Message to Rachel Reeves: An extra 5% on Income Tax levied on those that voted for Brexit, to pay for the untold damage they have done to the economy. If fact, and extra 10% on old people who have destroyed their children and grandchildren’s future.
If we have similar on those who insisted we were locked down to avoid the sniffles, I'd accept that.
And a 5% supertax on all public sector workers who have gold plated pensions, too.
Increase the supertax to 100% of payoffs to those that have failed when running organisations when Lessons haven’t been Learned.
Oh dear, another assault on the poor old public sector workers and their pensions from the usual suspects.
I'm sure you know very few public sector workers have "gold plated pensions" (whatever that perjorative actually means). The "blue light" pension is different from the civil service pension which is different from local Government pensions which are in turn different from teachers' pensions.
But - and I speak as a member of such a scheme - almost all of those are miles better than those available in the private sector.
It's part of recruitment and retention - my father spent the last 20 years of his career in the civil service because he knew the index-linked pension would keep him and my Mum going once he stopped work.
Could he have earned more in the private sector? Doubtless but that wasn't the point for him back then.
Of course, the public sector employee takes a deduction every month into the pension (well, they did and do for LPGS) but the key point was the Council also contributed and those earning more contributed more ensuring the pot for all could be funded.
There have been significant reforms in both 2008 and 2014 to LPGS such as the ending of the "85 year rule" and higher contributions for the same result.
Indeed, one of the by-products of these reforms and the one million local Government roles lost under Conservative-led Governments from 2011 was the LPGS fund returned to some form of stability having been in some trouble after the GFC.
Longevity of service or loyalty is rewarded - if you've worked in local Government for 40 years and then retire you will come out with a annual pension probably two thirds to three quarters of final salary but obviously those who weren't in it for so long don't get anything like that.
Are you sure that's right? 40 years' service in teaching (or the CS) under the scheme I retired on works out at precisely half your final salary (40 x average (or final) salary divided by 80).
Who is to be the next DG? If they go with an ex politician I'd go for David Milliband or maybe David Gaulke or perhaps Nick Clegg. The worst choices would be Michael Gove or Charles Moore
More likely though is a producer from a rival station so without a BBC history. Channel 4 is a very well handled station. Or maybe a wild card like Nick Hytner.....
They cannot appoint a politician in these circumstances
I note that Trevor Phillips of Sky has been suggested
He is one of the best political journalists and would be ideal, though he may not want this poisoned chalice
I doubt it will help Labour much, even though it's largely true.
Very interesting comment from the someone at the IEA (I think) on a podcast I was listening to this morning. The gist of it was:
The OBR decided ages ago Brexit would be a 4% hit. This was in their forecasts for several budgets, including last year's.
No-one is briefing that the OBR have changed this calculation, and the IEA wonk suggested that most of the available data suggests the actual outturn is if anything less than a 4% hit.
Reeves claiming that the mess she currently finds herself in is a result of Brexit is therefore utterly implausible, as her black hole has only opened up since the budget last year.
My comment: If Reeves wants a scapegoat for her current black hole, she needs something which has happened after her last budget. Unfortunately for her, that leaves her pretty thin on options, possibly because the true culprit is mainly her own stupidity in going on a massive tax and spend splurge in last year's budget.
The IEA* being a completely independent arbiter in this regard, not an organisation that was funded for a couple of decades to lobby for Brexit.
Message to Rachel Reeves: An extra 5% on Income Tax levied on those that voted for Brexit, to pay for the untold damage they have done to the economy. If fact, and extra 10% on old people who have destroyed their children and grandchildren’s future.
If we have similar on those who insisted we were locked down to avoid the sniffles, I'd accept that.
And a 5% supertax on all public sector workers who have gold plated pensions, too.
Increase the supertax to 100% of payoffs to those that have failed when running organisations when Lessons haven’t been Learned.
Oh dear, another assault on the poor old public sector workers and their pensions from the usual suspects.
I'm sure you know very few public sector workers have "gold plated pensions" (whatever that perjorative actually means). The "blue light" pension is different from the civil service pension which is different from local Government pensions which are in turn different from teachers' pensions.
But - and I speak as a member of such a scheme - almost all of those are miles better than those available in the private sector.
It's part of recruitment and retention - my father spent the last 20 years of his career in the civil service because he knew the index-linked pension would keep him and my Mum going once he stopped work.
Could he have earned more in the private sector? Doubtless but that wasn't the point for him back then.
Of course, the public sector employee takes a deduction every month into the pension (well, they did and do for LPGS) but the key point was the Council also contributed and those earning more contributed more ensuring the pot for all could be funded.
There have been significant reforms in both 2008 and 2014 to LPGS such as the ending of the "85 year rule" and higher contributions for the same result.
Indeed, one of the by-products of these reforms and the one million local Government roles lost under Conservative-led Governments from 2011 was the LPGS fund returned to some form of stability having been in some trouble after the GFC.
Longevity of service or loyalty is rewarded - if you've worked in local Government for 40 years and then retire you will come out with a annual pension probably two thirds to three quarters of final salary but obviously those who weren't in it for so long don't get anything like that.
Doesn’t mean it cannot be reformed further. Changed to a DC fund going forward.
This should be looked at to reduce the burden to the taxpayer.
Tories really need to focus on the economy and affordability. A fight over tax, rather than migrants, is what needs to happen if they want to tilt the narrative in their favour. The kulchur stuff, however much she might enjoy it, is not where she should be at.
Tories really need to focus on the economy and affordability. A fight over tax, rather than migrants, is what needs to happen if they want to tilt the narrative in their favour. The kulchur stuff, however much she might enjoy it, is not where she should be at.
54% of labour voters are not going to be impressed
Message to Rachel Reeves: An extra 5% on Income Tax levied on those that voted for Brexit, to pay for the untold damage they have done to the economy. If fact, and extra 10% on old people who have destroyed their children and grandchildren’s future.
If we have similar on those who insisted we were locked down to avoid the sniffles, I'd accept that.
And a 5% supertax on all public sector workers who have gold plated pensions, too.
Increase the supertax to 100% of payoffs to those that have failed when running organisations when Lessons haven’t been Learned.
Oh dear, another assault on the poor old public sector workers and their pensions from the usual suspects.
I'm sure you know very few public sector workers have "gold plated pensions" (whatever that perjorative actually means). The "blue light" pension is different from the civil service pension which is different from local Government pensions which are in turn different from teachers' pensions.
But - and I speak as a member of such a scheme - almost all of those are miles better than those available in the private sector.
It's part of recruitment and retention - my father spent the last 20 years of his career in the civil service because he knew the index-linked pension would keep him and my Mum going once he stopped work.
Could he have earned more in the private sector? Doubtless but that wasn't the point for him back then.
Of course, the public sector employee takes a deduction every month into the pension (well, they did and do for LPGS) but the key point was the Council also contributed and those earning more contributed more ensuring the pot for all could be funded.
There have been significant reforms in both 2008 and 2014 to LPGS such as the ending of the "85 year rule" and higher contributions for the same result.
Indeed, one of the by-products of these reforms and the one million local Government roles lost under Conservative-led Governments from 2011 was the LPGS fund returned to some form of stability having been in some trouble after the GFC.
Longevity of service or loyalty is rewarded - if you've worked in local Government for 40 years and then retire you will come out with a annual pension probably two thirds to three quarters of final salary but obviously those who weren't in it for so long don't get anything like that.
Are you sure that's right? 40 years' service in teaching (or the CS) under the scheme I retired on works out at precisely half your final salary (40 x average (or final) salary divided by 80).
I can only speak for LPGS but for those who were in the scheme before the reforms, the benefits are paid out under those terms which I believe was 1/60 of final salary so you would get some years on better terms and then later years on not so good terms.
