The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
Any party campaigning on the line "You never had it so good" would be slaughtered, but in economic terms would be correct.
The problem is not so much economic, albeit tha economy is rather sluggish, but more a crisis of confidence in wider civic society. This is common to much of the developed world, rather than being UK specific of course.
Is the future to be one of digital hermits being fed narrowcasting by shadowy billionaires or are we going to engage with our neighbours? This is why I found the Primrose Hill closure depressing. Spontaneous, free and chaotic inter-reactions are deplored.
I was eavesdropping on couple of our Gen Z staff in the coffee room the other day. There are fewer and fewer random introductions via friends in the dating world now, and the Apps are increasingly awful, being dominated by men using the Boomhauer technique. No wonder the TFR is dropping faster than Starmers ratings.
You do realise we have an astonishingly high deficit and our debt interest payments dwarf our Defence budget? That's not a minor matter.
Point of order, the current deficit isn't especially high by historic standards and is expected to fall according to the OBR, not least because Rachel Reeves is raising some unpopular taxes
In Leon's continued absence, someone has to watch these right wing social media pundits.
A couple of thought-provoking hypotheses: first, that MAGA's extreme isolationism is caused by guilt over being gung-ho for the Iraq War; secondly that the flip side of American optimism is susceptibility to conspiracy theories – if all ambitions are achievable then anything is possible. I'm not convinced on either count but it is interesting.
Konstantin is right is usual. Tucker has clearly taken a large cheque from Qatar, and has spent the last couple of months spreading their propoganda points against much evidence to the contrary. He joins Candace Owens in the “not worth listening to” category of US right-wing pundits.
Good news from space, a SpaceX Dragon service module managed to increase the orbit of the ISS, something usually done by a now-unavailable Soyuz service module on the Russian side.
There will be a 2026 PB predictions competition, it will come with a prize of £100 Amazon vouchers.
I just need to pull out my finger and work out 12 questions to ask you all.
I think the NEV shares published by the BBC after the English Locals will be more interesting than the number of seats, considering it is unclear how many elections will go ahead.
Wales and Scotland, US House and Senate are good ones.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
Any party campaigning on the line "You never had it so good" would be slaughtered, but in economic terms would be correct.
The problem is not so much economic, albeit tha economy is rather sluggish, but more a crisis of confidence in wider civic society. This is common to much of the developed world, rather than being UK specific of course.
Is the future to be one of digital hermits being fed narrowcasting by shadowy billionaires or are we going to engage with our neighbours? This is why I found the Primrose Hill closure depressing. Spontaneous, free and chaotic inter-reactions are deplored.
I was eavesdropping on couple of our Gen Z staff in the coffee room the other day. There are fewer and fewer random introductions via friends in the dating world now, and the Apps are increasingly awful, being dominated by men using the Boomhauer technique. No wonder the TFR is dropping faster than Starmers ratings.
Join a club, a choir, go to the pub, etc. Apps are not the only way to meet people
Yes take up an activity or hobby that involves meeting up in groups, preferably something that attracts reasonable numbers of both men and women.
It's not just about the government debt and deficit. It's about massive amounts of mortgage debt, and car debt. It's about companies borrowing money to buy themselves for their private equity owners, all the debt loaded onto the water companies, financial engineering to extract money, not for investment, but for consumption.
It's a whole economy problem and it has been for decades, and it requires a whole economy solution - government cutting welfare spending to balance the books isn't going to be enough, because it does nothing about the dysfunction in the private sector.
Life on the never never. My gran would have hated it. And it does feel dumb.
Nevertheless,
the actual problem is that the institutions that create that debt are the long term beneficiaries. We the indebted are being childish with our desires, allowing their dominance. Our collective future and the environment is the biggest loser.
Why do we accept this insane balance where the banks and the 1% win while the planet and its people lose?
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
Any party campaigning on the line "You never had it so good" would be slaughtered, but in economic terms would be correct.
The problem is not so much economic, albeit tha economy is rather sluggish, but more a crisis of confidence in wider civic society. This is common to much of the developed world, rather than being UK specific of course.
Is the future to be one of digital hermits being fed narrowcasting by shadowy billionaires or are we going to engage with our neighbours? This is why I found the Primrose Hill closure depressing. Spontaneous, free and chaotic inter-reactions are deplored.
I was eavesdropping on couple of our Gen Z staff in the coffee room the other day. There are fewer and fewer random introductions via friends in the dating world now, and the Apps are increasingly awful, being dominated by men using the Boomhauer technique. No wonder the TFR is dropping faster than Starmers ratings.
What is the Boomhauer technique? Bing finds just an American cartoon character.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
Any party campaigning on the line "You never had it so good" would be slaughtered, but in economic terms would be correct.
The problem is not so much economic, albeit tha economy is rather sluggish, but more a crisis of confidence in wider civic society. This is common to much of the developed world, rather than being UK specific of course.
Is the future to be one of digital hermits being fed narrowcasting by shadowy billionaires or are we going to engage with our neighbours? This is why I found the Primrose Hill closure depressing. Spontaneous, free and chaotic inter-reactions are deplored.
I was eavesdropping on couple of our Gen Z staff in the coffee room the other day. There are fewer and fewer random introductions via friends in the dating world now, and the Apps are increasingly awful, being dominated by men using the Boomhauer technique. No wonder the TFR is dropping faster than Starmers ratings.
Join a club, a choir, go to the pub, etc. Apps are not the only way to meet people
Yes take up an activity or hobby that involves meeting up in groups, preferably something that attracts reasonable numbers of both men and women.
Dogging?
Plenty of fresh air and exercise at the same time, also communion with nature. Saves having to find a pub in this day and age.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
Wouldn't that have to be earnings? Inflation is what it should be linked to, and the 2.5% is to avoid the politcal bear trap of the "50p pension increase". The counter-argument would be to drop inflation and link to earnings, on the basis that when workers are doing well or having a hard time, so should pensioners, but then you're losing the link between pension and spending power, which is what matters, for people on fixed incomes, most of all.
There will be a 2026 PB predictions competition, it will come with a prize of £100 Amazon vouchers.
I just need to pull out my finger and work out 12 questions to ask you all.
I think the NEV shares published by the BBC after the English Locals will be more interesting than the number of seats, considering it is unclear how many elections will go ahead.
Wales and Scotland, US House and Senate are good ones.
Who will lead each party at next year end too.
Farage income declared on Commons Expenses returns in the period Jan -> Dec 2026 !
How many Post Office or Protective Equipment miscreants will have been punished by the Courts?
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
This is simply based on his claim. Not confirmed. May be true, may not be. Various press organs have approached the US authorities for comment on the back of it. We will see.
Given a choice between believing the current US government and believing absolutely anyone who isn’t Josef Goebbels, which one is more likely to be telling the truth?
As the actress said while handing the Bishop Viagra, ‘gee, that’s a hard one.’
Very witty and a Nazi reference too 🙄
I personally won’t speculate and won’t take the word of Dom Joly on face value.
Suspicious character, Dom Joly - he speaks Arabic.
This is an ESTA (Visa free) application. Given that Trump's policy is to insist on tourists supplying details of any email addresses or phone numbers they have used over the previous 10 years, and a 5 year social media history, and that multiple people have already reported exclusion, and others deported, on this bases, it would hardly be a surprise, and would imo be expected. It's a frightened authoritarian regime; that is what they do.
Having said that, Dom Joly should have a rejection email that he can publish.
Born in Lebanon.
His TV career has declined since he had a large telephone and he’s creating content. His stuff is all engagement.
He should publish the email.
I doubt it’s harming his profile.
I saw him once in London. I expected him to be taller.
