The State of the Union, Week 6 – politicalbetting.com

Malmesbury said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

What is it with Labour and dodgy dossiers?

Report used by Labour to support private school VAT raid written by minister’s friend

Matthew Pennycook was best man at wedding of Luke Sibieta - who authored IFS report on plans

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/07/report-used-laboursupport-private-school-vat-close-friend/

They tried a search for PhDs to rip off, but hadn’t got a subscription to the academic databases…

DecrepiterJohnL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Reeves urged to scrap free prescriptions for 60- to 65-year-olds

Move could raise the Treasury more than £6bn in lead up to Budget

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/reeves-urged-scrap-free-prescriptions-60-65-year-olds/

Scrap free contraceptives and kill two PB birds with one stone.

Cookie said:

bondegezou said:

Cookie said:

OldKingCole said:

Cookie said:

Leon said:

rottenborough said:

Torsten Bell‬ ‪@torstenbell.bsky.social‬
·
1h
The UK is seeing more deaths than births (ie natural population shrinkage) for the first time since the 1970s (pandemic aside obviously) www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...

https://bsky.app/profile/torstenbell.bsky.social/post/3l5ygm6sy452f

Something very odd about those figures. England saw very slightly more births than deaths. But Wales and Scotland see vastly more (in proportion) deaths than births?

Eg in Scotland that’s 45,000 births and 65,000 deaths

Is Scotland dying out? Or is this a data glitch

Scotland a) has been struggling with birth rates for some time, and b) has been struggling with earlier deaths for some time (so the tipping point into natural shrinkage comes earlier).

ISTR a few years ago England's birth rate was being propped up by immigrants with more children, though I don't know if this is still true.

So without immigration the country's population would be falling/

Has anyone told Farage?

Well yes. But there is a happy middle ground between a falling population due to no immigration and a population increasing at its fastest rate on record - despite a sub-2 and falling birth rate - due to massive immigration. Both extremes come with considerable problems, but we're so far away from being able to control immigration that the former isn't really a problem we have to consider.

I don’t think we’re “far away from being able to control immigration”. Immigration was high under the Conservatives because they chose for it to be high. Immigration under Labour is expected to drop from the last Tory figures.

Expected by whom? It would seem out of character for the Labour Party to bring down immigration.

Leon said:

rottenborough said:

Torsten Bell‬ ‪@torstenbell.bsky.social‬
·
1h
The UK is seeing more deaths than births (ie natural population shrinkage) for the first time since the 1970s (pandemic aside obviously) www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...

https://bsky.app/profile/torstenbell.bsky.social/post/3l5ygm6sy452f

Something very odd about those figures. England saw very slightly more births than deaths. But Wales and Scotland see vastly more (in proportion) deaths than births?

Eg in Scotland that’s 45,000 births and 65,000 deaths

Is Scotland dying out? Or is this a data glitch

OldKingCole said:

Selebian said:

JosiasJessop said:

Selebian said:

So anyway my kids' school is running a trip for one of the years to a local mosque (they've been studying Islam in RE recently; it's a CofE school). The year in question is still in the free school meals age group, so the school is offering pack-ups, with sandwiches of cheese, tuna or ham.

I assume these will not be eaten on the mosque's premises, but still strikes me as a bit of an 'interesting' choice for the day trip!

A couple of years ago my son went on a school trip to Bhaktivedanta Manor. We had to provide a packed lunch, and it was made clear that this would be eaten on the bus.

He really enjoyed the trip; his first significant contact with Hinduism.

i think such trips should be encouraged, to all religions.

Yeah, my kid's been really engaged with this and last year when they studied Hinduism and did some things for Diwali. I'd not have gone for a CofE school particularly*, but I'm happy that this one is giving well rounded education and not pushing the Christianity bit excessively (I mean, if you do, how do you do it - Muslims believe this and they're wrong! )

*The two nearest ones we liked both happened to be CofE

Our local WEA organised a series of talks on Islam. Very informative, given by someone who'd fought in Bosnia etc.
One of the elderly lady members was told by her husband not to attend!. She did, though!

Daveyboy1961 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Reeves urged to scrap free prescriptions for 60- to 65-year-olds

Move could raise the Treasury more than £6bn in lead up to Budget

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/reeves-urged-scrap-free-prescriptions-60-65-year-olds/

Scrap free contraceptives and kill two PB birds with one stone.

Scrap Free contraceptives for over 60s?

Burgessian said:

Just dropped in The Guardian:

Jenrick sabotaged his Tory leadership chances at conference, survey of members suggests, with Cleverly rising fast
Conservative members were more likely to be turned off by what they saw of Robert Jenrick at the party conference than impressed, a survey suggests.

Jenrick arrived at the conference as the clear bookmakers’ favourite. But, according to a ConservativeHome survey of Tory members, only 23% of them said that what happened at conference made them more likely to support him – and 43% said they were less likely to support him afterwards.

Tom Tugendhat experienced a similar loss of support – but he is expected to be out of the contest by the end of today anyway as the candidate most likely to be eliminated in today’s ballot of MPs.