Lump sum payments are calculated differently as well now to the way they operated in the 80s and 90s.
It is utter nonsense. The UK has grown as fast as EU nations both overall and per capita in the past 15 years with Brexit not even troubling the scorers.
Though interesting to note that a huge majority say that Brexit has been positive for controlling our own laws which of course was the very raison d'etre.
And interesting to not that a large majority apparently judge that we've made an absolute mess of having "control of our laws", whatever that means.
The "very raison d'etre" of Brexit did not, as I recall, include worsening the cost of living; the economy; businesses; public finance; trade... or even immigration.
That's the whole point of democracy, if our government makes a mess of things we can kick the buggers out.
We have already.
Indeed. The system works.
Nothing stopping us from kicking the next set of buggers out either.
So financing the unable-to-go-to-work masses during covid lockdowns had no tangible effect on the country's economy? Yeah, right.
We did not finance the unable-to-go-to-work masses – at least, not directly. America did, but we subsidised their employers instead. With hindsight, that might have been a mistake.
Message to Rachel Reeves: An extra 5% on Income Tax levied on those that voted for Brexit, to pay for the untold damage they have done to the economy. If fact, and extra 10% on old people who have destroyed their children and grandchildren’s future.
If we have similar on those who insisted we were locked down to avoid the sniffles, I'd accept that.
And a 5% supertax on all public sector workers who have gold plated pensions, too.
Increase the supertax to 100% of payoffs to those that have failed when running organisations when Lessons haven’t been Learned.
Oh dear, another assault on the poor old public sector workers and their pensions from the usual suspects.
I'm sure you know very few public sector workers have "gold plated pensions" (whatever that perjorative actually means). The "blue light" pension is different from the civil service pension which is different from local Government pensions which are in turn different from teachers' pensions.
But - and I speak as a member of such a scheme - almost all of those are miles better than those available in the private sector.
It's part of recruitment and retention - my father spent the last 20 years of his career in the civil service because he knew the index-linked pension would keep him and my Mum going once he stopped work.
Could he have earned more in the private sector? Doubtless but that wasn't the point for him back then.
Of course, the public sector employee takes a deduction every month into the pension (well, they did and do for LPGS) but the key point was the Council also contributed and those earning more contributed more ensuring the pot for all could be funded.
There have been significant reforms in both 2008 and 2014 to LPGS such as the ending of the "85 year rule" and higher contributions for the same result.
Indeed, one of the by-products of these reforms and the one million local Government roles lost under Conservative-led Governments from 2011 was the LPGS fund returned to some form of stability having been in some trouble after the GFC.
Longevity of service or loyalty is rewarded - if you've worked in local Government for 40 years and then retire you will come out with a annual pension probably two thirds to three quarters of final salary but obviously those who weren't in it for so long don't get anything like that.
Doesn’t mean it cannot be reformed further. Changed to a DC fund going forward.
This should be looked at to reduce the burden to the taxpayer.
Yes and remember public sector pensions come in different shapes and sizes but the benefits accrued under previous systems are paid out under those systems so staff who have worked for 30-40 years in the public sector will enjoy the benefits of pension contributions paid under more generous terms in the past than is the case now.
31% say biased in favour of left-wing views 19% say biased in favour of right-wing views 19% not politically biased
...If I were the BBC I'd say that's a pretty strong endorsement of not being biased. You're not succeeding unless you are annoying both sides, and it's reasonably well balanced all things considered.
Tell Trump to go fxck himself . Clear that Reform and the Tories are busy fellating Trump and kicking the BBC in the hope that it just turns into another right wing outlet .
Fuxake. Trump threatens the BBC with a billion dollar lawsuit.
The BBC self flagellation is fuckin' ludicrous. Badenoch and Farage fall behind Trump, Labour and the LibDems fall behind the BBC.
So the idiocy is now one of Trump didn't incite sedition, it was a BBC lie. They'll pay the f***** won't they?
If Trump were to sue, then I suspect that the defence would call on him to testify.
Which would be entertaining.
I really, really hope they call his bluff and let him sue.
Any settlement that Trump would accept would be crippling for the BBC. And, as you pointed on the previous thread, far higher than his best case scenario in a UK court.
So the most entertaining option is also the most financially sensible option.
31% say biased in favour of left-wing views 19% say biased in favour of right-wing views 19% not politically biased
...If I were the BBC I'd say that's a pretty strong endorsement of not being biased. You're not succeeding unless you are annoying both sides, and it's reasonably well balanced all things considered.
31:19 is not reasonably well balanced.
Though the bigger issue remains the unfairness of the licence fee. If it was optional to subscribe and you could subscribe to other live media instead of the Beeb it would be less of an issue.
Message to Rachel Reeves: An extra 5% on Income Tax levied on those that voted for Brexit, to pay for the untold damage they have done to the economy. If fact, and extra 10% on old people who have destroyed their children and grandchildren’s future.
If we have similar on those who insisted we were locked down to avoid the sniffles, I'd accept that.
And a 5% supertax on all public sector workers who have gold plated pensions, too.
Increase the supertax to 100% of payoffs to those that have failed when running organisations when Lessons haven’t been Learned.
Oh dear, another assault on the poor old public sector workers and their pensions from the usual suspects.
I'm sure you know very few public sector workers have "gold plated pensions" (whatever that perjorative actually means). The "blue light" pension is different from the civil service pension which is different from local Government pensions which are in turn different from teachers' pensions.
But - and I speak as a member of such a scheme - almost all of those are miles better than those available in the private sector.
It's part of recruitment and retention - my father spent the last 20 years of his career in the civil service because he knew the index-linked pension would keep him and my Mum going once he stopped work.
Could he have earned more in the private sector? Doubtless but that wasn't the point for him back then.
Of course, the public sector employee takes a deduction every month into the pension (well, they did and do for LPGS) but the key point was the Council also contributed and those earning more contributed more ensuring the pot for all could be funded.
There have been significant reforms in both 2008 and 2014 to LPGS such as the ending of the "85 year rule" and higher contributions for the same result.
Indeed, one of the by-products of these reforms and the one million local Government roles lost under Conservative-led Governments from 2011 was the LPGS fund returned to some form of stability having been in some trouble after the GFC.
Longevity of service or loyalty is rewarded - if you've worked in local Government for 40 years and then retire you will come out with a annual pension probably two thirds to three quarters of final salary but obviously those who weren't in it for so long don't get anything like that.
Doesn’t mean it cannot be reformed further. Changed to a DC fund going forward.
This should be looked at to reduce the burden to the taxpayer.
Yes and remember public sector pensions come in different shapes and sizes but the benefits accrued under previous systems are paid out under those systems so staff who have worked for 30-40 years in the public sector will enjoy the benefits of pension contributions paid under more generous terms in the past than is the case now.
Yes, my wife has 4 pensions from her time jn the public sector including the 95 and 2015 scheme in the NHS.
Retrospective changes would be unfair, as it would for people with existing pensions in the private sector.
However, given the costs, I do think reform to DC going forward is something to consider.
More babies of varying hues ....As a nation we really do hate children, families, foreigners. Time for more babies to replace the boomers.
As an aside it was only 100 years ago when some antecedents had 8 children and another 9 children. If we want to go back to the 'good old days' make love, not war.
31% say biased in favour of left-wing views 19% say biased in favour of right-wing views 19% not politically biased
...If I were the BBC I'd say that's a pretty strong endorsement of not being biased. You're not succeeding unless you are annoying both sides, and it's reasonably well balanced all things considered.
31:19 is not reasonably well balanced.
Though the bigger issue remains the unfairness of the licence fee. If it was optional to subscribe and you could subscribe to other live media instead of the Beeb it would be less of an issue.