"HELLO! HELLO! I'M STUCK ON A PB THREAD! I SAID A PB THREAD!"
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
FPT, MAGA’s, Christianity, and Jews. I think they’ll end up going in two directions.
1. Denying that Jesus was Jewish, but rather, asserting that he was an Aryan.
2. Embracing Nordic paganism.
In which case MAGA would just become a white nationalist group in all but name and the country club establishment Republicans could well split from them post Trump
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
What would be the average up-front cost of buying the current state pension at retirement age as an index linked annuity now as opposed to in 1980?
Somewhere not much above £200,000 at a guess
Obviously it rather depends on interest rates but it looks like about £5600 / 100k at the moment.
So yes, somewhere between £200k and £300k.
Its the 1980 figure (at 65 or 60) I'm not sure about. Were we already healthy enough by then or was life expectancy low enough to make it cheaper?
I imagine it looked very different in 1950.
Annuity rates back in 1980 were pretty much almost double the current ones. Because people weren't expected to be living for so long. Which, with hindsight, made them a steal, since life expectancy increases apply also to those managing to stay alive during.
This is simply based on his claim. Not confirmed. May be true, may not be. Various press organs have approached the US authorities for comment on the back of it. We will see.
Given a choice between believing the current US government and believing absolutely anyone who isn’t Josef Goebbels, which one is more likely to be telling the truth?
As the actress said while handing the Bishop Viagra, ‘gee, that’s a hard one.’
Very witty and a Nazi reference too 🙄
I personally won’t speculate and won’t take the word of Dom Joly on face value.
Suspicious character, Dom Joly - he speaks Arabic.
This is an ESTA (Visa free) application. Given that Trump's policy is to insist on tourists supplying details of any email addresses or phone numbers they have used over the previous 10 years, and a 5 year social media history, and that multiple people have already reported exclusion, and others deported, on this bases, it would hardly be a surprise, and would imo be expected. It's a frightened authoritarian regime; that is what they do.
Having said that, Dom Joly should have a rejection email that he can publish.
Born in Lebanon.
His TV career has declined since he had a large telephone and he’s creating content. His stuff is all engagement.
He should publish the email.
I doubt it’s harming his profile.
I saw him once in London. I expected him to be taller.
"HELLO! HELLO! I'M STUCK ON A PB THREAD! I SAID A PB THREAD!"
The US government is obviously in the pocket of Big Mobile.
There will be a 2026 PB predictions competition, it will come with a prize of £100 Amazon vouchers.
I just need to pull out my finger and work out 12 questions to ask you all.
I think the NEV shares published by the BBC after the English Locals will be more interesting than the number of seats, considering it is unclear how many elections will go ahead.
Wales and Scotland, US House and Senate are good ones.
Who will lead each party at next year end too.
French Prime Minister at year end would be a difficult one, perhaps.
FPT, MAGA’s, Christianity, and Jews. I think they’ll end up going in two directions.
1. Denying that Jesus was Jewish, but rather, asserting that he was an Aryan.
2. Embracing Nordic paganism.
You are overthinking (and over-posting) this. MAGA is not the Evangelical Right; it is Old Testament prophecies around the second coming following ME turmoil, not anything Christ said; it is of no great religious or political consequence if anyone likes to think of Jesus as Jewish, Christian or both (and he is also a prophet in Islam).
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
AI is so shit. Wtf is going on with that uniform. And a bearskin inside?
Ha, as if it is meant to be real you mug 😂😂😂😂😂
Fair enough here, where we're all smart cookies.
But bung it somewhere less... thoughtful... and a shiny sixpence says that a decent number of people would believe it.
Which is why any government is going to be screwed for the foreseeable future. And society really needs to find a way to have a penalty for believing stupid stuff.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
Any party campaigning on the line "You never had it so good" would be slaughtered, but in economic terms would be correct.
The problem is not so much economic, albeit tha economy is rather sluggish, but more a crisis of confidence in wider civic society. This is common to much of the developed world, rather than being UK specific of course.
Is the future to be one of digital hermits being fed narrowcasting by shadowy billionaires or are we going to engage with our neighbours? This is why I found the Primrose Hill closure depressing. Spontaneous, free and chaotic inter-reactions are deplored.
I was eavesdropping on couple of our Gen Z staff in the coffee room the other day. There are fewer and fewer random introductions via friends in the dating world now, and the Apps are increasingly awful, being dominated by men using the Boomhauer technique. No wonder the TFR is dropping faster than Starmers ratings.
What is the Boomhauer technique? Bing finds just an American cartoon character.
Basically, it is approaching random women with a smutty line, and playing the numbers game. 95% of the time it gets nowhere, the other 5% is a sure thing. It takes a thick skin. Its why so many women find bring approached quite uncomfortable and unpleasant. The technique is even cruder on dating apps it seems.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
Any party campaigning on the line "You never had it so good" would be slaughtered, but in economic terms would be correct.
The problem is not so much economic, albeit tha economy is rather sluggish, but more a crisis of confidence in wider civic society. This is common to much of the developed world, rather than being UK specific of course.
Is the future to be one of digital hermits being fed narrowcasting by shadowy billionaires or are we going to engage with our neighbours? This is why I found the Primrose Hill closure depressing. Spontaneous, free and chaotic inter-reactions are deplored.
I was eavesdropping on couple of our Gen Z staff in the coffee room the other day. There are fewer and fewer random introductions via friends in the dating world now, and the Apps are increasingly awful, being dominated by men using the Boomhauer technique. No wonder the TFR is dropping faster than Starmers ratings.
You do realise we have an astonishingly high deficit and our debt interest payments dwarf our Defence budget? That's not a minor matter.
Point of order, the current deficit isn't especially high by historic standards and is expected to fall according to the OBR, not least because Rachel Reeves is raising some unpopular taxes
The debt is more the issue than the deficit. Specifically its servicing costs now that the cheap money era is over.
The Bank of England holds about 30% of government debt - over £550b. The government pays interest on this debt (part of the £110b annual interest payments) This money is then returned to the Treasury so the interest cost is net zero. This debt doesn't matter.
Unfortunately the BoE is selling this debt to private banks (Quantitative Tightening) in order to "control inflation" by taking money out of the money supply. Wrong headed!
The UK inflation problem isn't surplus UK money causing surplus demand (there is a cost of living crisis), it is the cost of energy and other commodities at world prices, and also UK shortage of supply of eg houses, which require investment.
By taking money out of the money supply, the BoE is increasing interest rates (it has to give higher interest rates for the private sector to buy the government debt) and restricting investment (which is need to increase supply and growth and relieve inflation). Aargh. It's completely the wrong approach. Because it is somewhat technical, it isn't often debated
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
Depends if you see state pension as insurance or welfare. If insurance, state pension would appropriately be linked to earnings; if welfare it should probably be linked to inflation as with other benefits. Don't see a need for double linkage long term.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
What would be the average up-front cost of buying the current state pension at retirement age as an index linked annuity now as opposed to in 1980?
Somewhere not much above £200,000 at a guess
Obviously it rather depends on interest rates but it looks like about £5600 / 100k at the moment.
So yes, somewhere between £200k and £300k.
Its the 1980 figure (at 65 or 60) I'm not sure about. Were we already healthy enough by then or was life expectancy low enough to make it cheaper?
I imagine it looked very different in 1950.
Annuity rates back in 1980 were pretty much almost double the current ones. Because people weren't expected to be living for so long. Which, with hindsight, made them a steal, since life expectancy increases apply also to those managing to stay alive during.
I've had a dig and it looks like they were about £15700 / 100k, so rather more than double.
So the problem is that the equivalent state pension to 1980 would cost almost 3 times as much, even taking into account the different retirement ages.
