Categories
Options
Compare and contrast UK pension policy with what is happening in France – politicalbetting.com
Compare and contrast UK pension policy with what is happening in France – politicalbetting.com
Over the past few weeks we have seen extraordinary TV pictures from France of the demonstrations that are taking place against the decision by the Macron government to try to increase the pensionable age up from 64.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Inevitable with the change in demographics with longer lives, and decreasing fertility. It's only immigration that keeps the population pyramid stable.
It is a worldwide issue and with fertility rates now below 1 in parts of Asia like South Korea is going to be a big drag on economies that cannot adapt.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/22/south-koreas-birthrate-sinks-to-fresh-record-low-as-population-crisis-deepens
It may well be that world population peaks by 2050. Probably good for the planet, but requires adjustment to a lot of the ways we live and work.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/27/world-population-bomb-may-never-go-off-as-feared-finds-study?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
While life expectancy is increasing, disability free life much less so. As well as working longer, we have to able to adapt workplaces appropriately.
Reference for disability free life expectancy being static or worsening, while life expectancy stagnated. Note these figures are pre-pandemic.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandlifeexpectancies/bulletins/healthstatelifeexpectanciesuk/2018to2020
https://twitter.com/BMA_JuniorDocs/status/1641489891816091657?t=uiFYKJq66N93k3t1r4IhmQ&s=19
I was really hoping this would be the lead.
https://mobile.twitter.com/JamesFallows/status/1641630739702636545
https://mobile.twitter.com/joshcarlosjosh/status/1641587442170974209
In 1908 when the State Pension was first introduced for those aged 70 and over, a woman of this age was expected to live on average an additional 9.3 years, and a man 8.4 years (1901), meaning pensions needed to last around 9 years. However, compare this to the latest figures and we see how pensions need to last longer. The current state pension age for men is 65 and for women it will reach 65 by November 2018. In 2011 men and women at this age were expected to live for approximately 20 more years, meaning we need to make our pensions last more than twice as long as when they were first introduced.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/articles/howhaslifeexpectancychangedovertime/2015-09-09
To me it shows that the wisdom in Lord Lawson's saying that a great deal of governing is telling the difficult from the disastrous. It is clearly very difficult to do and there's lots of luck involved. And, of course, even the luckiest politician will eventually run out - as Mrs Thatcher and Tony Blair did.
Don't get me wrong, I don't actually need to know what something is to form an opinion about it.
There's a fair explanation of the likely case here:
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/30/trump-indictment-legal-faqs-00089864
It's not the strongest of cases which he might face.
But, from 60 onwards I shall certainly be working flexibly and part-time, if I can.
People live longer, pension age rises. Makes sense.
The dye is cast and people's minds are already made up.
Labour will win a landslide.
https://news.sky.com/story/uk-falling-behind-other-countries-on-life-expectancy-measure-12834986
and:
https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj.o1056
Generally linked to the UK's slide in economic prosperity. Of the G7 countries only the USA is faring worse than the UK.
#MUKGA
In practice a lot of folk will be stopping work at the same age as now, but on disability benefit rather than pension.
Look at America. Or, Hungary (I believe) in the 1950s, after a crushed uprising. Economically, things grew significantly. Life expectancy declined, however.
Essentially my retirement plan already involves treating the stage pension like a helpful bonus and trying to get to a place where I can do it entirely on my private pension. I honestly don't know if the maths of that completely stack up but it seems increasingly dodgy to rely on the state pension.
Edit
Julius Caesar, who I believe said it originally, was clearly very sensible to go round already dressed in dark purple.
It shrouded oft our matyred dead...
Obviously should be washed seperately.
I’ve no idea whether it’s a misrepresentation or not. But you are asserting as a fact that Barclay did something wrong based purely on an allegation by his opponents
Admittedly on national income share that was actually slightly more generous than the current state pension, but in terms of its official value it’s less than a sixth of it.
I an not a BMA supporter BTW. I am in the HCSA.
However when you have two groups making contrary statements and one of them is a friend and colleague of Boris Johnson, you start with the assumption that that person is less likely to be telling the truth.
