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”.
All that tough talking from Pat McFaddon doesn't seem to be doing anything.
It is the difference between slogans and policy. Anyone can wish for a more efficient civil service, better schools and for the MoD to buy tanks more dangerous to ruskies than tommies but ministers need to have some idea how to get there, starting from where we are now. Modern politicians, especially the technocrats at 10 and 11 Downing Street, swept into power believing Whitehall had all the plans in a safe but had been blocked by those evil Tories.
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.
From FON which has Labour far lower than other pollsters and the Greens much higher.
Though even that poll has the SNP down 2 seats on 2021 and the SNP vote down 13% on the constituency vote to just 34% from 47%.
What we saw in the Hamilton by election was the SNP vote down 16% on 2021 to 29%, so not miles off even the FON poll, and the Labour vote only down 2% to 31% with Reform getting 26%, so Labour gained the seat
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”.
All that tough talking from Pat McFaddon doesn't seem to be doing anything.
It is the difference between slogans and policy. Anyone can wish for a more efficient civil service, better schools and for the MoD to buy tanks more dangerous to ruskies than tommies but ministers need to have some idea how to get there, starting from where we are now. Modern politicians, especially the technocrats at 10 and 11 Downing Street, swept into power believing Whitehall had all the plans in a safe but had been blocked by those evil Tories.
If we just say growth enough times.....and of course none of the issues ever cross Starmer's desk. Totally in the dark all the time.
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)
They could but at the moment if Reform win seats in Scotland it is most likely to be Tory held ones
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?
Either way it will be a Plaid and Labour government, the only question being which of the parties comes top to provide the FM
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?
Either way it will be a Plaid and Labour government, the only question being which of the parties comes top to provide the FM
Nothing is certain in life except death and taxes!
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.
From FON which has Labour far lower than other pollsters and the Greens much higher.
Though even that poll has the SNP down 2 seats on 2021 and the SNP vote down 13% on the constituency vote to just 34% from 47%.
What we saw in the Hamilton by election was the SNP vote down 16% on 2021 to 29%, so not miles off even the FON poll, and the Labour vote only down 2% to 31% with Reform getting 26%, so Labour gained the seat
What Hamilton show us is FPTP is a real quagmire when multiple parties are within touching distance of each other. Expect the odd surprising result to be flung in, both on list and constituency votes, there will be some FPTP seats won with barely 10k votes
I can't see Reform taking that Borders seat for example, or the Tories taking only 2 seats in South of Scotland
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?
Either way it will be a Plaid and Labour government, the only question being which of the parties comes top to provide the FM
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.
I didn't mean it literally, I know what the KKK stand for, but I just can't fathom how you can get so nasty and warped about race to that extent that you'd want to do what they do.
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.
From FON which has Labour far lower than other pollsters and the Greens much higher.
Though even that poll has the SNP down 2 seats on 2021 and the SNP vote down 13% on the constituency vote to just 34% from 47%.
What we saw in the Hamilton by election was the SNP vote down 16% on 2021 to 29%, so not miles off even the FON poll, and the Labour vote only down 2% to 31% with Reform getting 26%, so Labour gained the seat
What Hamilton show us is FPTP is a real quagmire when multiple parties are within touching distance of each other. Expect the odd surprising result to be flung in, both on list and constituency votes, there will be some FPTP seats won with barely 10k votes
I can't see Reform taking that Borders seat for example, or the Tories taking only 2 seats in South of Scotland
No but surprising things have happened and on national swing Reform could win a few Tory held rural seats in Scotland. I think Swinney is not as good a campaigner as Salmond or Sturgeon either and last time he led the SNP at a Holyrood election in 2003 they lost 8 MSPs. Not forgetting the SNP losses at the UK general election in 2024 when Swinney was their Scottish leader.
In some respects SNP complacency is good for Labour and Reform and the Greens and LDs, the media have already decided the SNP will be re elected comfortably but I suspect it will be closer
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.
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?
Either way it will be a Plaid and Labour government, the only question being which of the parties comes top to provide the FM
Nothing is certain in life except death and taxes!
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”.
All that tough talking from Pat McFaddon doesn't seem to be doing anything.
It is the difference between slogans and policy. Anyone can wish for a more efficient civil service, better schools and for the MoD to buy tanks more dangerous to ruskies than tommies but ministers need to have some idea how to get there, starting from where we are now. Modern politicians, especially the technocrats at 10 and 11 Downing Street, swept into power believing Whitehall had all the plans in a safe but had been blocked by those evil Tories.
