I think Khan could well struggle to win. Hall is an unknown candidate to most Londoners while there is a large and highly motivated anti-Khan vote that will come out disproportionately on 2nd May. Many anti-Tory voters will stay at home believing it is impossible the Tory candidate can win.
On WASPI women, I blame Lloyd George. When the old age pension was introduced in 1905, the pension age was 70, and hardly anyone qualified. Then it was reduced, and I can remember in the 1960s and 1970s that the Labour Party campaigned to lower the pension age to 65 (and 60 for women). It remains a classic example of bribing voters with their own money.
Where Lloyd George went wrong was in failing to get cross-party agreement on the percentage of the population who should be entitled to a pension. Whether that might be 3% or 8% or 10% or whatever, I really don't care. But that would have meant that the pension age could have been raised or lowered once a decade or so in order to keep the same proportion of the population covered, without swingeing changes similar to the ones we have seen. How big each pension payment should be is, of course, another problem, but at least the cohort would have been identified and agreed.
The obvious thing to do is to tie it to life expectancy. But if we're talking about radical changes I'd also bring in the entitlement to a pension gradually so that you support people to work a bit less intensively when they are older, but not to completely stop working at a specific age.
The irony is that if it were tied to life expectancy then men would retire before women.
There's certainly no reason why retiring at the same age should be objectionable.
Well, if we start having different pension ages for the sexes because of different life expectancy then people would argue for different pension ages on the basis of all sorts of factors - postcode, ethnicity, education, etc, that can all be shown to have a correlation with life expectancy - and you'd create an awful mess.
So, keep it simple and use the average life expectancy.
I don't object to having an equal retirement age, but there should have been a transition period to remove steep cliff edge effects.
The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.
I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.
Come on, it's night and day compared to those two particular scandals. My mum was born in 1956 and I'd known for donkey's years her state pension would be at the age of 66.
To quote the acronym in full, Whining About State Pensions is Irritating. It's frankly down to some highly impressive lobbying that this case is even being given the time of day.
Obviously, this is all anecdotage, but my wife is one of the very small group who were badly affected, twice. She was born in January 1955, and saw her retirement age raised from 60 to 64, and then again to 66. She is still very friendly with girls from her class at school - those born in Sept - Dec 1954 have received six years' more pension than Milady Carp. She feels that the first move was understandable (equalising retirement ages) but the second was unpardonable in view of the first rise. Another point concerns those women of that particular "certain age" who were divorced and agreed to a financial settlement before the rises took place. It seems that a number of lawyers and judges might have been ignorant of the consequences of the change, and advised clients to accept settlements that might now be regarded as sub-optimal.
She got treated entirely equally to men who were born on the same date as her.
How is that "badly affected" at all. It just wasn't incredibly generous as others were, but that's how ending inequality works.
Women of any age who took any financial settlement had every opportunity to work until they reached retirement age, did they not?
Well, I am the same age as her an she was certainly treated differently from me. My pension age was raised once - from 65 to 66. No complaints there. But it wasn't raised twice, and it wasn't raised by six years.
You had a retirement age of 66. She had a retirement age of 66.
She was treated the same as you.
No. She made reasonable plans to draw her pension at 60, as she had been told she could do. Then her entitlement changed. Then it changed again. That's harsh. I'm not saying it shouldn't have happened, but the way it has been implemented has been unreasonable. Obviously, "Put not your faith in Princes" and all that, but if the State says that something is going to happen, then they might be allowed to change their mind once, but not twice.
Don't be absurd, no Parliament can bind its successor there has never been a limit ever to the State changing its mind.
You have absolutely no entitlement to anything at all until you've got it and if you're planning on getting something before others born on the same date as you then don't complain when instead you're treated exactly the same as those born on the same date as you.
Just because others were treated unequally before you does not justify inequality continuing or expecting it to continue.
What's wrong with just continuing to work until retirement age? Same as anyone else?
Another appalling day on the trains today. I’ll spare you details as they’re boring but just about everything that could go wrong, did. The standing-room only carriage I was in turned into a cauldron of malcontent, some of which was aimed at the Government and the generally shambolic state of things. Certainly SWR are not fit for purpose.
Unrelatedly I had an experience which has never happened to me before on the British network. On an earlier train this morning the driver forgot to stop at a station. This wasn’t on some chug-chug two carriage train but the high speed GWR line. After a lot of kerfuffle, the driver walked through to the other end of the train and secured permission to reverse the train back up the line to the last station.
New theory: the same person who writes RSArcher writes Heathener.
The fruit is identical to that of Aspidosperma Spruceanum found in Colombia
But Wiki insists this is a flowering plant not a tree. Can a tree be a flowering plant?
Come on, this is exciting
Many trees are flowering plants, more technically angiosperms. Think of horse chestnuts, magnolias, etc. etc. Tho lots of trees have small green flowers that are not very noticeable, e.g. oak.
But quite a lot are gymnosperms such as conifers.
In any case, 'tree' tends to mean "****ing big plant a lot taller than me" so it's really a habit of growth rather than a kind of plant. There were some really wierd trees in days of yore, coal forests (closest relativce today perhaps and even further back, into the Devonian.
On topic (note Sean), but admittedly an anecdote. My bro’ lives in Greater London and was incensed about ULEZ extension. His dislike of Sadiq Khan because of it was all he talked about for weeks. It forced him to changing his car, he lost money through it, and wrote to various organisations and offices including the Mayor’s.
Another appalling day on the trains today. I’ll spare you details as they’re boring but just about everything that could go wrong, did. The standing-room only carriage I was in turned into a cauldron of malcontent, some of which was aimed at the Government and the generally shambolic state of things. Certainly SWR are not fit for purpose.
Unrelatedly I had an experience which has never happened to me before on the British network. On an earlier train this morning the driver forgot to stop at a station. This wasn’t on some chug-chug two carriage train but the high speed GWR line. After a lot of kerfuffle, the driver walked through to the other end of the train and secured permission to reverse the train back up the line to the last station.
New theory: the same person who writes RSArcher writes Heathener.
What’ R S Archer?
A twitter poster who claims to be both filthy rich and based in France, known for writing decidedly hammed up and probably fictional anecdotes about French rural life usually at the expense of uncouth English or American thickos.
So I'm assuming the veracity of your anecdote is having doubt cast on it.
The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.
I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.
Come on, it's night and day compared to those two particular scandals. My mum was born in 1956 and I'd known for donkey's years her state pension would be at the age of 66.
To quote the acronym in full, Whining About State Pensions is Irritating. It's frankly down to some highly impressive lobbying that this case is even being given the time of day.
Obviously, this is all anecdotage, but my wife is one of the very small group who were badly affected, twice. She was born in January 1955, and saw her retirement age raised from 60 to 64, and then again to 66. She is still very friendly with girls from her class at school - those born in Sept - Dec 1954 have received six years' more pension than Milady Carp. She feels that the first move was understandable (equalising retirement ages) but the second was unpardonable in view of the first rise. Another point concerns those women of that particular "certain age" who were divorced and agreed to a financial settlement before the rises took place. It seems that a number of lawyers and judges might have been ignorant of the consequences of the change, and advised clients to accept settlements that might now be regarded as sub-optimal.
She got treated entirely equally to men who were born on the same date as her.
How is that "badly affected" at all. It just wasn't incredibly generous as others were, but that's how ending inequality works.
Women of any age who took any financial settlement had every opportunity to work until they reached retirement age, did they not?
Well, I am the same age as her an she was certainly treated differently from me. My pension age was raised once - from 65 to 66. No complaints there. But it wasn't raised twice, and it wasn't raised by six years.
You had a retirement age of 66. She had a retirement age of 66.
She was treated the same as you.
There will have been people who, if they had been born just a few hours earlier, they would have received an extra six years of state pension.
Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd?
Yes, the people who got an extra six years got something they shouldn't have got, but there's always going to be a cut-off when inequalities are abolished.
But you could have phased it in. Wouldn't it have been better if Lady Carp's classmates only received one year more than her, and the year before that, two years more than her, etc?
It's such a large difference due to one day difference in birth that strikes me as offensive to natural justice.
Another appalling day on the trains today. I’ll spare you details as they’re boring but just about everything that could go wrong, did. The standing-room only carriage I was in turned into a cauldron of malcontent, some of which was aimed at the Government and the generally shambolic state of things. Certainly SWR are not fit for purpose.
Unrelatedly I had an experience which has never happened to me before on the British network. On an earlier train this morning the driver forgot to stop at a station. This wasn’t on some chug-chug two carriage train but the high speed GWR line. After a lot of kerfuffle, the driver walked through to the other end of the train and secured permission to reverse the train back up the line to the last station.
New theory: the same person who writes RSArcher writes Heathener.
What’ R S Archer?
A twitter poster who claims to be both filthy rich and based in France, known for writing decidedly hammed up and probably fictional anecdotes about French rural life usually at the expense of uncouth English or American thickos.
So I'm assuming the veracity of your anecdote is having doubt cast on it.
On WASPI women, I blame Lloyd George. When the old age pension was introduced in 1905, the pension age was 70, and hardly anyone qualified. Then it was reduced, and I can remember in the 1960s and 1970s that the Labour Party campaigned to lower the pension age to 65 (and 60 for women). It remains a classic example of bribing voters with their own money.
Where Lloyd George went wrong was in failing to get cross-party agreement on the percentage of the population who should be entitled to a pension. Whether that might be 3% or 8% or 10% or whatever, I really don't care. But that would have meant that the pension age could have been raised or lowered once a decade or so in order to keep the same proportion of the population covered, without swingeing changes similar to the ones we have seen. How big each pension payment should be is, of course, another problem, but at least the cohort would have been identified and agreed.
The obvious thing to do is to tie it to life expectancy. But if we're talking about radical changes I'd also bring in the entitlement to a pension gradually so that you support people to work a bit less intensively when they are older, but not to completely stop working at a specific age.
Longer holiday entitlements. Instead of pootling about with UBI, give people, say, 50-60 days holiday per year.
Which knob flagged those posts by Leon about the trees? It was just last night where everyone was praising the site as a place where all sorts of interesting things were discussed and some trees in Colombia aren’t controversial but possibly more interesting than the shit I’ve posted about England football tops and more interesting than the Cold War that this coming election is currently.
The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.
I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.
Come on, it's night and day compared to those two particular scandals. My mum was born in 1956 and I'd known for donkey's years her state pension would be at the age of 66.
To quote the acronym in full, Whining About State Pensions is Irritating. It's frankly down to some highly impressive lobbying that this case is even being given the time of day.