I couldn't find a graph showing this, but one must exist somewhere.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
I’m not saying replaced, I’m saying reformed.
I’m not convinced about means testing. Overly bureaucratic and a benefits trap.
Reforms inevitably would require some version of means test
Agree with @Taz, means testing has all sorts of problems that we see elsewhere. It costs a lot more to administer. It creates cliff edges (we should be getting rid of these not creating more). It is also incredibly easy to abuse by people with DC pensions. People with DC pensions already ensure they cut off before the 40% band. I'm sure the same will happen with the Winter Fuel Allowance at 35k.
Once the final Ashes test is finished so maybe by Monday.
Does it start on Sunday? I’ve not been following the timetable.
Starts Saturday 23.30 GMT.
Gonna be the flattest of flat tracks, I reckon: 5 day bore fest and 3-1 series win for Aus.
I agree it will be flat and there will be a lot more runs but neither of these teams is capable of batting much more than a day so a result remains probable.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
I’m not saying replaced, I’m saying reformed.
I’m not convinced about means testing. Overly bureaucratic and a benefits trap.
Reforms inevitably would require some version of means test
Agree with @Taz, means testing has all sorts of problems that we see elsewhere. It costs a lot more to administer. It creates cliff edges (we should be getting rid of these not creating more). It is also incredibly easy to abuse by people with DC pensions. People with DC pensions already ensure they cut off before the 40% band. I'm sure the same will happen with the Winter Fuel Allowance at 35k.
It should have been scrapped entirely.
There are lots of little luxuries like this we can no longer afford.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
Depends if you see state pension as insurance or welfare. If insurance, state pension would appropriately be linked to earnings; if welfare it should probably be linked to inflation as with other benefits. Don't see a need for double linkage long term.
The expenditure on it is so vast that we should probably link it to affordability.
There will be a 2026 PB predictions competition, it will come with a prize of £100 Amazon vouchers.
I just need to pull out my finger and work out 12 questions to ask you all.
I've never entered because there has always been a selection of questions on which I have not a scooby.
Any chance of selecting questions I know something about? It is ok, I still won't win.
You are asking for a very dangerous precedent here. The logic is that we should know something about the things we post about. And that would never do.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
What would be the average up-front cost of buying the current state pension at retirement age as an index linked annuity now as opposed to in 1980?
Somewhere not much above £200,000 at a guess
Obviously it rather depends on interest rates but it looks like about £5600 / 100k at the moment.
So yes, somewhere between £200k and £300k.
Its the 1980 figure (at 65 or 60) I'm not sure about. Were we already healthy enough by then or was life expectancy low enough to make it cheaper?
I imagine it looked very different in 1950.
In 1980 life expectancy at birth was 70 men / 78 women. Currently it is 79 men / 83 women.
In 1980-1 state pension was 26% of average earnings. By the mid 2000s that was down to around 16%.
The IFS piece I linked above is fairly good. I'd tend to favour a less "slanted to high earners" tax relief setup on pensions, and a state pension link to a share of median or mean earnings somewhat higher than at present; it needs to be out of ping-pong politics.
But there is infinite room for Gordon Brown / George Osborne style shenanigans that give a media-friendly budget benefit now to be paid for by the future. It could be something as simple as switching it from a mean-earnings link to a median=-earnings link. The continued upshift in pension age is becoming questionable.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
I’m not saying replaced, I’m saying reformed.
I’m not convinced about means testing. Overly bureaucratic and a benefits trap.
Reforms inevitably would require some version of means test
Agree with @Taz, means testing has all sorts of problems that we see elsewhere. It costs a lot more to administer. It creates cliff edges (we should be getting rid of these not creating more). It is also incredibly easy to abuse by people with DC pensions. People with DC pensions already ensure they cut off before the 40% band. I'm sure the same will happen with the Winter Fuel Allowance at 35k.
It should have been scrapped entirely.
There are lots of little luxuries like this we can no longer afford.
I was happy with WFA being limited to those on benefits, but they buckled to pressure. They should have stuck to their guns.
It still really annoys me that I get the £10 Xmas bonus. I mean what is the point? My wife got it for the first time this year. £10 is peanuts, especially for those well off.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
What would be the average up-front cost of buying the current state pension at retirement age as an index linked annuity now as opposed to in 1980?
Somewhere not much above £200,000 at a guess
Obviously it rather depends on interest rates but it looks like about £5600 / 100k at the moment.
So yes, somewhere between £200k and £300k.
Its the 1980 figure (at 65 or 60) I'm not sure about. Were we already healthy enough by then or was life expectancy low enough to make it cheaper?
I imagine it looked very different in 1950.
In 1980 life expectancy at birth was 70 men / 78 women. Currently it is 79 men / 83 women.
In 1980-1 state pension was 26% of average earnings. By the mid 2000s that was down to around 16%.
The IFS piece I linked above is fairly good. I'd tend to favour a less "slanted to high earners" tax relief setup on pensions, and a state pension link to a share of median or mean earnings somewhat higher than at present; it needs to be out of ping-pong politics.
But there is infinite room for Gordon Brown / George Osborne style shenanigans that give a media-friendly budget benefit now to be paid for by the future. It could be something as simple as switching it from a mean-earnings link to a median=-earnings link. The continued upshift in pension age is becoming questionable.
It isn't. It's the one thing that's staving off imminent bankruptcy.
Pensioners are people who don't work who now live quite a long time and need to be paid for by people who do work.
If they didn't live so long or there weren't so many of them then, sure, we could have a higher state pension.
Since that isn't the case - which in my view, is a good thing- people need to work a bit longer and save more for their retirement.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
Any party campaigning on the line "You never had it so good" would be slaughtered, but in economic terms would be correct.
The problem is not so much economic, albeit tha economy is rather sluggish, but more a crisis of confidence in wider civic society. This is common to much of the developed world, rather than being UK specific of course.
Is the future to be one of digital hermits being fed narrowcasting by shadowy billionaires or are we going to engage with our neighbours? This is why I found the Primrose Hill closure depressing. Spontaneous, free and chaotic inter-reactions are deplored.
I was eavesdropping on couple of our Gen Z staff in the coffee room the other day. There are fewer and fewer random introductions via friends in the dating world now, and the Apps are increasingly awful, being dominated by men using the Boomhauer technique. No wonder the TFR is dropping faster than Starmers ratings.
You do realise we have an astonishingly high deficit and our debt interest payments dwarf our Defence budget? That's not a minor matter.
Point of order, the current deficit isn't especially high by historic standards and is expected to fall according to the OBR, not least because Rachel Reeves is raising some unpopular taxes
The debt is more the issue than the deficit. Specifically its servicing costs now that the cheap money era is over.
The Bank of England holds about 30% of government debt - over £550b. The government pays interest on this debt (part of the £110b annual interest payments) This money is then returned to the Treasury so the interest cost is net zero. This debt doesn't matter.
Unfortunately the BoE is selling this debt to private banks (Quantitative Tightening) in order to "control inflation" by taking money out of the money supply. Wrong headed!
The UK inflation problem isn't surplus UK money causing surplus demand (there is a cost of living crisis), it is the cost of energy and other commodities at world prices, and also UK shortage of supply of eg houses, which require investment.
By taking money out of the money supply, the BoE is increasing interest rates (it has to give higher interest rates for the private sector to buy the government debt) and restricting investment (which is need to increase supply and growth and relieve inflation). Aargh. It's completely the wrong approach. Because it is somewhat technical, it isn't often debated
I thought that they had stopped doing that.
And, when they were, inflation was much higher. A government (or the Bank) have very limited levers that they can pull. They have the base rate, they have the fiscal position and they have the ability through QE and its reverse to do something about the money supply. They have no control whatsoever over international commodity prices so they need to offset inflation in these using the limited tools available.