Conservative members favour Kemi Badenoch for next leader, according to numerous ConHome surveys, and proper polling, but 35% of respondents said conference made them less likely to support her, while 30% said the opposite.

The survey suggests the big winner was James Cleverly. Some 55% of Tories said conference made him a more attractive candidate, while only 14% said it didn’t.

------------

NB: PB gets a mention downstream!

eek said:

Taz said:

Well, what could possibly go wrong !!!!!


Plans to broaden access to a new type of pension scheme allowing savings to be pooled have been set out by the Government.

Collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes have the potential to deliver reliable returns for savers, while ensuring more predictable costs for employers, the Government said.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/plans-to-modernise-pensions-market-set-out-by-government/ar-AA1rSTtW?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=faee51125109441d98810f62d27982f7&ei=16

It's a contribution based pension scheme - it won't have any impact on employer costs because once the money is paid into the fund by the employer that's the end of their responsibility.

You then have the second question of would you invest in a fund that any government has control over - to which the answer is I'm not that stupid.

Andy_JS said:

Burgessian said:

Just dropped in The Guardian:

Jenrick sabotaged his Tory leadership chances at conference, survey of members suggests, with Cleverly rising fast
Conservative members were more likely to be turned off by what they saw of Robert Jenrick at the party conference than impressed, a survey suggests.

Jenrick arrived at the conference as the clear bookmakers’ favourite. But, according to a ConservativeHome survey of Tory members, only 23% of them said that what happened at conference made them more likely to support him – and 43% said they were less likely to support him afterwards.

Tom Tugendhat experienced a similar loss of support – but he is expected to be out of the contest by the end of today anyway as the candidate most likely to be eliminated in today’s ballot of MPs.

Conservative members favour Kemi Badenoch for next leader, according to numerous ConHome surveys, and proper polling, but 35% of respondents said conference made them less likely to support her, while 30% said the opposite.

The survey suggests the big winner was James Cleverly. Some 55% of Tories said conference made him a more attractive candidate, while only 14% said it didn’t.

------------

NB: PB gets a mention downstream!

I watched Cleverly's speech and didn't notice anything special about it.

noneoftheabove said:

eek said:

Taz said:

Well, what could possibly go wrong !!!!!


Plans to broaden access to a new type of pension scheme allowing savings to be pooled have been set out by the Government.

Collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes have the potential to deliver reliable returns for savers, while ensuring more predictable costs for employers, the Government said.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/plans-to-modernise-pensions-market-set-out-by-government/ar-AA1rSTtW?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=faee51125109441d98810f62d27982f7&ei=16

It's a contribution based pension scheme - it won't have any impact on employer costs because once the money is paid into the fund by the employer that's the end of their responsibility.

You then have the second question of would you invest in a fund that any government has control over - to which the answer is I'm not that stupid.

What is the advantage, if any, of the schemes being collective rather than individual?

turbotubbs said:

OldKingCole said:

Selebian said:

JosiasJessop said:

Selebian said:

So anyway my kids' school is running a trip for one of the years to a local mosque (they've been studying Islam in RE recently; it's a CofE school). The year in question is still in the free school meals age group, so the school is offering pack-ups, with sandwiches of cheese, tuna or ham.

I assume these will not be eaten on the mosque's premises, but still strikes me as a bit of an 'interesting' choice for the day trip!

A couple of years ago my son went on a school trip to Bhaktivedanta Manor. We had to provide a packed lunch, and it was made clear that this would be eaten on the bus.

He really enjoyed the trip; his first significant contact with Hinduism.

i think such trips should be encouraged, to all religions.

Yeah, my kid's been really engaged with this and last year when they studied Hinduism and did some things for Diwali. I'd not have gone for a CofE school particularly*, but I'm happy that this one is giving well rounded education and not pushing the Christianity bit excessively (I mean, if you do, how do you do it - Muslims believe this and they're wrong! )

*The two nearest ones we liked both happened to be CofE

Our local WEA organised a series of talks on Islam. Very informative, given by someone who'd fought in Bosnia etc.
One of the elderly lady members was told by her husband not to attend!. She did, though!

This is probably not the place for the discussion, but I was very struck by a radio discussion where both Jewish and Islamic priest/iman etc assert that to kill is morally wrong, yet we see (certainly for Islam() large strands of the religion(s) that seem to say it is acceptable.

Clearly the Christian church has its own legacy of crusading, and killing the infidel with God's blessing (via the Pope) but until a religion stops being so thoroughly abhorrent then I am afraid I will continue to regard its proponents as evil.

Nigelb said:

Siena not having a great election.
Alongside their best national poll for Harris, they have Trump +13% in Texas.

The latest New York Times/Siena College polls:
National: Harris+3 - her best showing in a Times/Siena poll this cycle
Texas: Trump+6
Florida: Trump+13
https://x.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1843618979363131720

Still, I suppose they're not herding...

Taz said:

eek said:

noneoftheabove said:

eek said:

Taz said:

Well, what could possibly go wrong !!!!!


