The demographic collapse proceeds space here as elsewhere.
Start the boats!
The amount of people who I know who will not have kids because they don't own their house scares me.
Build more fucking houses.
This is my occasional reminder that the current economic policy adopted by the Government of the United Kingdom is to import hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people per year to deliberately suppress the wages, housing and life chances of the working class, and the Labour Party supports this policy because they have forgotten who they are supposed to act for.
In the last 20 years the non working age population of this country has risen by 4.4 million people (a 22% increase) thanks to population ageing while the working age population has risen by 3.7 million (a 9% increase). That increase in working age population has been driven entirely by net migration, it would have declined in its absence. I struggle to see how an economy could deal with such a significant rise in its non-working population without an increase in its working age population given the additional demand for services created. Over the same period the participation rate has gone up and the unemployment rate has gone down, for working age people, suggesting that net migration has not led to fewer local people working. Perhaps a greater degree of automation might have been feasible, but if you think about the kind of service jobs an ageing society generates it looks less feasible. Another solution would have been to raise the pension age significantly more. But that wouldn't have been great for the working class, either, many of whom would die before they received their pension, while we would see even more on sickness benefit as many older people are too frail to work. It is an easy slogan to claim that immigration is the source of our ills, but it's not true. The problem is ageing. On the other hand, not building more homes is an unforgivable mistake.
Emigration could be the silver bullet. Emigration of our retired population to warmer and cheaper climes. It would be worth doing some sort of deal with the EU to make this as easy as possible, and then blanket bomb TV channels with episodes of a place in the Sun, build a new life abroad and escape to the chateau.
Several countries have put policies in place to stop this - they don't want huge piles of retirees gumming up their medical systems etc.
Not sure the EU would see anything in that for them to like.
So long as there was some way for the British government to pay for healthcare, it could be win-win for all concerned.
Firstly, the cost of medical care is dramatically lower in Spain / Portugal / Greece / Italy. Right now, we're struggling with keeping the NHS going, and a 10+% pay rise for junior doctors will only make budget pressures worse. Why not pay Spain to treat our oldies?
Secondly, in many places in Southern Spain and Portugal, or indeed in much of Italy, there is substantial overbuilding. Italian house prices are 20% below where they were a decade ago. There are four million empty homes in Spain - one for every 10 Spaniards! It would benefit both Club Med and the UK if we freed up housing capacity in the UK, and helped close the surplus of homes in these areas.
Thirdly, the areas where British retirees would go tend to be the unemployment hotspots of the PIIGS. They're not heading to Milan or Madrid, they're going to cheaper coastal communities where unemployment is often 25%+. And they're going to demand services, which is going to mean lots of local employment.
Fourthly, we could potentially pay less in pensions. Money goes further in Spain or Portugal. If we could make sure healthcare was covered (as we'd be paying for it anyway in the UK), then the Med is a pretty attractive place for oldies to go to. Perhaps in return for them getting better medical care, year run sunshine and lower costs of living, the oldies could accept pension rises capped at 3% pa.
The EU won’t agree to anything that’s not reciprocated. And the UK doesn’t want old EU nationals. We had a great system with FOM which the easily duped chucked in the bin .
This has nothing to do with the EU. This would be direct UK-Spain negotiations. Just as Spain issues work visas to South Americans all the time that give no rights for people to work or live in other EU states.
Well quite. Immigration, as separate from FoM, is not an EU competence, and member States are free to do what they like. Hence Spain, Portugual, Italy, and others, being at the forefront of the new “digital nomad visa” schemes.
So this would be an analogue nomad visa scheme. But a lot of this kind of thing exists already. The key is to advertise it - hence the thinly disguised public information films dressed up as escape to the costas.
The demographic collapse proceeds space here as elsewhere.
Start the boats!
The amount of people who I know who will not have kids because they don't own their house scares me.
Build more fucking houses.
This is my occasional reminder that the current economic policy adopted by the Government of the United Kingdom is to import hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people per year to deliberately suppress the wages, housing and life chances of the working class, and the Labour Party supports this policy because they have forgotten who they are supposed to act for.
In the last 20 years the non working age population of this country has risen by 4.4 million people (a 22% increase) thanks to population ageing while the working age population has risen by 3.7 million (a 9% increase). That increase in working age population has been driven entirely by net migration, it would have declined in its absence. I struggle to see how an economy could deal with such a significant rise in its non-working population without an increase in its working age population given the additional demand for services created. Over the same period the participation rate has gone up and the unemployment rate has gone down, for working age people, suggesting that net migration has not led to fewer local people working. Perhaps a greater degree of automation might have been feasible, but if you think about the kind of service jobs an ageing society generates it looks less feasible. Another solution would have been to raise the pension age significantly more. But that wouldn't have been great for the working class, either, many of whom would die before they received their pension, while we would see even more on sickness benefit as many older people are too frail to work. It is an easy slogan to claim that immigration is the source of our ills, but it's not true. The problem is ageing. On the other hand, not building more homes is an unforgivable mistake.
Emigration could be the silver bullet. Emigration of our retired population to warmer and cheaper climes. It would be worth doing some sort of deal with the EU to make this as easy as possible, and then blanket bomb TV channels with episodes of a place in the Sun, build a new life abroad and escape to the chateau.
Several countries have put policies in place to stop this - they don't want huge piles of retirees gumming up their medical systems etc.
Not sure the EU would see anything in that for them to like.
So long as there was some way for the British government to pay for healthcare, it could be win-win for all concerned.
Firstly, the cost of medical care is dramatically lower in Spain / Portugal / Greece / Italy. Right now, we're struggling with keeping the NHS going, and a 10+% pay rise for junior doctors will only make budget pressures worse. Why not pay Spain to treat our oldies?
Secondly, in many places in Southern Spain and Portugal, or indeed in much of Italy, there is substantial overbuilding. Italian house prices are 20% below where they were a decade ago. There are four million empty homes in Spain - one for every 10 Spaniards! It would benefit both Club Med and the UK if we freed up housing capacity in the UK, and helped close the surplus of homes in these areas.
Thirdly, the areas where British retirees would go tend to be the unemployment hotspots of the PIIGS. They're not heading to Milan or Madrid, they're going to cheaper coastal communities where unemployment is often 25%+. And they're going to demand services, which is going to mean lots of local employment.
Fourthly, we could potentially pay less in pensions. Money goes further in Spain or Portugal. If we could make sure healthcare was covered (as we'd be paying for it anyway in the UK), then the Med is a pretty attractive place for oldies to go to. Perhaps in return for them getting better medical care, year run sunshine and lower costs of living, the oldies could accept pension rises capped at 3% pa.
The EU won’t agree to anything that’s not reciprocated. And the UK doesn’t want old EU nationals. We had a great system with FOM which the easily duped chucked in the bin .
This has nothing to do with the EU. This would be direct UK-Spain negotiations. Just as Spain issues work visas to South Americans all the time that give no rights for people to work or live in other EU states.
Well quite. Immigration, as separate from FoM, is not an EU competence, and member States are free to do what they like. Hence Spain, Portugual, Italy, and others, being at the forefront of the new “digital nomad visa” schemes.
So this would be an analogue nomad visa scheme. But a lot of this kind of thing exists already. The key is to advertise it - hence the thinly disguised public information films dressed up as escape to the costas.
IIRC from a previous discussion on here, the minimum income limit for a Spanish resident visa is around the same level as the UK state pension, but you do need to buy health insurance. @felix is this forum’s resident British retiree in Spain, he’s probably they best person to ask.
How would I feel about another Tory victory? “Not satisfied” doesn’t fully capture the feeling. Nor would something like “distraught”. It would be more like “Oh, FFS”. The emotional equivalent of seeing yet another England batting collapse in the 90s or another loss on penalties in [any decade]. Pissed off yet somehow resigned.
The Tories have given themselves a chance of winning again by putting Rishi Sunak in charge. That must be annoying to anti-Conservatives. Uxbridge showed how it might be done.
There was still a 7 point swing from Tory to Labour . So not exactly screaming vote winning strategy . Labour messed up by failing to explain ULEZ and trying to avoid the subject. Building an election campaign over scraping a win by 500 votes not sure is the best strategy .
A 7 point swing like Uxbridge puts Starmer in number 10, albeit without a majority.
The demographic collapse proceeds space here as elsewhere.
Start the boats!
The amount of people who I know who will not have kids because they don't own their house scares me.
Build more fucking houses.
This is my occasional reminder that the current economic policy adopted by the Government of the United Kingdom is to import hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people per year to deliberately suppress the wages, housing and life chances of the working class, and the Labour Party supports this policy because they have forgotten who they are supposed to act for.
In the last 20 years the non working age population of this country has risen by 4.4 million people (a 22% increase) thanks to population ageing while the working age population has risen by 3.7 million (a 9% increase). That increase in working age population has been driven entirely by net migration, it would have declined in its absence. I struggle to see how an economy could deal with such a significant rise in its non-working population without an increase in its working age population given the additional demand for services created. Over the same period the participation rate has gone up and the unemployment rate has gone down, for working age people, suggesting that net migration has not led to fewer local people working. Perhaps a greater degree of automation might have been feasible, but if you think about the kind of service jobs an ageing society generates it looks less feasible. Another solution would have been to raise the pension age significantly more. But that wouldn't have been great for the working class, either, many of whom would die before they received their pension, while we would see even more on sickness benefit as many older people are too frail to work. It is an easy slogan to claim that immigration is the source of our ills, but it's not true. The problem is ageing. On the other hand, not building more homes is an unforgivable mistake.