Personally, I would have had the government tighten the fiscal position by significantly reducing the deficit but given the governments (the Tories were almost as bad) of the day were not willing to do that I think that the Bank were right to use quantitative tightening to offset the consequences of our fiscal incompetence/cowardice/stupidity.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
Depends if you see state pension as insurance or welfare. If insurance, state pension would appropriately be linked to earnings; if welfare it should probably be linked to inflation as with other benefits. Don't see a need for double linkage long term.
The expenditure on it is so vast that we should probably link it to affordability.
That's why we need to be clearer about whether state pension is insurance or welfare. If it's insurance, people need to understand big premiums will come out of their pay packets in the form of national insurance to cover the costs.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
I’m not saying replaced, I’m saying reformed.
I’m not convinced about means testing. Overly bureaucratic and a benefits trap.
Reforms inevitably would require some version of means test
Agree with @Taz, means testing has all sorts of problems that we see elsewhere. It costs a lot more to administer. It creates cliff edges (we should be getting rid of these not creating more). It is also incredibly easy to abuse by people with DC pensions. People with DC pensions already ensure they cut off before the 40% band. I'm sure the same will happen with the Winter Fuel Allowance at 35k.
It should have been scrapped entirely.
There are lots of little luxuries like this we can no longer afford.
I was happy with WFA being limited to those on benefits, but they buckled to pressure. They should have stuck to their guns.
It still really annoys me that I get the £10 Xmas bonus. I mean what is the point? My wife got it for the first time this year. £10 is peanuts, especially for those well off.
It's because it took Heath months to get it through,so nobody dared to meddle with it until it would probably cost more to sort out than it would save.
Again, we come back to make benefits universal by all means, but make them taxable.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
I’m not saying replaced, I’m saying reformed.
I’m not convinced about means testing. Overly bureaucratic and a benefits trap.
Reforms inevitably would require some version of means test
Agree with @Taz, means testing has all sorts of problems that we see elsewhere. It costs a lot more to administer. It creates cliff edges (we should be getting rid of these not creating more). It is also incredibly easy to abuse by people with DC pensions. People with DC pensions already ensure they cut off before the 40% band. I'm sure the same will happen with the Winter Fuel Allowance at 35k.
It should have been scrapped entirely.
There are lots of little luxuries like this we can no longer afford.
I was happy with WFA being limited to those on benefits, but they buckled to pressure. They should have stuck to their guns.
It still really annoys me that I get the £10 Xmas bonus. I mean what is the point? My wife got it for the first time this year. £10 is peanuts, especially for those well off.
The £10 bonus was introduced in 1972, and its value has never been increased. If it had been linked to inflation it would be nearly £120 this year.
There will be a 2026 PB predictions competition, it will come with a prize of £100 Amazon vouchers.
I just need to pull out my finger and work out 12 questions to ask you all.
I think the NEV shares published by the BBC after the English Locals will be more interesting than the number of seats, considering it is unclear how many elections will go ahead.
Wales and Scotland, US House and Senate are good ones.
Who will lead each party at next year end too.
On the subject of Wales, a really good question would be, which party will come third?
Because I think that is very much up for grabs, with three parties jostling for it and possibly two more in the wings.
I would expect the leading party to be Plaid or Labour, but if Labour have a bad night Reform could pip them for second - meanwhile Reform is itself very much mired in scandal in Wales and tends to attract those groups less likely to vote, so may easily fall back rapidly.
FPT, MAGA’s, Christianity, and Jews. I think they’ll end up going in two directions.
1. Denying that Jesus was Jewish, but rather, asserting that he was an Aryan.
2. Embracing Nordic paganism.
I've always been confused as to why neo-Naziism has such a following amongst some on the American Right.
But, then again, I've never understood the Klu-Klux Klan either.
KKK was about preventing black representation or voting after the Civil War, was it not? With a resurgence after WW1, and another smaller one after WW2, which in some ways still persists. For me it's history of interest, but not something I have studied formally; my sister did "USA" whilst I did not.
And the tradition persists for all kinds of reasons, such as being hard-wired into the Southern Baptist Convention, which was set up to defend slavery, and only formally repented / apologised in 1995. But such cultures are not washed through in 30 years; it takes a firm change then at least an entire lifetime, perhaps 3-5 generations.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
I’m not saying replaced, I’m saying reformed.
I’m not convinced about means testing. Overly bureaucratic and a benefits trap.
Reforms inevitably would require some version of means test
Agree with @Taz, means testing has all sorts of problems that we see elsewhere. It costs a lot more to administer. It creates cliff edges (we should be getting rid of these not creating more). It is also incredibly easy to abuse by people with DC pensions. People with DC pensions already ensure they cut off before the 40% band. I'm sure the same will happen with the Winter Fuel Allowance at 35k.
It should have been scrapped entirely.
There are lots of little luxuries like this we can no longer afford.
I was happy with WFA being limited to those on benefits, but they buckled to pressure. They should have stuck to their guns.
It still really annoys me that I get the £10 Xmas bonus. I mean what is the point? My wife got it for the first time this year. £10 is peanuts, especially for those well off.
For me the strangest WFA number was that it was not sold more on a basis of "look at how much the pension is increasing this year".
But that's Mr Starmer and politics - how can we maximise the political cost/benefit ratio in these circumstances?
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
Depends if you see state pension as insurance or welfare. If insurance, state pension would appropriately be linked to earnings; if welfare it should probably be linked to inflation as with other benefits. Don't see a need for double linkage long term.
The expenditure on it is so vast that we should probably link it to affordability.
That's why we need to be clearer about whether state pension is insurance or welfare. If it's insurance, people need to understand big premiums will come out of their pay packets in the form of national insurance to cover the costs.
There's no chance the State Pension will reflect my contributions by the time I retire, whether in terms of the value of my contributions, percentage rate, or the number of years I will pay in. All these are significantly larger than what today's pensioners contributed; if calculated on the same basis it would be enormous.
Unfortunately many pensioners are under the illusion that they contributed to their state pension, when they actually contributed to their parent's one.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
Any party campaigning on the line "You never had it so good" would be slaughtered, but in economic terms would be correct.
The problem is not so much economic, albeit tha economy is rather sluggish, but more a crisis of confidence in wider civic society. This is common to much of the developed world, rather than being UK specific of course.
Is the future to be one of digital hermits being fed narrowcasting by shadowy billionaires or are we going to engage with our neighbours? This is why I found the Primrose Hill closure depressing. Spontaneous, free and chaotic inter-reactions are deplored.
I was eavesdropping on couple of our Gen Z staff in the coffee room the other day. There are fewer and fewer random introductions via friends in the dating world now, and the Apps are increasingly awful, being dominated by men using the Boomhauer technique. No wonder the TFR is dropping faster than Starmers ratings.
You do realise we have an astonishingly high deficit and our debt interest payments dwarf our Defence budget? That's not a minor matter.
Point of order, the current deficit isn't especially high by historic standards and is expected to fall according to the OBR, not least because Rachel Reeves is raising some unpopular taxes
The debt is more the issue than the deficit. Specifically its servicing costs now that the cheap money era is over.
The Bank of England holds about 30% of government debt - over £550b. The government pays interest on this debt (part of the £110b annual interest payments) This money is then returned to the Treasury so the interest cost is net zero. This debt doesn't matter.
Unfortunately the BoE is selling this debt to private banks (Quantitative Tightening) in order to "control inflation" by taking money out of the money supply. Wrong headed!
The UK inflation problem isn't surplus UK money causing surplus demand (there is a cost of living crisis), it is the cost of energy and other commodities at world prices, and also UK shortage of supply of eg houses, which require investment.