Obviously, this is all anecdotage, but my wife is one of the very small group who were badly affected, twice. She was born in January 1955, and saw her retirement age raised from 60 to 64, and then again to 66. She is still very friendly with girls from her class at school - those born in Sept - Dec 1954 have received six years' more pension than Milady Carp. She feels that the first move was understandable (equalising retirement ages) but the second was unpardonable in view of the first rise. Another point concerns those women of that particular "certain age" who were divorced and agreed to a financial settlement before the rises took place. It seems that a number of lawyers and judges might have been ignorant of the consequences of the change, and advised clients to accept settlements that might now be regarded as sub-optimal.
She got treated entirely equally to men who were born on the same date as her.
How is that "badly affected" at all. It just wasn't incredibly generous as others were, but that's how ending inequality works.
Women of any age who took any financial settlement had every opportunity to work until they reached retirement age, did they not?
Well, I am the same age as her an she was certainly treated differently from me. My pension age was raised once - from 65 to 66. No complaints there. But it wasn't raised twice, and it wasn't raised by six years.
You had a retirement age of 66. She had a retirement age of 66.
She was treated the same as you.
There will have been people who, if they had been born just a few hours earlier, they would have received an extra six years of state pension.
Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd?
Yes, the people who got an extra six years got something they shouldn't have got, but there's always going to be a cut-off when inequalities are abolished.
But you could have phased it in. Wouldn't it have been better if Lady Carp's classmates only received one year more than her, and the year before that, two years more than her, etc?
It's such a large difference due to one day difference in birth that strikes me as offensive to natural justice.
No, the inequality should have been abolished all in one go and considerably sooner.
Inequality existing in the past is no excuse for inequality continuing in the future.
Such a large difference due to sex is even more offensive. That's actual inequality.
Another appalling day on the trains today. I’ll spare you details as they’re boring but just about everything that could go wrong, did. The standing-room only carriage I was in turned into a cauldron of malcontent, some of which was aimed at the Government and the generally shambolic state of things. Certainly SWR are not fit for purpose.
Unrelatedly I had an experience which has never happened to me before on the British network. On an earlier train this morning the driver forgot to stop at a station. This wasn’t on some chug-chug two carriage train but the high speed GWR line. After a lot of kerfuffle, the driver walked through to the other end of the train and secured permission to reverse the train back up the line to the last station.
New theory: the same person who writes RSArcher writes Heathener.
What’ R S Archer?
A twitter poster who claims to be both filthy rich and based in France, known for writing decidedly hammed up and probably fictional anecdotes about French rural life usually at the expense of uncouth English or American thickos.
So I'm assuming the veracity of your anecdote is having doubt cast on it.
I’m sort-of honoured. But, no. I don’t go on twitter anymore. I don’t wish to give Musk my patronage. I am a writer as it happens and have been lucky enough to win high-brow awards.
But that’s enough on me. It’s boring. Let’s get back on topic ‘eh?
The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.
I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.
Come on, it's night and day compared to those two particular scandals. My mum was born in 1956 and I'd known for donkey's years her state pension would be at the age of 66.
To quote the acronym in full, Whining About State Pensions is Irritating. It's frankly down to some highly impressive lobbying that this case is even being given the time of day.
Obviously, this is all anecdotage, but my wife is one of the very small group who were badly affected, twice. She was born in January 1955, and saw her retirement age raised from 60 to 64, and then again to 66. She is still very friendly with girls from her class at school - those born in Sept - Dec 1954 have received six years' more pension than Milady Carp. She feels that the first move was understandable (equalising retirement ages) but the second was unpardonable in view of the first rise. Another point concerns those women of that particular "certain age" who were divorced and agreed to a financial settlement before the rises took place. It seems that a number of lawyers and judges might have been ignorant of the consequences of the change, and advised clients to accept settlements that might now be regarded as sub-optimal.
She got treated entirely equally to men who were born on the same date as her.
How is that "badly affected" at all. It just wasn't incredibly generous as others were, but that's how ending inequality works.
Women of any age who took any financial settlement had every opportunity to work until they reached retirement age, did they not?
Well, I am the same age as her an she was certainly treated differently from me. My pension age was raised once - from 65 to 66. No complaints there. But it wasn't raised twice, and it wasn't raised by six years.
You had a retirement age of 66. She had a retirement age of 66.
She was treated the same as you.
No. She made reasonable plans to draw her pension at 60, as she had been told she could do. Then her entitlement changed. Then it changed again. That's harsh. I'm not saying it shouldn't have happened, but the way it has been implemented has been unreasonable. Obviously, "Put not your faith in Princes" and all that, but if the State says that something is going to happen, then they might be allowed to change their mind once, but not twice.
Don't be absurd, no Parliament can bind its successor there has never been a limit ever to the State changing its mind.
You have absolutely no entitlement to anything at all until you've got it and if you're planning on getting something before others born on the same date as you then don't complain when instead you're treated exactly the same as those born on the same date as you.
Just because others were treated unequally before you does not justify inequality continuing or expecting it to continue.
What's wrong with just continuing to work until retirement age? Same as anyone else?
Nothing wrong with that at all, and that's precisely what we have done (although actually we retired a few months "early" because we could afford to do so. Don't get me wrong - I am not attending demos for Waspi Women (unlike many Labour MPs who are now in hiding.) It's just that the precipice was significant, not explained, and not understood by many. I think it's unreasonable for the Government (any Government) to behave in that way. Individuals are entitled to arrange their affairs in accordance with statements made by the Government - and although Parliament is sovereign, and no Parliament can bind another, there are presumptions on, for example, maladministration, equitable estoppel and not acting retrospectively which act as a bit of a brake on untrammelled sovereignty.
The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.
I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.
Come on, it's night and day compared to those two particular scandals. My mum was born in 1956 and I'd known for donkey's years her state pension would be at the age of 66.
To quote the acronym in full, Whining About State Pensions is Irritating. It's frankly down to some highly impressive lobbying that this case is even being given the time of day.
Obviously, this is all anecdotage, but my wife is one of the very small group who were badly affected, twice. She was born in January 1955, and saw her retirement age raised from 60 to 64, and then again to 66. She is still very friendly with girls from her class at school - those born in Sept - Dec 1954 have received six years' more pension than Milady Carp. She feels that the first move was understandable (equalising retirement ages) but the second was unpardonable in view of the first rise. Another point concerns those women of that particular "certain age" who were divorced and agreed to a financial settlement before the rises took place. It seems that a number of lawyers and judges might have been ignorant of the consequences of the change, and advised clients to accept settlements that might now be regarded as sub-optimal.
She got treated entirely equally to men who were born on the same date as her.
How is that "badly affected" at all. It just wasn't incredibly generous as others were, but that's how ending inequality works.
Women of any age who took any financial settlement had every opportunity to work until they reached retirement age, did they not?
Complaints about a cliff edge: there has to be a cut off at some point, any phasing system is more complex to administer and would still result in winners and losers
While there have been a small number of very sad cases reported, many of the individual cases who have "told their story" to the media appear to have been in public sector jobs (in receipt of a final salary pension), or highly paid jobs (for which you would think they would have an associated curiosity and level of intelligence that would occasion them to check out their state pension entitlement and at what age they would be eligible for it). I can accept that those who were self employed would, by definition, not have received info on pensions via their employer, although I would have thought that their employment status might have encouraged them to do a bit of fact finding about state and private pensions.
Many individuals report having to leave the workforce either due to ill health or to care for a dependent. In the case of ill health I would imagine women genuinely unable to work ever again due to their health would qualify for ill health retirement if working in public services or a large private sector employer. If leaving to care for a dependent, it does seem a little remiss to not have looked into the financial consequences of doing this, but I accept that in those emotional circumstances they may not have done so.
I think the key here is that it appears that many people who had the capacity and intelligence to do so did not take much personal responsibility for their finances in retirement. Many report that they had "planned" to retire at 60, I would suggest that there is little evidence that any such "planning" (which would have entailed doing a bit of research about their state pension, when and how much they would be entitled to) actually took place, and that retiring at 60 was something that was an aspiration, rather than actively planned.
Finally, I find it hard to believe that many of these individuals in public sector jobs or highly paid private sector jobs who would have been in their late 30s and 40s I think when the raising of pension age was first mentioned in the 1990s did not know about the equalisation of pension age. Even if they did not receive a letter, it was well publicised.
Hoping the people who were trolling about the Princess of Wales in a hump about her marriage being the reason she was out of the public eye etc are delighted with the news.
Anyway, I shall leave you there for now. I have a bag to pack for, er, travel.
I thought the anecdote about my brother was curious. If he’s typical, and he might be, then the anti-Ulez extension was a lot of noise that won’t translate to the mayoral election. Especially not for Susan Hall.
The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.
I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.
Come on, it's night and day compared to those two particular scandals. My mum was born in 1956 and I'd known for donkey's years her state pension would be at the age of 66.
To quote the acronym in full, Whining About State Pensions is Irritating. It's frankly down to some highly impressive lobbying that this case is even being given the time of day.
Obviously, this is all anecdotage, but my wife is one of the very small group who were badly affected, twice. She was born in January 1955, and saw her retirement age raised from 60 to 64, and then again to 66. She is still very friendly with girls from her class at school - those born in Sept - Dec 1954 have received six years' more pension than Milady Carp. She feels that the first move was understandable (equalising retirement ages) but the second was unpardonable in view of the first rise. Another point concerns those women of that particular "certain age" who were divorced and agreed to a financial settlement before the rises took place. It seems that a number of lawyers and judges might have been ignorant of the consequences of the change, and advised clients to accept settlements that might now be regarded as sub-optimal.
She got treated entirely equally to men who were born on the same date as her.
How is that "badly affected" at all. It just wasn't incredibly generous as others were, but that's how ending inequality works.
Women of any age who took any financial settlement had every opportunity to work until they reached retirement age, did they not?
Well, I am the same age as her an she was certainly treated differently from me. My pension age was raised once - from 65 to 66. No complaints there. But it wasn't raised twice, and it wasn't raised by six years.
You had a retirement age of 66. She had a retirement age of 66.
She was treated the same as you.
No. She made reasonable plans to draw her pension at 60, as she had been told she could do. Then her entitlement changed. Then it changed again. That's harsh. I'm not saying it shouldn't have happened, but the way it has been implemented has been unreasonable. Obviously, "Put not your faith in Princes" and all that, but if the State says that something is going to happen, then they might be allowed to change their mind once, but not twice.
Don't be absurd, no Parliament can bind its successor there has never been a limit ever to the State changing its mind.
You have absolutely no entitlement to anything at all until you've got it and if you're planning on getting something before others born on the same date as you then don't complain when instead you're treated exactly the same as those born on the same date as you.
Just because others were treated unequally before you does not justify inequality continuing or expecting it to continue.
What's wrong with just continuing to work until retirement age? Same as anyone else?
