majority. (4/n)
https://twitter.com/robertshrimsley/status/1582299715571359745
But it's hardly something to performatively flounce over.
Secondly, while I accept that there is some imbalance in constituency boundaries, I am not convinced that the system chosen to correct that imbalance was appropriate.
In any event I am a supporter of PR.
He is slowly recovering but it has been a long road and very painful for his family and loved ones to witness
If Starmer and Reeves run the economy well like New Labour pre 2008 Labour will also likely be in power for over a decade, if not then the Tories have a chance again
23 years at an average salary of, say, £50,000, with pension contributions of, say, 20 per cent (10 per cent from salary, matched by employer) is £230,000. Drawdown for 25 years till death (assuming retire at 60 and die at 85) gives £9,200 a year or £766 a month, which is roughly where we came in. You could get that in the private sector.
Very badly in fact the presenter called it IR35, I135 and I35 at various junctures so on top of her subject matter she was.
I didn’t even vote Leave in 2016 unlike 52% of voters though I respected the result
Susan Harrison
@SueHarrison123
Liz Truss calls on Liz Truss to resign
https://twitter.com/SueHarrison123/status/1582287603885563905
Remember my tale about next week where 3 bank employees are coming North because the bank can't organise a hotel and train ticket for me so it's easier to get them to travel (at greater cost) themselves.
Now partly that's an issue of hybrid working but the simple fact is that if this was a contract I had to travel to I would need to find £1000 a week out of post tax income (£300 train fare, £600 London hotels, £100 food) and when shifted to pre-tax income that's £2000.
I would far prefer that they were cats from Manchester, and it to be a bastardised form of "Mancunion", which has also been suggested
Lose the election and bat-sh*t crazy will be back on the table, and attractive to White Van Men and London Cabbies, who like HY's thought process. "Here, I had that HYUFD in the back of my cab".
"Liz Truss believes she will lead Conservatives into the next election, which she also believes wont be til 2024.
So why not put the £30Billion she just borrowed on that at 12/1 and hey presto, no deficit by 2024!
Simples".
Nothing to worry about.
I think the problem is if the rules were changed people would claim the tax back on a regular train fare to somewhere they're working at for say 6 months as a contractor. Which clearly isn't the situation for your bank work.
- with trained troops
- in sufficient numbers
- with sufficient equipment
- with logistics to match
The evidence so far is that Russia/Putin will do all kinds of things that won't work.
The reasons are complex. Part of it is people lying up the chain of command, to keep their heads*. Part is people with no knowledge at the top mashing their thumbs into maps and declaring "hit this". Part is political desperation. If Kherson falls, big trouble. So must do Something. This is Something. Therefore.....
*Window safety really.
We should abolish the age discrimination in our tax system. Have a tax rate for income that is applied to all income equitably.
The Health and Social Care levy wasn't levied on taxable income, it was levied on taxable earned incomes. Unearned incomes escaped the tax. So what we would see isn't a rebalance of NI to that, we would have seen income tax rebalanced to that, further lowering the tax on unearned incomes.
1) £70bn that the Government gets in Employer NI.
2) the fact NI is taxed on a periodic basis (weekly / monthly) and income tax on an annual basis.
And you probably want 2 left as it is for various reasons, some useful, other just because you can.
So the ideal fix was the introduction of the social care levy followed a year or so later by ramping it up and separating NI into separate NI and NHS taxes (the former paid by people under 67, the latter paid by absolutely everyone regardless of age).
Labour Party 507 seats
Scottish National Party 52 seats
Conservative & Unionist Party 48 seats
Liberal Democrats 19 seats
Plaid Cymru 4 seats
Greens 1 seat
NI 18 seats
Speaker 1 seat
They can elect Fabricant as Party leader, as long as Hunt/Sunak/Mordaunt/May remains PM