By taking money out of the money supply, the BoE is increasing interest rates (it has to give higher interest rates for the private sector to buy the government debt) and restricting investment (which is need to increase supply and growth and relieve inflation). Aargh. It's completely the wrong approach. Because it is somewhat technical, it isn't often debated
I thought that they had stopped doing that.
And, when they were, inflation was much higher. A government (or the Bank) have very limited levers that they can pull. They have the base rate, they have the fiscal position and they have the ability through QE and its reverse to do something about the money supply. They have no control whatsoever over international commodity prices so they need to offset inflation in these using the limited tools available.
Personally, I would have had the government tighten the fiscal position by significantly reducing the deficit but given the governments (the Tories were almost as bad) of the day were not willing to do that I think that the Bank were right to use quantitative tightening to offset the consequences of our fiscal incompetence/cowardice/stupidity.
The problem is that BoE has been given the responsibility to control inflation and, as you say, its only weapon is money supply/interest rates which don't work against international commodity prices and can be counter productive.
I think the solution is to remove the responsibility for inflation from the BoE and replace it with a growth target (together with stability of the banking sector).
Inflation, as you suggest, should be controlled fiscally by the government raising or reducing taxes to reduce or increase demand to match supply.
This would be a much more effective approach. It means breaking the mindset of: Increasing taxes - bad, and debt/deficit is all that matters. I think Polanski is slowly getting there.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
I’m not saying replaced, I’m saying reformed.
I’m not convinced about means testing. Overly bureaucratic and a benefits trap.
Reforms inevitably would require some version of means test
Agree with @Taz, means testing has all sorts of problems that we see elsewhere. It costs a lot more to administer. It creates cliff edges (we should be getting rid of these not creating more). It is also incredibly easy to abuse by people with DC pensions. People with DC pensions already ensure they cut off before the 40% band. I'm sure the same will happen with the Winter Fuel Allowance at 35k.
It should have been scrapped entirely.
There are lots of little luxuries like this we can no longer afford.
I was happy with WFA being limited to those on benefits, but they buckled to pressure. They should have stuck to their guns.
It still really annoys me that I get the £10 Xmas bonus. I mean what is the point? My wife got it for the first time this year. £10 is peanuts, especially for those well off.
The same goes for IHT for landowners. The comments about that were scathing, particularly from small business owners and tenant farmers. Messed up the policy and then messed up the u-turn.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
Depends if you see state pension as insurance or welfare. If insurance, state pension would appropriately be linked to earnings; if welfare it should probably be linked to inflation as with other benefits. Don't see a need for double linkage long term.
The expenditure on it is so vast that we should probably link it to affordability.
That's why we need to be clearer about whether state pension is insurance or welfare. If it's insurance, people need to understand big premiums will come out of their pay packets in the form of national insurance to cover the costs.
There's no chance the State Pension will reflect my contributions by the time I retire, whether in terms of the value of my contributions, percentage rate, or the number of years I will pay in. All these are significantly larger than what today's pensioners contributed; if calculated on the same basis it would be enormous.
Unfortunately many pensioners are under the illusion that they contributed to their state pension, when they actually contributed to their parent's one.
It would be a useful polling exercise, to see how many people think they pay into a ‘pot’, vs how many think that today’s taxes pay today’s pensions?
I’ve been paying AVCs since I live abroad, but probably would have been better off just putting them in the investment account which is mostly S&P 500.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
I’m not saying replaced, I’m saying reformed.
I’m not convinced about means testing. Overly bureaucratic and a benefits trap.
Reforms inevitably would require some version of means test
Agree with @Taz, means testing has all sorts of problems that we see elsewhere. It costs a lot more to administer. It creates cliff edges (we should be getting rid of these not creating more). It is also incredibly easy to abuse by people with DC pensions. People with DC pensions already ensure they cut off before the 40% band. I'm sure the same will happen with the Winter Fuel Allowance at 35k.
It should have been scrapped entirely.
There are lots of little luxuries like this we can no longer afford.
I was happy with WFA being limited to those on benefits, but they buckled to pressure. They should have stuck to their guns.
It still really annoys me that I get the £10 Xmas bonus. I mean what is the point? My wife got it for the first time this year. £10 is peanuts, especially for those well off.
The same goes for IHT for landowners. The comments about that were scathing, particularly from small business owners and tenant farmers. Messed up the policy and then messed up the u-turn.
Yet another example of them spending the political capital but not raising the money.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
I’m not saying replaced, I’m saying reformed.
I’m not convinced about means testing. Overly bureaucratic and a benefits trap.
Reforms inevitably would require some version of means test
Agree with @Taz, means testing has all sorts of problems that we see elsewhere. It costs a lot more to administer. It creates cliff edges (we should be getting rid of these not creating more). It is also incredibly easy to abuse by people with DC pensions. People with DC pensions already ensure they cut off before the 40% band. I'm sure the same will happen with the Winter Fuel Allowance at 35k.
Better means testing than putting lots of state pensioners into near poverty, which Labour found out is electoral suicide
There will be a 2026 PB predictions competition, it will come with a prize of £100 Amazon vouchers.
I just need to pull out my finger and work out 12 questions to ask you all.
I think the NEV shares published by the BBC after the English Locals will be more interesting than the number of seats, considering it is unclear how many elections will go ahead.
Wales and Scotland, US House and Senate are good ones.
Who will lead each party at next year end too.
On the subject of Wales, a really good question would be, which party will come third?
Because I think that is very much up for grabs, with three parties jostling for it and possibly two more in the wings.
I would expect the leading party to be Plaid or Labour, but if Labour have a bad night Reform could pip them for second - meanwhile Reform is itself very much mired in scandal in Wales and tends to attract those groups less likely to vote, so may easily fall back rapidly.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
I’m not saying replaced, I’m saying reformed.
I’m not convinced about means testing. Overly bureaucratic and a benefits trap.
Reforms inevitably would require some version of means test
Agree with @Taz, means testing has all sorts of problems that we see elsewhere. It costs a lot more to administer. It creates cliff edges (we should be getting rid of these not creating more). It is also incredibly easy to abuse by people with DC pensions. People with DC pensions already ensure they cut off before the 40% band. I'm sure the same will happen with the Winter Fuel Allowance at 35k.
It should have been scrapped entirely.
There are lots of little luxuries like this we can no longer afford.
I was happy with WFA being limited to those on benefits, but they buckled to pressure. They should have stuck to their guns.
It still really annoys me that I get the £10 Xmas bonus. I mean what is the point? My wife got it for the first time this year. £10 is peanuts, especially for those well off.
The £10 bonus was introduced in 1972, and its value has never been increased. If it had been linked to inflation it would be nearly £120 this year.
If I get through to early summer, I shall have been retired, and drawing my OAP, for 23 years. I had three main periods of employment, ie significantly different jobs, 23 years, 6 years (self) and 13 (NHS). In other words I will be almost at the position where I've drawn an NHS pension for twice the time I worked for the 'organisation'.
I pay income tax on my various pensions of course, but I can't see that overall this sort of situation is sustainable for the state, especially when I see all the people I know in a similar position. The 'Christmas bonus' and the WFA especially are unsustainable. I would not be surprised, or indeed, disappointed, if in April when I get my annual tax statement I see the WFA deducted.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
I’m not saying replaced, I’m saying reformed.
I’m not convinced about means testing. Overly bureaucratic and a benefits trap.
Reforms inevitably would require some version of means test
Agree with @Taz, means testing has all sorts of problems that we see elsewhere. It costs a lot more to administer. It creates cliff edges (we should be getting rid of these not creating more). It is also incredibly easy to abuse by people with DC pensions. People with DC pensions already ensure they cut off before the 40% band. I'm sure the same will happen with the Winter Fuel Allowance at 35k.