Nothing wrong with that at all, and that's precisely what we have done (although actually we retired a few months "early" because we could afford to do so. Don't get me wrong - I am not attending demos for Waspi Women (unlike many Labour MPs who are now in hiding.) It's just that the precipice was significant, not explained, and not understood by many. I think it's unreasonable for the Government (any Government) to behave in that way. Individuals are entitled to arrange their affairs in accordance with statements made by the Government - and although Parliament is sovereign, and no Parliament can bind another, there are presumptions on, for example, maladministration, equitable estoppel and not acting retrospectively which act as a bit of a brake on untrammelled sovereignty.
Nothing was retrospectively changed.
The changes happened before retirement age was reached, not after it.
The better thing to have done would have been to have abolished the inequality immediately, thirty years ago. Those who got the extra six years shouldn't have, but none of the WASPI women have suffered for being treated equally, they just didn't get an entirely unjustified and undeserved discrimination based on sex. Nobody should ever discriminate based on sex, that cuts both ways.
The fruit is identical to that of Aspidosperma Spruceanum found in Colombia
But Wiki insists this is a flowering plant not a tree. Can a tree be a flowering plant?
Come on, this is exciting
Many trees are flowering plants, more technically angiosperms. Think of horse chestnuts, magnolias, etc. etc. Tho lots of trees have small green flowers that are not very noticeable, e.g. oak.
But quite a lot are gymnosperms such as conifers.
In any case, 'tree' tends to mean "****ing big plant a lot taller than me" so it's really a habit of growth rather than a kind of plant. There were some really wierd trees in days of yore, coal forests (closest relativce today perhaps and even further back, into the Devonian.
So “tree” isn’t a technical scientific term at all?
In which case I think this is Aspidosperma Spruceanum. It’s rather lovely. Long slender ash grey trunk and verdant green palmate leaves. It whispers sweetly in the jungle breeze. I can just hear the Caribbean waves toiling in the distance
Princess of Wales has cancer and is being treated for it
I hope the scum in the media and ditto on social media will now leave her alone. My late wife had cancer, its not what she died of... and the medics at Worthing Hospital oncology were fantastic. I shall be ever grateful to.them. God bless the Princess of Wales.
The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.
I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.
Come on, it's night and day compared to those two particular scandals. My mum was born in 1956 and I'd known for donkey's years her state pension would be at the age of 66.
To quote the acronym in full, Whining About State Pensions is Irritating. It's frankly down to some highly impressive lobbying that this case is even being given the time of day.
Obviously, this is all anecdotage, but my wife is one of the very small group who were badly affected, twice. She was born in January 1955, and saw her retirement age raised from 60 to 64, and then again to 66. She is still very friendly with girls from her class at school - those born in Sept - Dec 1954 have received six years' more pension than Milady Carp. She feels that the first move was understandable (equalising retirement ages) but the second was unpardonable in view of the first rise. Another point concerns those women of that particular "certain age" who were divorced and agreed to a financial settlement before the rises took place. It seems that a number of lawyers and judges might have been ignorant of the consequences of the change, and advised clients to accept settlements that might now be regarded as sub-optimal.
She got treated entirely equally to men who were born on the same date as her.
How is that "badly affected" at all. It just wasn't incredibly generous as others were, but that's how ending inequality works.
Women of any age who took any financial settlement had every opportunity to work until they reached retirement age, did they not?
Well, I am the same age as her an she was certainly treated differently from me. My pension age was raised once - from 65 to 66. No complaints there. But it wasn't raised twice, and it wasn't raised by six years.
You had a retirement age of 66. She had a retirement age of 66.
She was treated the same as you.
No. She made reasonable plans to draw her pension at 60, as she had been told she could do. Then her entitlement changed. Then it changed again. That's harsh. I'm not saying it shouldn't have happened, but the way it has been implemented has been unreasonable. Obviously, "Put not your faith in Princes" and all that, but if the State says that something is going to happen, then they might be allowed to change their mind once, but not twice.
Don't be absurd, no Parliament can bind its successor there has never been a limit ever to the State changing its mind.
You have absolutely no entitlement to anything at all until you've got it and if you're planning on getting something before others born on the same date as you then don't complain when instead you're treated exactly the same as those born on the same date as you.
Just because others were treated unequally before you does not justify inequality continuing or expecting it to continue.
What's wrong with just continuing to work until retirement age? Same as anyone else?
Nothing wrong with that at all, and that's precisely what we have done (although actually we retired a few months "early" because we could afford to do so. Don't get me wrong - I am not attending demos for Waspi Women (unlike many Labour MPs who are now in hiding.) It's just that the precipice was significant, not explained, and not understood by many. I think it's unreasonable for the Government (any Government) to behave in that way. Individuals are entitled to arrange their affairs in accordance with statements made by the Government - and although Parliament is sovereign, and no Parliament can bind another, there are presumptions on, for example, maladministration, equitable estoppel and not acting retrospectively which act as a bit of a brake on untrammelled sovereignty.
Really the rise to 65 was passed in 95 to take effect after 2010. How much notice do they think they should have? At birth maybe....same time as my pension age got raised. If these women are too stupid to read the news its their own fault. I knew about as did most people. They got to work longer as well and add more to there pension pot so if anything many of them would have benefitted from it.
Sorry these women want to cherry pick which bits of equality they get
The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.
I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.
Come on, it's night and day compared to those two particular scandals. My mum was born in 1956 and I'd known for donkey's years her state pension would be at the age of 66.
To quote the acronym in full, Whining About State Pensions is Irritating. It's frankly down to some highly impressive lobbying that this case is even being given the time of day.
Obviously, this is all anecdotage, but my wife is one of the very small group who were badly affected, twice. She was born in January 1955, and saw her retirement age raised from 60 to 64, and then again to 66. She is still very friendly with girls from her class at school - those born in Sept - Dec 1954 have received six years' more pension than Milady Carp. She feels that the first move was understandable (equalising retirement ages) but the second was unpardonable in view of the first rise. Another point concerns those women of that particular "certain age" who were divorced and agreed to a financial settlement before the rises took place. It seems that a number of lawyers and judges might have been ignorant of the consequences of the change, and advised clients to accept settlements that might now be regarded as sub-optimal.
She got treated entirely equally to men who were born on the same date as her.
How is that "badly affected" at all. It just wasn't incredibly generous as others were, but that's how ending inequality works.
Women of any age who took any financial settlement had every opportunity to work until they reached retirement age, did they not?
Well, I am the same age as her an she was certainly treated differently from me. My pension age was raised once - from 65 to 66. No complaints there. But it wasn't raised twice, and it wasn't raised by six years.
You had a retirement age of 66. She had a retirement age of 66.
She was treated the same as you.
There will have been people who, if they had been born just a few hours earlier, they would have received an extra six years of state pension.
Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd?
Yes, the people who got an extra six years got something they shouldn't have got, but there's always going to be a cut-off when inequalities are abolished.
But you could have phased it in. Wouldn't it have been better if Lady Carp's classmates only received one year more than her, and the year before that, two years more than her, etc?
It's such a large difference due to one day difference in birth that strikes me as offensive to natural justice.
No, the inequality should have been abolished all in one go and considerably sooner.
Inequality existing in the past is no excuse for inequality continuing in the future.
Such a large difference due to sex is even more offensive. That's actual inequality.
Gosh these women should be grateful they aren't having to give back some of those pension payments they have taken out of the mouths of old men,
It's moderately warm, and the sky is a sort of weird blue-ish colour. Plus, when you step outside there's not thousands of gallons of water landing on top of you the way there usually is.
The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.
I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.
Come on, it's night and day compared to those two particular scandals. My mum was born in 1956 and I'd known for donkey's years her state pension would be at the age of 66.
To quote the acronym in full, Whining About State Pensions is Irritating. It's frankly down to some highly impressive lobbying that this case is even being given the time of day.
Obviously, this is all anecdotage, but my wife is one of the very small group who were badly affected, twice. She was born in January 1955, and saw her retirement age raised from 60 to 64, and then again to 66. She is still very friendly with girls from her class at school - those born in Sept - Dec 1954 have received six years' more pension than Milady Carp. She feels that the first move was understandable (equalising retirement ages) but the second was unpardonable in view of the first rise. Another point concerns those women of that particular "certain age" who were divorced and agreed to a financial settlement before the rises took place. It seems that a number of lawyers and judges might have been ignorant of the consequences of the change, and advised clients to accept settlements that might now be regarded as sub-optimal.
It does seem bizarre that anyone would think it was a good idea to have such a cliff edge in entitlement, rather than to phase it in, but we have all sorts of similar ugly artifacts all around the tax code and public policy. Does no-one involved in creating public policy give a damn about such arbitrary impacts?
The evidence is that the number of such cliff edges increases over time, in tax and benefits.
Se either
1) they don’t give a fuck 2) that they do and actively create them for the effects they produce.
Princess of Wales has cancer and is being treated for it
I hope the scum in the media and ditto on social media will now leave her alone. My late wife had cancer, its not what she died of... and the medics at Worthing Hospital oncology were fantastic. I shall be ever grateful to.them. God bless the Princess of Wales.
She has just given a personal message on Sky announcing her cancer
It is dreadful news and many need to be ashamed of the conspiracy theories
Anyway, I shall leave you there for now. I have a bag to pack for, er, travel.
I thought the anecdote about my brother was curious. If he’s typical, and he might be, then the anti-Ulez extension was a lot of noise that won’t translate to the mayoral election. Especially not for Susan Hall.
Have a lovely evening everyone.
Don’t forget to store some of the day’s hot water in a thermos, if you’re lucky you could go the whole holiday without using a kettle again, saving you 0.00003p
The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.
I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.
Come on, it's night and day compared to those two particular scandals. My mum was born in 1956 and I'd known for donkey's years her state pension would be at the age of 66.
To quote the acronym in full, Whining About State Pensions is Irritating. It's frankly down to some highly impressive lobbying that this case is even being given the time of day.
Obviously, this is all anecdotage, but my wife is one of the very small group who were badly affected, twice. She was born in January 1955, and saw her retirement age raised from 60 to 64, and then again to 66. She is still very friendly with girls from her class at school - those born in Sept - Dec 1954 have received six years' more pension than Milady Carp. She feels that the first move was understandable (equalising retirement ages) but the second was unpardonable in view of the first rise. Another point concerns those women of that particular "certain age" who were divorced and agreed to a financial settlement before the rises took place. It seems that a number of lawyers and judges might have been ignorant of the consequences of the change, and advised clients to accept settlements that might now be regarded as sub-optimal.
She got treated entirely equally to men who were born on the same date as her.
How is that "badly affected" at all. It just wasn't incredibly generous as others were, but that's how ending inequality works.
Women of any age who took any financial settlement had every opportunity to work until they reached retirement age, did they not?