In the context it is.
People's perception of biases are, themselves, biased.
All that poll tells me is that a higher proportion of Reform and Tory voters think the BBC is left-wing biased compared to other media that they consume (probably the likes of Daily Mail, GB News and the Telegraph etc).
Give me a cross section of that poll and respondents main source of news and all will be clear.
Tell Trump to go fxck himself . Clear that Reform and the Tories are busy fellating Trump and kicking the BBC in the hope that it just turns into another right wing outlet .
That is simply nonsense
Nobody dislikes Trump or Farage more than I do, but the BBC has 'all on their own' given the ammunition to Trump by their utter crass behaviour
Trump's court action is pure theatre, but this crisis must be worrying no 10 following their fawning and patronising of Trump
The BBC needs to compete with all the media and must find alternative means of funding, as the licence fee is just another tax and cannot be justified in this ever changing media environment
ITV are discussing it's sale to Sky and the future of broadcast journalism is under the microscope as never before, accelerated by the BBC itself
Message to Rachel Reeves: An extra 5% on Income Tax levied on those that voted for Brexit, to pay for the untold damage they have done to the economy. If fact, and extra 10% on old people who have destroyed their children and grandchildren’s future.
If we have similar on those who insisted we were locked down to avoid the sniffles, I'd accept that.
And a 5% supertax on all public sector workers who have gold plated pensions, too.
Increase the supertax to 100% of payoffs to those that have failed when running organisations when Lessons haven’t been Learned.
Oh dear, another assault on the poor old public sector workers and their pensions from the usual suspects.
I'm sure you know very few public sector workers have "gold plated pensions" (whatever that perjorative actually means). The "blue light" pension is different from the civil service pension which is different from local Government pensions which are in turn different from teachers' pensions.
But - and I speak as a member of such a scheme - almost all of those are miles better than those available in the private sector.
It's part of recruitment and retention - my father spent the last 20 years of his career in the civil service because he knew the index-linked pension would keep him and my Mum going once he stopped work.
Could he have earned more in the private sector? Doubtless but that wasn't the point for him back then.
Of course, the public sector employee takes a deduction every month into the pension (well, they did and do for LPGS) but the key point was the Council also contributed and those earning more contributed more ensuring the pot for all could be funded.
There have been significant reforms in both 2008 and 2014 to LPGS such as the ending of the "85 year rule" and higher contributions for the same result.
Indeed, one of the by-products of these reforms and the one million local Government roles lost under Conservative-led Governments from 2011 was the LPGS fund returned to some form of stability having been in some trouble after the GFC.
Longevity of service or loyalty is rewarded - if you've worked in local Government for 40 years and then retire you will come out with a annual pension probably two thirds to three quarters of final salary but obviously those who weren't in it for so long don't get anything like that.
Doesn’t mean it cannot be reformed further. Changed to a DC fund going forward.
This should be looked at to reduce the burden to the taxpayer.
Yes and remember public sector pensions come in different shapes and sizes but the benefits accrued under previous systems are paid out under those systems so staff who have worked for 30-40 years in the public sector will enjoy the benefits of pension contributions paid under more generous terms in the past than is the case now.
Yes, my wife has 4 pensions from her time jn the public sector including the 95 and 2015 scheme in the NHS.
Retrospective changes would be unfair, as it would for people with existing pensions in the private sector.
However, given the costs, I do think reform to DC going forward is something to consider.
LOL typical pull the ladder up after me attitude.
Retrospective changes would be unfair but a windfall tax on those with unaffordable, unfunded and no longer available systems would not be.
More babies of varying hues ....As a nation we really do hate children, families, foreigners. Time for more babies to replace the boomers.
As an aside it was only 100 years ago when some antecedents had 8 children and another 9 children. If we want to go back to the 'good old days' make love, not war.
I really cannot fathom what sort of demented idiot would think that the solution to the next 10 years is to have the same obsession with membership of the EU as we have had in the last 10. Who wants to go through that all again? Who really believes that we would get an acceptable deal from the EU? Who on earth thinks that the uncertainty this would cause would be helpful? It is really ridiculous.
I know that those who lost the Brexit vote are not used to losing. I know that their views are far more important than the rest of us. I get that they find this psychologically difficult. But enough. Just enough. Move on and address our real problems rather than this displacement activity.
Come on, it's not those who "lost" who are doing all the complaining - it's the "winners".
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Hah!!
Not been a bleat out of the Referendum losers since the day of the vote. Nope. Utterly silent.
Well, I'm glad I made you laugh but you know that's not what I meant.
Any even slight hint of building a relationship with the EU and up pop the cheerleaders for LEAVE, the Mail and the Express, with the tired old headline "Brexit Betrayal". Even now, more than nine years ago, we cannot have a relationship with the EU without the B words being flashed across the newspaper headlines.
However, it's apparently only "the losers" who are complaining - I must come to your universe one day where up is down, white is black and the Conservatives won in 2024.
The Mail and the Express don't speak for anyone other than the Mail and the Express.
Most leavers wanted (and still want) a relationship with the EU, just not the one we had.
As someone, who, along with 30% of LD voters at the time, voted LEAVE, I don't disagree.
We couldn't go on as we were with our half-hearted, rebate obsessed, opt-out fixated membership so it was better for both us and the EU we left but I never bought in to the absurdities of "Global Britain" perpetrated by Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and others
A trading and economic relationship analogous to what we had in the old EEC would be ideal but unfortunately it all got conflated with Freedom of Movement and the Euro, neither of which the British public are ever likely to accept.
Take it you haven’t been to Europe recently - it took 90 minutes for me to get into Prague on Friday.
Got to say my 60 minute transfer in Schiphol next week would be fun in Mrs Eek couldn’t request assistance
I've been to Europe four times since 2019, and the missus two more. On no occasion has it taken any longer than it did pre-Brexit - never longer than an hour.
Message to Rachel Reeves: An extra 5% on Income Tax levied on those that voted for Brexit, to pay for the untold damage they have done to the economy. If fact, and extra 10% on old people who have destroyed their children and grandchildren’s future.
If we have similar on those who insisted we were locked down to avoid the sniffles, I'd accept that.
And a 5% supertax on all public sector workers who have gold plated pensions, too.
Increase the supertax to 100% of payoffs to those that have failed when running organisations when Lessons haven’t been Learned.
Oh dear, another assault on the poor old public sector workers and their pensions from the usual suspects.
I'm sure you know very few public sector workers have "gold plated pensions" (whatever that perjorative actually means). The "blue light" pension is different from the civil service pension which is different from local Government pensions which are in turn different from teachers' pensions.
But - and I speak as a member of such a scheme - almost all of those are miles better than those available in the private sector.
It's part of recruitment and retention - my father spent the last 20 years of his career in the civil service because he knew the index-linked pension would keep him and my Mum going once he stopped work.
Could he have earned more in the private sector? Doubtless but that wasn't the point for him back then.
Of course, the public sector employee takes a deduction every month into the pension (well, they did and do for LPGS) but the key point was the Council also contributed and those earning more contributed more ensuring the pot for all could be funded.
There have been significant reforms in both 2008 and 2014 to LPGS such as the ending of the "85 year rule" and higher contributions for the same result.
Indeed, one of the by-products of these reforms and the one million local Government roles lost under Conservative-led Governments from 2011 was the LPGS fund returned to some form of stability having been in some trouble after the GFC.
Longevity of service or loyalty is rewarded - if you've worked in local Government for 40 years and then retire you will come out with a annual pension probably two thirds to three quarters of final salary but obviously those who weren't in it for so long don't get anything like that.
Doesn’t mean it cannot be reformed further. Changed to a DC fund going forward.