Plans to broaden access to a new type of pension scheme allowing savings to be pooled have been set out by the Government.

Collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes have the potential to deliver reliable returns for savers, while ensuring more predictable costs for employers, the Government said.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/plans-to-modernise-pensions-market-set-out-by-government/ar-AA1rSTtW?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=faee51125109441d98810f62d27982f7&ei=16

It's a contribution based pension scheme - it won't have any impact on employer costs because once the money is paid into the fund by the employer that's the end of their responsibility.

You then have the second question of would you invest in a fund that any government has control over - to which the answer is I'm not that stupid.

What is the advantage, if any, of the schemes being collective rather than individual?

In theory the risk is shared across more people so in theory you could invest some of the money in more riskier ventures.

And the govt, as well as the industry are saying you "should" get better returns. Not you will, they cannot give financial advice, just you "should".

I will keep my money where it is. As far as I am concerned if Britain was worth investing in people would be doing it already. The fact it is not in the numbers required is something that should be addressed by making it more attractive to invest in not compelling pension funds to invest in "Britain"


This from the Govt announcement. The significant appetite being the advisers and fund managers who get their cut whatever the performance.


"Building on the significant appetite from industry for extending CDC provision, the Government is now seeking to broaden access further by allowing unconnected multiple employer schemes – making this pension model more accessible to a wider range of businesses and employees."

"This work builds on plans to review our pensions landscape as well as our new Pension Schemes Bill which could boost pension pots – with further consolidation and broader investment strategies to possibly deliver higher returns for pensioners."

eek said:

noneoftheabove said:

eek said:

Taz said:

Well, what could possibly go wrong !!!!!


Plans to broaden access to a new type of pension scheme allowing savings to be pooled have been set out by the Government.

Collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes have the potential to deliver reliable returns for savers, while ensuring more predictable costs for employers, the Government said.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/plans-to-modernise-pensions-market-set-out-by-government/ar-AA1rSTtW?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=faee51125109441d98810f62d27982f7&ei=16

It's a contribution based pension scheme - it won't have any impact on employer costs because once the money is paid into the fund by the employer that's the end of their responsibility.

You then have the second question of would you invest in a fund that any government has control over - to which the answer is I'm not that stupid.

What is the advantage, if any, of the schemes being collective rather than individual?

In theory the risk is shared across more people so in theory you could invest some of the money in more riskier ventures.

kenObi said:

Leon said:

Pulpstar said:

Leon said:

rottenborough said:

Torsten Bell‬ ‪@torstenbell.bsky.social‬
·
1h
The UK is seeing more deaths than births (ie natural population shrinkage) for the first time since the 1970s (pandemic aside obviously) www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...

https://bsky.app/profile/torstenbell.bsky.social/post/3l5ygm6sy452f

Something very odd about those figures. England saw very slightly more births than deaths. But Wales and Scotland see vastly more (in proportion) deaths than births?

Eg in Scotland that’s 45,000 births and 65,000 deaths

Is Scotland dying out? Or is this a data glitch

Wales has an an older population profile so should see more deaths than England. Not sure about Scotland. Norn has the youngest population iirc so should see the highest birth rate.
England has a slightly more immigrant heavy population so should have slightly higher birth rates for the same age profile as the other nations, but it's not quite enough to outweigh Norn's slightly younger population *I think !

That’s a massive disparity in Scotland however

45k births, 65k deaths

Almost one and a half times as many deaths as births

Births falling in Scotland for 60 years...

And its been remarkably consistent.
104k births in 1964

Deaths have been broadly level for last 50 years.
50 - 65k per year.

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who has been to Scotlands main belt.
Poor people, born in poor housing, who smoke, drink and have a poor diet without much exercise die earlier.
Who'd a thought.

eek said:

Taz said:

Well, what could possibly go wrong !!!!!


Plans to broaden access to a new type of pension scheme allowing savings to be pooled have been set out by the Government.

Collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes have the potential to deliver reliable returns for savers, while ensuring more predictable costs for employers, the Government said.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/plans-to-modernise-pensions-market-set-out-by-government/ar-AA1rSTtW?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=faee51125109441d98810f62d27982f7&ei=16

It's a contribution based pension scheme - it won't have any impact on employer costs because once the money is paid into the fund by the employer that's the end of their responsibility.

You then have the second question of would you invest in a fund that any government has control over - to which the answer is I'm not that stupid.

kenObi said:

Leon said:

Pulpstar said:

Leon said:

rottenborough said:

Torsten Bell‬ ‪@torstenbell.bsky.social‬
·
1h
The UK is seeing more deaths than births (ie natural population shrinkage) for the first time since the 1970s (pandemic aside obviously) www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...

https://bsky.app/profile/torstenbell.bsky.social/post/3l5ygm6sy452f

Something very odd about those figures. England saw very slightly more births than deaths. But Wales and Scotland see vastly more (in proportion) deaths than births?

