Almost everyone on the Wikipedia "oldest person who ever lived" list is now dead. It's literally 98% of them. And quite a lot in the last few years
This is a pattern. I am NOT being paranoid. It's basically a Kill List hiding in plain sight
You make the list, you get "a visit", bang. And some of them are barely in their 110s
It's Elon Musk's fault. His chainsaw-wielding DOGE experts uncovered widespread pension fraud with 150-year-olds claiming benefits. The only answer is to kill them all.
It gets worse. Look at Shigeyo Nakachi, She wasn't even 116. Just in her mid 100 and teens. That didn't save her. Slotted. Like the rest
I hope someone is looking after Ethel Caterham, she's here in Britain and right now she's the oldest living person, at 116 years 31 days. They need to put a guard on her, 24/7
What Tom Baker said to the man who confused him with Shirley Williams.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
Surely the triple lock is of great importance to people "not quite of pensionable age" as they will be planning their retirements or even early retired and waiting for their company pension to be topped up by the state pension. So will have made decisions/will be making decisions based on the known financial environment.
Although, to be honest, tax treatment of pensions is probably much more important.
not much more tax they can put on pensions without just stealing the lot
Pensioners don’t pay NI whilst being the biggest users of the NHS, which (at least originally!) was supposed to be funded out of NI payments.
But yes, the more you tax pensioners the less incentive there is to save via pensions - not much point if you’re not getting the tax benefits.
You halfwit the clue is in old age pensioner, , they don't work you nutter. They have paid tax and NI all their lives. The few who do work pay through the nose.
PS: I paid NI for 52 years, my tax is multiple times my state pension and I have made very very minimal use of NHS to date, how does that fit your lunatic imaginations.
& now your contribution to society is insulting people on PB.
Almost everyone on the Wikipedia "oldest person who ever lived" list is now dead. It's literally 98% of them. And quite a lot in the last few years
This is a pattern. I am NOT being paranoid. It's basically a Kill List hiding in plain sight
You make the list, you get "a visit", bang. And some of them are barely in their 110s
It's Elon Musk's fault. His chainsaw-wielding DOGE experts uncovered widespread pension fraud with 150-year-olds claiming benefits. The only answer is to kill them all.
It gets worse. Look at Shigeyo Nakachi, She wasn't even 116. Just in her mid 100 and teens. That didn't save her. Slotted. Like the rest
I hope someone is looking after Ethel Caterham, she's here in Britain and right now she's the oldest living person, at 116 years 31 days. They need to put a guard on her, 24/7
What Tom Baker said to the man who confused him with Shirley Williams.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
This says more about you than it does anyone else, since the baby boom was referred to when I was a child in school in the 90s (albeit in Australia) and has always been a term used for generations that anyone online in the UK speaking about generations uses.
I don't know any "Millenial" like myself that would be unfamiliar with the term Boomer, so it being used is not remotely "American".
People complaining about Americanisms when we've grown up connected online and having been conversing with Americans and Brits and others for decades is utterly preposterous.
Almost as preposterous as defending the completely ruinous and unaffordable Triple Lock.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national idolisation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
People forget the purpose of the triple lock.
It was to bring the basic state pension up to a reasonable level vs national earnings over time.
So don’t remove it: replace it.
How about: basic pension increases in line with average earnings excluding bonuses. On top of the basic increase there is a discretionary supplementary increase if the basic pension is below a given percentage of average earnings to be paid according to x/Y/z criteria
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
This says more about you than it does anyone else, since the baby boom was referred to when I was a child in school in the 90s (albeit in Australia) and has always been a term used for generations that anyone online in the UK speaking about generations uses.
I don't know any "Millenial" like myself that would be unfamiliar with the term Boomer, so it being used is not remotely "American".
People complaining about Americanisms when we've grown up connected online and having been conversing with Americans and Brits and others for decades is utterly preposterous.
Almost as preposterous as defending the completely ruinous and unaffordable Triple Lock.
Do keep up. Our baby boom was different from the American baby boom. That's the point.
Cleverly is right in his observations though. Starmer needs to get a new suit
I'd prefer a PM who as an utter scruffbag but made good decisions to one that was immaculately neat and was always wrong.
Then there was Boris, who was often an utter scruffbag and was often wrong.
There are two roles:
The governing - where judgement is more important
The manifestation of our image abroad - where appearance matters
Foreign leaders won’t take a scruffy bag seriously.
But fortunately a PM with good judgment would know that and dress appropriately. Therefore we can conclude that Starmer does not have good judgment
There are plenty of examples of leaders not being perfectly attired (or attired according to boring norms). You may remember how the current US president demeaned a leader who turned up dressed stupidly. Then, after Musk, he met Big Z...
Bit of an odd line from Ed Davey about how he has to "go after Musk and X ", hardly the actions of a liberal ! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y558r2r1qo Maybe he should rename them The authoritarian Democrats ?
This is a good metric to my mind on how to judge politicians and public figures. Will they stick by their principles even when they're against their own side ?
This week Sir Ed Davey -; Tucker Calrson +
There might be THREE things you need to know about the Holy Roman Empire but there are only TWO things you need to know about the Liberal Democrats, they aren't Liberal and they aren't Democrats
I disagree, under Ed Davy the LDs are socially liberal, democratic and more on the soft centre right than the social democratic spectrum they were under when Charles Kennedy for example was their leader
@HYUFD thanks for dealing with reality unlike some who just make snide comments. Particularly pleasing as you aren't a LD and don't agree with their views, but appreciate we all have different views and should respect others views even if we don't agree with them. 👍
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
This says more about you than it does anyone else, since the baby boom was referred to when I was a child in school in the 90s (albeit in Australia) and has always been a term used for generations that anyone online in the UK speaking about generations uses.
I don't know any "Millenial" like myself that would be unfamiliar with the term Boomer, so it being used is not remotely "American".
People complaining about Americanisms when we've grown up connected online and having been conversing with Americans and Brits and others for decades is utterly preposterous.
Almost as preposterous as defending the completely ruinous and unaffordable Triple Lock.
"Anyone online" being the important phrase. People don't use it much in the UK when talking normally, face to face.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national idolisation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
People forget the purpose of the triple lock.
It was to bring the basic state pension up to a reasonable level vs national earnings over time.
So don’t remove it: replace it.
How about: basic pension increases in line with average earnings excluding bonuses. On top of the basic increase there is a discretionary supplementary increase if the basic pension is below a given percentage of average earnings to be paid according to x/Y/z criteria
That's what I think is the right solution too, though just simply with average earnings. And match it to the personal allowance.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
This says more about you than it does anyone else, since the baby boom was referred to when I was a child in school in the 90s (albeit in Australia) and has always been a term used for generations that anyone online in the UK speaking about generations uses.
I don't know any "Millenial" like myself that would be unfamiliar with the term Boomer, so it being used is not remotely "American".
People complaining about Americanisms when we've grown up connected online and having been conversing with Americans and Brits and others for decades is utterly preposterous.
Almost as preposterous as defending the completely ruinous and unaffordable Triple Lock.
Do keep up. Our baby boom was different from the American baby boom. That's the point.
An irrelevant and stupid point.
Our Boomers are approaching retirement and have not set aside savings to pay for the Triple Lock when they were working so it needs to go.
Cleverly is right in his observations though. Starmer needs to get a new suit
Cameron told Corbyn 'do your tie and top button up and buy a proper jacket.'
And he did!
And Cameron complimented him on the result, IIRC.
If you are going to wear a suit, do it properly. If you can’t be bothered to do it properly, wear jeans and a t-shirt.
I've never really understood this thing about ties, apart from demonstrating something about the wearers background.
You expect cold utilitarianism in fashion?
That pub near Christ Church, Oxford? Was taken there many years ago by a friend there - fortunately I was not wearing a tie.
The Bear. I was at one point living within about 10 metres of it, but hardly ever went there. It was the place the alcoholic custodians and porters used to slip off to.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
This says more about you than it does anyone else, since the baby boom was referred to when I was a child in school in the 90s (albeit in Australia) and has always been a term used for generations that anyone online in the UK speaking about generations uses.
I don't know any "Millenial" like myself that would be unfamiliar with the term Boomer, so it being used is not remotely "American".
People complaining about Americanisms when we've grown up connected online and having been conversing with Americans and Brits and others for decades is utterly preposterous.
Almost as preposterous as defending the completely ruinous and unaffordable Triple Lock.
Do keep up. Our baby boom was different from the American baby boom. That's the point.
An irrelevant and stupid point.
Our Boomers are approaching retirement and have not set aside savings to pay for the Triple Lock when they were working so it needs to go.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
This says more about you than it does anyone else, since the baby boom was referred to when I was a child in school in the 90s (albeit in Australia) and has always been a term used for generations that anyone online in the UK speaking about generations uses.
I don't know any "Millenial" like myself that would be unfamiliar with the term Boomer, so it being used is not remotely "American".
People complaining about Americanisms when we've grown up connected online and having been conversing with Americans and Brits and others for decades is utterly preposterous.
Almost as preposterous as defending the completely ruinous and unaffordable Triple Lock.