Better means testing than putting lots of state pensioners into near poverty, which Labour found out is electoral suicide
Means testing the triple lock is just incoherent. Means testing the whole state pension would introduce all sorts of bizarre incentives. Best option is probably what we have at the moment with a single lock to the personal allowance. Pension credit does a good job at reducing pensioner poverty and could be expanded further in value or scope.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
I’m not saying replaced, I’m saying reformed.
I’m not convinced about means testing. Overly bureaucratic and a benefits trap.
Reforms inevitably would require some version of means test
Agree with @Taz, means testing has all sorts of problems that we see elsewhere. It costs a lot more to administer. It creates cliff edges (we should be getting rid of these not creating more). It is also incredibly easy to abuse by people with DC pensions. People with DC pensions already ensure they cut off before the 40% band. I'm sure the same will happen with the Winter Fuel Allowance at 35k.
Better means testing than putting lots of state pensioners into near poverty, which Labour found out is electoral suicide
Means testing the triple lock is just incoherent. Means testing the whole state pension would introduce all sorts of bizarre incentives. Best option is probably what we have at the moment with a single lock to the personal allowance. Pension credit does a good job at reducing pensioner poverty and could be expanded further in value or scope.
We need less complexity not more. This seems a far more coherent suggestion than simply carry on with the triple,lock and means test it, with all,the costs that adds.
Once the final Ashes test is finished so maybe by Monday.
Does it start on Sunday? I’ve not been following the timetable.
Starts Saturday 23.30 GMT.
Gonna be the flattest of flat tracks, I reckon: 5 day bore fest and 3-1 series win for Aus.
I agree it will be flat and there will be a lot more runs but neither of these teams is capable of batting much more than a day so a result remains probable.
I think the 5th test should be abolished and all players go for a booze up in Sydney to celebrate new year.
My request has nothing to do with predicting a 3-1 Aus win in the predictions comp
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
Depends if you see state pension as insurance or welfare. If insurance, state pension would appropriately be linked to earnings; if welfare it should probably be linked to inflation as with other benefits. Don't see a need for double linkage long term.
The expenditure on it is so vast that we should probably link it to affordability.
That's why we need to be clearer about whether state pension is insurance or welfare. If it's insurance, people need to understand big premiums will come out of their pay packets in the form of national insurance to cover the costs.
There's no chance the State Pension will reflect my contributions by the time I retire, whether in terms of the value of my contributions, percentage rate, or the number of years I will pay in. All these are significantly larger than what today's pensioners contributed; if calculated on the same basis it would be enormous.
Unfortunately many pensioners are under the illusion that they contributed to their state pension, when they actually contributed to their parent's one.
Indeed. However, there are elements of a compulsory contributory pension scheme in place now that could be developed over time to substitute for part of the state pension.
A propos
Europeans and Americans say state pension systems are unaffordable, but also that they are not generous enough - and they don't support reform options
There will be a 2026 PB predictions competition, it will come with a prize of £100 Amazon vouchers.
I just need to pull out my finger and work out 12 questions to ask you all.
I think the NEV shares published by the BBC after the English Locals will be more interesting than the number of seats, considering it is unclear how many elections will go ahead.
Wales and Scotland, US House and Senate are good ones.
Who will lead each party at next year end too.
On the subject of Wales, a really good question would be, which party will come third?
Because I think that is very much up for grabs, with three parties jostling for it and possibly two more in the wings.
I would expect the leading party to be Plaid or Labour, but if Labour have a bad night Reform could pip them for second - meanwhile Reform is itself very much mired in scandal in Wales and tends to attract those groups less likely to vote, so may easily fall back rapidly.
Is there a chance Labour come fourth in Wales?
There is a chance they could finish that low in Scotland, if Reform polling holds up and the Tories are strong in rural areas
Analysis of civil service data by the Institute for Government finds there are now 520,440 full-time equivalent civil servants, 35 per cent higher than the pre-Brexit low.
Middle management in Whitehall has increased 132 per cent since 2010 and the senior civil service by 52 per cent, with analysts saying this is partly because of staff being over-promoted in order to get round pay squeezes, a phenomenon dubbed “grade inflation”.
A year ago Starmer said he wanted “the complete rewiring of the British state” and has since stressed that his ministers “don’t want a bigger state” but a “more agile and productive one”.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
I’m not saying replaced, I’m saying reformed.
I’m not convinced about means testing. Overly bureaucratic and a benefits trap.
Reforms inevitably would require some version of means test
Agree with @Taz, means testing has all sorts of problems that we see elsewhere. It costs a lot more to administer. It creates cliff edges (we should be getting rid of these not creating more). It is also incredibly easy to abuse by people with DC pensions. People with DC pensions already ensure they cut off before the 40% band. I'm sure the same will happen with the Winter Fuel Allowance at 35k.
Better means testing than putting lots of state pensioners into near poverty, which Labour found out is electoral suicide
Means testing the triple lock is just incoherent. Means testing the whole state pension would introduce all sorts of bizarre incentives. Best option is probably what we have at the moment with a single lock to the personal allowance. Pension credit does a good job at reducing pensioner poverty and could be expanded further in value or scope.
State pensioners who paid in all their lives via NI will not accept being fobbed off with a bit of extra pension credit for the very poorest of them, that just means more poll disaster for Labour as with the WFA cut debacle
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
I’m not saying replaced, I’m saying reformed.
I’m not convinced about means testing. Overly bureaucratic and a benefits trap.
Reforms inevitably would require some version of means test
Agree with @Taz, means testing has all sorts of problems that we see elsewhere. It costs a lot more to administer. It creates cliff edges (we should be getting rid of these not creating more). It is also incredibly easy to abuse by people with DC pensions. People with DC pensions already ensure they cut off before the 40% band. I'm sure the same will happen with the Winter Fuel Allowance at 35k.
Better means testing than putting lots of state pensioners into near poverty, which Labour found out is electoral suicide
Means testing the triple lock is just incoherent. Means testing the whole state pension would introduce all sorts of bizarre incentives. Best option is probably what we have at the moment with a single lock to the personal allowance. Pension credit does a good job at reducing pensioner poverty and could be expanded further in value or scope.
State pensioners who paid in all their lives via NI will not accept being fobbed off with a bit of extra pension credit for the very poorest of them, that just means more poll disaster for Labour as with the WFA cut debacle
You're right, of course. These same pensioners are the ones whining about NHS staff asking for pay to keep up with inflation, let alone a triple lock. The gerontracy is real, and they expect servitude from the rest of us.
There will be a 2026 PB predictions competition, it will come with a prize of £100 Amazon vouchers.
I just need to pull out my finger and work out 12 questions to ask you all.
I think the NEV shares published by the BBC after the English Locals will be more interesting than the number of seats, considering it is unclear how many elections will go ahead.
Wales and Scotland, US House and Senate are good ones.
Who will lead each party at next year end too.
On the subject of Wales, a really good question would be, which party will come third?
Because I think that is very much up for grabs, with three parties jostling for it and possibly two more in the wings.
I would expect the leading party to be Plaid or Labour, but if Labour have a bad night Reform could pip them for second - meanwhile Reform is itself very much mired in scandal in Wales and tends to attract those groups less likely to vote, so may easily fall back rapidly.
Is there a chance Labour come fourth in Wales?
There is a chance they could finish that low in Scotland, if Reform polling holds up and the Tories are strong in rural areas
Scotland may actually end up being Starmer's best result. In 2021 Labour were 3rd in Scotland and the SNP vote and Tory votes are still down more than the Labour vote relative to 2021. Indeed if Reform take 2021 SNP voters as well as Tory votes they could win a few Tory constituency seats at Holyrood but help Labour to win some SNP seats, as the Hamilton by election showed.