Eg in Scotland that’s 45,000 births and 65,000 deaths

Is Scotland dying out? Or is this a data glitch

Wales has an an older population profile so should see more deaths than England. Not sure about Scotland. Norn has the youngest population iirc so should see the highest birth rate.
England has a slightly more immigrant heavy population so should have slightly higher birth rates for the same age profile as the other nations, but it's not quite enough to outweigh Norn's slightly younger population *I think !

That’s a massive disparity in Scotland however

45k births, 65k deaths

Almost one and a half times as many deaths as births

Births falling in Scotland for 60 years...

And its been remarkably consistent.
104k births in 1964

Deaths have been broadly level for last 50 years.
50 - 65k per year.

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who has been to Scotlands main belt.
Poor people, born in poor housing, who smoke, drink and have a poor diet without much exercise die earlier.
Who'd a thought.

Andy_JS said:

How England lost their first wicket.

https://x.com/SkyCricket/status/1843609510524461437

Andy_JS said:

Burgessian said:

Just dropped in The Guardian:

Jenrick sabotaged his Tory leadership chances at conference, survey of members suggests, with Cleverly rising fast
Conservative members were more likely to be turned off by what they saw of Robert Jenrick at the party conference than impressed, a survey suggests.

Jenrick arrived at the conference as the clear bookmakers’ favourite. But, according to a ConservativeHome survey of Tory members, only 23% of them said that what happened at conference made them more likely to support him – and 43% said they were less likely to support him afterwards.

Tom Tugendhat experienced a similar loss of support – but he is expected to be out of the contest by the end of today anyway as the candidate most likely to be eliminated in today’s ballot of MPs.

Conservative members favour Kemi Badenoch for next leader, according to numerous ConHome surveys, and proper polling, but 35% of respondents said conference made them less likely to support her, while 30% said the opposite.

The survey suggests the big winner was James Cleverly. Some 55% of Tories said conference made him a more attractive candidate, while only 14% said it didn’t.

------------

NB: PB gets a mention downstream!

I watched Cleverly's speech and didn't notice anything special about it.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Patrick Nicholls eat your heart out.

Alcoholism charity executive caught drink-driving and hiding from police in bush

Marketing director of addiction charity receives 40-month driving ban after being found three times over legal limit

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/07/eliza-loftus-crewe-magistrates-court-drink-diving/

bondegezou said:

turbotubbs said:

OldKingCole said:

Selebian said:

JosiasJessop said:

Selebian said:

So anyway my kids' school is running a trip for one of the years to a local mosque (they've been studying Islam in RE recently; it's a CofE school). The year in question is still in the free school meals age group, so the school is offering pack-ups, with sandwiches of cheese, tuna or ham.

I assume these will not be eaten on the mosque's premises, but still strikes me as a bit of an 'interesting' choice for the day trip!

A couple of years ago my son went on a school trip to Bhaktivedanta Manor. We had to provide a packed lunch, and it was made clear that this would be eaten on the bus.

He really enjoyed the trip; his first significant contact with Hinduism.

i think such trips should be encouraged, to all religions.

Yeah, my kid's been really engaged with this and last year when they studied Hinduism and did some things for Diwali. I'd not have gone for a CofE school particularly*, but I'm happy that this one is giving well rounded education and not pushing the Christianity bit excessively (I mean, if you do, how do you do it - Muslims believe this and they're wrong! )

*The two nearest ones we liked both happened to be CofE

Our local WEA organised a series of talks on Islam. Very informative, given by someone who'd fought in Bosnia etc.
One of the elderly lady members was told by her husband not to attend!. She did, though!

This is probably not the place for the discussion, but I was very struck by a radio discussion where both Jewish and Islamic priest/iman etc assert that to kill is morally wrong, yet we see (certainly for Islam() large strands of the religion(s) that seem to say it is acceptable.

Clearly the Christian church has its own legacy of crusading, and killing the infidel with God's blessing (via the Pope) but until a religion stops being so thoroughly abhorrent then I am afraid I will continue to regard its proponents as evil.

Do you cast all of a religion’s proponents as evil because of the actions of some? You’d have to consider a large proportion of the world’s population to be evil.

WildernessPt2 said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

Big Dom on Chagos

“All credit to Starmer, finally an appointment that makes sense - if the goal is *give away British territory because your human rights lawyer mates say 'there's no alternative'*, then makes sense to hire the expert on surrendering to the IRA.

This came to my desk in No10. I said: tell the FO and Cabinet Office lawyers to fuck off, no way, no discussion.

Boris in 2021 like on everything backtracked and started this surrender. Cleverley took dictation like the perfect NPC-minister...

*The system is working as intended* - and the logical thing for the system to do is put Powell in as NSA, institutionalise *surrender to international lawyers* & bring clarity across the deep state.”

https://x.com/dominic2306/status/1843601671701598403?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

He sounds deranged.