*Techno*crats?
A major issue is complete lack of domain knowledge. And something akin to an active dislike for it.
See the specification for the Bat Tunnel - “no bats can be harmed” without understanding that nothing is 100%. And would result in nearly infinite costs attempting that.
See the attempt to specify a percentage of asylum seekers working on SMRs - when it is illegal for them to have jobs.
See the RAAC farce of declaring it “safe” despite it being fiat decision based on no technical knowledge, just cost.
See the BritVolt comedy, where people were *glad* they weren’t dealing with dirty handed technologists.
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.
I didn't mean it literally, I know what the KKK stand for, but I just can't fathom how you can get so nasty and warped about race to that extent that you'd want to do what they do.
I'm trying to emphasise how what they have now is a continuation of a pre-existing tradition, which has a violent history, and it is re-emerging. Apols if I was not clear enough.
We have a similar emphasis in the UK, where there are plenty of BNP retreads and even National Front people still around. They don't go away.
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.
I didn't mean it literally, I know what the KKK stand for, but I just can't fathom how you can get so nasty and warped about race to that extent that you'd want to do what they do.
Culture.
If you train a society from birth, that a black person who isn’t subservient is a danger and that a black person who is armed *has started the fight* - just by existing - the KKK is inevitable.
It looks mad to you, because it is. But it happened because an entire population swam in the same sea of madness. And fish don’t see the water.
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 £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.
My Grandad was born in 1920 and had his degree (Bristol, History) interrupted by the war, during which he was variously involved in digging ditches on farmland, working as a hospital orderly, or volunteering for the Friends Ambulance Unit in Northern France and Berlin.
After the war he finished his degree (I think graduating in 1947) and then started a career in teaching, from which he retired 33 years later in 1980. He died, aged 97, in 2017, after 37 years of retirement.
He was obviously one of the lucky ones, and he had gone to all the funerals of his contemporaries, whose earlier deaths helped to make his pension affordable. But I think a lot of people look at a story like that and imagine that everyone can have as long a retirement as that, perhaps making an argument on the lines of fairness, but it's the unfairness of relatively early death for many that makes a long retirement affordable for some.
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.
My Grandad was born in 1920 and had his degree (Bristol, History) interrupted by the war, during which he was variously involved in digging ditches on farmland, working as a hospital orderly, or volunteering for the Friends Ambulance Unit in Northern France and Berlin.
After the war he finished his degree (I think graduating in 1947) and then started a career in teaching, from which he retired 33 years later in 1980. He died, aged 97, in 2017, after 37 years of retirement.
He was obviously one of the lucky ones, and he had gone to all the funerals of his contemporaries, whose earlier deaths helped to make his pension affordable. But I think a lot of people look at a story like that and imagine that everyone can have as long a retirement as that, perhaps making an argument on the lines of fairness, but it's the unfairness of relatively early death for many that makes a long retirement affordable for some.
In other countries, the response would be to increase policing.
But shutting things down is easier.
The fact that this then feeds the perception that public spaces are too dangerous is ignored.
It’s Broken Windows Theory in reverse.
If I remember correctly the police have struggled in the past few years with the ticketed area in central London as people have steamed the entry points.
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.
My Grandad was born in 1920 and had his degree (Bristol, History) interrupted by the war, during which he was variously involved in digging ditches on farmland, working as a hospital orderly, or volunteering for the Friends Ambulance Unit in Northern France and Berlin.
After the war he finished his degree (I think graduating in 1947) and then started a career in teaching, from which he retired 33 years later in 1980. He died, aged 97, in 2017, after 37 years of retirement.
He was obviously one of the lucky ones, and he had gone to all the funerals of his contemporaries, whose earlier deaths helped to make his pension affordable. But I think a lot of people look at a story like that and imagine that everyone can have as long a retirement as that, perhaps making an argument on the lines of fairness, but it's the unfairness of relatively early death for many that makes a long retirement affordable for some.
Basically a tontine ...?
Pensions *were* originally set to start at an age which meant that many wouldn’t get anything, and those that did, didn’t generally get them for long.
The lucky few… so yes, a tontine isn’t a bad way of losing at it.
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.
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.
That sort of catastrophism is part of the problem. The deficit isn't particularly bad either by historic measures or in comparison to peer countries.
The deficit so far this financial year is £132bn, the second highest on record after 2020 when we had a pandemic on, higher than in 2009 when there was a massive recession.