This should be looked at to reduce the burden to the taxpayer.
Yes and remember public sector pensions come in different shapes and sizes but the benefits accrued under previous systems are paid out under those systems so staff who have worked for 30-40 years in the public sector will enjoy the benefits of pension contributions paid under more generous terms in the past than is the case now.
Yes, my wife has 4 pensions from her time jn the public sector including the 95 and 2015 scheme in the NHS.
Retrospective changes would be unfair, as it would for people with existing pensions in the private sector.
However, given the costs, I do think reform to DC going forward is something to consider.
LOL typical pull the ladder up after me attitude.
Retrospective changes would be unfair but a windfall tax on those with unaffordable, unfunded and no longer available systems would not be.
Would that also apply to -say- University employees whose scheme is fully funded? Or only to those public sector workers whose pension schemes are not fully funded?
31% say biased in favour of left-wing views 19% say biased in favour of right-wing views 19% not politically biased
...If I were the BBC I'd say that's a pretty strong endorsement of not being biased. You're not succeeding unless you are annoying both sides, and it's reasonably well balanced all things considered.
31:19 is not reasonably well balanced.
Though the bigger issue remains the unfairness of the licence fee. If it was optional to subscribe and you could subscribe to other live media instead of the Beeb it would be less of an issue.
I rarely watch the BBC though I do use Iplayer because, and once again I'm in a minority of one on here, I still enjoy Doctor Who.
It could be available via Freeview or FreeSat I suppose so that would leave the wider question of how it is funded - i.e: through advertising or some other form.
As I hardly watch it, I can't comment on its bias or otherwise. If all I wanted to hear was news which agreed with everything I thought, I'd have to set up Stodge TV so I accept sometimes commentary or analysis won't reach the same conclusions I have so, as I said this morning, you can choose whether to pay for your lies or get them for free.
I don't for example consider GB News a beacon of impartiality but it doesn't pretend to be. If we aren't going to strive for full objectivity in reporting, then let's have a plurality of viewpoints so we can make a judgement for ourselves. The direction in which we seem to be travelling is a very narrow range of viewpoints whose similarity might be construed as propaganda.
Five channels saying different things are infinitely preferable to twenty channels saying the same thing.
Tell Trump to go fxck himself . Clear that Reform and the Tories are busy fellating Trump and kicking the BBC in the hope that it just turns into another right wing outlet .
That is simply nonsense
Nobody dislikes Trump or Farage more than I do, but the BBC has 'all on their own' given the ammunition to Trump by their utter crass behaviour
Trump's court action is pure theatre, but this crisis must be worrying no 10 following their fawning and patronising of Trump
The BBC needs to compete with all the media and must find alternative means of funding, as the licence fee is just another tax and cannot be justified in this ever changing media environment
ITV are discussing it's sale to Sky and the future of broadcast journalism is under the microscope as never before, accelerated by the BBC itself
Trump did not suffer any reputational damage as everyone already knew he tried to steal the election and he’s a vile corrupt loathsome individual. The BBC should call his bluff and see him in court . Any politician in the UK siding with Trump is traitorous scum .
More babies of varying hues ....As a nation we really do hate children, families, foreigners. Time for more babies to replace the boomers.
As an aside it was only 100 years ago when some antecedents had 8 children and another 9 children. If we want to go back to the 'good old days' make love, not war.
It is more cost effective to import highly educated young adults than to produce babies in the UK. Plus, you don't have to take the chaff along with the wheat.
Tell Trump to go fxck himself . Clear that Reform and the Tories are busy fellating Trump and kicking the BBC in the hope that it just turns into another right wing outlet .
That is simply nonsense
Nobody dislikes Trump or Farage more than I do, but the BBC has 'all on their own' given the ammunition to Trump by their utter crass behaviour
Trump's court action is pure theatre, but this crisis must be worrying no 10 following their fawning and patronising of Trump
The BBC needs to compete with all the media and must find alternative means of funding, as the licence fee is just another tax and cannot be justified in this ever changing media environment
ITV are discussing it's sale to Sky and the future of broadcast journalism is under the microscope as never before, accelerated by the BBC itself
Trump did not suffer any reputational damage as everyone already knew he tried to steal the election and he’s a vile corrupt loathsome individual. The BBC should call his bluff and see him in court . Any politician in the UK siding with Trump is traitorous scum .
Well maybe the BBC should not have broadcast 'doctored' news in the first place then we wouldn't be where we are
Message to Rachel Reeves: An extra 5% on Income Tax levied on those that voted for Brexit, to pay for the untold damage they have done to the economy. If fact, and extra 10% on old people who have destroyed their children and grandchildren’s future.
If we have similar on those who insisted we were locked down to avoid the sniffles, I'd accept that.
And a 5% supertax on all public sector workers who have gold plated pensions, too.
Increase the supertax to 100% of payoffs to those that have failed when running organisations when Lessons haven’t been Learned.
Oh dear, another assault on the poor old public sector workers and their pensions from the usual suspects.
I'm sure you know very few public sector workers have "gold plated pensions" (whatever that perjorative actually means). The "blue light" pension is different from the civil service pension which is different from local Government pensions which are in turn different from teachers' pensions.
But - and I speak as a member of such a scheme - almost all of those are miles better than those available in the private sector.
It's part of recruitment and retention - my father spent the last 20 years of his career in the civil service because he knew the index-linked pension would keep him and my Mum going once he stopped work.
Could he have earned more in the private sector? Doubtless but that wasn't the point for him back then.
Of course, the public sector employee takes a deduction every month into the pension (well, they did and do for LPGS) but the key point was the Council also contributed and those earning more contributed more ensuring the pot for all could be funded.
There have been significant reforms in both 2008 and 2014 to LPGS such as the ending of the "85 year rule" and higher contributions for the same result.
Indeed, one of the by-products of these reforms and the one million local Government roles lost under Conservative-led Governments from 2011 was the LPGS fund returned to some form of stability having been in some trouble after the GFC.
Longevity of service or loyalty is rewarded - if you've worked in local Government for 40 years and then retire you will come out with a annual pension probably two thirds to three quarters of final salary but obviously those who weren't in it for so long don't get anything like that.
Doesn’t mean it cannot be reformed further. Changed to a DC fund going forward.
This should be looked at to reduce the burden to the taxpayer.
Yes and remember public sector pensions come in different shapes and sizes but the benefits accrued under previous systems are paid out under those systems so staff who have worked for 30-40 years in the public sector will enjoy the benefits of pension contributions paid under more generous terms in the past than is the case now.
Yes, my wife has 4 pensions from her time jn the public sector including the 95 and 2015 scheme in the NHS.
Retrospective changes would be unfair, as it would for people with existing pensions in the private sector.
However, given the costs, I do think reform to DC going forward is something to consider.
LOL typical pull the ladder up after me attitude.
Retrospective changes would be unfair but a windfall tax on those with unaffordable, unfunded and no longer available systems would not be.
I’ve never worked in the public sector only the private so no ladder to pull up for me and, yes, retrospective changes to pensions where people have put money aside into them based on the rules at the time, but cannot access that pension for, in many cases, many years is unfair. It is also why govts are loathe to do it.
Tell Trump to go fxck himself . Clear that Reform and the Tories are busy fellating Trump and kicking the BBC in the hope that it just turns into another right wing outlet .