Emigration could be the silver bullet. Emigration of our retired population to warmer and cheaper climes. It would be worth doing some sort of deal with the EU to make this as easy as possible, and then blanket bomb TV channels with episodes of a place in the Sun, build a new life abroad and escape to the chateau.
Several countries have put policies in place to stop this - they don't want huge piles of retirees gumming up their medical systems etc.
Not sure the EU would see anything in that for them to like.
So long as there was some way for the British government to pay for healthcare, it could be win-win for all concerned.
Firstly, the cost of medical care is dramatically lower in Spain / Portugal / Greece / Italy. Right now, we're struggling with keeping the NHS going, and a 10+% pay rise for junior doctors will only make budget pressures worse. Why not pay Spain to treat our oldies?
Secondly, in many places in Southern Spain and Portugal, or indeed in much of Italy, there is substantial overbuilding. Italian house prices are 20% below where they were a decade ago. There are four million empty homes in Spain - one for every 10 Spaniards! It would benefit both Club Med and the UK if we freed up housing capacity in the UK, and helped close the surplus of homes in these areas.
Thirdly, the areas where British retirees would go tend to be the unemployment hotspots of the PIIGS. They're not heading to Milan or Madrid, they're going to cheaper coastal communities where unemployment is often 25%+. And they're going to demand services, which is going to mean lots of local employment.
Fourthly, we could potentially pay less in pensions. Money goes further in Spain or Portugal. If we could make sure healthcare was covered (as we'd be paying for it anyway in the UK), then the Med is a pretty attractive place for oldies to go to. Perhaps in return for them getting better medical care, year run sunshine and lower costs of living, the oldies could accept pension rises capped at 3% pa.
The EU won’t agree to anything that’s not reciprocated. And the UK doesn’t want old EU nationals. We had a great system with FOM which the easily duped chucked in the bin .
This has nothing to do with the EU. This would be direct UK-Spain negotiations. Just as Spain issues work visas to South Americans all the time that give no rights for people to work or live in other EU states.
Back in the day, lots of RN officers retired to Malta for the reason you list - pensions went further, good weather for old bones.
Beyond gay marriage which most Tories voted against, can somebody point to some policies that they've introduced that make life better for anyone under the age of 75?
Triple lock on benefits?
How could you two forget? Whacking great IHT allowance boost for their heirs, if direct children/g'child boys'n'girls in approved Tory-type families (no nasty nephews or nieces).
Yes and a hugely popular policy which forced Brown to cancel his planned 2007 election when announced.
Plus more choice for parents with free schools, the EBACC to boost standards, taking the lowest earners out of income tax, universal credit to make work pay so benefits aren't all withdrawn at once if you find part time work, the COVID vaccines and ending free movement and replacing it with a points system which boosted pay for lower skilled workers. Plus whole life terms for serial killers and terrorists and those who murder children or the police
' taking the lowest earners out of income tax'? Aren't you confusing the Tories with the LDs?
IIRC after the end of the coalition, Cameron & Co. continued the policy of raising the tax free allowance by more than wage growth, each year.
The real value of the Personal Allowance is now below the level it was in 2013, just saying.
The demographic collapse proceeds space here as elsewhere.
Start the boats!
The amount of people who I know who will not have kids because they don't own their house scares me.
Build more fucking houses.
This is my occasional reminder that the current economic policy adopted by the Government of the United Kingdom is to import hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people per year to deliberately suppress the wages, housing and life chances of the working class, and the Labour Party supports this policy because they have forgotten who they are supposed to act for.
In the last 20 years the non working age population of this country has risen by 4.4 million people (a 22% increase) thanks to population ageing while the working age population has risen by 3.7 million (a 9% increase). That increase in working age population has been driven entirely by net migration, it would have declined in its absence. I struggle to see how an economy could deal with such a significant rise in its non-working population without an increase in its working age population given the additional demand for services created. Over the same period the participation rate has gone up and the unemployment rate has gone down, for working age people, suggesting that net migration has not led to fewer local people working. Perhaps a greater degree of automation might have been feasible, but if you think about the kind of service jobs an ageing society generates it looks less feasible. Another solution would have been to raise the pension age significantly more. But that wouldn't have been great for the working class, either, many of whom would die before they received their pension, while we would see even more on sickness benefit as many older people are too frail to work. It is an easy slogan to claim that immigration is the source of our ills, but it's not true. The problem is ageing. On the other hand, not building more homes is an unforgivable mistake.
Emigration could be the silver bullet. Emigration of our retired population to warmer and cheaper climes. It would be worth doing some sort of deal with the EU to make this as easy as possible, and then blanket bomb TV channels with episodes of a place in the Sun, build a new life abroad and escape to the chateau.
Several countries have put policies in place to stop this - they don't want huge piles of retirees gumming up their medical systems etc.
Not sure the EU would see anything in that for them to like.
So long as there was some way for the British government to pay for healthcare, it could be win-win for all concerned.
Firstly, the cost of medical care is dramatically lower in Spain / Portugal / Greece / Italy. Right now, we're struggling with keeping the NHS going, and a 10+% pay rise for junior doctors will only make budget pressures worse. Why not pay Spain to treat our oldies?
Secondly, in many places in Southern Spain and Portugal, or indeed in much of Italy, there is substantial overbuilding. Italian house prices are 20% below where they were a decade ago. There are four million empty homes in Spain - one for every 10 Spaniards! It would benefit both Club Med and the UK if we freed up housing capacity in the UK, and helped close the surplus of homes in these areas.
Thirdly, the areas where British retirees would go tend to be the unemployment hotspots of the PIIGS. They're not heading to Milan or Madrid, they're going to cheaper coastal communities where unemployment is often 25%+. And they're going to demand services, which is going to mean lots of local employment.
Fourthly, we could potentially pay less in pensions. Money goes further in Spain or Portugal. If we could make sure healthcare was covered (as we'd be paying for it anyway in the UK), then the Med is a pretty attractive place for oldies to go to. Perhaps in return for them getting better medical care, year run sunshine and lower costs of living, the oldies could accept pension rises capped at 3% pa.
The EU won’t agree to anything that’s not reciprocated. And the UK doesn’t want old EU nationals. We had a great system with FOM which the easily duped chucked in the bin .
This has nothing to do with the EU. This would be direct UK-Spain negotiations. Just as Spain issues work visas to South Americans all the time that give no rights for people to work or live in other EU states.
Well quite. Immigration, as separate from FoM, is not an EU competence, and member States are free to do what they like. Hence Spain, Portugual, Italy, and others, being at the forefront of the new “digital nomad visa” schemes.
Not currently an EU competence. They seem awfully interested in, and opposed to, individual states' golden visa schemes - which both Ireland and Portugal have suddenly shut down this year
How would I feel about another Tory victory? “Not satisfied” doesn’t fully capture the feeling. Nor would something like “distraught”. It would be more like “Oh, FFS”. The emotional equivalent of seeing yet another England batting collapse in the 90s or another loss on penalties in [any decade]. Pissed off yet somehow resigned.
The Tories have given themselves a chance of winning again by putting Rishi Sunak in charge. That must be annoying to anti-Conservatives. Uxbridge showed how it might be done.
There was still a 7 point swing from Tory to Labour . So not exactly screaming vote winning strategy . Labour messed up by failing to explain ULEZ and trying to avoid the subject. Building an election campaign over scraping a win by 500 votes not sure is the best strategy .
A 7 point swing like Uxbridge puts Starmer in number 10, albeit without a majority.
How would I feel about another Tory victory? “Not satisfied” doesn’t fully capture the feeling. Nor would something like “distraught”. It would be more like “Oh, FFS”. The emotional equivalent of seeing yet another England batting collapse in the 90s or another loss on penalties in [any decade]. Pissed off yet somehow resigned.
The Tories have given themselves a chance of winning again by putting Rishi Sunak in charge. That must be annoying to anti-Conservatives. Uxbridge showed how it might be done.
There was still a 7 point swing from Tory to Labour . So not exactly screaming vote winning strategy . Labour messed up by failing to explain ULEZ and trying to avoid the subject. Building an election campaign over scraping a win by 500 votes not sure is the best strategy .
A 7 point swing like Uxbridge puts Starmer in number 10, albeit without a majority.
Here's a thought: ULEZ expansion date is 29 August, 12 days away. The voter anger this generates could well be short-lived because those affected will change their cars rather than keep paying £12.50 a day month after month. But ULEZ did seem to swing Uxbridge.
So Sunak has a golden window of a couple of months to have an outside chance of saving as many Tory seats as possible, stopping Labour winning a majority, and potentially saving his own political career. Ergo:
THERE'S GOING TO BE AN OCTOBER 2023 ELECTION EVERYBODY!!