Complaints about a cliff edge: there has to be a cut off at some point, any phasing system is more complex to administer and would still result in winners and losers
While there have been a small number of very sad cases reported, many of the individual cases who have "told their story" to the media appear to have been in public sector jobs (in receipt of a final salary pension), or highly paid jobs (for which you would think they would have an associated curiosity and level of intelligence that would occasion them to check out their state pension entitlement and at what age they would be eligible for it). I can accept that those who were self employed would, by definition, not have received info on pensions via their employer, although I would have thought that their employment status might have encouraged them to do a bit of fact finding about state and private pensions.
Many individuals report having to leave the workforce either due to ill health or to care for a dependent. In the case of ill health I would imagine women genuinely unable to work ever again due to their health would qualify for ill health retirement if working in public services or a large private sector employer. If leaving to care for a dependent, it does seem a little remiss to not have looked into the financial consequences of doing this, but I accept that in those emotional circumstances they may not have done so.
I think the key here is that it appears that many people who had the capacity and intelligence to do so did not take much personal responsibility for their finances in retirement. Many report that they had "planned" to retire at 60, I would suggest that there is little evidence that any such "planning" (which would have entailed doing a bit of research about their state pension, when and how much they would be entitled to) actually took place, and that retiring at 60 was something that was an aspiration, rather than actively planned.
Finally, I find it hard to believe that many of these individuals in public sector jobs or highly paid private sector jobs who would have been in their late 30s and 40s I think when the raising of pension age was first mentioned in the 1990s did not know about the equalisation of pension age. Even if they did not receive a letter, it was well publicised.
Any change always has a cliff edge, discrimination based on sex is unjustifiable and should not happen under any circumstances, if that hurts you because you wanted discrimination in your favour then equality means you lose that discrimination.
Even if you planned to retire at 60, you had no right to do so, and plans change. Just don't retire, problem solved.
If you do retire at 60 when you're not entitled to do so, that's your own damned fault. No different to a man retiring at 60.
The fruit is identical to that of Aspidosperma Spruceanum found in Colombia
But Wiki insists this is a flowering plant not a tree. Can a tree be a flowering plant?
Come on, this is exciting
Many trees are flowering plants, more technically angiosperms. Think of horse chestnuts, magnolias, etc. etc. Tho lots of trees have small green flowers that are not very noticeable, e.g. oak.
But quite a lot are gymnosperms such as conifers.
In any case, 'tree' tends to mean "****ing big plant a lot taller than me" so it's really a habit of growth rather than a kind of plant. There were some really wierd trees in days of yore, coal forests (closest relativce today perhaps and even further back, into the Devonian.
Hoping the people who were trolling about the Princess of Wales in a hump about her marriage being the reason she was out of the public eye etc are delighted with the news.
Princess of Wales has cancer and is being treated for it
Maybe they should draw lots to choose a member of the public to visit the Royals who have cancer, given that they can't conduct the hospital visits they'd normally do?
Hoping the people who were trolling about the Princess of Wales in a hump about her marriage being the reason she was out of the public eye etc are delighted with the news.
How awful. Just goes to show how misinformed & misguided these people are. Imagine having to put up with all that bullshit whilst dealing with news like this
Hoping the people who were trolling about the Princess of Wales in a hump about her marriage being the reason she was out of the public eye etc are delighted with the news.
The fruit is identical to that of Aspidosperma Spruceanum found in Colombia
But Wiki insists this is a flowering plant not a tree. Can a tree be a flowering plant?
Come on, this is exciting
Many trees are flowering plants, more technically angiosperms. Think of horse chestnuts, magnolias, etc. etc. Tho lots of trees have small green flowers that are not very noticeable, e.g. oak.
But quite a lot are gymnosperms such as conifers.
In any case, 'tree' tends to mean "****ing big plant a lot taller than me" so it's really a habit of growth rather than a kind of plant. There were some really wierd trees in days of yore, coal forests (closest relativce today perhaps and even further back, into the Devonian.
So “tree” isn’t a technical scientific term at all?
In which case I think this is Aspidosperma Spruceanum. It’s rather lovely. Long slender ash grey trunk and verdant green palmate leaves. It whispers sweetly in the jungle breeze. I can just hear the Caribbean waves toiling in the distance
I could get into this botany lark
I think the same is true for 'Fish' as well. It is certainly true for types of fish. For instance there is no such thing as a sardine, whitebait or bream. They are just a bunch of types of fish that look similar although may not be related at all.
All kicking off in Russia. Presumably will be blamed on Ukraine (which seems unlikely), followed by bloodcurdling nuclear threats.
The US issued a warning about a terrorist attack a couple of weeks ago. How did they know?
They've been pretty good on Russian intel (see the 2022 invasion).
Assuming this isn't a false flag, which seems unlikely given Russia is not looking for an excuse for an anti-terror operation, and was not a lone wolf (reports suggest multiple gunmen), it's hard to think of likely possibilities:
- Russian anti-Putin forces (unlikely, they've not targeted civilians to date) - Chechens (unlikely, they've been very quiet for a long time) - Ukrainians (unlikely - see anti-Putin dissidents, and given Ukraine relies on Western goodwill) - Syrian or Iranian rebels hitting at a country supporting their regime (unlikely, they're more likely to focus on their own leaders) - Russian ultra-nationalists who want a white Slavic Russia (maybe, but why target this rock concert?)
Usually when there's a terrorist attack there's an obvious culprit, even if that isn't always the actual one. Not this time
The fruit is identical to that of Aspidosperma Spruceanum found in Colombia
But Wiki insists this is a flowering plant not a tree. Can a tree be a flowering plant?
Come on, this is exciting
Many trees are flowering plants, more technically angiosperms. Think of horse chestnuts, magnolias, etc. etc. Tho lots of trees have small green flowers that are not very noticeable, e.g. oak.
But quite a lot are gymnosperms such as conifers.
In any case, 'tree' tends to mean "****ing big plant a lot taller than me" so it's really a habit of growth rather than a kind of plant. There were some really wierd trees in days of yore, coal forests (closest relativce today perhaps and even further back, into the Devonian.
So “tree” isn’t a technical scientific term at all?
In which case I think this is Aspidosperma Spruceanum. It’s rather lovely. Long slender ash grey trunk and verdant green palmate leaves. It whispers sweetly in the jungle breeze. I can just hear the Caribbean waves toiling in the distance
I could get into this botany lark
I think the same is true for 'Fish' as well. It is certainly true for types of fish. For instance there is no such thing as a sardine, whitebait or bream. They are just a bunch of types of fish that look similar although may not be related at all.
Also “seagull”. Don’t say that around a twitcher unless you have half an hour spare.
The fruit is identical to that of Aspidosperma Spruceanum found in Colombia
But Wiki insists this is a flowering plant not a tree. Can a tree be a flowering plant?
Come on, this is exciting
Many trees are flowering plants, more technically angiosperms. Think of horse chestnuts, magnolias, etc. etc. Tho lots of trees have small green flowers that are not very noticeable, e.g. oak.
But quite a lot are gymnosperms such as conifers.
In any case, 'tree' tends to mean "****ing big plant a lot taller than me" so it's really a habit of growth rather than a kind of plant. There were some really wierd trees in days of yore, coal forests (closest relativce today perhaps and even further back, into the Devonian.
So “tree” isn’t a technical scientific term at all?
In which case I think this is Aspidosperma Spruceanum. It’s rather lovely. Long slender ash grey trunk and verdant green palmate leaves. It whispers sweetly in the jungle breeze. I can just hear the Caribbean waves toiling in the distance
I could get into this botany lark
I think the same is true for 'Fish' as well. It is certainly true for types of fish. For instance there is no such thing as a sardine, whitebait or bream. They are just a bunch of types of fish that look similar although may not be related at all.
Also “seagull”. Don’t say that around a twitcher unless you have half an hour spare.
Be careful asking about swallows as well, can have an unfortunate ending as there are two apparently.
All kicking off in Russia. Presumably will be blamed on Ukraine (which seems unlikely), followed by bloodcurdling nuclear threats.
The US issued a warning about a terrorist attack a couple of weeks ago. How did they know?
They've been pretty good on Russian intel (see the 2022 invasion).
Assuming this isn't a false flag, which seems unlikely given Russia is not looking for an excuse for an anti-terror operation, and was not a lone wolf (reports suggest multiple gunmen), it's hard to think of likely possibilities:
- Russian anti-Putin forces (unlikely, they've not targeted civilians to date) - Chechens (unlikely, they've been very quiet for a long time) - Ukrainians (unlikely - see anti-Putin dissidents, and given Ukraine relies on Western goodwill) - Syrian or Iranian rebels hitting at a country supporting their regime (unlikely, they're more likely to focus on their own leaders) - Russian ultra-nationalists who want a white Slavic Russia (maybe, but why target this rock concert?)
Usually when there's a terrorist attack there's an obvious culprit, even if that isn't always the actual one. Not this time
The Russians will blame it on Ukraine and use it to justify a much larger mobilisation and conscription. Just earlier today they used the word "war" to describe the war they started in Ukraine for the first time, and last night was the largest missile attack on Ukraine so far. Now this attack on Moscow. All this less than a week after the election.
Coincidence? They happen, but I don't think so this time.
All kicking off in Russia. Presumably will be blamed on Ukraine (which seems unlikely), followed by bloodcurdling nuclear threats.
The US issued a warning about a terrorist attack a couple of weeks ago. How did they know?
They've been pretty good on Russian intel (see the 2022 invasion).
Assuming this isn't a false flag, which seems unlikely given Russia is not looking for an excuse for an anti-terror operation, and was not a lone wolf (reports suggest multiple gunmen), it's hard to think of likely possibilities:
- Russian anti-Putin forces (unlikely, they've not targeted civilians to date) - Chechens (unlikely, they've been very quiet for a long time) - Ukrainians (unlikely - see anti-Putin dissidents, and given Ukraine relies on Western goodwill) - Syrian or Iranian rebels hitting at a country supporting their regime (unlikely, they're more likely to focus on their own leaders) - Russian ultra-nationalists who want a white Slavic Russia (maybe, but why target this rock concert?)
Usually when there's a terrorist attack there's an obvious culprit, even if that isn't always the actual one. Not this time
You left out the option of a Ukrainian group acting independently.
All kicking off in Russia. Presumably will be blamed on Ukraine (which seems unlikely), followed by bloodcurdling nuclear threats.
The US issued a warning about a terrorist attack a couple of weeks ago. How did they know?
They've been pretty good on Russian intel (see the 2022 invasion).
Assuming this isn't a false flag, which seems unlikely given Russia is not looking for an excuse for an anti-terror operation, and was not a lone wolf (reports suggest multiple gunmen), it's hard to think of likely possibilities:
- Russian anti-Putin forces (unlikely, they've not targeted civilians to date) - Chechens (unlikely, they've been very quiet for a long time) - Ukrainians (unlikely - see anti-Putin dissidents, and given Ukraine relies on Western goodwill) - Syrian or Iranian rebels hitting at a country supporting their regime (unlikely, they're more likely to focus on their own leaders) - Russian ultra-nationalists who want a white Slavic Russia (maybe, but why target this rock concert?)