That is simply nonsense
Nobody dislikes Trump or Farage more than I do, but the BBC has 'all on their own' given the ammunition to Trump by their utter crass behaviour
Trump's court action is pure theatre, but this crisis must be worrying no 10 following their fawning and patronising of Trump
The BBC needs to compete with all the media and must find alternative means of funding, as the licence fee is just another tax and cannot be justified in this ever changing media environment
ITV are discussing it's sale to Sky and the future of broadcast journalism is under the microscope as never before, accelerated by the BBC itself
Trump did not suffer any reputational damage as everyone already knew he tried to steal the election and he’s a vile corrupt loathsome individual. The BBC should call his bluff and see him in court . Any politician in the UK siding with Trump is traitorous scum .
Well maybe the BBC should not have broadcast 'doctored' news in the first place then we wouldn't be where we are
The BBC made a mistake . There’s an issue when you outsource these types of documentaries and more diligence should have taken place . However some in the media and politics are using this as an excuse to finish off the BBC.
Tell Trump to go fxck himself . Clear that Reform and the Tories are busy fellating Trump and kicking the BBC in the hope that it just turns into another right wing outlet .
That is simply nonsense
Nobody dislikes Trump or Farage more than I do, but the BBC has 'all on their own' given the ammunition to Trump by their utter crass behaviour
Trump's court action is pure theatre, but this crisis must be worrying no 10 following their fawning and patronising of Trump
The BBC needs to compete with all the media and must find alternative means of funding, as the licence fee is just another tax and cannot be justified in this ever changing media environment
ITV are discussing it's sale to Sky and the future of broadcast journalism is under the microscope as never before, accelerated by the BBC itself
Trump did not suffer any reputational damage as everyone already knew he tried to steal the election and he’s a vile corrupt loathsome individual. The BBC should call his bluff and see him in court . Any politician in the UK siding with Trump is traitorous scum .
Well maybe the BBC should not have broadcast 'doctored' news in the first place then we wouldn't be where we are
It's fascinating how this board is all about Trump, and not the BBC.
I have mixed feelings about this as it punishes genuine freelancers but many I worked with in the automotive industry were not freelancers but tax dodgers.
Tell Trump to go fxck himself . Clear that Reform and the Tories are busy fellating Trump and kicking the BBC in the hope that it just turns into another right wing outlet .
That is simply nonsense
Nobody dislikes Trump or Farage more than I do, but the BBC has 'all on their own' given the ammunition to Trump by their utter crass behaviour
Trump's court action is pure theatre, but this crisis must be worrying no 10 following their fawning and patronising of Trump
The BBC needs to compete with all the media and must find alternative means of funding, as the licence fee is just another tax and cannot be justified in this ever changing media environment
ITV are discussing it's sale to Sky and the future of broadcast journalism is under the microscope as never before, accelerated by the BBC itself
Trump did not suffer any reputational damage as everyone already knew he tried to steal the election and he’s a vile corrupt loathsome individual. The BBC should call his bluff and see him in court . Any politician in the UK siding with Trump is traitorous scum .
Well maybe the BBC should not have broadcast 'doctored' news in the first place then we wouldn't be where we are
It's fascinating how this board is all about Trump, and not the BBC.
I have mixed feelings about this as it punishes genuine freelancers but many I worked with in the automotive industry were not freelancers but tax dodgers.
I've encountered plenty of tax dodgers exploiting this in the engineering sector.
I accidentally happened on Amanda Platells headline. Someone should tell her to fuck right off. She is a nasty piece of work. I didn't read her article but I don't give a fuck what it was about. She is nasty and will.inevitably apologise as she has done before.
Tell Trump to go fxck himself . Clear that Reform and the Tories are busy fellating Trump and kicking the BBC in the hope that it just turns into another right wing outlet .
That is simply nonsense
Nobody dislikes Trump or Farage more than I do, but the BBC has 'all on their own' given the ammunition to Trump by their utter crass behaviour
Trump's court action is pure theatre, but this crisis must be worrying no 10 following their fawning and patronising of Trump
The BBC needs to compete with all the media and must find alternative means of funding, as the licence fee is just another tax and cannot be justified in this ever changing media environment
ITV are discussing it's sale to Sky and the future of broadcast journalism is under the microscope as never before, accelerated by the BBC itself
Trump did not suffer any reputational damage as everyone already knew he tried to steal the election and he’s a vile corrupt loathsome individual. The BBC should call his bluff and see him in court . Any politician in the UK siding with Trump is traitorous scum .
"You did not want your supporters to riot on January 6th then, Mr Trump?"
"I did not. That's why I said peacefully and patriotically."
"So they disobeyed you."
"Yes."
"That must have been disappointing."
"It was."
"Yet you sat and watched it rather than intervene."
"Well it was a crazy confused situation."
"I'm sure it was. But here's the thing. Why did you pardon them all afterwards?"
"Because it was all fake news from the radical left commie lamestream media like the BBC. They weren't criminals they were beautiful Christian patriots."
Message to Rachel Reeves: An extra 5% on Income Tax levied on those that voted for Brexit, to pay for the untold damage they have done to the economy. If fact, and extra 10% on old people who have destroyed their children and grandchildren’s future.
If we have similar on those who insisted we were locked down to avoid the sniffles, I'd accept that.
And a 5% supertax on all public sector workers who have gold plated pensions, too.
Increase the supertax to 100% of payoffs to those that have failed when running organisations when Lessons haven’t been Learned.
Oh dear, another assault on the poor old public sector workers and their pensions from the usual suspects.
I'm sure you know very few public sector workers have "gold plated pensions" (whatever that perjorative actually means). The "blue light" pension is different from the civil service pension which is different from local Government pensions which are in turn different from teachers' pensions.
But - and I speak as a member of such a scheme - almost all of those are miles better than those available in the private sector.
It's part of recruitment and retention - my father spent the last 20 years of his career in the civil service because he knew the index-linked pension would keep him and my Mum going once he stopped work.
Could he have earned more in the private sector? Doubtless but that wasn't the point for him back then.
Of course, the public sector employee takes a deduction every month into the pension (well, they did and do for LPGS) but the key point was the Council also contributed and those earning more contributed more ensuring the pot for all could be funded.
There have been significant reforms in both 2008 and 2014 to LPGS such as the ending of the "85 year rule" and higher contributions for the same result.
Indeed, one of the by-products of these reforms and the one million local Government roles lost under Conservative-led Governments from 2011 was the LPGS fund returned to some form of stability having been in some trouble after the GFC.
Longevity of service or loyalty is rewarded - if you've worked in local Government for 40 years and then retire you will come out with a annual pension probably two thirds to three quarters of final salary but obviously those who weren't in it for so long don't get anything like that.
Are you sure that's right? 40 years' service in teaching (or the CS) under the scheme I retired on works out at precisely half your final salary (40 x average (or final) salary divided by 80).
Some variation is inherent. There is some fungibility between the annual payment and the lump sum when one retired/retires, plus you can generally make extra contributions voluntarily. And the public sector schemes have been revised over the years with different combinations of fractions; Stodge's Local Government is typical.
In the Civil Service, at least, Treasury compared pay with the private sector, being very careful to adjust pay downwards to balance the different pension packages.
While Labour might blame Brexit for economic problems they won't try and reverse Brexit, even just going back into a CU or the EEA as Starmer still wants another Labour majority and to do that he needs to hold the redwall strong Leave and softer Leave seats Labour won from the Conservatives last year. If however the LDs and SNP hold the balance of power in a hung parliament after the next GE then rejoining a CU at least or even the single market too would be very much on the cards. If the Greens held the balance of power maybe based on Polanski's comments even rejoining the full EU could be considered
Tell Trump to go fxck himself . Clear that Reform and the Tories are busy fellating Trump and kicking the BBC in the hope that it just turns into another right wing outlet .