The demographic collapse proceeds space here as elsewhere.
Start the boats!
The amount of people who I know who will not have kids because they don't own their house scares me.
Build more fucking houses.
This is my occasional reminder that the current economic policy adopted by the Government of the United Kingdom is to import hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people per year to deliberately suppress the wages, housing and life chances of the working class, and the Labour Party supports this policy because they have forgotten who they are supposed to act for.
In the last 20 years the non working age population of this country has risen by 4.4 million people (a 22% increase) thanks to population ageing while the working age population has risen by 3.7 million (a 9% increase). That increase in working age population has been driven entirely by net migration, it would have declined in its absence. I struggle to see how an economy could deal with such a significant rise in its non-working population without an increase in its working age population given the additional demand for services created. Over the same period the participation rate has gone up and the unemployment rate has gone down, for working age people, suggesting that net migration has not led to fewer local people working. Perhaps a greater degree of automation might have been feasible, but if you think about the kind of service jobs an ageing society generates it looks less feasible. Another solution would have been to raise the pension age significantly more. But that wouldn't have been great for the working class, either, many of whom would die before they received their pension, while we would see even more on sickness benefit as many older people are too frail to work. It is an easy slogan to claim that immigration is the source of our ills, but it's not true. The problem is ageing. On the other hand, not building more homes is an unforgivable mistake.
Emigration could be the silver bullet. Emigration of our retired population to warmer and cheaper climes. It would be worth doing some sort of deal with the EU to make this as easy as possible, and then blanket bomb TV channels with episodes of a place in the Sun, build a new life abroad and escape to the chateau.
Brexit has made this harder, of course. The solution is for everyone to look after their health and be prepared to work for longer. But when I venture outside London and see a land of obese fifty somethings tootling to the off license in their mobility scooters I don't have a sense that this is a message people are likely to respond well to. So immigration is inevitable (unfortunately, if you don't like immigration; personally I am fine with it).
'...when I venture outside London...' ffs!
You should get out more.
Calm down, I get out plenty - this observation was prompted by several visits to Plymouth a few weeks ago. London has relatively few retirees and people have much lower BMIs than in the rest of the country owing to less driving and more money, so if you want to understand the demographic and health trends driving immigration you need to leave London, is all I am saying.
Er... percentages of overweight adults in London and the South West the same:
I hope that Linehan does take one or both of them to court - not at all because I hope he succeeds, but because I think the law needs clarifying by a more authoritative judgment than the decision currently being touted as a precedent for any kind of "belief" being a protected characteristic.
It's very obvious that the intention of the legislation was to protect only a very limited class of beliefs, for which several tests were specified - tests discussed only very cursorily, if at all, in the existing decision. Specifically, to be protected, a belief needs to be "worthy of respect in a democratic society, compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others". The implication of the existing decision was that any belief that didn't actually involve breaching the law was ipso facto protected.
Linehan's beliefs apparently involve likening his opponents to Nazis and implied threats of physical violence against them. It needs to be clarified whether the law really deprives any citizen, who provides a service, of the right to refuse to be implicated in that kind of behaviour.
On Ukraine - if we are gong for voting in the disputed areas.
1) Kick out the Russian soldiers or not? 2) Kick out the settlers the Russians have brought in? 3) Bring back the Ukrainians the Russians have deported?
Or are we talking "Facts on the Ground" as the the advocates of Stop The War Now in the Balkans used to say. i.e. accept whatever ethnic cleansing has happened?
EDIT: If we are going to go with Facts On The Ground, are we applying this in Israel/Palestine, as well?
I'm struggling to understand what point you're trying to make. Both are terrible or Russia is much worse than Israel? Either way your post has failed for me.
Look at how much territory is being occupied by naughty Israelis! But then look at the even bigger amount of territory occupied by the brave, glorious Russians!
The demographic collapse proceeds space here as elsewhere.
Start the boats!
The amount of people who I know who will not have kids because they don't own their house scares me.
Build more fucking houses.
This is my occasional reminder that the current economic policy adopted by the Government of the United Kingdom is to import hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people per year to deliberately suppress the wages, housing and life chances of the working class, and the Labour Party supports this policy because they have forgotten who they are supposed to act for.
In the last 20 years the non working age population of this country has risen by 4.4 million people (a 22% increase) thanks to population ageing while the working age population has risen by 3.7 million (a 9% increase). That increase in working age population has been driven entirely by net migration, it would have declined in its absence. I struggle to see how an economy could deal with such a significant rise in its non-working population without an increase in its working age population given the additional demand for services created. Over the same period the participation rate has gone up and the unemployment rate has gone down, for working age people, suggesting that net migration has not led to fewer local people working. Perhaps a greater degree of automation might have been feasible, but if you think about the kind of service jobs an ageing society generates it looks less feasible. Another solution would have been to raise the pension age significantly more. But that wouldn't have been great for the working class, either, many of whom would die before they received their pension, while we would see even more on sickness benefit as many older people are too frail to work. It is an easy slogan to claim that immigration is the source of our ills, but it's not true. The problem is ageing. On the other hand, not building more homes is an unforgivable mistake.
Emigration could be the silver bullet. Emigration of our retired population to warmer and cheaper climes. It would be worth doing some sort of deal with the EU to make this as easy as possible, and then blanket bomb TV channels with episodes of a place in the Sun, build a new life abroad and escape to the chateau.
Several countries have put policies in place to stop this - they don't want huge piles of retirees gumming up their medical systems etc.
Not sure the EU would see anything in that for them to like.
So long as there was some way for the British government to pay for healthcare, it could be win-win for all concerned.
Firstly, the cost of medical care is dramatically lower in Spain / Portugal / Greece / Italy. Right now, we're struggling with keeping the NHS going, and a 10+% pay rise for junior doctors will only make budget pressures worse. Why not pay Spain to treat our oldies?
Secondly, in many places in Southern Spain and Portugal, or indeed in much of Italy, there is substantial overbuilding. Italian house prices are 20% below where they were a decade ago. There are four million empty homes in Spain - one for every 10 Spaniards! It would benefit both Club Med and the UK if we freed up housing capacity in the UK, and helped close the surplus of homes in these areas.
Thirdly, the areas where British retirees would go tend to be the unemployment hotspots of the PIIGS. They're not heading to Milan or Madrid, they're going to cheaper coastal communities where unemployment is often 25%+. And they're going to demand services, which is going to mean lots of local employment.
Fourthly, we could potentially pay less in pensions. Money goes further in Spain or Portugal. If we could make sure healthcare was covered (as we'd be paying for it anyway in the UK), then the Med is a pretty attractive place for oldies to go to. Perhaps in return for them getting better medical care, year run sunshine and lower costs of living, the oldies could accept pension rises capped at 3% pa.
The EU won’t agree to anything that’s not reciprocated. And the UK doesn’t want old EU nationals. We had a great system with FOM which the easily duped chucked in the bin .
This has nothing to do with the EU. This would be direct UK-Spain negotiations. Just as Spain issues work visas to South Americans all the time that give no rights for people to work or live in other EU states.
Well quite. Immigration, as separate from FoM, is not an EU competence, and member States are free to do what they like. Hence Spain, Portugual, Italy, and others, being at the forefront of the new “digital nomad visa” schemes.
Not currently an EU competence. They seem awfully interested in, and opposed to, individual states' golden visa schemes - which both Ireland and Portugal have suddenly shut down this year
The demographic collapse proceeds space here as elsewhere.
Start the boats!
The amount of people who I know who will not have kids because they don't own their house scares me.
Build more fucking houses.
This is my occasional reminder that the current economic policy adopted by the Government of the United Kingdom is to import hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people per year to deliberately suppress the wages, housing and life chances of the working class, and the Labour Party supports this policy because they have forgotten who they are supposed to act for.
In the last 20 years the non working age population of this country has risen by 4.4 million people (a 22% increase) thanks to population ageing while the working age population has risen by 3.7 million (a 9% increase). That increase in working age population has been driven entirely by net migration, it would have declined in its absence. I struggle to see how an economy could deal with such a significant rise in its non-working population without an increase in its working age population given the additional demand for services created. Over the same period the participation rate has gone up and the unemployment rate has gone down, for working age people, suggesting that net migration has not led to fewer local people working. Perhaps a greater degree of automation might have been feasible, but if you think about the kind of service jobs an ageing society generates it looks less feasible. Another solution would have been to raise the pension age significantly more. But that wouldn't have been great for the working class, either, many of whom would die before they received their pension, while we would see even more on sickness benefit as many older people are too frail to work. It is an easy slogan to claim that immigration is the source of our ills, but it's not true. The problem is ageing. On the other hand, not building more homes is an unforgivable mistake.
Emigration could be the silver bullet. Emigration of our retired population to warmer and cheaper climes. It would be worth doing some sort of deal with the EU to make this as easy as possible, and then blanket bomb TV channels with episodes of a place in the Sun, build a new life abroad and escape to the chateau.
Brexit has made this harder, of course. The solution is for everyone to look after their health and be prepared to work for longer. But when I venture outside London and see a land of obese fifty somethings tootling to the off license in their mobility scooters I don't have a sense that this is a message people are likely to respond well to. So immigration is inevitable (unfortunately, if you don't like immigration; personally I am fine with it).