Between large numbers on leave for Easter, Ramadan, and decreasing goodwill from staff, it is proving quite hard to cover.
Parliament isn't sitting, and I am sure that Barclay's constituents could spare him for a day or two next week to have talks, but he seems to prefer confrontation.
https://www.the-sun.com/lifestyle/5085063/doing-laundry-right-way-separate-clothes-symbols/
Not as red as most folks think.
The BMA has said that is unacceptable and that they won’t move from their initial starting position of 35%
Both are putting preconditions on the meeting - actually both are already negotiating.
My criticism is not that (although I think the BMA is negotiating poorly). My criticism is that you immediately jumped to Barclay “misleading parliament”
I shall bid y'all good morning and a pleasant weekend.
xx
All else is Commie poo.
Although, TBF he did say his spelling was rubbish.
Is that about it?
Would be actually hilarious if Trump ended up in jail for one of his lesser crimes.
And remember, as with Al Capone it's not always what they've done but what you can prove at the right moment that counts.
You don’t pay them for sex, you pay them to go away in the morning - Charlie Sheen?
Trump apparently has evidence that the lawyer paid Stormy of his own volition, and therefore there’s no campaign finance violation.
1) Trump had sex with inter alia Stormy Daniels.
2) She was preparing a book/TV deal on the subject.
3) He paid her off instead to stop the details, er, coming out.
4) However, he embezzled that money from his company and paid it through a false nominee.
5) Which means he possibly has been blackmailed BUT
A) therefore that money is the proceeds of a crime and has been laundered
B )He has taken money improperly from a company
C) He is guilty of false accounting.
So in a stroke of sheer genius not given to all men he has turned what could have been a story of him as the victim into a story of he's committed a crime.
Very Donald Trump...
Given how that last sentence tails off I hope Mike is OK.
I think you're not seeing this very clearly. The issue is not be what happened at the start it's how he responded to it.
And how will millions of Americans see it? That he paid off a whore and lied to them about it? I think again you need to wonder how this will look to them...
Closes in July, worth doing if you’ve worked abroad or for any other reason taken an NI holiday.
The NY DA is a fervent Democrat
He wants to rile up Trump and the GOP base but not take him off the board
So you choose a minor case like this…
If the business had profits of $1m, he put through an expense of $100k hush money and therefor paid tax on profits of only $900k, that is a real crime unless he can show that the hush money was primarily for the business rather than his own ego, which is doubtful.
That precondition is unacceptable to the BMA so they're not willing to negotiate on that basis.
I assume that both parties are staking out a position favourable to themselves. I don’t have a dog in this hunt, so don’t have to “trust” or “distrust” either side
I suspect one of the reasons Joe wants to run again is he is worried he could be in the shit himself. Given one of his ex-associates has said on record Biden received payments from China and Ukraine via the whole Hunter Biden set up, Joe may have his own case to answer
PS before anyone goes tinfoil etc, you were all proven to be wrong when you claimed the whole Hunter laptop thing was a Russian plot so maybe best not to strain your credibility further.
It falls down a bit when you remember Trump had a reputation for hanging out with various whores and indeed their pimps including traffickers for years. Including Epstein. So it's hard to see how it could damage his reputation further even if she had told all.
That precondition is unacceptable to the government so they’re not willing to negotiate on that basis
Weinstein springs to mind as another example - the more serious charges were actually in California. But New York went ahead, put him on trial and locked him up anyway.
And *then* he was tried in California.
In any case the proper stuff is mounting up. My fave is the gross orange **** actually on record ordering a state official to find several thousand votes.
To put it another way, since his correct course of action if she *was* blackmailing him was to have her arrested, and it's ludicrous to suggest he couldn't have done it given his enormous power and wealth, even if he is technically a victim he's made the wrong choices.
I still don't think he'll be next president - the normal people outnumber the crackers ones - but there's also a non-zero possibility of genuine armed uprisings and so on; worse than the 6th Jan one.
Trump himself is very litigious - I think out of many the thousands of cases involving Trump, in more than half Trump (or one of his companies) was the plaintiff.
Remember the claim - "I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose any votes". Likely true. And the same is true with this.