Usually when there's a terrorist attack there's an obvious culprit, even if that isn't always the actual one. Not this time
But Kasparov thinks it's false flag to justify mobilisation.
All kicking off in Russia. Presumably will be blamed on Ukraine (which seems unlikely), followed by bloodcurdling nuclear threats.
The US issued a warning about a terrorist attack a couple of weeks ago. How did they know?
They've been pretty good on Russian intel (see the 2022 invasion).
Assuming this isn't a false flag, which seems unlikely given Russia is not looking for an excuse for an anti-terror operation, and was not a lone wolf (reports suggest multiple gunmen), it's hard to think of likely possibilities:
- Russian anti-Putin forces (unlikely, they've not targeted civilians to date) - Chechens (unlikely, they've been very quiet for a long time) - Ukrainians (unlikely - see anti-Putin dissidents, and given Ukraine relies on Western goodwill) - Syrian or Iranian rebels hitting at a country supporting their regime (unlikely, they're more likely to focus on their own leaders) - Russian ultra-nationalists who want a white Slavic Russia (maybe, but why target this rock concert?)
Usually when there's a terrorist attack there's an obvious culprit, even if that isn't always the actual one. Not this time
You left out the option of a Ukrainian group acting independently.
Well armed terrorists almost always have the logistical support of a larger power or organisation. So this seems very unlikely indeed.
All kicking off in Russia. Presumably will be blamed on Ukraine (which seems unlikely), followed by bloodcurdling nuclear threats.
The US issued a warning about a terrorist attack a couple of weeks ago. How did they know?
They've been pretty good on Russian intel (see the 2022 invasion).
Assuming this isn't a false flag, which seems unlikely given Russia is not looking for an excuse for an anti-terror operation, and was not a lone wolf (reports suggest multiple gunmen), it's hard to think of likely possibilities:
- Russian anti-Putin forces (unlikely, they've not targeted civilians to date) - Chechens (unlikely, they've been very quiet for a long time) - Ukrainians (unlikely - see anti-Putin dissidents, and given Ukraine relies on Western goodwill) - Syrian or Iranian rebels hitting at a country supporting their regime (unlikely, they're more likely to focus on their own leaders) - Russian ultra-nationalists who want a white Slavic Russia (maybe, but why target this rock concert?)
Usually when there's a terrorist attack there's an obvious culprit, even if that isn't always the actual one. Not this time
But Kasparov thinks it's false flag to justify mobilisation.
It's moderately warm, and the sky is a sort of weird blue-ish colour. Plus, when you step outside there's not thousands of gallons of water landing on top of you the way there usually is.
The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.
I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.
Come on, it's night and day compared to those two particular scandals. My mum was born in 1956 and I'd known for donkey's years her state pension would be at the age of 66.
To quote the acronym in full, Whining About State Pensions is Irritating. It's frankly down to some highly impressive lobbying that this case is even being given the time of day.
Obviously, this is all anecdotage, but my wife is one of the very small group who were badly affected, twice. She was born in January 1955, and saw her retirement age raised from 60 to 64, and then again to 66. She is still very friendly with girls from her class at school - those born in Sept - Dec 1954 have received six years' more pension than Milady Carp. She feels that the first move was understandable (equalising retirement ages) but the second was unpardonable in view of the first rise. Another point concerns those women of that particular "certain age" who were divorced and agreed to a financial settlement before the rises took place. It seems that a number of lawyers and judges might have been ignorant of the consequences of the change, and advised clients to accept settlements that might now be regarded as sub-optimal.
It does seem bizarre that anyone would think it was a good idea to have such a cliff edge in entitlement, rather than to phase it in, but we have all sorts of similar ugly artifacts all around the tax code and public policy. Does no-one involved in creating public policy give a damn about such arbitrary impacts?
The evidence is that the number of such cliff edges increases over time, in tax and benefits.
Se either
1) they don’t give a fuck 2) that they do and actively create them for the effects they produce.
At a guess, I'd assume that clean breaks are more straightforward and cheaper to administer than gradual phasing. In the WASPI case, it might've been less iniquitous to ramp up the retirement age by, say, six months per year for ten years to achieve parity, but there was no interest in such complexities.
And we're nowhere near the end of tinkering with the state pension, of course. It's completely unaffordable, but since it's also politically impossible to cut or cap existing pensioner benefits, or to claw back the costs from better off oldies through property taxes, that means rationing for future recipients. More hikes in the pension age, means testing, or probably a combination of the two.
I appreciate and understand Chris Hopkins's "concerns" after the 2021 experience. The Conservatives did unexpectedly well - on the same day as Khan beat Bailey, a Conservative candidate polled 30% in the East Ham Central by election, a Ward which Labour had won 81-14 in 2018.
Can Hall do what Bailey did and confound the polls which of course means, as Hopkins implies, lose but not lose too badly. In the 2022 local elections, the vote shares across London were Labour 42.5%, Conservative 26%, Liberal Democrat 14.5% and Green 12%. The Savanta poll numbers, as you might suspect, show a stronger Labour showing at the expense of both the LDs and Greens for whom local strength isn't replicated in a London-wide election.
Hall is outpolling the Conservative Party and that's more a reflection of the contempt with which a number (growing ?) of Londoners feel for Khan rather than any love for Rishi Sunak. Hall herself is not well liked in many parts of the capital but had the opposition parties been able to concentrate around an independent anti-Khan candidate, I suspect the inculmbent would be introuble now.
The problem for Labour will be getting the cote out which it won't be for Hall in all honesty. Hall's problem is there won't be enough votes for her to get out.
London isn't a homogenous entity by any stretch and the GE isn't going to be won or lost here. Some of the recent polls show the Conservatives with 1-3 seats in the capital which would be a damning indictment.
Princess of Wales has cancer and is being treated for it
I hope the scum in the media and ditto on social media will now leave her alone. My late wife had cancer, its not what she died of... and the medics at Worthing Hospital oncology were fantastic. I shall be ever grateful to.them. God bless the Princess of Wales.
Yes, best wishes to the Princess and hopefully she will now be allowed to receive her treatment in peace
On topic (note Sean), but admittedly an anecdote. My bro’ lives in Greater London and was incensed about ULEZ extension. His dislike of Sadiq Khan because of it was all he talked about for weeks. It forced him to changing his car, he lost money through it, and wrote to various organisations and offices including the Mayor’s.
This week he told me he’s voting for Sadiq Khan.
Did he say why?
Phrase "lesser of the evils" springs to mind.
Logic that motivates more voters and decides more elections than we democrats (small d) like to think.
For example, yours truly never voted for Bill or Hillary Clinton without cursing them as I marked my ballot.
Different types of elections are like chalk and cheese, that point is spot on. It surely is in minds of voters how much power and influence over their own life and household each office has, and so seriousness they put into using their vote for each type. Yet on PB we throw in all different shares from very different contests as though it’s all interchangeable.
Unfortunately, there are already some comments in this thread about our Royal Family that are totally irresponsible today. And show the poster up for what they are. 😠
We shouldn’t even be speculating or mentioning it now. And I will hold my own hand up for adding to some speculation when I shouldn’t have done. It’s irresponsible use of social media or any media to use this sad and worrying situation for trolling.
I previously said how my wife had a hysterectomy at the same age as the Princess of Wales (42), and after having had 3 children, in 1979.
At the time her recovery took months but we were advised that if any cancer was found she would need treatment for it. The 14 days following the operation were very stressful waiting for her results but they were negative thankfully.
I am not saying this is what has happened with the Princess but it certainly is possible
It is a terrible shock to the nation and may she successfully win her battle for the sake of her family and our country
27% for Hall would be about par given the current polls and arguably better as it is in solid Labour London
I think it a reflection on Khan rather than Hall. Khan isn't well liked by a growing minority of Londoners and that wouldn't manifest in a General Election where the choice is Sunak vs Starmer.
I've suggested it's comparable with the 2022 local election performance for London across the capital but still down on the 32% achieved by the Conservatives at the last GE.
I previously said how my wife had a hysterectomy at the same age as the Princess of Wales (42), and after having had 3 children, in 1979.
At the time her recovery took months but we were advised that if any cancer was found she would need treatment for it. The 14 days following the operation were very stressful waiting for her results but they were negative thankfully.
I am not saying this is what has happened with the Princess but it certainly is possible
It is a terrible shock to the nation and may she successfully win her battle for the sake of her family and our country
For the sake of her family I agree. For the sake of the country....it wont make any difference to 99% of people who are not royal obsessed just like Diana's death where the majority was going wtf
“It’s understood the Princess’ cancer diagnosis, which came after her surgery, was the reason for Prince William cancelling his attendance at his godfather’s memorial service.”
William must be intensely stressed. He’s not let it show. Very professional
Princess of Wales has cancer and is being treated for it
I hope the scum in the media and ditto on social media will now leave her alone. My late wife had cancer, its not what she died of... and the medics at Worthing Hospital oncology were fantastic. I shall be ever grateful to.them. God bless the Princess of Wales.
“Unlike the Princess of Wales, I wouldn’t have got cancer”
Not a classy comment mate. Reflect and retract.
Possibly too soon. Timing is all
If the person with cancer was a hated figure for murali such as thatcher I am sure he would have posted no different to you
It was a mistimed joke. Sorry if I offended anyone
shrugs I was referring to all the "ding dong the witch is dead" posts from the left on Thatchers death. Apparently only too soon when its not one of their shibboleths
The good news is that cancers like this that are discovered "by chance" tend to be asymptomatic cases in the early stages of development. Thus, more likely to be curable. I doubt that makes it any less terrifying for her though, poor woman.
The fruit is identical to that of Aspidosperma Spruceanum found in Colombia
But Wiki insists this is a flowering plant not a tree. Can a tree be a flowering plant?
Come on, this is exciting
Many trees are flowering plants, more technically angiosperms. Think of horse chestnuts, magnolias, etc. etc. Tho lots of trees have small green flowers that are not very noticeable, e.g. oak.
But quite a lot are gymnosperms such as conifers.
In any case, 'tree' tends to mean "****ing big plant a lot taller than me" so it's really a habit of growth rather than a kind of plant. There were some really wierd trees in days of yore, coal forests (closest relativce today perhaps and even further back, into the Devonian.
So “tree” isn’t a technical scientific term at all?
In which case I think this is Aspidosperma Spruceanum. It’s rather lovely. Long slender ash grey trunk and verdant green palmate leaves. It whispers sweetly in the jungle breeze. I can just hear the Caribbean waves toiling in the distance
I could get into this botany lark
I forgot to say what the closest living relatives of some coal forest trees are - on checking, they include dinky little things like club mosses and horsetails.