Deranged people can often be right. Does it not sound fairly likely?

rottenborough said:

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Euston was always the wrong terminus for HS2. It is crowded already and doesn’t have the same connections, including Eurostar, as Kings Cross St Pancras half a mile up the road.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/nils-pratley-on-finance/2024/oct/07/euston-is-a-problem-without-a-good-solution

OldKingCole said:

Cookie said:

Leon said:

rottenborough said:

Torsten Bell‬ ‪@torstenbell.bsky.social‬
·
1h
The UK is seeing more deaths than births (ie natural population shrinkage) for the first time since the 1970s (pandemic aside obviously) www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...

https://bsky.app/profile/torstenbell.bsky.social/post/3l5ygm6sy452f

Something very odd about those figures. England saw very slightly more births than deaths. But Wales and Scotland see vastly more (in proportion) deaths than births?

Eg in Scotland that’s 45,000 births and 65,000 deaths

Is Scotland dying out? Or is this a data glitch

Scotland a) has been struggling with birth rates for some time, and b) has been struggling with earlier deaths for some time (so the tipping point into natural shrinkage comes earlier).

ISTR a few years ago England's birth rate was being propped up by immigrants with more children, though I don't know if this is still true.

So without immigration the country's population would be falling/

Has anyone told Farage?

eek said:

rottenborough said:

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Euston was always the wrong terminus for HS2. It is crowded already and doesn’t have the same connections, including Eurostar, as Kings Cross St Pancras half a mile up the road.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/nils-pratley-on-finance/2024/oct/07/euston-is-a-problem-without-a-good-solution

Love to know where he proposes to put the platforms at Kings Cross St Pancras.

It ended up at Euston because that is where the space is available..

kinabalu said:

WildernessPt2 said:

Andy_JS said:

Burgessian said:

Just dropped in The Guardian:

Jenrick sabotaged his Tory leadership chances at conference, survey of members suggests, with Cleverly rising fast
Conservative members were more likely to be turned off by what they saw of Robert Jenrick at the party conference than impressed, a survey suggests.

Jenrick arrived at the conference as the clear bookmakers’ favourite. But, according to a ConservativeHome survey of Tory members, only 23% of them said that what happened at conference made them more likely to support him – and 43% said they were less likely to support him afterwards.

Tom Tugendhat experienced a similar loss of support – but he is expected to be out of the contest by the end of today anyway as the candidate most likely to be eliminated in today’s ballot of MPs.

Conservative members favour Kemi Badenoch for next leader, according to numerous ConHome surveys, and proper polling, but 35% of respondents said conference made them less likely to support her, while 30% said the opposite.

The survey suggests the big winner was James Cleverly. Some 55% of Tories said conference made him a more attractive candidate, while only 14% said it didn’t.

------------

NB: PB gets a mention downstream!

I watched Cleverly's speech and didn't notice anything special about it.

No. It was pleasant enough, and that's all, he became the one to back because they wanted him to be. We saw a similar thing happen in the US with Kamala Harris. She was the hapless useless VP to good old boy Joe, and soon as the 'sensibles' needed to switch horses, she became a tower of strength and joy without actually submitting herself to any kind of scrutiny.

It was people on the right who were forever pushing the 'useless Kamala' trope.

Andy_JS said:

"Dutch museum worker accidently threw 'meticulous' beer can artwork in bin"

https://www.itv.com/news/2024-10-08/dutch-museum-worker-accidently-threw-meticulous-beer-can-artwork-in-bin

eek said:

rottenborough said:

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Euston was always the wrong terminus for HS2. It is crowded already and doesn’t have the same connections, including Eurostar, as Kings Cross St Pancras half a mile up the road.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/nils-pratley-on-finance/2024/oct/07/euston-is-a-problem-without-a-good-solution

Love to know where he proposes to put the platforms at Kings Cross St Pancras.

It ended up at Euston because that is where the space is available..

DavidL said:

Leon said:

rottenborough said:

Torsten Bell‬ ‪@torstenbell.bsky.social‬
·
1h
The UK is seeing more deaths than births (ie natural population shrinkage) for the first time since the 1970s (pandemic aside obviously) www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...

https://bsky.app/profile/torstenbell.bsky.social/post/3l5ygm6sy452f

Something very odd about those figures. England saw very slightly more births than deaths. But Wales and Scotland see vastly more (in proportion) deaths than births?

Eg in Scotland that’s 45,000 births and 65,000 deaths

Is Scotland dying out? Or is this a data glitch

Having kids to live under an SNP government is a tough call. Hard to see a viable future for them.

JosiasJessop said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Euston was always the wrong terminus for HS2. It is crowded already and doesn’t have the same connections, including Eurostar, as Kings Cross St Pancras half a mile up the road.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/nils-pratley-on-finance/2024/oct/07/euston-is-a-problem-without-a-good-solution

Love to know where he proposes to put the platforms at Kings Cross St Pancras.

It ended up at Euston because that is where the space is available..

It has to be Euston, sadly.

As I've said passim, a sane plan would have been for Crossrail to have been planned and designed to cope with HS2 sets; allowing (say) one service an hour to interconnect at Old Oak Common, go through central London on Crossrail, then join HS1 at Stratford to go on to Europe, if required, or Kent. It's far too late now, but that would have been true transport planning at its best.