'...when I venture outside London...' ffs!
You should get out more.
Calm down, I get out plenty - this observation was prompted by several visits to Plymouth a few weeks ago. London has relatively few retirees and people have much lower BMIs than in the rest of the country owing to less driving and more money, so if you want to understand the demographic and health trends driving immigration you need to leave London, is all I am saying.
Er... percentages of overweight adults in London and the South West the same:
Thanks, that's interesting. Plymouth vs SE14 certainly seemed to present a stark contrast. Maybe I just need to get out of the bits of London I live and work in. There are certainly far more old people outside of London, though.
On Ukraine - if we are gong for voting in the disputed areas.
1) Kick out the Russian soldiers or not? 2) Kick out the settlers the Russians have brought in? 3) Bring back the Ukrainians the Russians have deported?
Or are we talking "Facts on the Ground" as the the advocates of Stop The War Now in the Balkans used to say. i.e. accept whatever ethnic cleansing has happened?
EDIT: If we are going to go with Facts On The Ground, are we applying this in Israel/Palestine, as well?
I'm struggling to understand what point you're trying to make. Both are terrible or Russia is much worse than Israel? Either way your post has failed for me.
Look at how much territory is being occupied by naughty Israelis! But then look at the even bigger amount of territory occupied by the brave, glorious Russians!
Don't try for a career in advertising, is all I'd say.
Elon Musk pimping for Trump . . . no surprise there, as he's already pimping as much as possible for Putin.
CNS - Search warrant dug up Trump’s direct messages, deleted tweets . . .
A search warrant against Twitter brought special counsel Jack Smith a large swath of data related to Donald Trump, leading up to the former president's indictment for his role in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, court documents unsealed Tuesday night reveal. . . .
The transcripts are partially redacted but reveal arguments from Twitter that the former president’s direct messages could be protected by executive privilege and that he should be notified about the warrant. . . .
Months later, as Twitter went to court to shield Trump's data, the newly unsealed transcripts show wariness from the presiding judge over what was motivating it to take extraordinary and unprecedented steps to notify Trump about the search warrant in the face of a nondisclosure order.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell questioned specifically at a Feb. 7 hearing whether the stance stemmed from a desire by Musk to “cozy up with the former president.”
“Is this to make Donald Trump feel like he is a particularly welcomed renewed user of Twitter here?” asked Howell, who retired from the bench in March.
Twitter was represented in the hearings by George Varghese, a partner with WilmerHale.
“Twitter has no interest other than litigating its constitutional rights,” Varghese said. “We have a right to speak … and timing of that speech is critical, and so we would like to provide meaningful notice to the user prior to the review by the government.”
Howell did not accept that, pointing out that Twitter's refusal caused an “ongoing harm to the government and the public” that would only be multiplied if she approved a stay — relief that she also noted had no legal precedent. . . .
When Twitter failed to meet a 5 p.m. deadline to comply with the warrant after the hearing, the Obama-appointed Howell held the company in contempt of court.utional rights,” Varghese said. “We have a right to speak … and timing of that speech is critical, and so we would like to provide meaningful notice to the user prior to the review by the government.”
By the time it turned over the data three days later, Twitter had been fined $350,000 — a penalty that began with a $50,000 fine, doubling each day. . . .
For the location information, searches and IP addresses linked to Trump's account, the special counsel set a specific date range of Oct. 1, 2020, through Jan. 20, 2021 — a time period that covers the days before the 2020 election through Trump’s last day in the White House, President Joe Biden’s inauguration. . . .
Beyond gay marriage which most Tories voted against, can somebody point to some policies that they've introduced that make life better for anyone under the age of 75?
Triple lock on benefits?
How could you two forget? Whacking great IHT allowance boost for their heirs, if direct children/g'child boys'n'girls in approved Tory-type families (no nasty nephews or nieces).
Yes and a hugely popular policy which forced Brown to cancel his planned 2007 election when announced.
Plus more choice for parents with free schools, the EBACC to boost standards, taking the lowest earners out of income tax, universal credit to make work pay so benefits aren't all withdrawn at once if you find part time work, the COVID vaccines and ending free movement and replacing it with a points system which boosted pay for lower skilled workers
You should hear what childless aunts and uncles have to say about the IHT policy.
We could of course go further and have a manifesto commitment to scrap IHT completely at the next election so aunts and uncles can leave their estate to whoever they want tax free or at least raise the threshold to £1 million for all estates.
The top rate of income tax cut from 50% under Brown to 45% now too for the highest earners
Though with the fiscal drag implemented by the Tories more pay at every threshold.
On Ukraine - if we are gong for voting in the disputed areas.
1) Kick out the Russian soldiers or not? 2) Kick out the settlers the Russians have brought in? 3) Bring back the Ukrainians the Russians have deported?
Or are we talking "Facts on the Ground" as the the advocates of Stop The War Now in the Balkans used to say. i.e. accept whatever ethnic cleansing has happened?
EDIT: If we are going to go with Facts On The Ground, are we applying this in Israel/Palestine, as well?
I'm struggling to understand what point you're trying to make. Both are terrible or Russia is much worse than Israel? Either way your post has failed for me.
Look at how much territory is being occupied by naughty Israelis! But then look at the even bigger amount of territory occupied by the brave, glorious Russians!
Don't try for a career in advertising, is all I'd say.
I agree, the territorial one is much more impressive, no less than 22.5 times as much territory occupied by Putin!
The demographic collapse proceeds space here as elsewhere.
Start the boats!
The amount of people who I know who will not have kids because they don't own their house scares me.
Build more fucking houses.
This is my occasional reminder that the current economic policy adopted by the Government of the United Kingdom is to import hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people per year to deliberately suppress the wages, housing and life chances of the working class, and the Labour Party supports this policy because they have forgotten who they are supposed to act for.
In the last 20 years the non working age population of this country has risen by 4.4 million people (a 22% increase) thanks to population ageing while the working age population has risen by 3.7 million (a 9% increase). That increase in working age population has been driven entirely by net migration, it would have declined in its absence. I struggle to see how an economy could deal with such a significant rise in its non-working population without an increase in its working age population given the additional demand for services created. Over the same period the participation rate has gone up and the unemployment rate has gone down, for working age people, suggesting that net migration has not led to fewer local people working. Perhaps a greater degree of automation might have been feasible, but if you think about the kind of service jobs an ageing society generates it looks less feasible. Another solution would have been to raise the pension age significantly more. But that wouldn't have been great for the working class, either, many of whom would die before they received their pension, while we would see even more on sickness benefit as many older people are too frail to work. It is an easy slogan to claim that immigration is the source of our ills, but it's not true. The problem is ageing. On the other hand, not building more homes is an unforgivable mistake.
Emigration could be the silver bullet. Emigration of our retired population to warmer and cheaper climes. It would be worth doing some sort of deal with the EU to make this as easy as possible, and then blanket bomb TV channels with episodes of a place in the Sun, build a new life abroad and escape to the chateau.
Several countries have put policies in place to stop this - they don't want huge piles of retirees gumming up their medical systems etc.
Not sure the EU would see anything in that for them to like.
So long as there was some way for the British government to pay for healthcare, it could be win-win for all concerned.
Firstly, the cost of medical care is dramatically lower in Spain / Portugal / Greece / Italy. Right now, we're struggling with keeping the NHS going, and a 10+% pay rise for junior doctors will only make budget pressures worse. Why not pay Spain to treat our oldies?
Secondly, in many places in Southern Spain and Portugal, or indeed in much of Italy, there is substantial overbuilding. Italian house prices are 20% below where they were a decade ago. There are four million empty homes in Spain - one for every 10 Spaniards! It would benefit both Club Med and the UK if we freed up housing capacity in the UK, and helped close the surplus of homes in these areas.
Thirdly, the areas where British retirees would go tend to be the unemployment hotspots of the PIIGS. They're not heading to Milan or Madrid, they're going to cheaper coastal communities where unemployment is often 25%+. And they're going to demand services, which is going to mean lots of local employment.
Fourthly, we could potentially pay less in pensions. Money goes further in Spain or Portugal. If we could make sure healthcare was covered (as we'd be paying for it anyway in the UK), then the Med is a pretty attractive place for oldies to go to. Perhaps in return for them getting better medical care, year run sunshine and lower costs of living, the oldies could accept pension rises capped at 3% pa.
The EU won’t agree to anything that’s not reciprocated. And the UK doesn’t want old EU nationals. We had a great system with FOM which the easily duped chucked in the bin .
This has nothing to do with the EU. This would be direct UK-Spain negotiations. Just as Spain issues work visas to South Americans all the time that give no rights for people to work or live in other EU states.
Back in the day, lots of RN officers retired to Malta for the reason you list - pensions went further, good weather for old bones.
I've never wanted to go live in the sun but yes 'old bones' are a thing and although I still won't because of friends & family I do understand the attraction of Spain and Florida etc more now I'm 62. Just sit on a balcony or veranda and never feel cold. Not too shabby a prospect.
If even Kezia Dugdale has jacked it in with Labour ...