That is simply nonsense
Nobody dislikes Trump or Farage more than I do, but the BBC has 'all on their own' given the ammunition to Trump by their utter crass behaviour
Trump's court action is pure theatre, but this crisis must be worrying no 10 following their fawning and patronising of Trump
The BBC needs to compete with all the media and must find alternative means of funding, as the licence fee is just another tax and cannot be justified in this ever changing media environment
ITV are discussing it's sale to Sky and the future of broadcast journalism is under the microscope as never before, accelerated by the BBC itself
Trump did not suffer any reputational damage as everyone already knew he tried to steal the election and he’s a vile corrupt loathsome individual. The BBC should call his bluff and see him in court . Any politician in the UK siding with Trump is traitorous scum .
Well maybe the BBC should not have broadcast 'doctored' news in the first place then we wouldn't be where we are
The BBC made a mistake . There’s an issue when you outsource these types of documentaries and more diligence should have taken place . However some in the media and politics are using this as an excuse to finish off the BBC.
If it makes them concentrate...so much the better. The institution as it is now stinks.
I have mixed feelings about this as it punishes genuine freelancers but many I worked with in the automotive industry were not freelancers but tax dodgers.
If they forego the perks and protections of being an employee, then I don't think it's fair to call it a tax dodge.
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
I would too but it should be child benefit increased for those with up to 2 children, not an increase in UC and benefits for those with more than 2 children
Message to Rachel Reeves: An extra 5% on Income Tax levied on those that voted for Brexit, to pay for the untold damage they have done to the economy. If fact, and extra 10% on old people who have destroyed their children and grandchildren’s future.
If we have similar on those who insisted we were locked down to avoid the sniffles, I'd accept that.
And a 5% supertax on all public sector workers who have gold plated pensions, too.
Increase the supertax to 100% of payoffs to those that have failed when running organisations when Lessons haven’t been Learned.
Oh dear, another assault on the poor old public sector workers and their pensions from the usual suspects.
I'm sure you know very few public sector workers have "gold plated pensions" (whatever that perjorative actually means). The "blue light" pension is different from the civil service pension which is different from local Government pensions which are in turn different from teachers' pensions.
But - and I speak as a member of such a scheme - almost all of those are miles better than those available in the private sector.
It's part of recruitment and retention - my father spent the last 20 years of his career in the civil service because he knew the index-linked pension would keep him and my Mum going once he stopped work.
Could he have earned more in the private sector? Doubtless but that wasn't the point for him back then.
Of course, the public sector employee takes a deduction every month into the pension (well, they did and do for LPGS) but the key point was the Council also contributed and those earning more contributed more ensuring the pot for all could be funded.
There have been significant reforms in both 2008 and 2014 to LPGS such as the ending of the "85 year rule" and higher contributions for the same result.
Indeed, one of the by-products of these reforms and the one million local Government roles lost under Conservative-led Governments from 2011 was the LPGS fund returned to some form of stability having been in some trouble after the GFC.
Longevity of service or loyalty is rewarded - if you've worked in local Government for 40 years and then retire you will come out with a annual pension probably two thirds to three quarters of final salary but obviously those who weren't in it for so long don't get anything like that.
Doesn’t mean it cannot be reformed further. Changed to a DC fund going forward.
This should be looked at to reduce the burden to the taxpayer.
Yes and remember public sector pensions come in different shapes and sizes but the benefits accrued under previous systems are paid out under those systems so staff who have worked for 30-40 years in the public sector will enjoy the benefits of pension contributions paid under more generous terms in the past than is the case now.
Yes, my wife has 4 pensions from her time jn the public sector including the 95 and 2015 scheme in the NHS.
Retrospective changes would be unfair, as it would for people with existing pensions in the private sector.
However, given the costs, I do think reform to DC going forward is something to consider.
LOL typical pull the ladder up after me attitude.
Retrospective changes would be unfair but a windfall tax on those with unaffordable, unfunded and no longer available systems would not be.
Would that also apply to -say- University employees whose scheme is fully funded? Or only to those public sector workers whose pension schemes are not fully funded?
Well, if it is fully funded then I do not see an issue, but for those that were never funded a haircut is necessary to make them affordable.
I really cannot fathom what sort of demented idiot would think that the solution to the next 10 years is to have the same obsession with membership of the EU as we have had in the last 10. Who wants to go through that all again? Who really believes that we would get an acceptable deal from the EU? Who on earth thinks that the uncertainty this would cause would be helpful? It is really ridiculous.
I know that those who lost the Brexit vote are not used to losing. I know that their views are far more important than the rest of us. I get that they find this psychologically difficult. But enough. Just enough. Move on and address our real problems rather than this displacement activity.
Come on, it's not those who "lost" who are doing all the complaining - it's the "winners".
Those who voted LEAVE are so desperate to preserve what they think they won the slightest hint of a rapprochement or a better working relationship with the EU becomes nigh on an act of treason - how dare they try to make leaving work with the EU?
It's long past rejoining or joining or whatever - it's about trying to come up with a mutually satisfactory economic relationship which allows all sides to prosper and doesn't drown either or both in regulation and process.
The irony is it was all about sovereignty and control - we were supposed to take control of our borders, weren't we? Remind me how that has progressed in the past few years.
We ended free movement from the EEA in 2021 and replaced it with a points system and net migration is now falling after Sunak and Cleverly raised visa wage requirements and reduced ability to bring dependents in
I have mixed feelings about this as it punishes genuine freelancers but many I worked with in the automotive industry were not freelancers but tax dodgers.
If they forego the perks and protections of being an employee, then I don't think it's fair to call it a tax dodge.
Name one perk or protection that is funded by taxpayers so losing it should result in a lower tax rate.
All the Beeb really just need to do is immediately commission some wanky Trump documentary where they go over the top (like a Royal documentary) about how great Trump is and how he's the bigliest bestest most peace-loving, smartest, democratic President in the history of not just this world, but all the worlds of the multiverse.
Give him the same treatment as the wanky Starmer second state visit. Everyone knows its total BS and can ignore it as the obvious nonsense it is, but it's what Trump needs and it's much cheaper than the alternative.
The Dems really need to be looking at other candidates.
Newsom is right though. Schumer folded and for not a jot. No concessions on healthcare, the Dems might as well not have bothered. A quick vote in Congress then MAGA Mike shuts down Congress again before any Epstein vote. The Dems have been played by the WH.
And why don't you like Newsom? Yes he's financed by Getty money but that is a hell of a lot less troublesome than Putin money.
I doubt he will survive until 2028. He looks way stronger than anyone else so I expect MAGA Mafia will put a target on his back.
I don't understand why trying to help GOP out of a massive hole of their own digging over healthcare for their poor, rural voters in time for 2026 is a Dem priority myself.
Maybe i am missing something?
Indeed: millions of Americans are going to see their healthcare costs double in the next year. They're not going to be happy.
Around 22 to 24 million people will see their health care costs rise by $1,000 due to the removal of the Obamacare subsidies.
A substantial portion of these people will be Republican voters.
Which helps Dem candidates in the midterms, none of the Dem Senators who voted with the GOP yesterday are standing again next year anyway
I have mixed feelings about this as it punishes genuine freelancers but many I worked with in the automotive industry were not freelancers but tax dodgers.
If they forego the perks and protections of being an employee, then I don't think it's fair to call it a tax dodge.
They have to supply their own wheelbarrow to take the cash home in.
But then set the cost of the wheelbarrow off against tax as a legitimate business expense.
Tories really need to focus on the economy and affordability. A fight over tax, rather than migrants, is what needs to happen if they want to tilt the narrative in their favour. The kulchur stuff, however much she might enjoy it, is not where she should be at.
Yes. It just becomes a game of Elevenerife with Reform.
The BBC has a young, progressive, workforce and an older management that has tried, often in vain of late, to maintain old standards of impartiality. Not only *can* these two things be true at the same time but this divide is central to the current crisis
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
There's also a variant of the "should the guilty go free or the innocent be imprisoned" argument.