Do keep up. Our baby boom was different from the American baby boom. That's the point.
An irrelevant and stupid point.
Our Boomers are approaching retirement and have not set aside savings to pay for the Triple Lock when they were working so it needs to go.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
This says more about you than it does anyone else, since the baby boom was referred to when I was a child in school in the 90s (albeit in Australia) and has always been a term used for generations that anyone online in the UK speaking about generations uses.
I don't know any "Millenial" like myself that would be unfamiliar with the term Boomer, so it being used is not remotely "American".
People complaining about Americanisms when we've grown up connected online and having been conversing with Americans and Brits and others for decades is utterly preposterous.
Almost as preposterous as defending the completely ruinous and unaffordable Triple Lock.
"Anyone online" being the important phrase. People don't use it much in the UK when talking normally, face to face.
Because we tend to have different conversations online to face-to-face, but if its relevant in a face-to-face conversation then it absolutely can be used.
However the issue is @DecrepiterJohnL was claiming that its not a term normally used in the UK on social media, yet its being used in the UK on social media, so inferring Russian influencing. Its a perfectly normal UK term when online, so that inference is false.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national idolisation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
People forget the purpose of the triple lock.
It was to bring the basic state pension up to a reasonable level vs national earnings over time.
So don’t remove it: replace it.
How about: basic pension increases in line with average earnings excluding bonuses. On top of the basic increase there is a discretionary supplementary increase if the basic pension is below a given percentage of average earnings to be paid according to x/Y/z criteria
I suppose the question is- has the basic pension reached a reasonable level yet? It's certainly less stingy than current pensioners were willing to pay for their parents to have, but that's another matter.
We've got there a bit quicker than expected because of the way that the Ukraine War energy crunch played through the system, but there's a need to do something at some point.
Suggestion- set a target percentage at (now plus a few percent) and then plan to move to a new model.
In line with average earnings seems as good as any.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
This says more about you than it does anyone else, since the baby boom was referred to when I was a child in school in the 90s (albeit in Australia) and has always been a term used for generations that anyone online in the UK speaking about generations uses.
I don't know any "Millenial" like myself that would be unfamiliar with the term Boomer, so it being used is not remotely "American".
People complaining about Americanisms when we've grown up connected online and having been conversing with Americans and Brits and others for decades is utterly preposterous.
Almost as preposterous as defending the completely ruinous and unaffordable Triple Lock.
Do keep up. Our baby boom was different from the American baby boom. That's the point.
An irrelevant and stupid point.
Our Boomers are approaching retirement and have not set aside savings to pay for the Triple Lock when they were working so it needs to go.
Unusually sensible article from the Grauniad. What point are you making?
In 1968 I bought a house for £14k, and the bank manager commented that ‘in these inflationary times such a price might be paid!’ Some years later I sold it for £290k and recently it was sold for £700k. Little that either I or my successors did enhanced the value to that extent; it was largely due to inflation.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
Surely the triple lock is of great importance to people "not quite of pensionable age" as they will be planning their retirements or even early retired and waiting for their company pension to be topped up by the state pension. So will have made decisions/will be making decisions based on the known financial environment.
Although, to be honest, tax treatment of pensions is probably much more important.
not much more tax they can put on pensions without just stealing the lot
Pensioners don’t pay NI whilst being the biggest users of the NHS, which (at least originally!) was supposed to be funded out of NI payments.
But yes, the more you tax pensioners the less incentive there is to save via pensions - not much point if you’re not getting the tax benefits.
Not clear to me why there should be higher rate pensions relief though?
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
This says more about you than it does anyone else, since the baby boom was referred to when I was a child in school in the 90s (albeit in Australia) and has always been a term used for generations that anyone online in the UK speaking about generations uses.
I don't know any "Millenial" like myself that would be unfamiliar with the term Boomer, so it being used is not remotely "American".
People complaining about Americanisms when we've grown up connected online and having been conversing with Americans and Brits and others for decades is utterly preposterous.
Almost as preposterous as defending the completely ruinous and unaffordable Triple Lock.
Do keep up. Our baby boom was different from the American baby boom. That's the point.
An irrelevant and stupid point.
Our Boomers are approaching retirement and have not set aside savings to pay for the Triple Lock when they were working so it needs to go.
Unusually sensible article from the Grauniad. What point are you making?
In 1968 I bought a house for £14k, and the bank manager commented that ‘in these inflationary times such a price might be paid!’ Some years later I sold it for £290k and recently it was sold for £700k. Little that either I or my successors did enhanced the value to that extent; it was largely due to inflation.
Worse, house price inflation.
If it was regular inflation so £700k in today's money was £14k in 1968 money then it'd be no bad thing.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
This says more about you than it does anyone else, since the baby boom was referred to when I was a child in school in the 90s (albeit in Australia) and has always been a term used for generations that anyone online in the UK speaking about generations uses.
I don't know any "Millenial" like myself that would be unfamiliar with the term Boomer, so it being used is not remotely "American".
People complaining about Americanisms when we've grown up connected online and having been conversing with Americans and Brits and others for decades is utterly preposterous.
Almost as preposterous as defending the completely ruinous and unaffordable Triple Lock.
Do keep up. Our baby boom was different from the American baby boom. That's the point.
An irrelevant and stupid point.
Our Boomers are approaching retirement and have not set aside savings to pay for the Triple Lock when they were working so it needs to go.
Unusually sensible article from the Grauniad. What point are you making?
In 1968 I bought a house for £14k, and the bank manager commented that ‘in these inflationary times such a price might be paid!’ Some years later I sold it for £290k and recently it was sold for £700k. Little that either I or my successors did enhanced the value to that extent; it was largely due to inflation.
Worse, house price inflation.
If it was regular inflation so £700k in today's money was £14k in 1968 money then it'd be no bad thing.
Why are these systems hackable in the first place? Surely the computer systems in airports could be purely internal ones that aren't connected to everything else.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
This says more about you than it does anyone else, since the baby boom was referred to when I was a child in school in the 90s (albeit in Australia) and has always been a term used for generations that anyone online in the UK speaking about generations uses.
I don't know any "Millenial" like myself that would be unfamiliar with the term Boomer, so it being used is not remotely "American".
People complaining about Americanisms when we've grown up connected online and having been conversing with Americans and Brits and others for decades is utterly preposterous.
Almost as preposterous as defending the completely ruinous and unaffordable Triple Lock.
Do keep up. Our baby boom was different from the American baby boom. That's the point.
I am not sure that it was very different. We had an immediate post war spike in births, then a slight lull, building to a second peak in 1964 also with a million births, then dropping off to a trough in 1975 of under 700 000 births.
Perhaps the phasing was slightly different in the USA, but it was a very real phenomenon here too.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
This says more about you than it does anyone else, since the baby boom was referred to when I was a child in school in the 90s (albeit in Australia) and has always been a term used for generations that anyone online in the UK speaking about generations uses.
I don't know any "Millenial" like myself that would be unfamiliar with the term Boomer, so it being used is not remotely "American".
People complaining about Americanisms when we've grown up connected online and having been conversing with Americans and Brits and others for decades is utterly preposterous.
Almost as preposterous as defending the completely ruinous and unaffordable Triple Lock.
Do keep up. Our baby boom was different from the American baby boom. That's the point.
An irrelevant and stupid point.
Our Boomers are approaching retirement and have not set aside savings to pay for the Triple Lock when they were working so it needs to go.
Unusually sensible article from the Grauniad. What point are you making?
In 1968 I bought a house for £14k, and the bank manager commented that ‘in these inflationary times such a price might be paid!’ Some years later I sold it for £290k and recently it was sold for £700k. Little that either I or my successors did enhanced the value to that extent; it was largely due to inflation.
Worse, house price inflation.
If it was regular inflation so £700k in today's money was £14k in 1968 money then it'd be no bad thing.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
This says more about you than it does anyone else, since the baby boom was referred to when I was a child in school in the 90s (albeit in Australia) and has always been a term used for generations that anyone online in the UK speaking about generations uses.
I don't know any "Millenial" like myself that would be unfamiliar with the term Boomer, so it being used is not remotely "American".
People complaining about Americanisms when we've grown up connected online and having been conversing with Americans and Brits and others for decades is utterly preposterous.
Almost as preposterous as defending the completely ruinous and unaffordable Triple Lock.
Do keep up. Our baby boom was different from the American baby boom. That's the point.
An irrelevant and stupid point.
Our Boomers are approaching retirement and have not set aside savings to pay for the Triple Lock when they were working so it needs to go.
Unusually sensible article from the Grauniad. What point are you making?
In 1968 I bought a house for £14k, and the bank manager commented that ‘in these inflationary times such a price might be paid!’ Some years later I sold it for £290k and recently it was sold for £700k. Little that either I or my successors did enhanced the value to that extent; it was largely due to inflation.
Worse, house price inflation.
If it was regular inflation so £700k in today's money was £14k in 1968 money then it'd be no bad thing.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
Surely the triple lock is of great importance to people "not quite of pensionable age" as they will be planning their retirements or even early retired and waiting for their company pension to be topped up by the state pension. So will have made decisions/will be making decisions based on the known financial environment.