It’s true that most of the West is up to their neck in debt, but that doesn’t make it a good thing!
Is that adjusted for inflation or not?
Looking up the numbers… no. So, adjusting for inflation, the 2009 deficit was much bigger at about £282bn.
Lots of figures are the highest on record if you don’t adjust for inflation.
Bad comparison though as the 2009 figure was during a recession.
There has not been a recession this year and we are a number of years from our last significant recession (albeit there was a small technical one in 2023/24).
Our deficit should cyclically be higher in recessions than non-recession years, maxing out the deficit in non-recession years means that when a recession hits catastrophe is inevitable. See blowing the deficit wide open from a surplus in 2002 to a major deficit in 2008 without a recession in the interim and what happened next.
In other countries, the response would be to increase policing.
But shutting things down is easier.
The fact that this then feeds the perception that public spaces are too dangerous is ignored.
It’s Broken Windows Theory in reverse.
I was back in the UK less than 1hr before I saw somebody shoplifting at the airport which the staff and security did nothing about (as in they didn't call the police). Only when the individiual starting threatening people like the incredible hulk were the finally police called. They then spent 10 minutes trying to negiotate with him. Unsurprisingly he then tried to attack the police which resulted in a massive team of police being required. 3 police vans later they got him arrested and dragged off.
If they are turning blind eye to stuff at an international airport its a lost cause.
(Not advocating it) but in China you get the mace and electric cattle prod treatment if you misbehave in the train station or airport public areas.
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.
My Grandad was born in 1920 and had his degree (Bristol, History) interrupted by the war, during which he was variously involved in digging ditches on farmland, working as a hospital orderly, or volunteering for the Friends Ambulance Unit in Northern France and Berlin.
After the war he finished his degree (I think graduating in 1947) and then started a career in teaching, from which he retired 33 years later in 1980. He died, aged 97, in 2017, after 37 years of retirement.
He was obviously one of the lucky ones, and he had gone to all the funerals of his contemporaries, whose earlier deaths helped to make his pension affordable. But I think a lot of people look at a story like that and imagine that everyone can have as long a retirement as that, perhaps making an argument on the lines of fairness, but it's the unfairness of relatively early death for many that makes a long retirement affordable for some.
Basically a tontine ...?
Pensions *were* originally set to start at an age which meant that many wouldn’t get anything, and those that did, didn’t generally get them for long.
The lucky few… so yes, a tontine isn’t a bad way of losing at it.
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?
It should only be a single one, so two should be removed, not one.
I'd remove the 2.5% and inflation, welfare should never rise higher than earnings as a matter of principle.
If not earnings alone used, then inflation alone should be used. And if that means the figure is 50p, or negative, then that's what it should be.
I believe Bismark instituted the first state pension in Prussia to commence at age 65 at that time life expectancy for industrial workers was 66. The idea to give the workers final year in comfort.
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.
My Grandad was born in 1920 and had his degree (Bristol, History) interrupted by the war, during which he was variously involved in digging ditches on farmland, working as a hospital orderly, or volunteering for the Friends Ambulance Unit in Northern France and Berlin.
After the war he finished his degree (I think graduating in 1947) and then started a career in teaching, from which he retired 33 years later in 1980. He died, aged 97, in 2017, after 37 years of retirement.
He was obviously one of the lucky ones, and he had gone to all the funerals of his contemporaries, whose earlier deaths helped to make his pension affordable. But I think a lot of people look at a story like that and imagine that everyone can have as long a retirement as that, perhaps making an argument on the lines of fairness, but it's the unfairness of relatively early death for many that makes a long retirement affordable for some.
Basically a tontine ...?
Pensions *were* originally set to start at an age which meant that many wouldn’t get anything, and those that did, didn’t generally get them for long.
The lucky few… so yes, a tontine isn’t a bad way of losing at it.
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?
It should only be a single one, so two should be removed, not one.
I'd remove the 2.5% and inflation, welfare should never rise higher than earnings as a matter of principle.
If not earnings alone used, then inflation alone should be used. And if that means the figure is 50p, or negative, then that's what it should be.
I believe Bismark instituted the first state pension in Prussia to commence at age 65 at that time life expectancy for industrial workers was 66. The idea to give the workers final year in comfort.
More that many wouldn’t make it. A number would get a couple of years of pension. A handful would get to be greybeards.
So the whole thing wouldn’t cost much.