The Embassy is monitoring reports that extremists have imminent plans to target large gatherings in Moscow, to include concerts, and U.S. citizens should be advised to avoid large gatherings over the next 48 hours.
By U.S. Mission Russia | 7 March, 2024 | Topics: Alert
I’ve had two episodes of cancer, both in my retirement years. Surgery and chemotherapy sorted one, radiotherapy the other. Fortunately all my ‘children’ were adults so weren’t quite as affected as children would have been. Sadly one of my cousins, to whom I was quite close had a similar to my first one, one that didn’t prove as amenable to treatment and the poor chap died. So while I would like to see the end of the British monarchy, on a personal level I wish both Kate and William, and of course, their children, well.
I previously said how my wife had a hysterectomy at the same age as the Princess of Wales (42), and after having had 3 children, in 1979.
At the time her recovery took months but we were advised that if any cancer was found she would need treatment for it. The 14 days following the operation were very stressful waiting for her results but they were negative thankfully.
I am not saying this is what has happened with the Princess but it certainly is possible
It is a terrible shock to the nation and may she successfully win her battle for the sake of her family and our country
For the sake of her family I agree. For the sake of the country....it wont make any difference to 99% of people who are not royal obsessed just like Diana's death where the majority was going wtf
I think you’d be surprised how many people do care about the royals. Not obsessively - but enough to be emotionally affected by what happens to them
That can be basic pity for them stuck in that glass bell jar of scrutiny. But also people follow their lives closely - the births and deaths, the loves and betrayals, the weddings and funerals. The villains - andrew! - and the stars - the little kids! And the whole Kate v Meghan narrative
Yes it’s irrational but people are irrational. And we all love stories and they are the national story, a kind of dynastic soap opera but with actual castles and crowns, and a source of endless delicious gossip
If something bad happened to Kate I’d be personally upset even tho I’ve never met her
It's moderately warm, and the sky is a sort of weird blue-ish colour. Plus, when you step outside there's not thousands of gallons of water landing on top of you the way there usually is.
The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.
I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.
Come on, it's night and day compared to those two particular scandals. My mum was born in 1956 and I'd known for donkey's years her state pension would be at the age of 66.
To quote the acronym in full, Whining About State Pensions is Irritating. It's frankly down to some highly impressive lobbying that this case is even being given the time of day.
Obviously, this is all anecdotage, but my wife is one of the very small group who were badly affected, twice. She was born in January 1955, and saw her retirement age raised from 60 to 64, and then again to 66. She is still very friendly with girls from her class at school - those born in Sept - Dec 1954 have received six years' more pension than Milady Carp. She feels that the first move was understandable (equalising retirement ages) but the second was unpardonable in view of the first rise. Another point concerns those women of that particular "certain age" who were divorced and agreed to a financial settlement before the rises took place. It seems that a number of lawyers and judges might have been ignorant of the consequences of the change, and advised clients to accept settlements that might now be regarded as sub-optimal.
It does seem bizarre that anyone would think it was a good idea to have such a cliff edge in entitlement, rather than to phase it in, but we have all sorts of similar ugly artifacts all around the tax code and public policy. Does no-one involved in creating public policy give a damn about such arbitrary impacts?
The evidence is that the number of such cliff edges increases over time, in tax and benefits.
Se either
1) they don’t give a fuck 2) that they do and actively create them for the effects they produce.
At a guess, I'd assume that clean breaks are more straightforward and cheaper to administer than gradual phasing. In the WASPI case, it might've been less iniquitous to ramp up the retirement age by, say, six months per year for ten years to achieve parity, but there was no interest in such complexities.
And we're nowhere near the end of tinkering with the state pension, of course. It's completely unaffordable, but since it's also politically impossible to cut or cap existing pensioner benefits, or to claw back the costs from better off oldies through property taxes, that means rationing for future recipients. More hikes in the pension age, means testing, or probably a combination of the two.
The claims about unaffordability are simply not true. Much like the claims that we can fix the housing problem by putting tenants in all the en-suite bathrooms.
The UK pension is not the largest or most expensive to run, per head of population in the Developed World. By a long, long way.
27% for Hall would be about par given the current polls and arguably better as it is in solid Labour London
I think it a reflection on Khan rather than Hall. Khan isn't well liked by a growing minority of Londoners and that wouldn't manifest in a General Election where the choice is Sunak vs Starmer.
I've suggested it's comparable with the 2022 local election performance for London across the capital but still down on the 32% achieved by the Conservatives at the last GE.
It also shows the strength and limitation of the "cuddle your core vote" strategy. On these figures, Reform are being held at bay, a mere 2 %. That might be a complete lack of name recognition, I guess. But also Hall is a Zone 6 candidate for Zone 6 voters, so why should the good people of Havering and Bexley go anywhere else?
Though the big picture is Khan getting about half the vote and Hall about a quarter. When you stop and think, that's nuts for a city that had a Conservative Mayor a decade ago.
I previously said how my wife had a hysterectomy at the same age as the Princess of Wales (42), and after having had 3 children, in 1979.
At the time her recovery took months but we were advised that if any cancer was found she would need treatment for it. The 14 days following the operation were very stressful waiting for her results but they were negative thankfully.
I am not saying this is what has happened with the Princess but it certainly is possible
It is a terrible shock to the nation and may she successfully win her battle for the sake of her family and our country
For the sake of her family I agree. For the sake of the country....it wont make any difference to 99% of people who are not royal obsessed just like Diana's death where the majority was going wtf
I think you’d be surprised how many people do care about the royals. Not obsessively - but enough to be emotionally affected by what happens to them
That can be basic pity for them stuck in that glass bell jar of scrutiny. But also people follow their lives closely - the births and deaths, the loves and betrayals, the weddings and funerals. The villains - andrew! - and the stars - the little kids! And the whole Kate v Meghan narrative
Yes it’s irrational but people are irrational. And we all love stories and they are the national story, a kind of dynastic soap opera but with actual castles and crowns, and a source of endless delicious gossip
If something bad happened to Kate I’d be personally upset even tho I’ve never met her
🤷🏼♂️
Nods its probably about 10 percent of the population was my point. A minority. I feel sympathy for the family as would most. I just dont think most people will notice any difference to their lives just as most didnt when the queen died was point I was making
I previously said how my wife had a hysterectomy at the same age as the Princess of Wales (42), and after having had 3 children, in 1979.
At the time her recovery took months but we were advised that if any cancer was found she would need treatment for it. The 14 days following the operation were very stressful waiting for her results but they were negative thankfully.
I am not saying this is what has happened with the Princess but it certainly is possible
It is a terrible shock to the nation and may she successfully win her battle for the sake of her family and our country
For the sake of her family I agree. For the sake of the country....it wont make any difference to 99% of people who are not royal obsessed just like Diana's death where the majority was going wtf
Yes I agree. It is ironic that the constant intrusion by those obsessed by the Royals have probably made this much worse for them, in particular dealing with telling their children with constant comments and speculation. If those that cared had left well alone things would have probably been a lot easier and now we have the hypocrisy of the same people caring.
That is my first ever comment on the matter and probably will be my last. I wasn't interested in the speculation in the first place and I won't be moving forward other than to wish well anyone who is ill who I don't actually know.
“Unlike the Princess of Wales, I wouldn’t have got cancer”
Not a classy comment mate. Reflect and retract.
Possibly too soon. Timing is all
If the person with cancer was a hated figure for murali such as thatcher I am sure he would have posted no different to you
It was a mistimed joke. Sorry if I offended anyone
It wasn’t particularly grim and wasn’t mocking her so don’t lose any sleep. I got into a lot of trouble from some female friends at a friend’s 50th dinner a few months ago for a joke I couldn’t help blurting out.
His wife was telling a story about trying to bake something for him whilst she was shitfaced. She had lovingly prepared some madeleines and burnt them as she got more and more drunk and didn’t check on them.
I couldn’t stop myself saying “well as the McCanns will testify that it’s never a good idea to leave madeleines unwatched whilst having a few drinks.”
I’ve had two episodes of cancer, both in my retirement years. Surgery and chemotherapy sorted one, radiotherapy the other. Fortunately all my ‘children’ were adults so weren’t quite as affected as children would have been. Sadly one of my cousins, to whom I was quite close had a similar to my first one, one that didn’t prove as amenable to treatment and the poor chap died. So while I would like to see the end of the British monarchy, on a personal level I wish both Kate and William, and of course, their children, well.
It is a horrible disease. Capricious in those who are spared, and those who do years of treatment but die anyway
My dad died of cancer last year. But it was largely painless and he was very old
That guy from the Hairy Bikers - Dave Myers - that was a sad sad thing. Just reading about the final episode of their latest series where he says goodbye to his partner. Yikes. I’m not sure I ever want to watch it. Too harrowing
It's moderately warm, and the sky is a sort of weird blue-ish colour. Plus, when you step outside there's not thousands of gallons of water landing on top of you the way there usually is.
The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.
I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.
Come on, it's night and day compared to those two particular scandals. My mum was born in 1956 and I'd known for donkey's years her state pension would be at the age of 66.
To quote the acronym in full, Whining About State Pensions is Irritating. It's frankly down to some highly impressive lobbying that this case is even being given the time of day.
Obviously, this is all anecdotage, but my wife is one of the very small group who were badly affected, twice. She was born in January 1955, and saw her retirement age raised from 60 to 64, and then again to 66. She is still very friendly with girls from her class at school - those born in Sept - Dec 1954 have received six years' more pension than Milady Carp. She feels that the first move was understandable (equalising retirement ages) but the second was unpardonable in view of the first rise. Another point concerns those women of that particular "certain age" who were divorced and agreed to a financial settlement before the rises took place. It seems that a number of lawyers and judges might have been ignorant of the consequences of the change, and advised clients to accept settlements that might now be regarded as sub-optimal.
It does seem bizarre that anyone would think it was a good idea to have such a cliff edge in entitlement, rather than to phase it in, but we have all sorts of similar ugly artifacts all around the tax code and public policy. Does no-one involved in creating public policy give a damn about such arbitrary impacts?
The evidence is that the number of such cliff edges increases over time, in tax and benefits.
Se either
1) they don’t give a fuck 2) that they do and actively create them for the effects they produce.
At a guess, I'd assume that clean breaks are more straightforward and cheaper to administer than gradual phasing. In the WASPI case, it might've been less iniquitous to ramp up the retirement age by, say, six months per year for ten years to achieve parity, but there was no interest in such complexities.
And we're nowhere near the end of tinkering with the state pension, of course. It's completely unaffordable, but since it's also politically impossible to cut or cap existing pensioner benefits, or to claw back the costs from better off oldies through property taxes, that means rationing for future recipients. More hikes in the pension age, means testing, or probably a combination of the two.
A 10% rise in income tax combined with a 10% cut in national insurance would do a lot to make pensions more affordable and not cost a single penny from people's PAYE wages.