Although, to be honest, tax treatment of pensions is probably much more important.
not much more tax they can put on pensions without just stealing the lot
Pensioners don’t pay NI whilst being the biggest users of the NHS, which (at least originally!) was supposed to be funded out of NI payments.
But yes, the more you tax pensioners the less incentive there is to save via pensions - not much point if you’re not getting the tax benefits.
Not clear to me why there should be higher rate pensions relief though?
Because pensions are deferred income. People are taxed when they take their pension, not when paying in.
I doubt that the countries financial situation would be improved by taxing people saving for their retirement.
Why are these systems hackable in the first place? Surely the computer systems in airports could be purely internal ones that aren't connected to everything else.
Apparently one of the affected systems allows airlines to essentially hot-desk check-in desks. I can imagine check in desks, and the associated baggage systems, needs lots of real-time connectivity. E.g. who has booked onto a flight, and access to passport and other systems. Though it might have been the provider themselves who were hacked...
These systems are complex, often out of necessity.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
This says more about you than it does anyone else, since the baby boom was referred to when I was a child in school in the 90s (albeit in Australia) and has always been a term used for generations that anyone online in the UK speaking about generations uses.
I don't know any "Millenial" like myself that would be unfamiliar with the term Boomer, so it being used is not remotely "American".
People complaining about Americanisms when we've grown up connected online and having been conversing with Americans and Brits and others for decades is utterly preposterous.
Almost as preposterous as defending the completely ruinous and unaffordable Triple Lock.
Do keep up. Our baby boom was different from the American baby boom. That's the point.
An irrelevant and stupid point.
Our Boomers are approaching retirement and have not set aside savings to pay for the Triple Lock when they were working so it needs to go.
Unusually sensible article from the Grauniad. What point are you making?
In 1968 I bought a house for £14k, and the bank manager commented that ‘in these inflationary times such a price might be paid!’ Some years later I sold it for £290k and recently it was sold for £700k. Little that either I or my successors did enhanced the value to that extent; it was largely due to inflation.
Worse, house price inflation.
If it was regular inflation so £700k in today's money was £14k in 1968 money then it'd be no bad thing.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
This says more about you than it does anyone else, since the baby boom was referred to when I was a child in school in the 90s (albeit in Australia) and has always been a term used for generations that anyone online in the UK speaking about generations uses.
I don't know any "Millenial" like myself that would be unfamiliar with the term Boomer, so it being used is not remotely "American".
People complaining about Americanisms when we've grown up connected online and having been conversing with Americans and Brits and others for decades is utterly preposterous.
Almost as preposterous as defending the completely ruinous and unaffordable Triple Lock.
Do keep up. Our baby boom was different from the American baby boom. That's the point.
An irrelevant and stupid point.
Our Boomers are approaching retirement and have not set aside savings to pay for the Triple Lock when they were working so it needs to go.
Unusually sensible article from the Grauniad. What point are you making?
In 1968 I bought a house for £14k, and the bank manager commented that ‘in these inflationary times such a price might be paid!’ Some years later I sold it for £290k and recently it was sold for £700k. Little that either I or my successors did enhanced the value to that extent; it was largely due to inflation.
Worse, house price inflation.
If it was regular inflation so £700k in today's money was £14k in 1968 money then it'd be no bad thing.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
Surely the triple lock is of great importance to people "not quite of pensionable age" as they will be planning their retirements or even early retired and waiting for their company pension to be topped up by the state pension. So will have made decisions/will be making decisions based on the known financial environment.
Although, to be honest, tax treatment of pensions is probably much more important.
not much more tax they can put on pensions without just stealing the lot
Pensioners don’t pay NI whilst being the biggest users of the NHS, which (at least originally!) was supposed to be funded out of NI payments.
But yes, the more you tax pensioners the less incentive there is to save via pensions - not much point if you’re not getting the tax benefits.
Not clear to me why there should be higher rate pensions relief though?
Because pensions are deferred income. People are taxed when they take their pension, not when paying in.
I doubt that the countries financial situation would be improved by taxing people saving for their retirement.
The catch is that, by allowing higher rate taxpayers to defer the income until they aren't paying higher rate any more, it's a potentially hefty bung to people who, over their lifetime, don't really need it.
Rewarding saving is good, sure, but the art is to reward those who need the incentive, not those who don't. I like having a 20k a year ISA allowance, but I can't really justify my use of it.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
This says more about you than it does anyone else, since the baby boom was referred to when I was a child in school in the 90s (albeit in Australia) and has always been a term used for generations that anyone online in the UK speaking about generations uses.
I don't know any "Millenial" like myself that would be unfamiliar with the term Boomer, so it being used is not remotely "American".
People complaining about Americanisms when we've grown up connected online and having been conversing with Americans and Brits and others for decades is utterly preposterous.
Almost as preposterous as defending the completely ruinous and unaffordable Triple Lock.
Do keep up. Our baby boom was different from the American baby boom. That's the point.
An irrelevant and stupid point.
Our Boomers are approaching retirement and have not set aside savings to pay for the Triple Lock when they were working so it needs to go.
Yes this is the lurking sentiment. Stopping 'them' coming is necessary but it's not sufficient. Lots who are already here, breeding, stinking up the place, need to be removed.
"Police have been accused of “two-tier” justice after they did not arrest a Left-wing TikTok influencer who said “kill them all” in response to the shooting of Charlie Kirk.
JK Rowling and Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, criticised Kent Police after officers took no action against Charlotte Hayes over comments she made after the killing of the MAGA influencer.
They compared the treatment of Ms Hayes to that of Graham Linehan, the comedian arrested for an anti-trans tweet, and Lucy Connolly, who was jailed for a tweet inciting violence in the wake of the Southport murders."
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
This says more about you than it does anyone else, since the baby boom was referred to when I was a child in school in the 90s (albeit in Australia) and has always been a term used for generations that anyone online in the UK speaking about generations uses.
I don't know any "Millenial" like myself that would be unfamiliar with the term Boomer, so it being used is not remotely "American".
People complaining about Americanisms when we've grown up connected online and having been conversing with Americans and Brits and others for decades is utterly preposterous.
Almost as preposterous as defending the completely ruinous and unaffordable Triple Lock.
Do keep up. Our baby boom was different from the American baby boom. That's the point.
I am not sure that it was very different. We had an immediate post war spike in births, then a slight lull, building to a second peak in 1964 also with a million births, then dropping off to a trough in 1975 of under 700 000 births.
Perhaps the phasing was slightly different in the USA, but it was a very real phenomenon here too.
That's Keir Starmer's generation. As you say, things are different in America but the online (suspected Russian-inspired) trolling relies on US demographics.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
This says more about you than it does anyone else, since the baby boom was referred to when I was a child in school in the 90s (albeit in Australia) and has always been a term used for generations that anyone online in the UK speaking about generations uses.
I don't know any "Millenial" like myself that would be unfamiliar with the term Boomer, so it being used is not remotely "American".
People complaining about Americanisms when we've grown up connected online and having been conversing with Americans and Brits and others for decades is utterly preposterous.
Almost as preposterous as defending the completely ruinous and unaffordable Triple Lock.
Do keep up. Our baby boom was different from the American baby boom. That's the point.
I am not sure that it was very different. We had an immediate post war spike in births, then a slight lull, building to a second peak in 1964 also with a million births, then dropping off to a trough in 1975 of under 700 000 births.
Perhaps the phasing was slightly different in the USA, but it was a very real phenomenon here too.
That's Keir Starmer's generation. As you say, things are different in America but the online (suspected Russian-inspired) trolling relies on US demographics.
No, it does not.
Anyone born by 1964 is already in their sixties.
The boomers are retiring in the UK and they're doing so having not paid enough taxes to balance the state's expenditure in decades, let alone setting aside surpluses that can afford a Triple Lock.
Yes this is the lurking sentiment. Stopping 'them' coming is necessary but it's not sufficient. Lots who are already here, breeding, stinking up the place, need to be removed.
This country would be much better off with ten million fewer people.
The problem is who those ten million people are and how do we get them to emigrate.
Yes this is the lurking sentiment. Stopping 'them' coming is necessary but it's not sufficient. Lots who are already here, breeding, stinking up the place, need to be removed.
This country would be much better off with ten million fewer people.
The problem is who those ten million people are and how do we get them to emigrate.
Are you volunteering?
No?
I actually disagree with your basic premise. Losing ten million people would be a disaster.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national idolisation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
Given the long-term implications of the triple-lock, you'd think that someone would have to bite the bullet eventually, but perhaps not.
The emphasis on short-term incentives for politicians means that rational decisions can lead to irrational outcomes.
Conclusion: in the absence of a tremendously gifted and selfless politician the triple-lock will inevitably bankrupt Britain. Remind me whose bright idea it was?
Ah yes. George Osborne. The man who bankrupted Britain.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
This says more about you than it does anyone else, since the baby boom was referred to when I was a child in school in the 90s (albeit in Australia) and has always been a term used for generations that anyone online in the UK speaking about generations uses.