Then those darn’ medicos stuffed it all up. Along with the water companies and supermarkets.
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”.
All that tough talking from Pat McFaddon doesn't seem to be doing anything.
Takes a bit of time to reduce civil service. Voluntary exit schemes takes ages to run for some reason but I suspect will be well subscribed ultimately.
I'm sure they will be able to get numbers down. More productive? Who knows.
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.
Particularly, as Hitler would have completely despised modern neo-Nazis, anyway, as obviously low-IQ embarrassments.
It's remarkable how much of the German intelligentsia embraced Nazism wholesale at the time.
Not so much, when you review the extraordinary lengths they went to capture almost every organisation within their country during the months after Mr H became chancellor in 1933. The (comparatively) moderate politicians thought they could ‘control’ the Nazis despite their assuming the chancellorship, yet the reality was that by the end of that year anyone who fancied speaking out faced a most unpleasant fate indeed.
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?
Either way it will be a Plaid and Labour government, the only question being which of the parties comes top to provide the FM
'South Park' alum Toby Morton responds to unnamed lawyers regarding his registering the Trump-Kennedy Center domain names: "Satire is protected speech... I'll proceed accordingly while you go f^ck yourselves." https://x.com/Mollyploofkins/status/2006326258838519818
The fact that this year’s local elections will take place in areas of historic Labour strength is bad news, not good news, for them. It means that their headline losses will be far greater than the Conservatives’, probably approaching 1,500 seats.
In other countries, the response would be to increase policing.
But shutting things down is easier.
The fact that this then feeds the perception that public spaces are too dangerous is ignored.
It’s Broken Windows Theory in reverse.
I was back in the UK less than 1hr before I saw somebody shoplifting at the airport which the staff and security did nothing about (as in they didn't call the police). Only when the individiual starting threatening people like the incredible hulk were the finally police called. They then spent 10 minutes trying to negiotate with him. Unsurprisingly he then tried to attack the police which resulted in a massive team of police being required. 3 police vans later they got him arrested and dragged off.
If they are turning blind eye to stuff at an international airport its a lost cause.
(Not advocating it) but in China you get the mace and electric cattle prod treatment if you misbehave in the train station or airport public areas.
Time it was brought in here for any public area and give them a good kicking afterwards.
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
This isn't quite right. The debt held under QE does matter in the UK's set-up.
The BoE buys the gilts not directly from the government through its Asset Purchase Facility (APF). When purchases are made, new central bank reserves are created for the bank the gilts have been purchased off. The BoE pays interest on the reserves to the commercial banks at a rate that closely corresponds to the BoE base rate.
The amount of interest the BoE returns to the government in your comment above is the net amount of the interest received by the APF on government debt minus the interest paid on central bank reserves used to facilitate QE.
When base rates were near zero, that resulted in large gains for the government, meaning the debt under QE cost very little. That persisted up until 2022.
Now the difference between short and long-term rates is much lower, so the debt under QE definitely does count but the interest is tied to BoE base rates not the levels debt was issued at.
The fact that this year’s local elections will take place in areas of historic Labour strength is bad news, not good news, for them. It means that their headline losses will be far greater than the Conservatives’, probably approaching 1,500 seats.
Accentuated by areas such as Bradford having all-out elections due to boundary changes, rather than the usual thirds. So three times as many seats to 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?
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.
My Grandad was born in 1920 and had his degree (Bristol, History) interrupted by the war, during which he was variously involved in digging ditches on farmland, working as a hospital orderly, or volunteering for the Friends Ambulance Unit in Northern France and Berlin.
After the war he finished his degree (I think graduating in 1947) and then started a career in teaching, from which he retired 33 years later in 1980. He died, aged 97, in 2017, after 37 years of retirement.
He was obviously one of the lucky ones, and he had gone to all the funerals of his contemporaries, whose earlier deaths helped to make his pension affordable. But I think a lot of people look at a story like that and imagine that everyone can have as long a retirement as that, perhaps making an argument on the lines of fairness, but it's the unfairness of relatively early death for many that makes a long retirement affordable for some.
Basically a tontine ...?
Pensions *were* originally set to start at an age which meant that many wouldn’t get anything, and those that did, didn’t generally get them for long.
The lucky few… so yes, a tontine isn’t a bad way of losing at it.
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?
It should only be a single one, so two should be removed, not one.
I'd remove the 2.5% and inflation, welfare should never rise higher than earnings as a matter of principle.