The fruit is identical to that of Aspidosperma Spruceanum found in Colombia
But Wiki insists this is a flowering plant not a tree. Can a tree be a flowering plant?
Come on, this is exciting
Many trees are flowering plants, more technically angiosperms. Think of horse chestnuts, magnolias, etc. etc. Tho lots of trees have small green flowers that are not very noticeable, e.g. oak.
But quite a lot are gymnosperms such as conifers.
In any case, 'tree' tends to mean "****ing big plant a lot taller than me" so it's really a habit of growth rather than a kind of plant. There were some really wierd trees in days of yore, coal forests (closest relativce today perhaps and even further back, into the Devonian.
So “tree” isn’t a technical scientific term at all?
In which case I think this is Aspidosperma Spruceanum. It’s rather lovely. Long slender ash grey trunk and verdant green palmate leaves. It whispers sweetly in the jungle breeze. I can just hear the Caribbean waves toiling in the distance
I could get into this botany lark
I think the same is true for 'Fish' as well. It is certainly true for types of fish. For instance there is no such thing as a sardine, whitebait or bream. They are just a bunch of types of fish that look similar although may not be related at all.
Also “seagull”. Don’t say that around a twitcher unless you have half an hour spare.
I previously said how my wife had a hysterectomy at the same age as the Princess of Wales (42), and after having had 3 children, in 1979.
At the time her recovery took months but we were advised that if any cancer was found she would need treatment for it. The 14 days following the operation were very stressful waiting for her results but they were negative thankfully.
I am not saying this is what has happened with the Princess but it certainly is possible
It is a terrible shock to the nation and may she successfully win her battle for the sake of her family and our country
For the sake of her family I agree. For the sake of the country....it wont make any difference to 99% of people who are not royal obsessed just like Diana's death where the majority was going wtf
I think you’d be surprised how many people do care about the royals. Not obsessively - but enough to be emotionally affected by what happens to them
That can be basic pity for them stuck in that glass bell jar of scrutiny. But also people follow their lives closely - the births and deaths, the loves and betrayals, the weddings and funerals. The villains - andrew! - and the stars - the little kids! And the whole Kate v Meghan narrative
Yes it’s irrational but people are irrational. And we all love stories and they are the national story, a kind of dynastic soap opera but with actual castles and crowns, and a source of endless delicious gossip
If something bad happened to Kate I’d be personally upset even tho I’ve never met her
🤷🏼♂️
It is no different to people following a soap opera and being upset when a character is ill or dies; and they don’t even exist!
I don’t take much notice myself, but it’s understandable that some do.
Owen Jones @OwenJones84 · 39m As someone who speculated on this without considering it could be a serious health condition, I’m very ashamed to be honest, and all the very best to her.
I previously said how my wife had a hysterectomy at the same age as the Princess of Wales (42), and after having had 3 children, in 1979.
At the time her recovery took months but we were advised that if any cancer was found she would need treatment for it. The 14 days following the operation were very stressful waiting for her results but they were negative thankfully.
I am not saying this is what has happened with the Princess but it certainly is possible
It is a terrible shock to the nation and may she successfully win her battle for the sake of her family and our country
For the sake of her family I agree. For the sake of the country....it wont make any difference to 99% of people who are not royal obsessed just like Diana's death where the majority was going wtf
I think you’d be surprised how many people do care about the royals. Not obsessively - but enough to be emotionally affected by what happens to them
That can be basic pity for them stuck in that glass bell jar of scrutiny. But also people follow their lives closely - the births and deaths, the loves and betrayals, the weddings and funerals. The villains - andrew! - and the stars - the little kids! And the whole Kate v Meghan narrative
Yes it’s irrational but people are irrational. And we all love stories and they are the national story, a kind of dynastic soap opera but with actual castles and crowns, and a source of endless delicious gossip
If something bad happened to Kate I’d be personally upset even tho I’ve never met her
🤷🏼♂️
Nods its probably about 10 percent of the population was my point. A minority. I feel sympathy for the family as would most. I just dont think most people will notice any difference to their lives just as most didnt when the queen died was point I was making
I was walking the remote coast of vicentina in Portugal when the Queen died. I was en route to a little hotel in a little village and out of mobile signal
The first time I had it confirmed was when I reached the hotel and this elderly Portuguese woman - the hotel owner - rushed up to me (she was expecting me and she knew I was British) - she was almost in tears and she said, with a shocked and saddened voice:
“Unlike the Princess of Wales, I wouldn’t have got cancer”
Not a classy comment mate. Reflect and retract.
Possibly too soon. Timing is all
If the person with cancer was a hated figure for murali such as thatcher I am sure he would have posted no different to you
It was a mistimed joke. Sorry if I offended anyone
It wasn’t particularly grim and wasn’t mocking her so don’t lose any sleep. I got into a lot of trouble from some female friends at a friend’s 50th dinner a few months ago for a joke I couldn’t help blurting out.
His wife was telling a story about trying to bake something for him whilst she was shitfaced. She had lovingly prepared some madeleines and burnt them as she got more and more drunk and didn’t check on them.
I couldn’t stop myself saying “well as the McCanns will testify that it’s never a good idea to leave madeleines unwatched whilst having a few drinks.”
Sometimes you just have to say it.
Don’t worry I’m not losing sleep over it and, I’m afraid, that is a darkly brilliant joke and yes you had to say it
It's moderately warm, and the sky is a sort of weird blue-ish colour. Plus, when you step outside there's not thousands of gallons of water landing on top of you the way there usually is.
The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.
I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.
Come on, it's night and day compared to those two particular scandals. My mum was born in 1956 and I'd known for donkey's years her state pension would be at the age of 66.
To quote the acronym in full, Whining About State Pensions is Irritating. It's frankly down to some highly impressive lobbying that this case is even being given the time of day.
Obviously, this is all anecdotage, but my wife is one of the very small group who were badly affected, twice. She was born in January 1955, and saw her retirement age raised from 60 to 64, and then again to 66. She is still very friendly with girls from her class at school - those born in Sept - Dec 1954 have received six years' more pension than Milady Carp. She feels that the first move was understandable (equalising retirement ages) but the second was unpardonable in view of the first rise. Another point concerns those women of that particular "certain age" who were divorced and agreed to a financial settlement before the rises took place. It seems that a number of lawyers and judges might have been ignorant of the consequences of the change, and advised clients to accept settlements that might now be regarded as sub-optimal.
It does seem bizarre that anyone would think it was a good idea to have such a cliff edge in entitlement, rather than to phase it in, but we have all sorts of similar ugly artifacts all around the tax code and public policy. Does no-one involved in creating public policy give a damn about such arbitrary impacts?
The evidence is that the number of such cliff edges increases over time, in tax and benefits.
Se either
1) they don’t give a fuck 2) that they do and actively create them for the effects they produce.
At a guess, I'd assume that clean breaks are more straightforward and cheaper to administer than gradual phasing. In the WASPI case, it might've been less iniquitous to ramp up the retirement age by, say, six months per year for ten years to achieve parity, but there was no interest in such complexities.
And we're nowhere near the end of tinkering with the state pension, of course. It's completely unaffordable, but since it's also politically impossible to cut or cap existing pensioner benefits, or to claw back the costs from better off oldies through property taxes, that means rationing for future recipients. More hikes in the pension age, means testing, or probably a combination of the two.
The claims about unaffordability are simply not true. Much like the claims that we can fix the housing problem by putting tenants in all the en-suite bathrooms.
The UK pension is not the largest or most expensive to run, per head of population in the Developed World. By a long, long way.
Because (a) the retired as a proportion of the population are still rising and, more critically, (b) the structure of the triple lock means that pensioner incomes will rise more rapidly than worker incomes in most years, the state pension as currently constituted isn't affordable. It already costs a bomb, and simple mathematics dictates that the working age population will, if nothing changes, eventually end up handing over all their income in tax to pay the costs of pensions - though matters will come to a head at some point before then, of course.
Anyway, the general point stands: the existing arrangements are, indeed, unaffordable. The eligibility and payment terms of the state pension and/or it's funding basis are going to have to be reformed, and the longer this is put off, the more disruptive and painful it will be when it eventually happens.
It wouldn't surprise me if the perpetrators of the terror attack in Moscow were Ingush. See the raid carried out in Ingushetia three weeks ago. If so, they may have been assisted by Russia's main current enemy.
1. He's a bit of a nutter. 2. He may not be too pleased about the fall of Nagorno-Karabakh. 3. Never rule out the FSB - so yes, it could be their job. Recall when they bombed Moscow apartment blocks to assist their guy Putin.
Owen Jones @OwenJones84 · 39m As someone who speculated on this without considering it could be a serious health condition, I’m very ashamed to be honest, and all the very best to her.
How could you not think it was a serious health condition? She was in hospital for a long while, and the staff there are not playing games. It obviously wasn't some sort of stunt, and had to be something quite serious.
Comments
So, keep it simple and use the average life expectancy.
I don't object to having an equal retirement age, but there should have been a transition period to remove steep cliff edge effects.
You have absolutely no entitlement to anything at all until you've got it and if you're planning on getting something before others born on the same date as you then don't complain when instead you're treated exactly the same as those born on the same date as you.
Just because others were treated unequally before you does not justify inequality continuing or expecting it to continue.
What's wrong with just continuing to work until retirement age? Same as anyone else?
Edit: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowering_plant in fact which highlights an Oak tree as such an example.
Why don’t you leave all your tedious travelogues to, er, a travelogue?
But quite a lot are gymnosperms such as conifers.
In any case, 'tree' tends to mean "****ing big plant a lot taller than me" so it's really a habit of growth rather than a kind of plant. There were some really wierd trees in days of yore, coal forests (closest relativce today perhaps and even further back, into the Devonian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_forest
https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/view/2800919-earths-earliest-forest-revealed-in-somerset-fossils
This week he told me he’s voting for Sadiq Khan.
So I'm assuming the veracity of your anecdote is having doubt cast on it.
It's such a large difference due to one day difference in birth that strikes me as offensive to natural justice.
See me.
Inequality existing in the past is no excuse for inequality continuing in the future.
Such a large difference due to sex is even more offensive. That's actual inequality.
But that’s enough on me. It’s boring. Let’s get back on topic ‘eh?
Complaints about a cliff edge: there has to be a cut off at some point, any phasing system is more complex to administer and would still result in winners and losers
While there have been a small number of very sad cases reported, many of the individual cases who have "told their story" to the media appear to have been in public sector jobs (in receipt of a final salary pension), or highly paid jobs (for which you would think they would have an associated curiosity and level of intelligence that would occasion them to check out their state pension entitlement and at what age they would be eligible for it).
I can accept that those who were self employed would, by definition, not have received info on pensions via their employer, although I would have thought that their employment status might have encouraged them to do a bit of fact finding about state and private pensions.