I don't know any "Millenial" like myself that would be unfamiliar with the term Boomer, so it being used is not remotely "American".
People complaining about Americanisms when we've grown up connected online and having been conversing with Americans and Brits and others for decades is utterly preposterous.
Almost as preposterous as defending the completely ruinous and unaffordable Triple Lock.
Do keep up. Our baby boom was different from the American baby boom. That's the point.
I am not sure that it was very different. We had an immediate post war spike in births, then a slight lull, building to a second peak in 1964 also with a million births, then dropping off to a trough in 1975 of under 700 000 births.
Perhaps the phasing was slightly different in the USA, but it was a very real phenomenon here too.
That's Keir Starmer's generation. As you say, things are different in America but the online (suspected Russian-inspired) trolling relies on US demographics.
No, it does not.
Anyone born by 1964 is already in their sixties.
The boomers are retiring in the UK and they're doing so having not paid enough taxes to balance the state's expenditure in decades, let alone setting aside surpluses that can afford a Triple Lock.
Its utterly unaffordable and inexcusable.
Sorry but you continually argue that the 2023 budget was all that was required and no extra taxes were needed.
"Police have been accused of “two-tier” justice after they did not arrest a Left-wing TikTok influencer who said “kill them all” in response to the shooting of Charlie Kirk.
JK Rowling and Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, criticised Kent Police after officers took no action against Charlotte Hayes over comments she made after the killing of the MAGA influencer.
They compared the treatment of Ms Hayes to that of Graham Linehan, the comedian arrested for an anti-trans tweet, and Lucy Connolly, who was jailed for a tweet inciting violence in the wake of the Southport murders."
I do wish people would not treat Connolly as some sort of victim. AIUI she made her comments at a time when people were actually rioting to burn down hotels with immigrants in them, she admitted the charge, and the sentence was within the guidelines. She did a bad thing; and I have seen little from her since that makes me think she is a good person.
Yes this is the lurking sentiment. Stopping 'them' coming is necessary but it's not sufficient. Lots who are already here, breeding, stinking up the place, need to be removed.
This country would be much better off with ten million fewer people.
The problem is who those ten million people are and how do we get them to emigrate.
Are you volunteering?
No?
I actually disagree with your basic premise. Losing ten million people would be a disaster.
It would be like when big companies do voluntary redundancy programmes.
A lot of the people who go are the ones who, form a pure profit and loss point of view, you might want to keep.
(And besides, the pure profit and loss point of view is balls.)
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
Surely the triple lock is of great importance to people "not quite of pensionable age" as they will be planning their retirements or even early retired and waiting for their company pension to be topped up by the state pension. So will have made decisions/will be making decisions based on the known financial environment.
Although, to be honest, tax treatment of pensions is probably much more important.
not much more tax they can put on pensions without just stealing the lot
Pensioners don’t pay NI whilst being the biggest users of the NHS, which (at least originally!) was supposed to be funded out of NI payments.
But yes, the more you tax pensioners the less incentive there is to save via pensions - not much point if you’re not getting the tax benefits.
Not clear to me why there should be higher rate pensions relief though?
Because pensions are deferred income. People are taxed when they take their pension, not when paying in.
I doubt that the countries financial situation would be improved by taxing people saving for their retirement.
A flat rate of relief for everyone, higher than the 20% basic rate, would encourage ordinary people to save.
Meanwhile it’s another super hot day up here in the mountains:
Yes this is the lurking sentiment. Stopping 'them' coming is necessary but it's not sufficient. Lots who are already here, breeding, stinking up the place, need to be removed.
This country would be much better off with ten million fewer people.
The problem is who those ten million people are and how do we get them to emigrate.
That's about the number planning to vote Reform per current polls.
Yes this is the lurking sentiment. Stopping 'them' coming is necessary but it's not sufficient. Lots who are already here, breeding, stinking up the place, need to be removed.
This country would be much better off with ten million fewer people.
The problem is who those ten million people are and how do we get them to emigrate.
Are you volunteering?
No?
I actually disagree with your basic premise. Losing ten million people would be a disaster.
So a return to the population of 2003 would be a 'disaster' ?
Do you not realise that much of the UK's current infrastructure and housing is based on that population ?
And many, many people to voluntarily leave this country.
Its often referred to as working overseas or retiring abroad.
Unfortunately they're often not the people the country wants to lose.
Yes this is the lurking sentiment. Stopping 'them' coming is necessary but it's not sufficient. Lots who are already here, breeding, stinking up the place, need to be removed.
This country would be much better off with ten million fewer people.
The problem is who those ten million people are and how do we get them to emigrate.
That's about the number planning to vote Reform per current polls.
Not inferring anything there. Determined not to.
Personally I'd start with criminals, layabouts and selfish oldies.
I'm confident that would fill the ten million requirement.
Yes this is the lurking sentiment. Stopping 'them' coming is necessary but it's not sufficient. Lots who are already here, breeding, stinking up the place, need to be removed.
This country would be much better off with ten million fewer people.
The problem is who those ten million people are and how do we get them to emigrate.
That's about the number planning to vote Reform per current polls.
Not inferring anything there. Determined not to.
I find it hard to understand why anyone would even think that we would be better off with 10 million fewer people
Who are these 10 million and how are they disposed off
The whole idea is unacceptable
Governments have to design tax and spend policies, together with a fair immigration system, and the fact it is under stress is the fault of politicians not people living in our country
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
Surely the triple lock is of great importance to people "not quite of pensionable age" as they will be planning their retirements or even early retired and waiting for their company pension to be topped up by the state pension. So will have made decisions/will be making decisions based on the known financial environment.
Although, to be honest, tax treatment of pensions is probably much more important.
not much more tax they can put on pensions without just stealing the lot
Pensioners don’t pay NI whilst being the biggest users of the NHS, which (at least originally!) was supposed to be funded out of NI payments.
But yes, the more you tax pensioners the less incentive there is to save via pensions - not much point if you’re not getting the tax benefits.
Not clear to me why there should be higher rate pensions relief though?
Because pensions are deferred income. People are taxed when they take their pension, not when paying in.
I doubt that the countries financial situation would be improved by taxing people saving for their retirement.
A flat rate of relief for everyone, higher than the 20% basic rate, would encourage ordinary people to save.
Meanwhile it’s another super hot day up here in the mountains:
Dog for scale. But Fahrenheit or Celsius? Edit: referring to the tongue.
Yes this is the lurking sentiment. Stopping 'them' coming is necessary but it's not sufficient. Lots who are already here, breeding, stinking up the place, need to be removed.
This country would be much better off with ten million fewer people.
The problem is who those ten million people are and how do we get them to emigrate.
Are you volunteering?
No?
I actually disagree with your basic premise. Losing ten million people would be a disaster.
Richard is being absurd, given the labour market shortages we’ve had since the pandemic, and the demographic profile of the existing population which trends increasingly elderly.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
Surely the triple lock is of great importance to people "not quite of pensionable age" as they will be planning their retirements or even early retired and waiting for their company pension to be topped up by the state pension. So will have made decisions/will be making decisions based on the known financial environment.
Although, to be honest, tax treatment of pensions is probably much more important.
not much more tax they can put on pensions without just stealing the lot
Pensioners don’t pay NI whilst being the biggest users of the NHS, which (at least originally!) was supposed to be funded out of NI payments.
But yes, the more you tax pensioners the less incentive there is to save via pensions - not much point if you’re not getting the tax benefits.
Not clear to me why there should be higher rate pensions relief though?
Because pensions are deferred income. People are taxed when they take their pension, not when paying in.
I doubt that the countries financial situation would be improved by taxing people saving for their retirement.
A flat rate of relief for everyone, higher than the 20% basic rate, would encourage ordinary people to save.
Meanwhile it’s another super hot day up here in the mountains:
Further, when merging NI & IT, have a lower rate of tax for those over the pension age, equal to the old rate.
So your first £50k of retirement income is unaffected by the change. I think anyone on more than £50k pension is not the struggling poor.
Yes this is the lurking sentiment. Stopping 'them' coming is necessary but it's not sufficient. Lots who are already here, breeding, stinking up the place, need to be removed.
This country would be much better off with ten million fewer people.
The problem is who those ten million people are and how do we get them to emigrate.
That's about the number planning to vote Reform per current polls.
Not inferring anything there. Determined not to.
I find it hard to understand why anyone would even think that we would be better off with 10 million fewer people
Who are these 10 million and how are they disposed off
The whole idea is unacceptable
Governments have to design tax and spend policies, together with a fair immigration system, and the fact it is under stress is the fault of politicians not people living in our country
It is the fault of people living in our country - who lobbied and bribed politicians to give them ever more cheap labour.
So they could avoid all that tedious effort (and expense) in productivity and training
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
Surely the triple lock is of great importance to people "not quite of pensionable age" as they will be planning their retirements or even early retired and waiting for their company pension to be topped up by the state pension. So will have made decisions/will be making decisions based on the known financial environment.
Although, to be honest, tax treatment of pensions is probably much more important.
not much more tax they can put on pensions without just stealing the lot
Pensioners don’t pay NI whilst being the biggest users of the NHS, which (at least originally!) was supposed to be funded out of NI payments.