If not earnings alone used, then inflation alone should be used. And if that means the figure is 50p, or negative, then that's what it should be.
I believe Bismark instituted the first state pension in Prussia to commence at age 65 at that time life expectancy for industrial workers was 66. The idea to give the workers final year in comfort.
More that many wouldn’t make it. A number would get a couple of years of pension. A handful would get to be greybeards.
So the whole thing wouldn’t cost much.
Then those darn’ medicos stuffed it all up. Along with the water companies and supermarkets.
If they did not squander the payments made by people and put it in a pension fund then there would only be the spongers money to be made up.
In other countries, the response would be to increase policing.
But shutting things down is easier.
The fact that this then feeds the perception that public spaces are too dangerous is ignored.
It’s Broken Windows Theory in reverse.
I was back in the UK less than 1hr before I saw somebody shoplifting at the airport which the staff and security did nothing about (as in they didn't call the police). Only when the individiual starting threatening people like the incredible hulk were the finally police called. They then spent 10 minutes trying to negiotate with him. Unsurprisingly he then tried to attack the police which resulted in a massive team of police being required. 3 police vans later they got him arrested and dragged off.
If they are turning blind eye to stuff at an international airport its a lost cause.
(Not advocating it) but in China you get the mace and electric cattle prod treatment if you misbehave in the train station or airport public areas.
Time it was brought in here for any public area and give them a good kicking afterwards.
The constant security checks and spying on the public is insane in China. However, due to the vast populations, they have thought carefully about crowd management for when big crowds will be present and it does work. I went to a free event when I was there that you needed a ticket for i.e. not unlike the fireworks, and it was very well managed to get all the people through the metro station (they have retractable gates on wheels that they can pull across to redirect traffic) through checks, while (not that there are any) chancers are still not going to get near the event without being zapped and hauled away. You couldn't "rush" the entrance if you were ticketless.
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
This isn't quite right. The debt held under QE does matter in the UK's set-up.
The BoE buys the gilts not directly from the government through its Asset Purchase Facility (APF). When purchases are made, new central bank reserves are created for the bank the gilts have been purchased off. The BoE pays interest on the reserves to the commercial banks at a rate that closely corresponds to the BoE base rate.
The amount of interest the BoE returns to the government in your comment above is the net amount of the interest received by the APF on government debt minus the interest paid on central bank reserves used to facilitate QE.
When base rates were near zero, that resulted in large gains for the government, meaning the debt under QE cost very little. That persisted up until 2022.
Now the difference between short and long-term rates is much lower, so the debt under QE definitely does count but the interest is tied to BoE base rates not the levels debt was issued at.
I think in addition the treasury transfers funds to Bank of England if it sells Gilts at a loss - having previously recieved transfers when the gilt portfolio was making a profit. Essentially as interest rates rise gilts ( And other fixed interest assets) lose capital value. So in essence HMG takes the long term risk of the portfolio of Gilts the Bank of England hold.
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.
My Grandad was born in 1920 and had his degree (Bristol, History) interrupted by the war, during which he was variously involved in digging ditches on farmland, working as a hospital orderly, or volunteering for the Friends Ambulance Unit in Northern France and Berlin.
After the war he finished his degree (I think graduating in 1947) and then started a career in teaching, from which he retired 33 years later in 1980. He died, aged 97, in 2017, after 37 years of retirement.
He was obviously one of the lucky ones, and he had gone to all the funerals of his contemporaries, whose earlier deaths helped to make his pension affordable. But I think a lot of people look at a story like that and imagine that everyone can have as long a retirement as that, perhaps making an argument on the lines of fairness, but it's the unfairness of relatively early death for many that makes a long retirement affordable for some.
Basically a tontine ...?
Pensions *were* originally set to start at an age which meant that many wouldn’t get anything, and those that did, didn’t generally get them for long.
The lucky few… so yes, a tontine isn’t a bad way of losing at it.
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?
It should only be a single one, so two should be removed, not one.
I'd remove the 2.5% and inflation, welfare should never rise higher than earnings as a matter of principle.
If not earnings alone used, then inflation alone should be used. And if that means the figure is 50p, or negative, then that's what it should be.
I believe Bismark instituted the first state pension in Prussia to commence at age 65 at that time life expectancy for industrial workers was 66. The idea to give the workers final year in comfort.
More that many wouldn’t make it. A number would get a couple of years of pension. A handful would get to be greybeards.
So the whole thing wouldn’t cost much.