'The former MSP admitted she had “moved” on the independence issue and said she could not stand up for the Union in the same way as she did as part of the Better Together movement in 2014.
At one stage – although she appeared to stop short of switching to Yes outright –she hinted if she was presented with the option of Scottish independence in Europe against “little Boris Brexit Britain”, she would vote Yes.'
[...]
'She said: “It’s my European politics that means I’m not a member of the Labour party anymore.
"I believe in unions of people and unions of nations and I’ve got a great deal of ill feeling towards the Labour Party’s inability to make the case for the benefits of the UK in Europe, not just in the lead up to the EU referendum but in the days afterwards where we had the potential to limit the damage we all experienced.”'
Surely she’ll be relieved that nasty Brexity old Jezza in’t charge anymore?
True but they will look at what university/apprenticeship/job you got off the back of them...
Probably not. Ten years after A-levels is (say) seven years after graduation by which time even your degree has worn off. Basically, each exam just qualifies you for the next stage. That is why GCSEs can safely be abandoned now that (almost) everyone stays on. By 28, it is what job you are doing now that counts when applying for the next one.
Gillian Keegan is right (even if teachers are worried she has let the cat out of the bag).
Beyond gay marriage which most Tories voted against, can somebody point to some policies that they've introduced that make life better for anyone under the age of 75?
Triple lock on benefits?
How could you two forget? Whacking great IHT allowance boost for their heirs, if direct children/g'child boys'n'girls in approved Tory-type families (no nasty nephews or nieces).
Yes and a hugely popular policy which forced Brown to cancel his planned 2007 election when announced.
Plus more choice for parents with free schools, the EBACC to boost standards, taking the lowest earners out of income tax, universal credit to make work pay so benefits aren't all withdrawn at once if you find part time work, the COVID vaccines and ending free movement and replacing it with a points system which boosted pay for lower skilled workers
You should hear what childless aunts and uncles have to say about the IHT policy.
We could of course go further and have a manifesto commitment to scrap IHT completely at the next election so aunts and uncles can leave their estate to whoever they want tax free or at least raise the threshold to £1 million for all estates.
The top rate of income tax cut from 50% under Brown to 45% now too for the highest earners
No. That would be fiscally irresponsible. You know, what "Conservatives" aren't supposed to be. Nor are they supposed to be spivs. Much better to cancel RNRB so that the state and the body politic claws back some of the unearned capital gain on property.
Still better to abolish IHT and have CGT on all property transfers, including inheritance, like it used to be.
The Conservatives are supposed to conserve wealth, private estates and inheritance, the clue is in the title. If it was a manifesto commitment endorsed by voters it would have a mandate too
Nonsense. Conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy that seeks to promote and to preserve traditional institutions, practices, and values. It's so much more than private estates and inheritance.
Conservatism in the UK (specifically England, come to think of it) is a political party dedicated to preserving the interests of the upper and upper-middle classes, whatever they may be at a given point in time. All principles are retconned to justify actions to preserve those interests. @HYUFD is the only one on here who ever got this.
That is complete bollox.
The Conservative Party (before the Johnson and Brexit madness) was a party that philosophically believed in self-development and aspiration. It is about enabling people of whatever social grouping to improve themselves with minimal interference from the state. (I hate the word "class", its such a fucking stupid concept)
The Labour Party believes that nanny knows best. More than it hates people who are from inherited wealth, it loathes even more people that they regard as "working class" becoming well off or monetarily successful (Labour people love the class word)
The free market liberal element of the Conservative Party maybe, the Tory element certainly prioritises inherited wealth and always has
I hope that Linehan does take one or both of them to court - not at all because I hope he succeeds, but because I think the law needs clarifying by a more authoritative judgment than the decision currently being touted as a precedent for any kind of "belief" being a protected characteristic.
It's very obvious that the intention of the legislation was to protect only a very limited class of beliefs, for which several tests were specified - tests discussed only very cursorily, if at all, in the existing decision. Specifically, to be protected, a belief needs to be "worthy of respect in a democratic society, compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others". The implication of the existing decision was that any belief that didn't actually involve breaching the law was ipso facto protected.
Linehan's beliefs apparently involve likening his opponents to Nazis and implied threats of physical violence against them. It needs to be clarified whether the law really deprives any citizen, who provides a service, of the right to refuse to be implicated in that kind of behaviour.
It is an interesting question. What 'beliefs' are protected by law in this way? It's not all, presumably. Then the matter of how you seperate a belief from how it's expressed. Can you do that? Should you? And is it covered anyway by other laws, eg hate speech etc?
What's The Deal With The GOP Debate Criteria? | FiveThirtyEight
Senior elections analyst Nathaniel Rakich breaks down the long list of criteria the 2024 GOP presidential candidates must meet in order to qualify for the first Republican debate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2coeR8wO0U
This is an important point: Starmer isn't as unpopular among the general public as he seems to be among PBers. And they've had enough of the current government
Yes that's true. Corbynite PBers think courting popularity is a sell-out. Tory PBers think selling out in their direction makes him a hypocrite.
SKS knows that getting real people to change their mind is not easy. Much better to find out what's in their mind and then concentrate on packaging it nicely
Is there such a thing as a Corbynite PBer? I'm not sure there're any Corbynites left anyway,
I strongly suspect he'll run for London Mayor. It'll be interesting as to how people choose to back him or otherwise.
In that case Corbyn enables the Tory to win which would be shameful .
Corbyn could actually beat Khan and Hall and win the London Mayoralty as Livingstone did in 2000 as an Independent. After all London voted for Corbyn even in 2019 even if the UK didn't
The demographic collapse proceeds space here as elsewhere.
Start the boats!
The amount of people who I know who will not have kids because they don't own their house scares me.
Build more fucking houses.
This is my occasional reminder that the current economic policy adopted by the Government of the United Kingdom is to import hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people per year to deliberately suppress the wages, housing and life chances of the working class, and the Labour Party supports this policy because they have forgotten who they are supposed to act for.
In the last 20 years the non working age population of this country has risen by 4.4 million people (a 22% increase) thanks to population ageing while the working age population has risen by 3.7 million (a 9% increase). That increase in working age population has been driven entirely by net migration, it would have declined in its absence. I struggle to see how an economy could deal with such a significant rise in its non-working population without an increase in its working age population given the additional demand for services created. Over the same period the participation rate has gone up and the unemployment rate has gone down, for working age people, suggesting that net migration has not led to fewer local people working. Perhaps a greater degree of automation might have been feasible, but if you think about the kind of service jobs an ageing society generates it looks less feasible. Another solution would have been to raise the pension age significantly more. But that wouldn't have been great for the working class, either, many of whom would die before they received their pension, while we would see even more on sickness benefit as many older people are too frail to work. It is an easy slogan to claim that immigration is the source of our ills, but it's not true. The problem is ageing. On the other hand, not building more homes is an unforgivable mistake.
Emigration could be the silver bullet. Emigration of our retired population to warmer and cheaper climes. It would be worth doing some sort of deal with the EU to make this as easy as possible, and then blanket bomb TV channels with episodes of a place in the Sun, build a new life abroad and escape to the chateau.
Several countries have put policies in place to stop this - they don't want huge piles of retirees gumming up their medical systems etc.
Not sure the EU would see anything in that for them to like.
So long as there was some way for the British government to pay for healthcare, it could be win-win for all concerned.
Firstly, the cost of medical care is dramatically lower in Spain / Portugal / Greece / Italy. Right now, we're struggling with keeping the NHS going, and a 10+% pay rise for junior doctors will only make budget pressures worse. Why not pay Spain to treat our oldies?
Secondly, in many places in Southern Spain and Portugal, or indeed in much of Italy, there is substantial overbuilding. Italian house prices are 20% below where they were a decade ago. There are four million empty homes in Spain - one for every 10 Spaniards! It would benefit both Club Med and the UK if we freed up housing capacity in the UK, and helped close the surplus of homes in these areas.
Thirdly, the areas where British retirees would go tend to be the unemployment hotspots of the PIIGS. They're not heading to Milan or Madrid, they're going to cheaper coastal communities where unemployment is often 25%+. And they're going to demand services, which is going to mean lots of local employment.
Fourthly, we could potentially pay less in pensions. Money goes further in Spain or Portugal. If we could make sure healthcare was covered (as we'd be paying for it anyway in the UK), then the Med is a pretty attractive place for oldies to go to. Perhaps in return for them getting better medical care, year run sunshine and lower costs of living, the oldies could accept pension rises capped at 3% pa.
The EU won’t agree to anything that’s not reciprocated. And the UK doesn’t want old EU nationals. We had a great system with FOM which the easily duped chucked in the bin .
This has nothing to do with the EU. This would be direct UK-Spain negotiations. Just as Spain issues work visas to South Americans all the time that give no rights for people to work or live in other EU states.
Back in the day, lots of RN officers retired to Malta for the reason you list - pensions went further, good weather for old bones.
I've never wanted to go live in the sun but yes 'old bones' are a thing and although I still won't because of friends & family I do understand the attraction of Spain and Florida etc more now I'm 62. Just sit on a balcony or veranda and never feel cold. Not too shabby a prospect.