It's really annoying when you see how close HS1 and Crossrail are at Stratford, and HS2 and Crossrail will be at OOC. It is a massively wasted opportunity.

Burgessian said:

Just dropped in The Guardian:

Jenrick sabotaged his Tory leadership chances at conference, survey of members suggests, with Cleverly rising fast
Conservative members were more likely to be turned off by what they saw of Robert Jenrick at the party conference than impressed, a survey suggests.

Jenrick arrived at the conference as the clear bookmakers’ favourite. But, according to a ConservativeHome survey of Tory members, only 23% of them said that what happened at conference made them more likely to support him – and 43% said they were less likely to support him afterwards.

Tom Tugendhat experienced a similar loss of support – but he is expected to be out of the contest by the end of today anyway as the candidate most likely to be eliminated in today’s ballot of MPs.

Conservative members favour Kemi Badenoch for next leader, according to numerous ConHome surveys, and proper polling, but 35% of respondents said conference made them less likely to support her, while 30% said the opposite.

The survey suggests the big winner was James Cleverly. Some 55% of Tories said conference made him a more attractive candidate, while only 14% said it didn’t.

------------

NB: PB gets a mention downstream!

Benpointer said:

noneoftheabove said:

eek said:

noneoftheabove said:

eek said:

Taz said:

Well, what could possibly go wrong !!!!!


Plans to broaden access to a new type of pension scheme allowing savings to be pooled have been set out by the Government.

Collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes have the potential to deliver reliable returns for savers, while ensuring more predictable costs for employers, the Government said.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/plans-to-modernise-pensions-market-set-out-by-government/ar-AA1rSTtW?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=faee51125109441d98810f62d27982f7&ei=16

It's a contribution based pension scheme - it won't have any impact on employer costs because once the money is paid into the fund by the employer that's the end of their responsibility.

You then have the second question of would you invest in a fund that any government has control over - to which the answer is I'm not that stupid.

What is the advantage, if any, of the schemes being collective rather than individual?

In theory the risk is shared across more people so in theory you could invest some of the money in more riskier ventures.

Is the post office pension scheme going to have more customers than Vanguard? Or more holdings than the 30,751 in their LifeStrategy60 fund? Clearly not, but I bet it will be a damn sight more expensive.

We can also tailor our own risk profile individually rather than collectively which makes far more sense.

You can, I can, probably most on here can. But plenty can't.

I reckon it would be beyond a majority in the country.

algarkirk said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Euston was always the wrong terminus for HS2. It is crowded already and doesn’t have the same connections, including Eurostar, as Kings Cross St Pancras half a mile up the road.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/nils-pratley-on-finance/2024/oct/07/euston-is-a-problem-without-a-good-solution

Love to know where he proposes to put the platforms at Kings Cross St Pancras.

It ended up at Euston because that is where the space is available..

J K Rowling managed to at King's Cross.

Eabhal said:

Casino_Royale said:

eek said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Reeves urged to scrap free prescriptions for 60- to 65-year-olds

Move could raise the Treasury more than £6bn in lead up to Budget

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/reeves-urged-scrap-free-prescriptions-60-65-year-olds/

I didn't know they were getting them free already anyway?

Align it to State pension age.

That's why it was set at 60 - because that was State pension age and equal opportunity legislation meant that men had to get it at the same age that women did.

But it's either 67 or 68 now, right?

Haven't googled it. Seems fairer to align there.

We can't afford these sort of nice freebies.

If you thought the reaction to WFP was bad...

You've gotta respect Labour for having the courage to do stuff like this. I think it's all about settling the markets ahead of increased borrowing and capital spending in the budget.

Leon said:

Am I the only PBer that’s actually BEEN INSIDE a crack den? Because I have

Moss Side, Manchester, about 1995

TBH I’d be surprised if it resembled Theresa May’s apartment at Number 10. It was a derelict council flat with zero furniture and water dripping in through the ceiling and a pervasive smell of urine and dirt. There was barely any light - most of it came from the flames the users applied to the drugs. Rats skittered along the kitchen floor. And the guy who helped us score had a massive wound in his chest from a recent shot gun blast and when he got high he kept stripping off to proudly show us the atrocious scar

I know Number 10 can be a “crazy place” but really?

MattW said:

Eabhal said:

Casino_Royale said:

eek said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Reeves urged to scrap free prescriptions for 60- to 65-year-olds

Move could raise the Treasury more than £6bn in lead up to Budget

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/reeves-urged-scrap-free-prescriptions-60-65-year-olds/

I didn't know they were getting them free already anyway?

Align it to State pension age.

That's why it was set at 60 - because that was State pension age and equal opportunity legislation meant that men had to get it at the same age that women did.

But it's either 67 or 68 now, right?

Haven't googled it. Seems fairer to align there.

We can't afford these sort of nice freebies.

If you thought the reaction to WFP was bad...

You've gotta respect Labour for having the courage to do stuff like this. I think it's all about settling the markets ahead of increased borrowing and capital spending in the budget.

It's not Labour (unless someone has a link?). It's the Telegraph quoting a report from the Intergenerational Federation.