But yes, the more you tax pensioners the less incentive there is to save via pensions - not much point if you’re not getting the tax benefits.
Not clear to me why there should be higher rate pensions relief though?
Because pensions are deferred income. People are taxed when they take their pension, not when paying in.
I doubt that the countries financial situation would be improved by taxing people saving for their retirement.
A flat rate of relief for everyone, higher than the 20% basic rate, would encourage ordinary people to save.
Meanwhile it’s another super hot day up here in the mountains:
Further, when merging NI & IT, have a lower rate of tax for those over the pension age, equal to the old rate.
So your first £50k of retirement income is unaffected by the change. I think anyone on more than £50k pension is not the struggling poor.
No. It’s reasonable to make sure the state pension isn’t taxed, by keeping the personal allowance pegged to it, but otherwise there is no reason why the retired shouldn’t pay the same marginal tax and NI rate as everyone else. In the UK it’s already the case that the average pensioner has more disposable income than the average worker, and in France his year the actual total income of the average pensioner has overtaken that of the average worker. Both statistics point to some fundamental imbalances in the economy - you’d expect pensioners to be wealthier, having had a lifetime to accumulate some - but to have higher incomes is absurd.
Yes this is the lurking sentiment. Stopping 'them' coming is necessary but it's not sufficient. Lots who are already here, breeding, stinking up the place, need to be removed.
This country would be much better off with ten million fewer people.
The problem is who those ten million people are and how do we get them to emigrate.
That's about the number planning to vote Reform per current polls.
Not inferring anything there. Determined not to.
I find it hard to understand why anyone would even think that we would be better off with 10 million fewer people
Who are these 10 million and how are they disposed off
The whole idea is unacceptable
Governments have to design tax and spend policies, together with a fair immigration system, and the fact it is under stress is the fault of politicians not people living in our country
It is the fault of people living in our country - who lobbied and bribed politicians to give them ever more cheap labour.
So they could avoid all that tedious effort (and expense) in productivity and training
Some people indeed
However this conversation worries me that many may feel threatened by the very suggestion and that is unacceptable
Yes this is the lurking sentiment. Stopping 'them' coming is necessary but it's not sufficient. Lots who are already here, breeding, stinking up the place, need to be removed.
This country would be much better off with ten million fewer people.
The problem is who those ten million people are and how do we get them to emigrate.
That's about the number planning to vote Reform per current polls.
Not inferring anything there. Determined not to.
9,708,716 voted for this shit show of a Government. Close enough to 10 million...
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
Surely the triple lock is of great importance to people "not quite of pensionable age" as they will be planning their retirements or even early retired and waiting for their company pension to be topped up by the state pension. So will have made decisions/will be making decisions based on the known financial environment.
Although, to be honest, tax treatment of pensions is probably much more important.
not much more tax they can put on pensions without just stealing the lot
Pensioners don’t pay NI whilst being the biggest users of the NHS, which (at least originally!) was supposed to be funded out of NI payments.
But yes, the more you tax pensioners the less incentive there is to save via pensions - not much point if you’re not getting the tax benefits.
Not clear to me why there should be higher rate pensions relief though?
Because pensions are deferred income. People are taxed when they take their pension, not when paying in.
I doubt that the countries financial situation would be improved by taxing people saving for their retirement.
A flat rate of relief for everyone, higher than the 20% basic rate, would encourage ordinary people to save.
Meanwhile it’s another super hot day up here in the mountains:
Further, when merging NI & IT, have a lower rate of tax for those over the pension age, equal to the old rate.
So your first £50k of retirement income is unaffected by the change. I think anyone on more than £50k pension is not the struggling poor.
No. It’s reasonable to make sure the state pension isn’t taxed, by keeping the personal allowance pegged to it, but otherwise there is no reason why the retired shouldn’t pay the same marginal tax and NI rate as everyone else. In the UK it’s already the case that the average pensioner has more disposable income than the average worker, and in France his year the actual total income of the average pensioner has overtaken that of the average worker. Both statistics point to some fundamental imbalances in the economy - you’d expect pensioners to be wealthier, having had a lifetime to accumulate some - but to have higher incomes is absurd.
It’s about political feasibility.
You won’t be able to get a bill passed to increase taxes on less well off pensioners now.
Higher taxes on the over £50k earners is possible.
Once you have merged the systems, fiscal drag and the money hunger of governments will gradually equalise the taxation. Over years.
Yes this is the lurking sentiment. Stopping 'them' coming is necessary but it's not sufficient. Lots who are already here, breeding, stinking up the place, need to be removed.
This country would be much better off with ten million fewer people.
The problem is who those ten million people are and how do we get them to emigrate.
That's about the number planning to vote Reform per current polls.
Not inferring anything there. Determined not to.
I find it hard to understand why anyone would even think that we would be better off with 10 million fewer people
Who are these 10 million and how are they disposed off
The whole idea is unacceptable
Governments have to design tax and spend policies, together with a fair immigration system, and the fact it is under stress is the fault of politicians not people living in our country
It is the fault of people living in our country - who lobbied and bribed politicians to give them ever more cheap labour.
So they could avoid all that tedious effort (and expense) in productivity and training
We’ve had a population increase of approx 20% since 1990. In a small island adding 20,000 has been a bit of a disaster in terms of housing, schooling etc but also it used to be a pleasure to drive here, as long as you weren’t stuck behind a Honda jazz or a hire car and now it’s grim.
The other sad change was that it was generally markedly different to the UK but as loads of people came in from the UK cities etc the demand grew for UK chains so local independents have gradually gone and from a shops/food perspective it could be most smarting places in the UK.
Every time a large commercial property is empty you have a load of morons flooding Facebook demanding a Primark or similar.
The rush to grow often has side effects where the benefits of growth are lost because people want “more” without realising what they had was actually enough.
Yes this is the lurking sentiment. Stopping 'them' coming is necessary but it's not sufficient. Lots who are already here, breeding, stinking up the place, need to be removed.
This country would be much better off with ten million fewer people.
The problem is who those ten million people are and how do we get them to emigrate.
That's about the number planning to vote Reform per current polls.
Not inferring anything there. Determined not to.
Personally I'd start with criminals, layabouts and selfish oldies.
I'm confident that would fill the ten million requirement.
Yes this is the lurking sentiment. Stopping 'them' coming is necessary but it's not sufficient. Lots who are already here, breeding, stinking up the place, need to be removed.
This country would be much better off with ten million fewer people.
The problem is who those ten million people are and how do we get them to emigrate.
That's about the number planning to vote Reform per current polls.
Not inferring anything there. Determined not to.
I find it hard to understand why anyone would even think that we would be better off with 10 million fewer people
Who are these 10 million and how are they disposed off
The whole idea is unacceptable
Governments have to design tax and spend policies, together with a fair immigration system, and the fact it is under stress is the fault of politicians not people living in our country
It is the fault of people living in our country - who lobbied and bribed politicians to give them ever more cheap labour.
So they could avoid all that tedious effort (and expense) in productivity and training
We’ve had a population increase of approx 20% since 1990. In a small island adding 20,000 has been a bit of a disaster in terms of housing, schooling etc but also it used to be a pleasure to drive here, as long as you weren’t stuck behind a Honda jazz or a hire car and now it’s grim.
The other sad change was that it was generally markedly different to the UK but as loads of people came in from the UK cities etc the demand grew for UK chains so local independents have gradually gone and from a shops/food perspective it could be most smarting places in the UK.
Every time a large commercial property is empty you have a load of morons flooding Facebook demanding a Primark or similar.
The rush to grow often has side effects where the benefits of growth are lost because people want “more” without realising what they had was actually enough.
Cheap labour is the cheap boiled sweets of economics.
Make you feel great for a bit. Then the stomach ache.
The future isn’t raspberry pickers. Machines do that now, better.
There was an interesting article, must find it, about the people behind some of the latest machines. Their machines pick better, but slower, but work all hours.
They are trying to get into renting their machines to the growers. Their account, in the article about the push back from existing labour providing firms was fascinating - all kinds of political influence, even, to push back the technology. Some people are making big money off people working 12 hours a day on piece work rates….
Yes this is the lurking sentiment. Stopping 'them' coming is necessary but it's not sufficient. Lots who are already here, breeding, stinking up the place, need to be removed.
This country would be much better off with ten million fewer people.
The problem is who those ten million people are and how do we get them to emigrate.
That's about the number planning to vote Reform per current polls.
Not inferring anything there. Determined not to.
9,708,716 voted for this shit show of a Government. Close enough to 10 million...
Let's remember that in 2024 the options if you were not making a protest vote where Rishi or SKS...
Yes this is the lurking sentiment. Stopping 'them' coming is necessary but it's not sufficient. Lots who are already here, breeding, stinking up the place, need to be removed.
This country would be much better off with ten million fewer people.
The problem is who those ten million people are and how do we get them to emigrate.
That's about the number planning to vote Reform per current polls.
Not inferring anything there. Determined not to.
9,708,716 voted for this shit show of a Government. Close enough to 10 million...