If even Kezia Dugdale has jacked it in with Labour ...
'The former MSP admitted she had “moved” on the independence issue and said she could not stand up for the Union in the same way as she did as part of the Better Together movement in 2014.
At one stage – although she appeared to stop short of switching to Yes outright –she hinted if she was presented with the option of Scottish independence in Europe against “little Boris Brexit Britain”, she would vote Yes.'
[...]
'She said: “It’s my European politics that means I’m not a member of the Labour party anymore.
"I believe in unions of people and unions of nations and I’ve got a great deal of ill feeling towards the Labour Party’s inability to make the case for the benefits of the UK in Europe, not just in the lead up to the EU referendum but in the days afterwards where we had the potential to limit the damage we all experienced.”'
That would be the Kezia Dugdale who led Scottish Labour to third place at Holyrood in 2016? While Labour had an 11.5% swing from the SNP with Yougov yesterday
The demographic collapse proceeds space here as elsewhere.
Start the boats!
The amount of people who I know who will not have kids because they don't own their house scares me.
Build more fucking houses.
This is my occasional reminder that the current economic policy adopted by the Government of the United Kingdom is to import hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people per year to deliberately suppress the wages, housing and life chances of the working class, and the Labour Party supports this policy because they have forgotten who they are supposed to act for.
In the last 20 years the non working age population of this country has risen by 4.4 million people (a 22% increase) thanks to population ageing while the working age population has risen by 3.7 million (a 9% increase). That increase in working age population has been driven entirely by net migration, it would have declined in its absence. I struggle to see how an economy could deal with such a significant rise in its non-working population without an increase in its working age population given the additional demand for services created. Over the same period the participation rate has gone up and the unemployment rate has gone down, for working age people, suggesting that net migration has not led to fewer local people working. Perhaps a greater degree of automation might have been feasible, but if you think about the kind of service jobs an ageing society generates it looks less feasible. Another solution would have been to raise the pension age significantly more. But that wouldn't have been great for the working class, either, many of whom would die before they received their pension, while we would see even more on sickness benefit as many older people are too frail to work. It is an easy slogan to claim that immigration is the source of our ills, but it's not true. The problem is ageing. On the other hand, not building more homes is an unforgivable mistake.
Emigration could be the silver bullet. Emigration of our retired population to warmer and cheaper climes. It would be worth doing some sort of deal with the EU to make this as easy as possible, and then blanket bomb TV channels with episodes of a place in the Sun, build a new life abroad and escape to the chateau.
Several countries have put policies in place to stop this - they don't want huge piles of retirees gumming up their medical systems etc.
Not sure the EU would see anything in that for them to like.
So long as there was some way for the British government to pay for healthcare, it could be win-win for all concerned.
Firstly, the cost of medical care is dramatically lower in Spain / Portugal / Greece / Italy. Right now, we're struggling with keeping the NHS going, and a 10+% pay rise for junior doctors will only make budget pressures worse. Why not pay Spain to treat our oldies?
Secondly, in many places in Southern Spain and Portugal, or indeed in much of Italy, there is substantial overbuilding. Italian house prices are 20% below where they were a decade ago. There are four million empty homes in Spain - one for every 10 Spaniards! It would benefit both Club Med and the UK if we freed up housing capacity in the UK, and helped close the surplus of homes in these areas.
Thirdly, the areas where British retirees would go tend to be the unemployment hotspots of the PIIGS. They're not heading to Milan or Madrid, they're going to cheaper coastal communities where unemployment is often 25%+. And they're going to demand services, which is going to mean lots of local employment.
Fourthly, we could potentially pay less in pensions. Money goes further in Spain or Portugal. If we could make sure healthcare was covered (as we'd be paying for it anyway in the UK), then the Med is a pretty attractive place for oldies to go to. Perhaps in return for them getting better medical care, year run sunshine and lower costs of living, the oldies could accept pension rises capped at 3% pa.
The EU won’t agree to anything that’s not reciprocated. And the UK doesn’t want old EU nationals. We had a great system with FOM which the easily duped chucked in the bin .
This has nothing to do with the EU. This would be direct UK-Spain negotiations. Just as Spain issues work visas to South Americans all the time that give no rights for people to work or live in other EU states.
Back in the day, lots of RN officers retired to Malta for the reason you list - pensions went further, good weather for old bones.
I've never wanted to go live in the sun but yes 'old bones' are a thing and although I still won't because of friends & family I do understand the attraction of Spain and Florida etc more now I'm 62. Just sit on a balcony or veranda and never feel cold. Not too shabby a prospect.
I think a fair number of people are now missing that FoM that allowed to retire to Sun and Sangria.
No sympathy for those who voted Brexit to bugger their own retirement. Skegness for them!
I hope that Linehan does take one or both of them to court - not at all because I hope he succeeds, but because I think the law needs clarifying by a more authoritative judgment than the decision currently being touted as a precedent for any kind of "belief" being a protected characteristic.
It's very obvious that the intention of the legislation was to protect only a very limited class of beliefs, for which several tests were specified - tests discussed only very cursorily, if at all, in the existing decision. Specifically, to be protected, a belief needs to be "worthy of respect in a democratic society, compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others". The implication of the existing decision was that any belief that didn't actually involve breaching the law was ipso facto protected.
Linehan's beliefs apparently involve likening his opponents to Nazis and implied threats of physical violence against them. It needs to be clarified whether the law really deprives any citizen, who provides a service, of the right to refuse to be implicated in that kind of behaviour.
It is an interesting question. What 'beliefs' are protected by law in this way? It's not all, presumably. Then the matter of how you seperate a belief from how it's expressed. Can you do that? Should you? And is it covered anyway by other laws, eg hate speech etc?
It seems fairly obvious that the intention of the legislation was to include philosophical beliefs that were in some sense of similar status to religion, in order to avoid simply protecting religion and leaving non-religious philosophical beliefs like humanism unprotected.
To concentrate the mind, it's useful to consider anti-semitism as a belief. Is anti-semitism a protected characteristic, so long as it stays within the law? If so, the moderation of anti-semitic comments in online forums - including this one - could potentially be unlawful discrimination. (Bearing in mind that the owner of a discussion forum is legally a "service provider" even if the service provided is free.)
I hope that Linehan does take one or both of them to court - not at all because I hope he succeeds, but because I think the law needs clarifying by a more authoritative judgment than the decision currently being touted as a precedent for any kind of "belief" being a protected characteristic.
It's very obvious that the intention of the legislation was to protect only a very limited class of beliefs, for which several tests were specified - tests discussed only very cursorily, if at all, in the existing decision. Specifically, to be protected, a belief needs to be "worthy of respect in a democratic society, compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others". The implication of the existing decision was that any belief that didn't actually involve breaching the law was ipso facto protected.
Linehan's beliefs apparently involve likening his opponents to Nazis and implied threats of physical violence against them. It needs to be clarified whether the law really deprives any citizen, who provides a service, of the right to refuse to be implicated in that kind of behaviour.
It is an interesting question. What 'beliefs' are protected by law in this way? It's not all, presumably. Then the matter of how you seperate a belief from how it's expressed. Can you do that? Should you? And is it covered anyway by other laws, eg hate speech etc?
It’s not to do with belief, it’s to do with contract law.
The venue took for booking months ago for “an edgy comedy show featuring cancelled comedians”, then cancelled the event at a day’s notice, following a campaign of hate targeted at the venue.
The club’s quote “We have made the decision to cancel this show, as we are an inclusive venue and this does not align with our overall values”, is one of the funniest jokes of the festival, albeit inadvertently.
I object to the assertion that I am being ageist by asking what policies the Tories have introduced for those over 75.
Since I’ve had no response I assume there aren’t any.
I provided you with a whole paragraph earlier
No good. Only a paragraph.
More to the point, CHB is asking about the over 75s. A good Tory like you should be able to write a whole enyclopaedia about Tory policy favouring the elderly
If even Kezia Dugdale has jacked it in with Labour ...
'The former MSP admitted she had “moved” on the independence issue and said she could not stand up for the Union in the same way as she did as part of the Better Together movement in 2014.
At one stage – although she appeared to stop short of switching to Yes outright –she hinted if she was presented with the option of Scottish independence in Europe against “little Boris Brexit Britain”, she would vote Yes.'
[...]
'She said: “It’s my European politics that means I’m not a member of the Labour party anymore.
"I believe in unions of people and unions of nations and I’ve got a great deal of ill feeling towards the Labour Party’s inability to make the case for the benefits of the UK in Europe, not just in the lead up to the EU referendum but in the days afterwards where we had the potential to limit the damage we all experienced.”'
That would be the Kezia Dugdale who led Scottish Labour to third place at Holyrood in 2016? While Labour had an 11.5% swing from the SNP with Yougov yesterday
I thought you were quite keen on her when she backed your favourite catnip, Unionist tactical voting?
Mr. Chris, being a Jew is both a religious and ethnic matter, however, which makes disliking Jews or expressing anti-Jewish sentiment a poor choice as it conflates both racial and religious matters.
It is understood he made the decision to avoid making long-distance flights for a very short stay in Australia.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Yes they said they will watch the match in London and would be criticised far more if they made the journey to Australia just to watch one match with all the emissions.