The people who consulted on this were the Johnson Government. The T are trying to scaremonger their youngest readers in the 60-66 age bracket.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/aligning-the-upper-age-for-nhs-prescription-charge-exemptions-with-the-state-pension-age

Here's the link to the consultation report published in 2023:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/aligning-the-upper-age-for-nhs-prescription-charge-exemptions-with-the-state-pension-age/outcome/aligning-the-upper-age-for-nhs-prescription-charge-exemptions-with-the-state-pension-age-government-response

Rishi Sunk's Govt ran away from doing it, unsurprisingly (I think June 2023 was his time on the rotatory, wasn't it?):
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/free-prescription-age-frozen-at-60

AFAICS the numbers in the Telegraph article are standard Telegraph Turbo-Bollocks, but I'll post that separately.

They are trying to seed fake narratives to scare Tory supporters back into line, and running flags up flagpoles to see what works. That or the writer dropped his bifocals.

noneoftheabove said:

Benpointer said:

noneoftheabove said:

eek said:

noneoftheabove said:

eek said:

Taz said:

Well, what could possibly go wrong !!!!!


Plans to broaden access to a new type of pension scheme allowing savings to be pooled have been set out by the Government.

Collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes have the potential to deliver reliable returns for savers, while ensuring more predictable costs for employers, the Government said.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/plans-to-modernise-pensions-market-set-out-by-government/ar-AA1rSTtW?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=faee51125109441d98810f62d27982f7&ei=16

It's a contribution based pension scheme - it won't have any impact on employer costs because once the money is paid into the fund by the employer that's the end of their responsibility.

You then have the second question of would you invest in a fund that any government has control over - to which the answer is I'm not that stupid.

What is the advantage, if any, of the schemes being collective rather than individual?

In theory the risk is shared across more people so in theory you could invest some of the money in more riskier ventures.

Is the post office pension scheme going to have more customers than Vanguard? Or more holdings than the 30,751 in their LifeStrategy60 fund? Clearly not, but I bet it will be a damn sight more expensive.

We can also tailor our own risk profile individually rather than collectively which makes far more sense.

You can, I can, probably most on here can. But plenty can't.

I reckon it would be beyond a majority in the country.

I assume because you are on a defined benefit pension? Those are generally better than those of us with flexibility to choose our risk profile have.

Pension transfers are relatively simple otherwise aiui.

Eabhal said:

MattW said:

Eabhal said:

Casino_Royale said:

eek said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Reeves urged to scrap free prescriptions for 60- to 65-year-olds

Move could raise the Treasury more than £6bn in lead up to Budget

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/reeves-urged-scrap-free-prescriptions-60-65-year-olds/

I didn't know they were getting them free already anyway?

Align it to State pension age.

That's why it was set at 60 - because that was State pension age and equal opportunity legislation meant that men had to get it at the same age that women did.

But it's either 67 or 68 now, right?

Haven't googled it. Seems fairer to align there.

We can't afford these sort of nice freebies.

If you thought the reaction to WFP was bad...

You've gotta respect Labour for having the courage to do stuff like this. I think it's all about settling the markets ahead of increased borrowing and capital spending in the budget.

It's not Labour (unless someone has a link?). It's the Telegraph quoting a report from the Intergenerational Federation.

The people who consulted on this were the Johnson Government. The T are trying to scaremonger their youngest readers in the 60-66 age bracket.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/aligning-the-upper-age-for-nhs-prescription-charge-exemptions-with-the-state-pension-age

Here's the link to the consultation report published in 2023:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/aligning-the-upper-age-for-nhs-prescription-charge-exemptions-with-the-state-pension-age/outcome/aligning-the-upper-age-for-nhs-prescription-charge-exemptions-with-the-state-pension-age-government-response

Rishi Sunk's Govt ran away from doing it, unsurprisingly (I think June 2023 was his time on the rotatory, wasn't it?):
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/free-prescription-age-frozen-at-60

AFAICS the numbers in the Telegraph article are standard Telegraph Turbo-Bollocks, but I'll post that separately.

They are trying to seed fake narratives to scare Tory supporters back into line, and running flags up flagpoles to see what works. That or the writer dropped his bifocals.

I'm getting quite fed up with the Telegraph.

Thanks for spending the time to dig that all out.

bondegezou said:

Trump Says He’s Visited Gaza, but No Record of Such a Trip Exists

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/07/us/politics/trump-gaza-israel.html

“Donald J. Trump suggested in a radio interview on Monday that he had visited war-torn Gaza in the past, a place there is no record of him visiting. When asked to clarify, a campaign aide said that Gaza is “in Israel” and that Mr. Trump has visited Israel.”

LostPassword said:

If Kamala Harris wins the election and becomes President and if there isn't an election in Ireland before the inauguration next January, or Fine Gael win enough seats to remain in office, then we will have a Harris as head of Government in Ireland and as head of Government in the US.

Have two countries ever had executive leaders with the same surname at the same time before?