By contrast Labour won in Wales in 2021 and look like falling to 3rd there and the London, big city and other 2026 council elections were last up in 2022 when Labour won the NEV.
Kemi faces even more of a nightmare in terms of likely seats lost than Starmer as in 2021 the Tories were second in Scotland and Wales after the Boris vaccine bounce and are now polling 4th in both, behind the SNP/Plaid, Reform and Labour. Plus even in 2022 the Tories got 30% NEV in that year's locals, whereas now they are polling 20% at best.
There will be a 2026 PB predictions competition, it will come with a prize of £100 Amazon vouchers.
I just need to pull out my finger and work out 12 questions to ask you all.
I think the NEV shares published by the BBC after the English Locals will be more interesting than the number of seats, considering it is unclear how many elections will go ahead.
Wales and Scotland, US House and Senate are good ones.
Who will lead each party at next year end too.
On the subject of Wales, a really good question would be, which party will come third?
Because I think that is very much up for grabs, with three parties jostling for it and possibly two more in the wings.
I would expect the leading party to be Plaid or Labour, but if Labour have a bad night Reform could pip them for second - meanwhile Reform is itself very much mired in scandal in Wales and tends to attract those groups less likely to vote, so may easily fall back rapidly.
Is there a chance that Llafur might still top the poll? That would take a fair bit of swingback from recent polling. I guess that unlike their cowardly Scotch cousins, they’ve made some attempt to distance themselves from the stinking dead albatross of London Labour, but will it be enough?
There will be a 2026 PB predictions competition, it will come with a prize of £100 Amazon vouchers.
I just need to pull out my finger and work out 12 questions to ask you all.
I think the NEV shares published by the BBC after the English Locals will be more interesting than the number of seats, considering it is unclear how many elections will go ahead.
Wales and Scotland, US House and Senate are good ones.
Who will lead each party at next year end too.
On the subject of Wales, a really good question would be, which party will come third?
Because I think that is very much up for grabs, with three parties jostling for it and possibly two more in the wings.
I would expect the leading party to be Plaid or Labour, but if Labour have a bad night Reform could pip them for second - meanwhile Reform is itself very much mired in scandal in Wales and tends to attract those groups less likely to vote, so may easily fall back rapidly.
Is there a chance Labour come fourth in Wales?
There is a chance they could finish that low in Scotland, if Reform polling holds up and the Tories are strong in rural areas
Scotland may actually end up being Starmer's best result. In 2021 Labour were 3rd in Scotland and the SNP vote and Tory votes are still down more than the Labour vote relative to 2021. Indeed if Reform take 2021 SNP voters as well as Tory votes they could win a few Tory constituency seats at Holyrood but help Labour to win some SNP seats, as the Hamilton by election showed.
By contrast Labour won in Wales in 2021 and look like falling to 3rd there and the London, big city and other elections were last up in 2022 when Labour won the NEV.
Kemi faces even more of a nightmare in terms of likely seats lost than Starmer as in 2021 the Tories were second in Scotland and Wales after the Boris vaccine bounce and even in 2022 the Tories got 30% NEV, whereas now they are polling 20% at best.
As you will know HYUFD, I'm more bullish about Tory prospects in rural parts of Scotland than Labours chances in urban Scotland. Its no coincidence Farage held his rally in Falkirk. I get the impression the blues have steadied the ship a little but they are still a long way back from Dougies 31 seat tally in 2021. The debates could turn some voters against Reform if Farage doesn't choose his Scottish leader wisely (assuming he doesn't pick himself)
Doctors found nothing wrong with more than 2 million A&E patients in 2024-25.
Guardian
I'm always slightly wary of these surveys. I've no doubt many patients do not need to be there but suddenly I can't walk and don't have my own X-ray machine so need the quacks to tell me if my leg's broken or I just slept on it a bit funny.
There will be a 2026 PB predictions competition, it will come with a prize of £100 Amazon vouchers.
I just need to pull out my finger and work out 12 questions to ask you all.
I think the NEV shares published by the BBC after the English Locals will be more interesting than the number of seats, considering it is unclear how many elections will go ahead.
Wales and Scotland, US House and Senate are good ones.
Who will lead each party at next year end too.
On the subject of Wales, a really good question would be, which party will come third?
Because I think that is very much up for grabs, with three parties jostling for it and possibly two more in the wings.
I would expect the leading party to be Plaid or Labour, but if Labour have a bad night Reform could pip them for second - meanwhile Reform is itself very much mired in scandal in Wales and tends to attract those groups less likely to vote, so may easily fall back rapidly.
Is there a chance Labour come fourth in Wales?
There is a chance they could finish that low in Scotland, if Reform polling holds up and the Tories are strong in rural areas
Scotland may actually end up being Starmer's best result. In 2021 Labour were 3rd in Scotland and the SNP vote and Tory votes are still down more than the Labour vote relative to 2021. Indeed if Reform take 2021 SNP voters as well as Tory votes they could win a few Tory constituency seats at Holyrood but help Labour to win some SNP seats, as the Hamilton by election showed.
By contrast Labour won in Wales in 2021 and look like falling to 3rd there and the London, big city and other 2026 council elections were last up in 2022 when Labour won the NEV.
Kemi faces even more of a nightmare in terms of likely seats lost than Starmer as in 2021 the Tories were second in Scotland and Wales after the Boris vaccine bounce and even in 2022 the Tories got 30% NEV, whereas now they are polling 20% at best.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
I’m not saying replaced, I’m saying reformed.
I’m not convinced about means testing. Overly bureaucratic and a benefits trap.
Reforms inevitably would require some version of means test
Agree with @Taz, means testing has all sorts of problems that we see elsewhere. It costs a lot more to administer. It creates cliff edges (we should be getting rid of these not creating more). It is also incredibly easy to abuse by people with DC pensions. People with DC pensions already ensure they cut off before the 40% band. I'm sure the same will happen with the Winter Fuel Allowance at 35k.
It should have been scrapped entirely.
There are lots of little luxuries like this we can no longer afford.
I was happy with WFA being limited to those on benefits, but they buckled to pressure. They should have stuck to their guns.
It still really annoys me that I get the £10 Xmas bonus. I mean what is the point? My wife got it for the first time this year. £10 is peanuts, especially for those well off.
The same goes for IHT for landowners. The comments about that were scathing, particularly from small business owners and tenant farmers. Messed up the policy and then messed up the u-turn.
Have been trying to see online, I'm assuming the now £2.5 million business relief cap applies to all small & medium businesses, not just farms and agriculture. If so that's good news for what Lord Sugar calls the backbone of UK industry, the self employed
Comments
Also Thatcher level deficits aren't actually good.
https://x.com/maria_drutska/status/2006280414629937226
They’re finding it impossible to deny now, the recession has been there for the last six months at least.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c338ne3relzo
Which party will be second in NEV vote share in the May locals?
https://x.com/marionawfal/status/2006213726182211799
Wales and Scotland, US House and Senate are good ones.
Who will lead each party at next year end too.
My gran would have hated it.
And it does feel dumb.
Nevertheless,
the actual problem is that the institutions that create that debt are the long term beneficiaries. We the indebted are being childish with our desires, allowing their dominance. Our collective future and the environment is the biggest loser.
Why do we accept this insane balance where the
banks and the 1% win while the planet and its people lose?
It’s time the human race grew up.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
In 15 years the Triple Lock has been uprated by:
Average Earnings Increase: 6 times.
Inflation: 6 times.
2.5%: 4 times.
https://ifs.org.uk/articles/what-are-effects-triple-lock-and-how-could-it-be-reformed
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
How many Post Office or Protective Equipment miscreants will have been punished by the Courts?