Many individuals report having to leave the workforce either due to ill health or to care for a dependent. In the case of ill health I would imagine women genuinely unable to work ever again due to their health would qualify for ill health retirement if working in public services or a large private sector employer. If leaving to care for a dependent, it does seem a little remiss to not have looked into the financial consequences of doing this, but I accept that in those emotional circumstances they may not have done so.
I think the key here is that it appears that many people who had the capacity and intelligence to do so did not take much personal responsibility for their finances in retirement. Many report that they had "planned" to retire at 60, I would suggest that there is little evidence that any such "planning" (which would have entailed doing a bit of research about their state pension, when and how much they would be entitled to) actually took place, and that retiring at 60 was something that was an aspiration, rather than actively planned.
Finally, I find it hard to believe that many of these individuals in public sector jobs or highly paid private sector jobs who would have been in their late 30s and 40s I think when the raising of pension age was first mentioned in the 1990s did not know about the equalisation of pension age. Even if they did not receive a letter, it was well publicised.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/22/kate-princess-of-wales-cancer-chemotherapy
I thought the anecdote about my brother was curious. If he’s typical, and he might be, then the anti-Ulez extension was a lot of noise that won’t translate to the mayoral election. Especially not for Susan Hall.
Have a lovely evening everyone.
The changes happened before retirement age was reached, not after it.
The better thing to have done would have been to have abolished the inequality immediately, thirty years ago. Those who got the extra six years shouldn't have, but none of the WASPI women have suffered for being treated equally, they just didn't get an entirely unjustified and undeserved discrimination based on sex. Nobody should ever discriminate based on sex, that cuts both ways.
So “tree” isn’t a technical scientific term at all?
In which case I think this is Aspidosperma Spruceanum. It’s rather lovely. Long slender ash grey trunk and verdant green palmate leaves. It whispers sweetly in the jungle breeze. I can just hear the Caribbean waves toiling in the distance
I could get into this botany lark
My late wife had cancer, its not what she died of... and the medics at Worthing Hospital oncology were fantastic. I shall be ever grateful to.them.
God bless the Princess of Wales.
Sorry these women want to cherry pick which bits of equality they get
Se either
1) they don’t give a fuck
2) that they do and actively create them for the effects they produce.
It is dreadful news and many need to be ashamed of the conspiracy theories
May her treatment be successful
Even if you planned to retire at 60, you had no right to do so, and plans change. Just don't retire, problem solved.
If you do retire at 60 when you're not entitled to do so, that's your own damned fault. No different to a man retiring at 60.
That poor family. All of them
God bless the Princess
Poor guy
“Unlike the Princess of Wales, I wouldn’t have got cancer”
Assuming this isn't a false flag, which seems unlikely given Russia is not looking for an excuse for an anti-terror operation, and was not a lone wolf (reports suggest multiple gunmen), it's hard to think of likely possibilities:
- Russian anti-Putin forces (unlikely, they've not targeted civilians to date)
- Chechens (unlikely, they've been very quiet for a long time)
- Ukrainians (unlikely - see anti-Putin dissidents, and given Ukraine relies on Western goodwill)
- Syrian or Iranian rebels hitting at a country supporting their regime (unlikely, they're more likely to focus on their own leaders)
- Russian ultra-nationalists who want a white Slavic Russia (maybe, but why target this rock concert?)
Usually when there's a terrorist attack there's an obvious culprit, even if that isn't always the actual one. Not this time
She is an absolute star. The royal family is lucky to have her, they must not lose her
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/22/kate-princess-of-wales-cancer-chemotherapy
Coincidence? They happen, but I don't think so this time.
https://x.com/Kasparov63/status/1771239876580585756?s=20
And we're nowhere near the end of tinkering with the state pension, of course. It's completely unaffordable, but since it's also politically impossible to cut or cap existing pensioner benefits, or to claw back the costs from better off oldies through property taxes, that means rationing for future recipients. More hikes in the pension age, means testing, or probably a combination of the two.
No one could write this with a straight face
“I am a writer as it happens and have been lucky enough to win high-brow awards.”
Add that to the thermoses of boiled water and the “Tory voting Surrey friend” and she begins to emerge as a genius comic creation
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/22/kate-princess-of-wales-cancer-chemotherapy
I appreciate and understand Chris Hopkins's "concerns" after the 2021 experience. The Conservatives did unexpectedly well - on the same day as Khan beat Bailey, a Conservative candidate polled 30% in the East Ham Central by election, a Ward which Labour had won 81-14 in 2018.
Can Hall do what Bailey did and confound the polls which of course means, as Hopkins implies, lose but not lose too badly. In the 2022 local elections, the vote shares across London were Labour 42.5%, Conservative 26%, Liberal Democrat 14.5% and Green 12%. The Savanta poll numbers, as you might suspect, show a stronger Labour showing at the expense of both the LDs and Greens for whom local strength isn't replicated in a London-wide election.
Hall is outpolling the Conservative Party and that's more a reflection of the contempt with which a number (growing ?) of Londoners feel for Khan rather than any love for Rishi Sunak. Hall herself is not well liked in many parts of the capital but had the opposition parties been able to concentrate around an independent anti-Khan candidate, I suspect the inculmbent would be introuble now.
The problem for Labour will be getting the cote out which it won't be for Hall in all honesty. Hall's problem is there won't be enough votes for her to get out.
London isn't a homogenous entity by any stretch and the GE isn't going to be won or lost here. Some of the recent polls show the Conservatives with 1-3 seats in the capital which would be a damning indictment.
If so, that’s quite clever
Phrase "lesser of the evils" springs to mind.
Logic that motivates more voters and decides more elections than we democrats (small d) like to think.
For example, yours truly never voted for Bill or Hillary Clinton without cursing them as I marked my ballot.
Full of good polling thoughts and considerations.
Different types of elections are like chalk and cheese, that point is spot on. It surely is in minds of voters how much power and influence over their own life and household each office has, and so seriousness they put into using their vote for each type. Yet on PB we throw in all different shares from very different contests as though it’s all interchangeable.
Unfortunately, there are already some comments in this thread about our Royal Family that are totally irresponsible today. And show the poster up for what they are. 😠
We shouldn’t even be speculating or mentioning it now. And I will hold my own hand up for adding to some speculation when I shouldn’t have done. It’s irresponsible use of social media or any media to use this sad and worrying situation for trolling.
My ❤️ to Kate and her family.
At the time her recovery took months but we were advised that if any cancer was found she would need treatment for it. The 14 days following the operation were very stressful waiting for her results but they were negative thankfully.
I am not saying this is what has happened with the Princess but it certainly is possible
It is a terrible shock to the nation and may she successfully win her battle for the sake of her family and our country
I've suggested it's comparable with the 2022 local election performance for London across the capital but still down on the 32% achieved by the Conservatives at the last GE.
“It’s understood the Princess’ cancer diagnosis, which came after her surgery, was the reason for Prince William cancelling his attendance at his godfather’s memorial service.”
William must be intensely stressed. He’s not let it show. Very professional
https://x.com/sarahhewsontv/status/1771240473736192344?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
https://www.nature.scot/plants-animals-and-fungi/ferns/clubmosses
The Embassy is monitoring reports that extremists have imminent plans to target large gatherings in Moscow, to include concerts, and U.S. citizens should be advised to avoid large gatherings over the next 48 hours.
By U.S. Mission Russia | 7 March, 2024 | Topics: Alert
https://ru.usembassy.gov/security-alert-avoid-large-gatherings-over-the-next-48-hours/
The date was wrong but the city and type of venue was spot on.
Fortunately all my ‘children’ were adults so weren’t quite as affected as children would have been.
Sadly one of my cousins, to whom I was quite close had a similar to my first one, one that didn’t prove as amenable to treatment and the poor chap died.
So while I would like to see the end of the British monarchy, on a personal level I wish both Kate and William, and of course, their children, well.
That can be basic pity for them stuck in that glass bell jar of scrutiny. But also people follow their lives closely - the births and deaths, the loves and
betrayals, the weddings and funerals. The villains - andrew! - and the stars - the little kids! And the whole Kate v Meghan narrative
Yes it’s irrational but people are irrational. And we all love stories and they are the national story, a kind of dynastic soap opera but with actual castles and crowns, and a source of endless delicious gossip
If something bad happened to Kate I’d be personally upset even tho I’ve never met her
🤷🏼♂️
The UK pension is not the largest or most expensive to run, per head of population in the Developed World. By a long, long way.
Though the big picture is Khan getting about half the vote and Hall about a quarter. When you stop and think, that's nuts for a city that had a Conservative Mayor a decade ago.
https://x.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1771235193363239087
That is my first ever comment on the matter and probably will be my last. I wasn't interested in the speculation in the first place and I won't be moving forward other than to wish well anyone who is ill who I don't actually know.
His wife was telling a story about trying to bake something for him whilst she was shitfaced. She had lovingly prepared some madeleines and burnt them as she got more and more drunk and didn’t check on them.
I couldn’t stop myself saying “well as the McCanns will testify that it’s never a good idea to leave madeleines unwatched whilst having a few drinks.”
Sometimes you just have to say it.
My dad died of cancer last year. But it was largely painless and he was very old
That guy from the Hairy Bikers - Dave Myers - that was a sad sad thing. Just reading about the final episode of their latest series where he says goodbye to his partner. Yikes. I’m not sure I ever want to watch it. Too harrowing
I don’t take much notice myself, but it’s understandable that some do.
@OwenJones84
·
39m
As someone who speculated on this without considering it could be a serious health condition, I’m very ashamed to be honest, and all the very best to her.
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1771237279274545429
The first time I had it confirmed was when I reached the hotel and this elderly Portuguese woman - the hotel owner - rushed up to me (she was expecting me and she knew I was British) - she was almost in tears and she said, with a shocked and saddened voice:
“Your queen is dead!”
It was a genuinely touching moment
Made me laugh here in the jungle
Anyway, the general point stands: the existing arrangements are, indeed, unaffordable. The eligibility and payment terms of the state pension and/or it's funding basis are going to have to be reformed, and the longer this is put off, the more disruptive and painful it will be when it eventually happens.
See the raid carried out in Ingushetia three weeks ago.
If so, they may have been assisted by Russia's main current enemy.
Reports of the raid:
Reuters/Tass:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-security-forces-battle-militants-ingushetia-region-russian-media-report-2024-03-03/
Tass (also mentions Dagestan):
https://tass.com/politics/1757003
Kyiv Independent:
https://kyivindependent.com/russian-media-fighting-breaks-out-in-russias-ingushetia-republic/
As for what Kasparov said:
1. He's a bit of a nutter.
2. He may not be too pleased about the fall of Nagorno-Karabakh.
3. Never rule out the FSB - so yes, it could be their job. Recall when they bombed Moscow apartment blocks to assist their guy Putin.