Leon said:

Am I the only PBer that’s actually BEEN INSIDE a crack den? Because I have

Moss Side, Manchester, about 1995

TBH I’d be surprised if it resembled Theresa May’s apartment at Number 10. It was a derelict council flat with zero furniture and water dripping in through the ceiling and a pervasive smell of urine and dirt. There was barely any light - most of it came from the flames the users applied to the drugs. Rats skittered along the kitchen floor. And the guy who helped us score had a massive wound in his chest from a recent shot gun blast and when he got high he kept stripping off to proudly show us the atrocious scar...

Benpointer said:

noneoftheabove said:

Benpointer said:

noneoftheabove said:

eek said:

noneoftheabove said:

eek said:

Taz said:

Well, what could possibly go wrong !!!!!


Plans to broaden access to a new type of pension scheme allowing savings to be pooled have been set out by the Government.

Collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes have the potential to deliver reliable returns for savers, while ensuring more predictable costs for employers, the Government said.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/plans-to-modernise-pensions-market-set-out-by-government/ar-AA1rSTtW?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=faee51125109441d98810f62d27982f7&ei=16

It's a contribution based pension scheme - it won't have any impact on employer costs because once the money is paid into the fund by the employer that's the end of their responsibility.

You then have the second question of would you invest in a fund that any government has control over - to which the answer is I'm not that stupid.

What is the advantage, if any, of the schemes being collective rather than individual?

In theory the risk is shared across more people so in theory you could invest some of the money in more riskier ventures.

Is the post office pension scheme going to have more customers than Vanguard? Or more holdings than the 30,751 in their LifeStrategy60 fund? Clearly not, but I bet it will be a damn sight more expensive.

We can also tailor our own risk profile individually rather than collectively which makes far more sense.

You can, I can, probably most on here can. But plenty can't.

I reckon it would be beyond a majority in the country.

I assume because you are on a defined benefit pension? Those are generally better than those of us with flexibility to choose our risk profile have.

Pension transfers are relatively simple otherwise aiui.

I was and I had the option to take a transfer rather than an annuity. I chose not to but I do have plenty of assets I am comfortable to manage.

However, Mrs P. for example - an intelligent, highly educated person - would not be comfortable managing her own investment portfolio and in the event of my demise would no doubt turn to an IFA to take care of it all for her.

Then you have huge swathes of the population, not very well-educated or intelligent, who frankly wouldn't have a clue what to do to look after their pension assets.

noneoftheabove said:

Benpointer said:

noneoftheabove said:

Benpointer said:

noneoftheabove said:

eek said:

noneoftheabove said:

eek said:

Taz said:

Well, what could possibly go wrong !!!!!


Plans to broaden access to a new type of pension scheme allowing savings to be pooled have been set out by the Government.

Collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes have the potential to deliver reliable returns for savers, while ensuring more predictable costs for employers, the Government said.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/plans-to-modernise-pensions-market-set-out-by-government/ar-AA1rSTtW?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=faee51125109441d98810f62d27982f7&ei=16

It's a contribution based pension scheme - it won't have any impact on employer costs because once the money is paid into the fund by the employer that's the end of their responsibility.

You then have the second question of would you invest in a fund that any government has control over - to which the answer is I'm not that stupid.

What is the advantage, if any, of the schemes being collective rather than individual?

In theory the risk is shared across more people so in theory you could invest some of the money in more riskier ventures.

Is the post office pension scheme going to have more customers than Vanguard? Or more holdings than the 30,751 in their LifeStrategy60 fund? Clearly not, but I bet it will be a damn sight more expensive.

We can also tailor our own risk profile individually rather than collectively which makes far more sense.

You can, I can, probably most on here can. But plenty can't.

I reckon it would be beyond a majority in the country.

I assume because you are on a defined benefit pension? Those are generally better than those of us with flexibility to choose our risk profile have.

Pension transfers are relatively simple otherwise aiui.

I was and I had the option to take a transfer rather than an annuity. I chose not to but I do have plenty of assets I am comfortable to manage.

However, Mrs P. for example - an intelligent, highly educated person - would not be comfortable managing her own investment portfolio and in the event of my demise would no doubt turn to an IFA to take care of it all for her.

Then you have huge swathes of the population, not very well-educated or intelligent, who frankly wouldn't have a clue what to do to look after their pension assets.

Oh, absolutely, people don't have the financial education, but it is far from as complicated as the industry makes out. I am a big supporter of financial education both in school and for adults. We teach the wrong things.

LostPassword said:

Leon said:

rottenborough said:

Torsten Bell‬ ‪@torstenbell.bsky.social‬
·
1h
The UK is seeing more deaths than births (ie natural population shrinkage) for the first time since the 1970s (pandemic aside obviously) www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...

https://bsky.app/profile/torstenbell.bsky.social/post/3l5ygm6sy452f

Something very odd about those figures. England saw very slightly more births than deaths. But Wales and Scotland see vastly more (in proportion) deaths than births?

Eg in Scotland that’s 45,000 births and 65,000 deaths

Is Scotland dying out? Or is this a data glitch

The young move to London. And have their families in England.