When you look at the demographic tables of voting in the last GE those 9.7 million were overwhelmingly of working age, so getting rid of them would considerably worse the financial balance of the country, not to mention halting many businesses and government services. Perhaps halving the State pension and increasing the retirement age to 80, applied retrospectively could balance the books, but it might be a hard sell on the doorsteps of the South Hams.
Yes this is the lurking sentiment. Stopping 'them' coming is necessary but it's not sufficient. Lots who are already here, breeding, stinking up the place, need to be removed.
This country would be much better off with ten million fewer people.
The problem is who those ten million people are and how do we get them to emigrate.
That's about the number planning to vote Reform per current polls.
Not inferring anything there. Determined not to.
I find it hard to understand why anyone would even think that we would be better off with 10 million fewer people
Who are these 10 million and how are they disposed off
The whole idea is unacceptable
Governments have to design tax and spend policies, together with a fair immigration system, and the fact it is under stress is the fault of politicians not people living in our country
It is the fault of people living in our country - who lobbied and bribed politicians to give them ever more cheap labour.
So they could avoid all that tedious effort (and expense) in productivity and training
We’ve had a population increase of approx 20% since 1990. In a small island adding 20,000 has been a bit of a disaster in terms of housing, schooling etc but also it used to be a pleasure to drive here, as long as you weren’t stuck behind a Honda jazz or a hire car and now it’s grim.
The other sad change was that it was generally markedly different to the UK but as loads of people came in from the UK cities etc the demand grew for UK chains so local independents have gradually gone and from a shops/food perspective it could be most smarting places in the UK.
Every time a large commercial property is empty you have a load of morons flooding Facebook demanding a Primark or similar.
The rush to grow often has side effects where the benefits of growth are lost because people want “more” without realising what they had was actually enough.
Cheap labour is the cheap boiled sweets of economics.
Make you feel great for a bit. Then the stomach ache.
The future isn’t raspberry pickers. Machines do that now, better.
There was an interesting article, must find it, about the people behind some of the latest machines. Their machines pick better, but slower, but work all hours.
They are trying to get into renting their machines to the growers. Their account, in the article about the push back from existing labour providing firms was fascinating - all kinds of political influence, even, to push back the technology. Some people are making big money off people working 12 hours a day on piece work rates….
Indeed, the majority of the influx was to sustain the growth - manual labourers, service industry staff etc. that’s fine from the perspective of there being no point in living in a place where you haven’t got restaurants, bars, tradesmen but the flip is that inevitably their pay levels aren’t generating as much tax as each of the arrivals family are “using” in terms of education and health costs because they are not using the private system understandably.
The idea of growth for growth’s sake is very questionable as the headline benefits obscure the idea costs. If you need to grow constantly to cover the increased costs of supporting the elements required for growth then you have to question if growth is a benefit over finding a level that works and then staying there.
Yes this is the lurking sentiment. Stopping 'them' coming is necessary but it's not sufficient. Lots who are already here, breeding, stinking up the place, need to be removed.
This country would be much better off with ten million fewer people.
The problem is who those ten million people are and how do we get them to emigrate.
That's about the number planning to vote Reform per current polls.
Not inferring anything there. Determined not to.
9,708,716 voted for this shit show of a Government. Close enough to 10 million...
Well I'm not leaving. My moving days are over.
When time it comes to see the end of me The site will be right here, NW3
Yes this is the lurking sentiment. Stopping 'them' coming is necessary but it's not sufficient. Lots who are already here, breeding, stinking up the place, need to be removed.
This country would be much better off with ten million fewer people.
The problem is who those ten million people are and how do we get them to emigrate.
I believe the government’s preferred option is current working its way through the lords
Yes this is the lurking sentiment. Stopping 'them' coming is necessary but it's not sufficient. Lots who are already here, breeding, stinking up the place, need to be removed.
This country would be much better off with ten million fewer people.
The problem is who those ten million people are and how do we get them to emigrate.
That's about the number planning to vote Reform per current polls.
Not inferring anything there. Determined not to.
I find it hard to understand why anyone would even think that we would be better off with 10 million fewer people
Who are these 10 million and how are they disposed off
The whole idea is unacceptable
Governments have to design tax and spend policies, together with a fair immigration system, and the fact it is under stress is the fault of politicians not people living in our country
It is the fault of people living in our country - who lobbied and bribed politicians to give them ever more cheap labour.
So they could avoid all that tedious effort (and expense) in productivity and training
We’ve had a population increase of approx 20% since 1990. In a small island adding 20,000 has been a bit of a disaster in terms of housing, schooling etc but also it used to be a pleasure to drive here, as long as you weren’t stuck behind a Honda jazz or a hire car and now it’s grim.
The other sad change was that it was generally markedly different to the UK but as loads of people came in from the UK cities etc the demand grew for UK chains so local independents have gradually gone and from a shops/food perspective it could be most smarting places in the UK.
Every time a large commercial property is empty you have a load of morons flooding Facebook demanding a Primark or similar.
The rush to grow often has side effects where the benefits of growth are lost because people want “more” without realising what they had was actually enough.
Cheap labour is the cheap boiled sweets of economics.
Make you feel great for a bit. Then the stomach ache.
The future isn’t raspberry pickers. Machines do that now, better.
There was an interesting article, must find it, about the people behind some of the latest machines. Their machines pick better, but slower, but work all hours.
They are trying to get into renting their machines to the growers. Their account, in the article about the push back from existing labour providing firms was fascinating - all kinds of political influence, even, to push back the technology. Some people are making big money off people working 12 hours a day on piece work rates….
Indeed, the majority of the influx was to sustain the growth - manual labourers, service industry staff etc. that’s fine from the perspective of there being no point in living in a place where you haven’t got restaurants, bars, tradesmen but the flip is that inevitably their pay levels aren’t generating as much tax as each of the arrivals family are “using” in terms of education and health costs because they are not using the private system understandably.
The idea of growth for growth’s sake is very questionable as the headline benefits obscure the idea costs. If you need to grow constantly to cover the increased costs of supporting the elements required for growth then you have to question if growth is a benefit over finding a level that works and then staying there.
Low growth would be less of a problem if the fruits of it were shared more equally.
Yes this is the lurking sentiment. Stopping 'them' coming is necessary but it's not sufficient. Lots who are already here, breeding, stinking up the place, need to be removed.
This country would be much better off with ten million fewer people.
The problem is who those ten million people are and how do we get them to emigrate.
That's about the number planning to vote Reform per current polls.
Not inferring anything there. Determined not to.
I find it hard to understand why anyone would even think that we would be better off with 10 million fewer people
Who are these 10 million and how are they disposed off
The whole idea is unacceptable
Governments have to design tax and spend policies, together with a fair immigration system, and the fact it is under stress is the fault of politicians not people living in our country
Imagine in 2003 if you had been asked "do you think the population of the UK should be increased by ten million over the next generation ?"
How many people would have said yes ? Would you have said yes ?
Now imagine in 2003 if you had been asked "do you think the population of the UK should be increased by ten million over the next generation without any equivalent increase in housing and infrastructure ?"
How many people would have said yes ? Would you have said yes ?
Because that's what happened.
Now imagine that question wasn't been asked in 2003 but was being asked now about another ten million people over the next generation without any equivalent increase in housing and infrastructure ?
So Donald Trump, on his way to the Charlie Kirk memorial event, says he's looking at this as "a time for healing". Exactly the sentiment a president ought to be putting out.
Let's see what he does with his speech, shall we. Let's see if that is the tone of it. If it is I'll be surprised and happy to be so.
So Donald Trump, on his way to the Charlie Kirk memorial event, says he's looking at this as "a time for healing". Exactly the sentiment a president ought to be putting out.
Let's see what he does with his speech, shall we. Let's see if that is the tone of it. If it is I'll be surprised and happy to be so.
Trump is often pretty good and moderate in his set piece speeches.
How much he believes it is another matter.
His internet ranting is likely a better guide to his real mentality.
So Donald Trump, on his way to the Charlie Kirk memorial event, says he's looking at this as "a time for healing". Exactly the sentiment a president ought to be putting out.
Let's see what he does with his speech, shall we. Let's see if that is the tone of it. If it is I'll be surprised and happy to be so.
About once a year he does manage to get the tone right and stay on message....
So Donald Trump, on his way to the Charlie Kirk memorial event, says he's looking at this as "a time for healing". Exactly the sentiment a president ought to be putting out.
Let's see what he does with his speech, shall we. Let's see if that is the tone of it. If it is I'll be surprised and happy to be so.
Trump is often pretty good and moderate in his set piece speeches.
How much he believes it is another matter.
His internet ranting is likely a better guide to his real mentality.
Is he going to resist the temptation to go on about Late Night tv hosts?
So Donald Trump, on his way to the Charlie Kirk memorial event, says he's looking at this as "a time for healing". Exactly the sentiment a president ought to be putting out.
Let's see what he does with his speech, shall we. Let's see if that is the tone of it. If it is I'll be surprised and happy to be so.
Have you been drinking?