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
White chavs ahead of brown graduates?
No, it's colour-blind - it applies to all British citizens born here.
The replacement rate is I believe 2.1 so we do need some families to have more than 2 children, especially since some will have just one or none.
Yes but not just those on benefits, as I said we should be increasing child benefit which all parents can claim provided no parent earns over £80k a year. Not just increasing UC for those on low income claiming benefit.
So I would keep the 2 child benefit cap and increase child benefit instead
All the Beeb really just need to do is immediately commission some wanky Trump documentary where they go over the top (like a Royal documentary) about how great Trump is and how he's the bigliest bestest most peace-loving, smartest, democratic President in the history of not just this world, but all the worlds of the multiverse.
Give him the same treatment as the wanky Starmer second state visit. Everyone knows its total BS and can ignore it as the obvious nonsense it is, but it's what Trump needs and it's much cheaper than the alternative.
That's probably what will happen. Trouble is, you feed it and it grows. It grows and then it wants, needs, demands more. This is the nature of the beast.
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
There's also a variant of the "should the guilty go free or the innocent be imprisoned" argument.
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
I don't think it will make any difference at all to the fertility rate. Whenever we test this we find cultural/societal change is by far the biggest driver of why people aren't having kids - even housing conditions don't seem to influence it.
What it will do is prevent some kids growing up in poverty, and we know that is a very strong predictor of all sorts of bother later down the line. Getting in early is highly cost-efficient and has brilliant benefit-cost ratios.
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
There's also a variant of the "should the guilty go free or the innocent be imprisoned" argument.
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
There's a few decent examples of pro-natal policy not really making much difference.
Likelihood of having children, and number of them if you do, is becoming a societal issue more than a political one.
Doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try such policies, but they are probably not the smoking gun.
Meanwhile, in "you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone" news,
One of the main reasons the UK has historically been so much less polarised than the US, is that Britain has a shared source of information, consumed and trusted by most people regardless of their politics...
...It’s not just that the BBC is widely consumed — it also has solid trust on both left & right, whereas trust in the biggest US media brands is hugely polarised.
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
White chavs ahead of brown graduates?
No, it's colour-blind - it applies to all British citizens born here.
The replacement rate is I believe 2.1 so we do need some families to have more than 2 children, especially since some will have just one or none.
Yes but not just those on benefits, as I said we should be increasing child benefit which all parents can claim provided no parent earns over £80k a year. Not just increasing UC for those on low income claiming benefit.
So I would keep the 2 child benefit cap and increase child benefit instead
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
There's also a variant of the "should the guilty go free or the innocent be imprisoned" argument.
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
There's a few decent examples of pro-natal policy not really making much difference.
Likelihood of having children, and number of them if you do, is becoming a societal issue more than a political one.
Doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try such policies, but they are probably not the smoking gun.
I'm just trying to work out how much you'd have to pay me to have a third kid...
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
There's also a variant of the "should the guilty go free or the innocent be imprisoned" argument.
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
There's a few decent examples of pro-natal policy not really making much difference.
Likelihood of having children, and number of them if you do, is becoming a societal issue more than a political one.
Doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try such policies, but they are probably not the smoking gun.
I'm just trying to work out how much you'd have to pay me to have a third kid...
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
There's also a variant of the "should the guilty go free or the innocent be imprisoned" argument.
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
There's a few decent examples of pro-natal policy not really making much difference.
Likelihood of having children, and number of them if you do, is becoming a societal issue more than a political one.
Doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try such policies, but they are probably not the smoking gun.
I'm just trying to work out how much you'd have to pay me to have a third kid...
Hmm.
Even the global average fertility rate is now only 2.3, we don't need to encourage people to have 3 children they can't really afford.
We do want to encourage parents to have 2 children if they can though and get closer to replacement level, currently the UK fertility rate is just 1.41 on average and as long as it remains like that more immigration will likely fill the gap
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
There's also a variant of the "should the guilty go free or the innocent be imprisoned" argument.
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
Since Norman and Norma Normal are not on UC I doubt it plays much on their mind either way. Indeed British birth rate figures are in line with other western nations not exceptionally lowered post 2010.
Fixing housing costs so people can afford a home of their own in their 20s and not approaching past child bearing ages would do wonders to help things though.
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
There's also a variant of the "should the guilty go free or the innocent be imprisoned" argument.
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
There's a few decent examples of pro-natal policy not really making much difference.
Likelihood of having children, and number of them if you do, is becoming a societal issue more than a political one.
Doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try such policies, but they are probably not the smoking gun.
I'm just trying to work out how much you'd have to pay me to have a third kid...
Hmm.
"I've got five. All boys. You ever need a son, you let me know. I'll hook your old lady up. I can't miss!"
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
There's also a variant of the "should the guilty go free or the innocent be imprisoned" argument.
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
There's a few decent examples of pro-natal policy not really making much difference.
Likelihood of having children, and number of them if you do, is becoming a societal issue more than a political one.
Doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try such policies, but they are probably not the smoking gun.
I'm just trying to work out how much you'd have to pay me to have a third kid...
Hmm.
Seems a bit unfair that it's all on me. My pockets aren't that deep.
I have mixed feelings about this as it punishes genuine freelancers but many I worked with in the automotive industry were not freelancers but tax dodgers.
If they forego the perks and protections of being an employee, then I don't think it's fair to call it a tax dodge.
Name one perk or protection that is funded by taxpayers so losing it should result in a lower tax rate.
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
There's also a variant of the "should the guilty go free or the innocent be imprisoned" argument.
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
Since Norman and Norma Normal are not on UC I doubt it plays much on their mind either way. Indeed British birth rate figures are in line with other western nations not exceptionally lowered post 2010.
Fixing housing costs so people can afford a home of their own in their 20s and not approaching past child bearing ages would do wonders to help things though.
100 years ago most people rented their entire lives and still had 2 or 3 children.
Housing alone is not enough, though it is part of the issue, supporting marriage, increasing child benefit, taking pride in motherhood not just a career (and most women are not going to have a top professional or business career) and traditional values and religion are also part of the equation
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
There's also a variant of the "should the guilty go free or the innocent be imprisoned" argument.
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
Since Norman and Norma Normal are not on UC I doubt it plays much on their mind either way. Indeed British birth rate figures are in line with other western nations not exceptionally lowered post 2010.
Fixing housing costs so people can afford a home of their own in their 20s and not approaching past child bearing ages would do wonders to help things though.
100 years ago most people rented their entire lives and still had 2 or 3 children.
Housing alone is not enough, though it is part of the issue, supporting marriage, increasing child benefit, taking pride in motherhood not just a career (and most women are not going to have a top professional or business career) and traditional values and religion are also part of the equation
I have mixed feelings about this as it punishes genuine freelancers but many I worked with in the automotive industry were not freelancers but tax dodgers.
I've encountered plenty of tax dodgers exploiting this in the engineering sector.
All the Beeb really just need to do is immediately commission some wanky Trump documentary where they go over the top (like a Royal documentary) about how great Trump is and how he's the bigliest bestest most peace-loving, smartest, democratic President in the history of not just this world, but all the worlds of the multiverse.
Give him the same treatment as the wanky Starmer second state visit. Everyone knows its total BS and can ignore it as the obvious nonsense it is, but it's what Trump needs and it's much cheaper than the alternative.
No. The BBC should launch an extensive investigation into the people who aided and participated in the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein. The Epstein estate paid compensation to over 150 claimants when Epstein died, so there are a hell of a lot of people for the BBC to interview. It should make for several weeks worth of prime-time documentary broadcasting.