People should actually read articles before posting!!
Poster girl for the "start work at 16, get an employer to sponsor a useful degree when you've grown up" model.
And what she's said about A Level results isn't wrong, though it does rain on some well-deserved parades.
Not quite as dismal as Rishi hanging his comments (again, not wrong) off the annual Clarkson "I didn't get good grades and look at me now" tweet.
Fair cop.
But she isn't actually correct.
This is one reason why it's a real issue A-levels are in such a mess and the DfE are proposing to start monkeying with degree courses too.
DfE better start monkeying round with degree courses because unless they do inflation is going to force Universities to cut back UK numbers because the finances no longer stack up.
A quick look at the Bank of England inflation record tells me that £9250 in 2017 should be £11,500 or so now...
It’s ok, our pay has not risen for what seems like decades…
I hope that Linehan does take one or both of them to court - not at all because I hope he succeeds, but because I think the law needs clarifying by a more authoritative judgment than the decision currently being touted as a precedent for any kind of "belief" being a protected characteristic.
It's very obvious that the intention of the legislation was to protect only a very limited class of beliefs, for which several tests were specified - tests discussed only very cursorily, if at all, in the existing decision. Specifically, to be protected, a belief needs to be "worthy of respect in a democratic society, compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others". The implication of the existing decision was that any belief that didn't actually involve breaching the law was ipso facto protected.
Linehan's beliefs apparently involve likening his opponents to Nazis and implied threats of physical violence against them. It needs to be clarified whether the law really deprives any citizen, who provides a service, of the right to refuse to be implicated in that kind of behaviour.
It is an interesting question. What 'beliefs' are protected by law in this way? It's not all, presumably. Then the matter of how you seperate a belief from how it's expressed. Can you do that? Should you? And is it covered anyway by other laws, eg hate speech etc?
It’s not to do with belief, it’s to do with contract law.
The venue took for booking months ago for “an edgy comedy show featuring cancelled comedians”, then cancelled the event at a day’s notice, following a campaign of hate targeted at the venue.
The club’s quote “We have made the decision to cancel this show, as we are an inclusive venue and this does not align with our overall values”, is one of the funniest jokes of the festival, albeit inadvertently.
Graham Linehan will literally and metaphorically have the last laugh as his contribution to culture, comedy and tv will live on long after these fuckwits who have never attained any level of success. People will still watch Father Ted, Black Books and The IT Crowd and will be, and have been, watched for a long time and will continue to be funny to all who have a sense of humour.
He should write a comedy series about wankers who cancel stuff, obviously not Netflix who dropped League of Gentlemen as they didn’t understand Papa Lazarou wasn’t blackface, and show these idiots how ridiculous they are as he did with the Catholic Church in Father Ted.
The government risks decimating horseracing with its affordability checks on betting (which will also apply to political betting, of course).
The Gambling Commission seems to have decided its mission is not to regulate gambling but to curb it.
Mind you, bookmakers were doing a good job of rooting out anyone with a clue!
PS: the journalist here, Chris Cook, is the son of the former Foreign Secretary.
AIUI there’s an inquiry on gambling at the moment, and it appears that almost no-one is standing up for the gamblers who are getting screwed by the personal data gathering operations of the online bookmakers, often reducing them to pennies.
If you’re offering a price, you should be offering that price to anyone up to a sensible (five figures) limit
Mr. Chris, being a Jew is both a religious and ethnic matter, however, which makes disliking Jews or expressing anti-Jewish sentiment a poor choice as it conflates both racial and religious matters.
The demographic collapse proceeds space here as elsewhere.
Start the boats!
The amount of people who I know who will not have kids because they don't own their house scares me.
Build more fucking houses.
This is my occasional reminder that the current economic policy adopted by the Government of the United Kingdom is to import hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people per year to deliberately suppress the wages, housing and life chances of the working class, and the Labour Party supports this policy because they have forgotten who they are supposed to act for.
In the last 20 years the non working age population of this country has risen by 4.4 million people (a 22% increase) thanks to population ageing while the working age population has risen by 3.7 million (a 9% increase). That increase in working age population has been driven entirely by net migration, it would have declined in its absence. I struggle to see how an economy could deal with such a significant rise in its non-working population without an increase in its working age population given the additional demand for services created. Over the same period the participation rate has gone up and the unemployment rate has gone down, for working age people, suggesting that net migration has not led to fewer local people working. Perhaps a greater degree of automation might have been feasible, but if you think about the kind of service jobs an ageing society generates it looks less feasible. Another solution would have been to raise the pension age significantly more. But that wouldn't have been great for the working class, either, many of whom would die before they received their pension, while we would see even more on sickness benefit as many older people are too frail to work. It is an easy slogan to claim that immigration is the source of our ills, but it's not true. The problem is ageing. On the other hand, not building more homes is an unforgivable mistake.
Emigration could be the silver bullet. Emigration of our retired population to warmer and cheaper climes. It would be worth doing some sort of deal with the EU to make this as easy as possible, and then blanket bomb TV channels with episodes of a place in the Sun, build a new life abroad and escape to the chateau.
Several countries have put policies in place to stop this - they don't want huge piles of retirees gumming up their medical systems etc.
Not sure the EU would see anything in that for them to like.
So long as there was some way for the British government to pay for healthcare, it could be win-win for all concerned.
Firstly, the cost of medical care is dramatically lower in Spain / Portugal / Greece / Italy. Right now, we're struggling with keeping the NHS going, and a 10+% pay rise for junior doctors will only make budget pressures worse. Why not pay Spain to treat our oldies?
Secondly, in many places in Southern Spain and Portugal, or indeed in much of Italy, there is substantial overbuilding. Italian house prices are 20% below where they were a decade ago. There are four million empty homes in Spain - one for every 10 Spaniards! It would benefit both Club Med and the UK if we freed up housing capacity in the UK, and helped close the surplus of homes in these areas.
Thirdly, the areas where British retirees would go tend to be the unemployment hotspots of the PIIGS. They're not heading to Milan or Madrid, they're going to cheaper coastal communities where unemployment is often 25%+. And they're going to demand services, which is going to mean lots of local employment.
Fourthly, we could potentially pay less in pensions. Money goes further in Spain or Portugal. If we could make sure healthcare was covered (as we'd be paying for it anyway in the UK), then the Med is a pretty attractive place for oldies to go to. Perhaps in return for them getting better medical care, year run sunshine and lower costs of living, the oldies could accept pension rises capped at 3% pa.
Do none of you have any actual, elderly relatives?
Because, to be honest, the first contact you have with an actual old person will make you realize that getting them on the plane alone would be a whole world of difficulty, forgetful, slow, crotchety, and that is just you, not your elderly and unwell relatives. Handling a cohort of 30 five year olds stoned out of their minds on sunny delight and sticky toffees in a porcelain museum is literal child´s play by comparison.
It is an idea whose first encounter with the real world will torpedo it beyond recovery.
So don´t suggest it, or we will have the Tories announcing it at the next party conference as the key to closing, sorry saving, the NHS.
The demographic collapse proceeds space here as elsewhere.
Start the boats!
The amount of people who I know who will not have kids because they don't own their house scares me.
Build more fucking houses.
This is my occasional reminder that the current economic policy adopted by the Government of the United Kingdom is to import hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people per year to deliberately suppress the wages, housing and life chances of the working class, and the Labour Party supports this policy because they have forgotten who they are supposed to act for.
In the last 20 years the non working age population of this country has risen by 4.4 million people (a 22% increase) thanks to population ageing while the working age population has risen by 3.7 million (a 9% increase). That increase in working age population has been driven entirely by net migration, it would have declined in its absence. I struggle to see how an economy could deal with such a significant rise in its non-working population without an increase in its working age population given the additional demand for services created. Over the same period the participation rate has gone up and the unemployment rate has gone down, for working age people, suggesting that net migration has not led to fewer local people working. Perhaps a greater degree of automation might have been feasible, but if you think about the kind of service jobs an ageing society generates it looks less feasible. Another solution would have been to raise the pension age significantly more. But that wouldn't have been great for the working class, either, many of whom would die before they received their pension, while we would see even more on sickness benefit as many older people are too frail to work. It is an easy slogan to claim that immigration is the source of our ills, but it's not true. The problem is ageing. On the other hand, not building more homes is an unforgivable mistake.
Emigration could be the silver bullet. Emigration of our retired population to warmer and cheaper climes. It would be worth doing some sort of deal with the EU to make this as easy as possible, and then blanket bomb TV channels with episodes of a place in the Sun, build a new life abroad and escape to the chateau.
Several countries have put policies in place to stop this - they don't want huge piles of retirees gumming up their medical systems etc.
Not sure the EU would see anything in that for them to like.
So long as there was some way for the British government to pay for healthcare, it could be win-win for all concerned.
Firstly, the cost of medical care is dramatically lower in Spain / Portugal / Greece / Italy. Right now, we're struggling with keeping the NHS going, and a 10+% pay rise for junior doctors will only make budget pressures worse. Why not pay Spain to treat our oldies?