The speech will be laced with hatred and for the remainder, Trump will be bigging himself up.
So Donald Trump, on his way to the Charlie Kirk memorial event, says he's looking at this as "a time for healing". Exactly the sentiment a president ought to be putting out.
Let's see what he does with his speech, shall we. Let's see if that is the tone of it. If it is I'll be surprised and happy to be so.
Trump is often pretty good and moderate in his set piece speeches.
How much he believes it is another matter.
His internet ranting is likely a better guide to his real mentality.
Is he going to resist the temptation to go on about Late Night tv hosts?
Yes this is the lurking sentiment. Stopping 'them' coming is necessary but it's not sufficient. Lots who are already here, breeding, stinking up the place, need to be removed.
This country would be much better off with ten million fewer people.
The problem is who those ten million people are and how do we get them to emigrate.
That's about the number planning to vote Reform per current polls.
Not inferring anything there. Determined not to.
I find it hard to understand why anyone would even think that we would be better off with 10 million fewer people
Who are these 10 million and how are they disposed off
The whole idea is unacceptable
Governments have to design tax and spend policies, together with a fair immigration system, and the fact it is under stress is the fault of politicians not people living in our country
It is the fault of people living in our country - who lobbied and bribed politicians to give them ever more cheap labour.
So they could avoid all that tedious effort (and expense) in productivity and training
We’ve had a population increase of approx 20% since 1990. In a small island adding 20,000 has been a bit of a disaster in terms of housing, schooling etc but also it used to be a pleasure to drive here, as long as you weren’t stuck behind a Honda jazz or a hire car and now it’s grim.
The other sad change was that it was generally markedly different to the UK but as loads of people came in from the UK cities etc the demand grew for UK chains so local independents have gradually gone and from a shops/food perspective it could be most smarting places in the UK.
Every time a large commercial property is empty you have a load of morons flooding Facebook demanding a Primark or similar.
The rush to grow often has side effects where the benefits of growth are lost because people want “more” without realising what they had was actually enough.
Cheap labour is the cheap boiled sweets of economics.
Make you feel great for a bit. Then the stomach ache.
The future isn’t raspberry pickers. Machines do that now, better.
There was an interesting article, must find it, about the people behind some of the latest machines. Their machines pick better, but slower, but work all hours.
They are trying to get into renting their machines to the growers. Their account, in the article about the push back from existing labour providing firms was fascinating - all kinds of political influence, even, to push back the technology. Some people are making big money off people working 12 hours a day on piece work rates….
Indeed, the majority of the influx was to sustain the growth - manual labourers, service industry staff etc. that’s fine from the perspective of there being no point in living in a place where you haven’t got restaurants, bars, tradesmen but the flip is that inevitably their pay levels aren’t generating as much tax as each of the arrivals family are “using” in terms of education and health costs because they are not using the private system understandably.
The idea of growth for growth’s sake is very questionable as the headline benefits obscure the idea costs. If you need to grow constantly to cover the increased costs of supporting the elements required for growth then you have to question if growth is a benefit over finding a level that works and then staying there.
Yes this is the lurking sentiment. Stopping 'them' coming is necessary but it's not sufficient. Lots who are already here, breeding, stinking up the place, need to be removed.
This country would be much better off with ten million fewer people.
The problem is who those ten million people are and how do we get them to emigrate.
That's about the number planning to vote Reform per current polls.
Not inferring anything there. Determined not to.
I find it hard to understand why anyone would even think that we would be better off with 10 million fewer people
Who are these 10 million and how are they disposed off
The whole idea is unacceptable
Governments have to design tax and spend policies, together with a fair immigration system, and the fact it is under stress is the fault of politicians not people living in our country
Imagine in 2003 if you had been asked "do you think the population of the UK should be increased by ten million over the next generation ?"
How many people would have said yes ? Would you have said yes ?
Now imagine in 2003 if you had been asked "do you think the population of the UK should be increased by ten million over the next generation without any equivalent increase in housing and infrastructure ?"
How many people would have said yes ? Would you have said yes ?
Because that's what happened.
Now imagine that question wasn't been asked in 2003 but was being asked now about another ten million people over the next generation without any equivalent increase in housing and infrastructure ?
Because that's the future this country is facing.
We're looking at a growth of about 5 million (7.3%) by 2032 with fertility rates due to bottom out in a couple of years (not sure about that but plenty of mothers with babies in Wanstead on Friday morning so who knows?).
The pace of increased housing provision has and continues to be desperately uneven with bursts of activity in some areas followed by lulls - the accompanying infrastructure, I agree, is a problem whether it be sewage, water, electricity, medical, educational or transport.
I walked through the new (and still being constructed) Fresh Wharf estate in Barking this afternoon and the apartments look nice enough and there is a residents' hub and a coffee shop (decent) and a small (pricey) local store but most of the other retail units are empty. There is a Mother Kelly's bar and tap room but the interior is empty and promises of a 2025 opening look unlikely.
This is not uncommon - the dwellings go up and usually get sold or rented but there is little or no supporting infrastructure for that is the people we are now - much more individual and insular. Michael Gore apoke about "atomisation" (a poor choice of word in the current climate) but the salient point is more single person households and less community cohesion but I don't know how that can be reversed.
So Donald Trump, on his way to the Charlie Kirk memorial event, says he's looking at this as "a time for healing". Exactly the sentiment a president ought to be putting out.
Let's see what he does with his speech, shall we. Let's see if that is the tone of it. If it is I'll be surprised and happy to be so.
Have you been drinking?
The speech will be laced with hatred and for the remainder, Trump will be bigging himself up.
So Donald Trump, on his way to the Charlie Kirk memorial event, says he's looking at this as "a time for healing". Exactly the sentiment a president ought to be putting out.
Let's see what he does with his speech, shall we. Let's see if that is the tone of it. If it is I'll be surprised and happy to be so.
Trump is often pretty good and moderate in his set piece speeches.
How much he believes it is another matter.
His internet ranting is likely a better guide to his real mentality.
Is he going to resist the temptation to go on about Late Night tv hosts?
Some cod Christian homily plus hyperpartisan fingerpointing is what I'm expecting.
Yes this is the lurking sentiment. Stopping 'them' coming is necessary but it's not sufficient. Lots who are already here, breeding, stinking up the place, need to be removed.
This country would be much better off with ten million fewer people.
The problem is who those ten million people are and how do we get them to emigrate.
That's about the number planning to vote Reform per current polls.
Not inferring anything there. Determined not to.
9,708,716 voted for this shit show of a Government. Close enough to 10 million...
Let's remember that in 2024 the options if you were not making a protest vote where Rishi or SKS...
The Ghost of Shit-show Past and the Ghost of Shit-show Future....
So Donald Trump, on his way to the Charlie Kirk memorial event, says he's looking at this as "a time for healing". Exactly the sentiment a president ought to be putting out.
Let's see what he does with his speech, shall we. Let's see if that is the tone of it. If it is I'll be surprised and happy to be so.
Fresh from telling everyone that they shouldn’t feel sorry for Biden with his advanced cancer cos he’s a SOB. Trump really has no redeeming feature, I would actually enjoy giving him a really hard kick in the baws.
Yes this is the lurking sentiment. Stopping 'them' coming is necessary but it's not sufficient. Lots who are already here, breeding, stinking up the place, need to be removed.
This country would be much better off with ten million fewer people.
The problem is who those ten million people are and how do we get them to emigrate.
That's about the number planning to vote Reform per current polls.
Not inferring anything there. Determined not to.
I find it hard to understand why anyone would even think that we would be better off with 10 million fewer people
Who are these 10 million and how are they disposed off
The whole idea is unacceptable
Governments have to design tax and spend policies, together with a fair immigration system, and the fact it is under stress is the fault of politicians not people living in our country
Imagine in 2003 if you had been asked "do you think the population of the UK should be increased by ten million over the next generation ?"
How many people would have said yes ? Would you have said yes ?
Now imagine in 2003 if you had been asked "do you think the population of the UK should be increased by ten million over the next generation without any equivalent increase in housing and infrastructure ?"
How many people would have said yes ? Would you have said yes ?
Because that's what happened.
Now imagine that question wasn't been asked in 2003 but was being asked now about another ten million people over the next generation without any equivalent increase in housing and infrastructure ?
Because that's the future this country is facing.
We're looking at a growth of about 5 million (7.3%) by 2032 with fertility rates due to bottom out in a couple of years (not sure about that but plenty of mothers with babies in Wanstead on Friday morning so who knows?).
The pace of increased housing provision has and continues to be desperately uneven with bursts of activity in some areas followed by lulls - the accompanying infrastructure, I agree, is a problem whether it be sewage, water, electricity, medical, educational or transport.
I walked through the new (and still being constructed) Fresh Wharf estate in Barking this afternoon and the apartments look nice enough and there is a residents' hub and a coffee shop (decent) and a small (pricey) local store but most of the other retail units are empty. There is a Mother Kelly's bar and tap room but the interior is empty and promises of a 2025 opening look unlikely.