If Labour fix the boats, but end the two child cap, the Daily Mail can stop doing asylum articles and go back to doing articles about mothers of eight getting £5k a month. A change is as good as a rest, as they say.
Comments
He’d lose
I note that Trevor Phillips of Sky has been suggested
He is one of the best political journalists and would be ideal, though he may not want this poisoned chalice
Which would be entertaining.
*Also the brains behind Truss' budget.
The deputy leader of the Green Party, a happy clappy open door migration party has objected to hosting asylum seekers.
A similar thing happened in Inverness recently.
Surely they should be welcoming these people with open arms !
‘ 🚨NEW: The new Greens party deputy-leader Rachel Millward has objected to housing asylum seekers in her constituency, citing safety concerns’
https://x.com/gbpolitcs/status/1987930820800131118?s=61
This should be looked at to reduce the burden to the taxpayer.
Tories really need to focus on the economy and affordability. A fight over tax, rather than migrants, is what needs to happen if they want to tilt the narrative in their favour. The kulchur stuff, however much she might enjoy it, is not where she should be at.
Lump sum payments are calculated differently as well now to the way they operated in the 80s and 90s.
Nothing stopping us from kicking the next set of buggers out either.
Long live democracy.
19% say biased in favour of right-wing views
19% not politically biased
...If I were the BBC I'd say that's a pretty strong endorsement of not being biased. You're not succeeding unless you are annoying both sides, and it's reasonably well balanced all things considered.
Any settlement that Trump would accept would be crippling for the BBC. And, as you pointed on the previous thread, far higher than his best case scenario in a UK court.
So the most entertaining option is also the most financially sensible option.
Remain 56%
Leave 44%
Though the bigger issue remains the unfairness of the licence fee. If it was optional to subscribe and you could subscribe to other live media instead of the Beeb it would be less of an issue.
Retrospective changes would be unfair, as it would for people with existing pensions in the private sector.
However, given the costs, I do think reform to DC going forward is something to consider.
As an aside it was only 100 years ago when some antecedents had 8 children and another 9 children. If we want to go back to the 'good old days' make love, not war.
People's perception of biases are, themselves, biased.
All that poll tells me is that a higher proportion of Reform and Tory voters think the BBC is left-wing biased compared to other media that they consume (probably the likes of Daily Mail, GB News and the Telegraph etc).
Give me a cross section of that poll and respondents main source of news and all will be clear.
Nobody dislikes Trump or Farage more than I do, but the BBC has 'all on their own' given the ammunition to Trump by their utter crass behaviour
Trump's court action is pure theatre, but this crisis must be worrying no 10 following their fawning and patronising of Trump
The BBC needs to compete with all the media and must find alternative means of funding, as the licence fee is just another tax and cannot be justified in this ever changing media environment
ITV are discussing it's sale to Sky and the future of broadcast journalism is under the microscope as never before, accelerated by the BBC itself
Retrospective changes would be unfair but a windfall tax on those with unaffordable, unfunded and no longer available systems would not be.
It could be available via Freeview or FreeSat I suppose so that would leave the wider question of how it is funded - i.e: through advertising or some other form.
As I hardly watch it, I can't comment on its bias or otherwise. If all I wanted to hear was news which agreed with everything I thought, I'd have to set up Stodge TV so I accept sometimes commentary or analysis won't reach the same conclusions I have so, as I said this morning, you can choose whether to pay for your lies or get them for free.
I don't for example consider GB News a beacon of impartiality but it doesn't pretend to be. If we aren't going to strive for full objectivity in reporting, then let's have a plurality of viewpoints so we can make a judgement for ourselves. The direction in which we seem to be travelling is a very narrow range of viewpoints whose similarity might be construed as propaganda.
Five channels saying different things are infinitely preferable to twenty channels saying the same thing.
https://x.com/ziayusufuk/status/1987860973978517553?s=61
I have mixed feelings about this as it punishes genuine freelancers but many I worked with in the automotive industry were not freelancers but tax dodgers.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
Often aided and abetted by their employers.
Someone should tell her to fuck right off.
She is a nasty piece of work.
I didn't read her article but I don't give a fuck what it was about. She is nasty and will.inevitably apologise as she has done before.
"I did not. That's why I said peacefully and patriotically."
"So they disobeyed you."
"Yes."
"That must have been disappointing."
"It was."
"Yet you sat and watched it rather than intervene."
"Well it was a crazy confused situation."
"I'm sure it was. But here's the thing. Why did you pardon them all afterwards?"
"Because it was all fake news from the radical left commie lamestream media like the BBC. They weren't criminals they were beautiful Christian patriots."
Case dismissed!
In the Civil Service, at least, Treasury compared pay with the private sector, being very careful to adjust pay downwards to balance the different pension packages.
We've had both Wicked! and now sodding Radiohead in the past 30 minutes on Radio 3. A disgrace.
It doesn't deserve to survive.
Is that not some kind of apocalyptic warning?
Fortunately we are now reverting to Mahler 8.
8h
·
I’ve written to Keir Starmer, Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage urging them to condemn Donald Trump’s attack on the BBC.
The BBC belongs to Britain, not Trump. We must defend it together.
Give him the same treatment as the wanky Starmer second state visit. Everyone knows its total BS and can ignore it as the obvious nonsense it is, but it's what Trump needs and it's much cheaper than the alternative.
But then set the cost of the wheelbarrow off against tax as a legitimate business expense.
It stinks.
The replacement rate is I believe 2.1 so we do need some families to have more than 2 children, especially since some will have just one or none.
Mark Urban
@MarkUrban01
The BBC has a young, progressive, workforce and an older management that has tried, often in vain of late, to maintain old standards of impartiality. Not only *can* these two things be true at the same time but this divide is central to the current crisis
https://x.com/MarkUrban01/status/1987797657335820391
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
So I would keep the 2 child benefit cap and increase child benefit instead
What it will do is prevent some kids growing up in poverty, and we know that is a very strong predictor of all sorts of bother later down the line. Getting in early is highly cost-efficient and has brilliant benefit-cost ratios.
Likelihood of having children, and number of them if you do, is becoming a societal issue more than a political one.
Doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try such policies, but they are probably not the smoking gun.
One of the main reasons the UK has historically been so much less polarised than the US, is that Britain has a shared source of information, consumed and trusted by most people regardless of their politics...
...It’s not just that the BBC is widely consumed — it also has solid trust on both left & right, whereas trust in the biggest US media brands is hugely polarised.
https://bsky.app/profile/jburnmurdoch.ft.com/post/3m5bqv5srz224
I thought it was child benefit writ-large.
Hmm.
@ZackPolanski
We know the vast majority see it for the racist, nasty bullshit it is.
This is not who we are. And the Labour Government have normalised it.
A majority of under 50s now polling for the Green Party & many over 50s supporting too - we must defeat this.
http://Join.greenparty.org.uk
https://x.com/ZackPolanski/status/1987932202819018989
Is this more Green Maths?
I recall a recent poll where the Greens were the largest party for under 50s, but they weren't a majority were they?
We do want to encourage parents to have 2 children if they can though and get closer to replacement level, currently the UK fertility rate is just 1.41 on average and as long as it remains like that more immigration will likely fill the gap
Fixing housing costs so people can afford a home of their own in their 20s and not approaching past child bearing ages would do wonders to help things though.
Oh, I see what you mean.
Housing alone is not enough, though it is part of the issue, supporting marriage, increasing child benefit, taking pride in motherhood not just a career (and most women are not going to have a top professional or business career) and traditional values and religion are also part of the equation
The Greens only lead with 18-24s
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/voting-intention?crossBreak=1824
The BBC Cannot Give In To Government Pressure | Yes Minister
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9tzoGFszog