(Though that may be one for 2036.)
1. Denying that Jesus was Jewish, but rather, asserting that he was an Aryan.
2. Embracing Nordic paganism.
So yes, somewhere between £200k and £300k.
Its the 1980 figure (at 65 or 60) I'm not sure about. Were we already healthy enough by then or was life expectancy low enough to make it cheaper?
I imagine it looked very different in 1950.
https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/donald-trump-shares-mocks-kennedys-after-tatiana-schlossberg-death/
https://x.com/francesbarber13/status/2006292122685657519
But bung it somewhere less... thoughtful... and a shiny sixpence says that a decent number of people would believe it.
Which is why any government is going to be screwed for the foreseeable future. And society really needs to find a way to have a penalty for believing stupid stuff.
https://youtu.be/pNZU0SGmYyI?si=PDQ6AOSrzhSjBuKS
Basically, it is approaching random women with a smutty line, and playing the numbers game. 95% of the time it gets nowhere, the other 5% is a sure thing. It takes a thick skin. Its why so many women find bring approached quite uncomfortable and unpleasant. The technique is even cruder on dating apps it seems.
But, then again, I've never understood the Klu-Klux Klan either.
I’m not convinced about means testing. Overly bureaucratic and a benefits trap.
The government pays interest on this debt (part of the £110b annual interest payments)
This money is then returned to the Treasury so the interest cost is net zero.
This debt doesn't matter.
Unfortunately the BoE is selling this debt to private banks (Quantitative Tightening) in order to "control inflation" by taking money out of the money supply. Wrong headed!
The UK inflation problem isn't surplus UK money causing surplus demand (there is a cost of living crisis), it is the cost of energy and other commodities at world prices, and also UK shortage of supply of eg houses, which require investment.
By taking money out of the money supply, the BoE is increasing interest rates (it has to give higher interest rates for the private sector to buy the government debt) and restricting investment (which is need to increase supply and growth and relieve inflation). Aargh. It's completely the wrong approach.
Because it is somewhat technical, it isn't often debated
Any chance of selecting questions I know something about? It is ok, I still won't win.
So the problem is that the equivalent state pension to 1980 would cost almost 3 times as much, even taking into account the different retirement ages.
I couldn't find a graph showing this, but one must exist somewhere.
There are lots of little luxuries like this we can no longer afford.
Currently it is 79 men / 83 women.
In 1980-1 state pension was 26% of average earnings.
By the mid 2000s that was down to around 16%.
The IFS piece I linked above is fairly good. I'd tend to favour a less "slanted to high earners" tax relief setup on pensions, and a state pension link to a share of median or mean earnings somewhat higher than at present; it needs to be out of ping-pong politics.
But there is infinite room for Gordon Brown / George Osborne style shenanigans that give a media-friendly budget benefit now to be paid for by the future. It could be something as simple as switching it from a mean-earnings link to a median=-earnings link. The continued upshift in pension age is becoming questionable.
Doctors found nothing wrong with more than 2 million A&E patients in 2024-25.
Guardian
https://www.thetimes.com/business/companies-markets/article/britain-stuck-at-bottom-of-g7-for-total-investment-7mt6xbrlv
It still really annoys me that I get the £10 Xmas bonus. I mean what is the point? My wife got it for the first time this year. £10 is peanuts, especially for those well off.
Pensioners are people who don't work who now live quite a long time and need to be paid for by people who do work.
If they didn't live so long or there weren't so many of them then, sure, we could have a higher state pension.
Since that isn't the case - which in my view, is a good thing- people need to work a bit longer and save more for their retirement.
But he is also, apparently, a "BINO".
And, when they were, inflation was much higher. A government (or the Bank) have very limited levers that they can pull. They have the base rate, they have the fiscal position and they have the ability through QE and its reverse to do something about the money supply. They have no control whatsoever over international commodity prices so they need to offset inflation in these using the limited tools available.
Personally, I would have had the government tighten the fiscal position by significantly reducing the deficit but given the governments (the Tories were almost as bad) of the day were not willing to do that I think that the Bank were right to use quantitative tightening to offset the consequences of our fiscal incompetence/cowardice/stupidity.
Again, we come back to make benefits universal by all means, but make them taxable.
He’s a decent guy who’s done a lot of good work on knife crime.
Far better he get a gong than Annaliese fucking Dodds.
Because I think that is very much up for grabs, with three parties jostling for it and possibly two more in the wings.
I would expect the leading party to be Plaid or Labour, but if Labour have a bad night Reform could pip them for second - meanwhile Reform is itself very much mired in scandal in Wales and tends to attract those groups less likely to vote, so may easily fall back rapidly.
And the tradition persists for all kinds of reasons, such as being hard-wired into the Southern Baptist Convention, which was set up to defend slavery, and only formally repented / apologised in 1995. But such cultures are not washed through in 30 years; it takes a firm change then at least an entire lifetime, perhaps 3-5 generations.
But that's Mr Starmer and politics - how can we maximise the political cost/benefit ratio in these circumstances?
Unfortunately many pensioners are under the illusion that they contributed to their state pension, when they actually contributed to their parent's one.
I think the solution is to remove the responsibility for inflation from the BoE and replace it with a growth target (together with stability of the banking sector).
Inflation, as you suggest, should be controlled fiscally by the government raising or reducing taxes to reduce or increase demand to match supply.
This would be a much more effective approach.
It means breaking the mindset of:
Increasing taxes - bad, and debt/deficit is all that matters.
I think Polanski is slowly getting there.
I’ve been paying AVCs since I live abroad, but probably would have been better off just putting them in the investment account which is mostly S&P 500.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2026_Senedd_election
I pay income tax on my various pensions of course, but I can't see that overall this sort of situation is sustainable for the state, especially when I see all the people I know in a similar position. The 'Christmas bonus' and the WFA especially are unsustainable. I would not be surprised, or indeed, disappointed, if in April when I get my annual tax statement I see the WFA deducted.
If it was my prompt it would say ‘generate something to trigger a mug’ and it would have worked. 🎯
My request has nothing to do with predicting a 3-1 Aus win in the predictions comp
A propos
Europeans and Americans say state pension systems are unaffordable, but also that they are not generous enough - and they don't support reform options
https://bsky.app/profile/yougov.co.uk/post/3mb56hogor22c
There is a chance they could finish that low in Scotland, if Reform polling holds up and the Tories are strong in rural areas
Middle management in Whitehall has increased 132 per cent since 2010 and the senior civil service by 52 per cent, with analysts saying this is partly because of staff being over-promoted in order to get round pay squeezes, a phenomenon dubbed “grade inflation”.
A year ago Starmer said he wanted “the complete rewiring of the British state” and has since stressed that his ministers “don’t want a bigger state” but a “more agile and productive one”.
https://www.ft.com/content/3b5775e0-2128-465f-a1e6-a406e29fcdf5
All that tough talking from Pat McFaddon doesn't seem to be doing anything.
By contrast Labour won in Wales in 2021 and look like falling to 3rd there and the London, big city and other 2026 council elections were last up in 2022 when Labour won the NEV.
Kemi faces even more of a nightmare in terms of likely seats lost than Starmer as in 2021 the Tories were second in Scotland and Wales after the Boris vaccine bounce and are now polling 4th in both, behind the SNP/Plaid, Reform and Labour. Plus even in 2022 the Tories got 30% NEV in that year's locals, whereas now they are polling 20% at best.
I guess that unlike their cowardly Scotch cousins, they’ve made some attempt to distance themselves from the stinking dead albatross of London Labour, but will it be enough?
https://x.com/thoughtland/status/2005924092969373707?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q