Secondly, in many places in Southern Spain and Portugal, or indeed in much of Italy, there is substantial overbuilding. Italian house prices are 20% below where they were a decade ago. There are four million empty homes in Spain - one for every 10 Spaniards! It would benefit both Club Med and the UK if we freed up housing capacity in the UK, and helped close the surplus of homes in these areas.
Thirdly, the areas where British retirees would go tend to be the unemployment hotspots of the PIIGS. They're not heading to Milan or Madrid, they're going to cheaper coastal communities where unemployment is often 25%+. And they're going to demand services, which is going to mean lots of local employment.
Fourthly, we could potentially pay less in pensions. Money goes further in Spain or Portugal. If we could make sure healthcare was covered (as we'd be paying for it anyway in the UK), then the Med is a pretty attractive place for oldies to go to. Perhaps in return for them getting better medical care, year run sunshine and lower costs of living, the oldies could accept pension rises capped at 3% pa.
Do none of you have any actual, elderly relatives?
Because, to be honest, the first contact you have with an actual old person will make you realize that getting them on the plane alone would be a whole world of difficulty, forgetful, slow, crotchety, and that is just you, not your elderly and unwell relatives. Handling a cohort of 30 five year olds stoned out of their minds on sunny delight and sticky toffees in a porcelain museum is literal child´s play by comparison.
It is an idea whose first encounter with the real world will torpedo it beyond recovery.
So don´t suggest it, or we will have the Tories announcing it at the next party conference as the key to closing, sorry saving, the NHS.
All you need is a few Globemasters, ramp down at the back and wheel everyone in. They could revive BOAC as British Oldies Air Corporation and everyone happy.
It is understood he made the decision to avoid making long-distance flights for a very short stay in Australia.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Yes they said they will watch the match in London and would be criticised far more if they made the journey to Australia just to watch one match with all the emissions.
People should actually read articles before posting!!
Good evening
I have not been posting much recently and notice it was a rather unpleasant on here last night with @Leon leaving and some seemingly pleased he left
Unless someone breaches the rules of posting on this site, then expressing pleasure that someone you may not agree with has left is rather unnecessary
On representation at the the Women's Final in Australia on Sunday, the question should be asked who would go of it was the Men's team for the first World final since 1966, and in my opinion it is inconceivable the King and the PM would avoid going
So Leon has really left the site? I thought he was just bluffing.
I didn't even think he was bluffing; I thought it was just a funny joke getting a rise out of Barty. People took it oddly seriously, so perhaps he'll rest Leon for a wee while for fun now.
Comments
https://www.fdiintelligence.com/content/news/dont-writeoff-europes-golden-visas-yet-82206
So Sunak has a golden window of a couple of months to have an outside chance of saving as many Tory seats as possible, stopping Labour winning a majority, and potentially saving his own political career. Ergo:
THERE'S GOING TO BE AN OCTOBER 2023 ELECTION EVERYBODY!!
https://www.statista.com/statistics/333927/overweight-individuals-by-gender-and-region-england-uk/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66534454
I hope that Linehan does take one or both of them to court - not at all because I hope he succeeds, but because I think the law needs clarifying by a more authoritative judgment than the decision currently being touted as a precedent for any kind of "belief" being a protected characteristic.
It's very obvious that the intention of the legislation was to protect only a very limited class of beliefs, for which several tests were specified - tests discussed only very cursorily, if at all, in the existing decision. Specifically, to be protected, a belief needs to be "worthy of respect in a democratic society, compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others". The implication of the existing decision was that any belief that didn't actually involve breaching the law was ipso facto protected.
Linehan's beliefs apparently involve likening his opponents to Nazis and implied threats of physical violence against them. It needs to be clarified whether the law really deprives any citizen, who provides a service, of the right to refuse to be implicated in that kind of behaviour.
CNS - Search warrant dug up Trump’s direct messages, deleted tweets . . .
A search warrant against Twitter brought special counsel Jack Smith a large swath of data related to Donald Trump, leading up to the former president's indictment for his role in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, court documents unsealed Tuesday night reveal. . . .
The transcripts are partially redacted but reveal arguments from Twitter that the former president’s direct messages could be protected by executive privilege and that he should be notified about the warrant. . . .
Months later, as Twitter went to court to shield Trump's data, the newly unsealed transcripts show wariness from the presiding judge over what was motivating it to take extraordinary and unprecedented steps to notify Trump about the search warrant in the face of a nondisclosure order.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell questioned specifically at a Feb. 7 hearing whether the stance stemmed from a desire by Musk to “cozy up with the former president.”
“Is this to make Donald Trump feel like he is a particularly welcomed renewed user of Twitter here?” asked Howell, who retired from the bench in March.
Twitter was represented in the hearings by George Varghese, a partner with WilmerHale.
“Twitter has no interest other than litigating its constitutional rights,” Varghese said. “We have a right to speak … and timing of that speech is critical, and so we would like to provide meaningful notice to the user prior to the review by the government.”
Howell did not accept that, pointing out that Twitter's refusal caused an “ongoing harm to the government and the public” that would only be multiplied if she approved a stay — relief that she also noted had no legal precedent. . . .
When Twitter failed to meet a 5 p.m. deadline to comply with the warrant after the hearing, the Obama-appointed Howell held the company in contempt of court.utional rights,” Varghese said. “We have a right to speak … and timing of that speech is critical, and so we would like to provide meaningful notice to the user prior to the review by the government.”
By the time it turned over the data three days later, Twitter had been fined $350,000 — a penalty that began with a $50,000 fine, doubling each day. . . .
For the location information, searches and IP addresses linked to Trump's account, the special counsel set a specific date range of Oct. 1, 2020, through Jan. 20, 2021 — a time period that covers the days before the 2020 election through Trump’s last day in the White House, President Joe Biden’s inauguration. . . .
https://www.courthousenews.com/search-warrant-dug-up-trumps-direct-messages-deleted-tweets/
Oh.
Gillian Keegan is right (even if teachers are worried she has let the cat out of the bag).
Since I’ve had no response I assume there aren’t any.
Senior elections analyst Nathaniel Rakich breaks down the long list of criteria the 2024 GOP presidential candidates must meet in order to qualify for the first Republican debate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2coeR8wO0U
But that's because they think everyone over 55 is either retired or about to inherit, or poor in which case they don't count. You might end up feeling rather too warm, though.
Labour to third place
at Holyrood in 2016? While Labour had an 11.5% swing from the SNP with Yougov yesterday
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66535460
The Royal Family lets the side down again.
No sympathy for those who voted Brexit to bugger their own retirement. Skegness for them!
To concentrate the mind, it's useful to consider anti-semitism as a belief. Is anti-semitism a protected characteristic, so long as it stays within the law? If so, the moderation of anti-semitic comments in online forums - including this one - could potentially be unlawful discrimination. (Bearing in mind that the owner of a discussion forum is legally a "service provider" even if the service provided is free.)
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
The venue took for booking months ago for “an edgy comedy show featuring cancelled comedians”, then cancelled the event at a day’s notice, following a campaign of hate targeted at the venue.
The club’s quote “We have made the decision to cancel this show, as we are an inclusive venue and this does not align with our overall values”, is one of the funniest jokes of the festival, albeit inadvertently.
More to the point, CHB is asking about the over 75s. A good Tory like you should be able to write a whole enyclopaedia about Tory policy favouring the elderly
Cue the discussion about if it were the men’s team in the final…
People should actually read articles before posting!!
https://www.racingpost.com/news/opinion/comment/how-has-it-come-to-it-that-the-tories-are-trashing-racing-aQgvK4C5X73K/
The government risks decimating horseracing with its affordability checks on betting (which will also apply to political betting, of course).
The Gambling Commission seems to have decided its mission is not to regulate gambling but to curb it.
Mind you, bookmakers were doing a good job of rooting out anyone with a clue!
PS: the journalist here, Chris Cook, is the son of the former Foreign Secretary.
He should write a comedy series about wankers who cancel stuff, obviously not Netflix who dropped League of Gentlemen as they didn’t understand Papa Lazarou wasn’t blackface, and show these idiots how ridiculous they are as he did with the Catholic Church in Father Ted.
If you’re offering a price, you should be offering that price to anyone up to a sensible (five figures) limit
Andrew “No sweat.”
Because, to be honest, the first contact you have with an actual old person will make you realize that getting them on the plane alone would be a whole world of difficulty, forgetful, slow, crotchety, and that is just you, not your elderly and unwell relatives. Handling a cohort of 30 five year olds stoned out of their minds on sunny delight and sticky toffees in a porcelain museum is literal child´s play by comparison.
It is an idea whose first encounter with the real world will torpedo it beyond recovery.
So don´t suggest it, or we will have the Tories announcing it at the next party conference as the key to closing, sorry saving, the NHS.
I have not been posting much recently and notice it was a rather unpleasant on here last night with @Leon leaving and some seemingly pleased he left
Unless someone breaches the rules of posting on this site, then expressing pleasure that someone you may not agree with has left is rather unnecessary
On representation at the the Women's Final in Australia on Sunday, the question should be asked who would go of it was the Men's team for the first World final since 1966, and in my opinion it is inconceivable the King and the PM would avoid going