This is not uncommon - the dwellings go up and usually get sold or rented but there is little or no supporting infrastructure for that is the people we are now - much more individual and insular. Michael Gore apoke about "atomisation" (a poor choice of word in the current climate) but the salient point is more single person households and less community cohesion but I don't know how that can be reversed.
The actual numbers show no sign of a U.K. fertility rate anywhere near 2.1
So Donald Trump, on his way to the Charlie Kirk memorial event, says he's looking at this as "a time for healing". Exactly the sentiment a president ought to be putting out.
Let's see what he does with his speech, shall we. Let's see if that is the tone of it. If it is I'll be surprised and happy to be so.
Fresh from telling everyone that they shouldn’t feel sorry for Biden with his advanced cancer cos he’s a SOB. Trump really has no redeeming feature, I would actually enjoy giving him a really hard kick in the baws.
Comments
The governing - where judgement is more important
The manifestation of our image abroad - where appearance matters
Foreign leaders won’t take a scruffy bag seriously.
But fortunately a PM with good judgment would know that and dress appropriately. Therefore we can conclude that Starmer does not have good judgment
President Trump speaking on paying social security to people over the age of 100
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/bF6Vl22--Qo
https://youtu.be/KUeOKo85K8k?si=Gne50CDtZwBpZdLB&t=432
Well, it’s a choice I suppose.
I don't know any "Millenial" like myself that would be unfamiliar with the term Boomer, so it being used is not remotely "American".
People complaining about Americanisms when we've grown up connected online and having been conversing with Americans and Brits and others for decades is utterly preposterous.
Almost as preposterous as defending the completely ruinous and unaffordable Triple Lock.
It was to bring the basic state pension up to a reasonable level vs national earnings over time.
So don’t remove it: replace it.
How about: basic pension increases in line with average earnings excluding bonuses. On top of the basic increase there is a discretionary supplementary increase if the basic pension is below a given percentage of average earnings to be paid according to x/Y/z criteria
Our Boomers are approaching retirement and have not set aside savings to pay for the Triple Lock when they were working so it needs to go.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/sep/20/boomers-think-their-wealth-came-from-wise-choices-this-myth-needs-busting
However the issue is @DecrepiterJohnL was claiming that its not a term normally used in the UK on social media, yet its being used in the UK on social media, so inferring Russian influencing. Its a perfectly normal UK term when online, so that inference is false.
We've got there a bit quicker than expected because of the way that the Ukraine War energy crunch played through the system, but there's a need to do something at some point.
Suggestion- set a target percentage at (now plus a few percent) and then plan to move to a new model.
In line with average earnings seems as good as any.
If it was regular inflation so £700k in today's money was £14k in 1968 money then it'd be no bad thing.
£14k in 1968 should be only £216k in 2025: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy88857llno
Why are these systems hackable in the first place? Surely the computer systems in airports could be purely internal ones that aren't connected to everything else.
"Ending mass immigration isn't enough - the damage is just too great.
We must reverse mass immigration. Moving away from the idea that arriving once legally entitles a foreigner to stay forever.
Our country, our borders, our rules.
An awfully big number of people must leave."
https://x.com/RupertLowe10/status/1969447486071685383
Perhaps the phasing was slightly different in the USA, but it was a very real phenomenon here too.
2) wonder why houses are is short supply and expensive.
1) create rules to make it difficult and expensive to build houses
2) wonder why houses are is short supply and expensive.
3) Profit
That’s one level down.
He should have posted that in response to Trump’s tweet referring Newson to the secret service
I doubt that the countries financial situation would be improved by taxing people saving for their retirement.
These systems are complex, often out of necessity.
If it wasn’t, half the MPs banging on about the Housing Crisis would have to shut up.
Rewarding saving is good, sure, but the art is to reward those who need the incentive, not those who don't. I like having a 20k a year ISA allowance, but I can't really justify my use of it.
JK Rowling and Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, criticised Kent Police after officers took no action against Charlotte Hayes over comments she made after the killing of the MAGA influencer.
They compared the treatment of Ms Hayes to that of Graham Linehan, the comedian arrested for an anti-trans tweet, and Lucy Connolly, who was jailed for a tweet inciting violence in the wake of the Southport murders."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/20/two-tier-row-over-tiktokers-charlie-kirk-comments
Anyone born by 1964 is already in their sixties.
The boomers are retiring in the UK and they're doing so having not paid enough taxes to balance the state's expenditure in decades, let alone setting aside surpluses that can afford a Triple Lock.
Its utterly unaffordable and inexcusable.
The problem is who those ten million people are and how do we get them to emigrate.
No?
I actually disagree with your basic premise. Losing ten million people would be a disaster.
The emphasis on short-term incentives for politicians means that rational decisions can lead to irrational outcomes.
The dollar auction is a simple example of this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_auction
Conclusion: in the absence of a tremendously gifted and selfless politician the triple-lock will inevitably bankrupt Britain. Remind me whose bright idea it was?
Ah yes. George Osborne. The man who bankrupted Britain.
You can't have it both ways...
A lot of the people who go are the ones who, form a pure profit and loss point of view, you might want to keep.
(And besides, the pure profit and loss point of view is balls.)
Meanwhile it’s another super hot day up here in the mountains:
Not inferring anything there. Determined not to.
Do you not realise that much of the UK's current infrastructure and housing is based on that population ?
And many, many people to voluntarily leave this country.
Its often referred to as working overseas or retiring abroad.
Unfortunately they're often not the people the country wants to lose.
I'm confident that would fill the ten million requirement.
Who are these 10 million and how are they disposed off
The whole idea is unacceptable
Governments have to design tax and spend policies, together with a fair immigration system, and the fact it is under stress is the fault of politicians not people living in our country
So your first £50k of retirement income is unaffected by the change. I think anyone on more than £50k pension is not the struggling poor.
So they could avoid all that tedious effort (and expense) in productivity and training
However this conversation worries me that many may feel threatened by the very suggestion and that is unacceptable
You won’t be able to get a bill passed to increase taxes on less well off pensioners now.
Higher taxes on the over £50k earners is possible.
Once you have merged the systems, fiscal drag and the money hunger of governments will gradually equalise the taxation. Over years.
The other sad change was that it was generally markedly different to the UK but as loads of people came in from the UK cities etc the demand grew for UK chains so local independents have gradually gone and from a shops/food perspective it could be most smarting places in the UK.
Every time a large commercial property is empty you have a load of morons flooding Facebook demanding a Primark or similar.
The rush to grow often has side effects where the benefits of growth are lost because people want “more” without realising what they had was actually enough.
That would be England gone.
Make you feel great for a bit. Then the stomach ache.
The future isn’t raspberry pickers. Machines do that now, better.
There was an interesting article, must find it, about the people behind some of the latest machines. Their machines pick better, but slower, but work all hours.
They are trying to get into renting their machines to the growers. Their account, in the article about the push back from existing labour providing firms was fascinating - all kinds of political influence, even, to push back the technology. Some people are making big money off people working 12 hours a day on piece work rates….
"I said that's the coolest name I ever heard. And he built this massive castle. He was known for winning wars"
"In fact I asked King Charles: why don't we call you Charles the Conqueror?"
"He said: no, I don't think so"
https://x.com/implausibleblog/status/1969669736041500725
Donny the .. ?
The idea of growth for growth’s sake is very questionable as the headline benefits obscure the idea costs. If you need to grow constantly to cover the increased costs of supporting the elements required for growth then you have to question if growth is a benefit over finding a level that works and then staying there.
When time it comes to see the end of me
The site will be right here, NW3
https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/1969764775283314795
The fuck does that mean?
How many people would have said yes ? Would you have said yes ?
Now imagine in 2003 if you had been asked "do you think the population of the UK should be increased by ten million over the next generation without any equivalent increase in housing and infrastructure ?"
How many people would have said yes ? Would you have said yes ?
Because that's what happened.
Now imagine that question wasn't been asked in 2003 but was being asked now about another ten million people over the next generation without any equivalent increase in housing and infrastructure ?
Because that's the future this country is facing.
Let's see what he does with his speech, shall we. Let's see if that is the tone of it. If it is I'll be surprised and happy to be so.
How much he believes it is another matter.
His internet ranting is likely a better guide to his real mentality.
The speech will be laced with hatred and for the remainder, Trump will be bigging himself up. No!
The pace of increased housing provision has and continues to be desperately uneven with bursts of activity in some areas followed by lulls - the accompanying infrastructure, I agree, is a problem whether it be sewage, water, electricity, medical, educational or transport.
I walked through the new (and still being constructed) Fresh Wharf estate in Barking this afternoon and the apartments look nice enough and there is a residents' hub and a coffee shop (decent) and a small (pricey) local store but most of the other retail units are empty. There is a Mother Kelly's bar and tap room but the interior is empty and promises of a 2025 opening look unlikely.
This is not uncommon - the dwellings go up and usually get sold or rented but there is little or no supporting infrastructure for that is the people we are now - much more individual and insular. Michael Gore apoke about "atomisation" (a poor choice of word in the current climate) but the salient point is more single person households and less community cohesion but I don't know how that can be reversed.
https://x.com/rpsagainsttrump/status/1969611068218442133?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q