Then those darn’ medicos stuffed it all up. Along with the water companies and supermarkets.
If they did not squander the payments made by people and put it in a pension fund then there would only be the spongers money to be made up.
The reason that was not done was boiling the frog.
At first National Insurance was a goldmine - lots of tax, not much payout. So no upfront costs.
By the time the realisation dawned that demographics and medicine had permanently* altered the population pyramid, dogma had taken over.
When it was suggested, as an option, for pensions to be moved to investment accounts (pension review under Major) it was shot down as “free market insanity”.
The quiet bit was the enormous amount of contributions required - the state pension is equivalent to a pension funded with £250k. The contributions are nothing like that.
Such a plan would have required a big increase in contributions, combined with a *cut* in the pension probably.
Tony Blair & Co went for the simple option - raising pension 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?
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
This isn't quite right. The debt held under QE does matter in the UK's set-up.
The BoE buys the gilts not directly from the government through its Asset Purchase Facility (APF). When purchases are made, new central bank reserves are created for the bank the gilts have been purchased off. The BoE pays interest on the reserves to the commercial banks at a rate that closely corresponds to the BoE base rate.
The amount of interest the BoE returns to the government in your comment above is the net amount of the interest received by the APF on government debt minus the interest paid on central bank reserves used to facilitate QE.
When base rates were near zero, that resulted in large gains for the government, meaning the debt under QE cost very little. That persisted up until 2022.
Now the difference between short and long-term rates is much lower, so the debt under QE definitely does count but the interest is tied to BoE base rates not the levels debt was issued at.
OK Thanks for your clarification. I'm learning about this area of economics. It strikes me as important but quite technical and therefore not well understood or discussed.
I understand that the US Federal Bank has a dual mandate of maximum employment and stable prices. This goal implicitly supports economic growth to facilitate maximum employment.
The prime responsibility of the BoE is price stability - which is defined by the government's inflation target of 2% as measured by the Consumer Prices Index. Subject to achieving the inflation target, the BoE is also required to support the Government's economic policy, including its objectives for "strong, sustainable and balanced growth" and employment. So growth is very subsidiary and in practice is lost in the focus on inflation, money supply and interest rates.
If the government wants growth, I believe it should move closer to the US model with a greater BoE focus on growth, and take on some or all of the responsibility for controlling inflation by fiscal means, managing demand.
Is anyone in government considering or promoting radical change such as this? Or will it be left to Polanski?
They should just cancel the bloody fireworks and avoid all the faff.
Have a two minute silence instead.
Down here on the windy coast I can usually rely on either wind or fog cancelling the fireworks, to the dog’s relief. Sadly tonight looks like it will be perfect for the whizz bang pyromaniacs.
In other countries, the response would be to increase policing.
But shutting things down is easier.
The fact that this then feeds the perception that public spaces are too dangerous is ignored.
It’s Broken Windows Theory in reverse.
I was back in the UK less than 1hr before I saw somebody shoplifting at the airport which the staff and security did nothing about (as in they didn't call the police). Only when the individiual starting threatening people like the incredible hulk were the finally police called. They then spent 10 minutes trying to negiotate with him. Unsurprisingly he then tried to attack the police which resulted in a massive team of police being required. 3 police vans later they got him arrested and dragged off.
If they are turning blind eye to stuff at an international airport its a lost cause.
(Not advocating it) but in China you get the mace and electric cattle prod treatment if you misbehave in the train station or airport public areas.
Time it was brought in here for any public area and give them a good kicking afterwards.
The constant security checks and spying on the public is insane in China. However, due to the vast populations, they have thought carefully about crowd management for when big crowds will be present and it does work. I went to a free event when I was there that you needed a ticket for i.e. not unlike the fireworks, and it was very well managed to get all the people through the metro station, through checks, while (not that there are any) chancers are still not going to get near the event without being zapped and hauled away. You couldn't "rush" the entrance if you were ticketless.
clowns here could not organise a piss up in a brewery. We would have bleeding heart liberal lawyers etc whining about human rights of the thugs.
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
This isn't quite right. The debt held under QE does matter in the UK's set-up.
The BoE buys the gilts not directly from the government through its Asset Purchase Facility (APF). When purchases are made, new central bank reserves are created for the bank the gilts have been purchased off. The BoE pays interest on the reserves to the commercial banks at a rate that closely corresponds to the BoE base rate.
The amount of interest the BoE returns to the government in your comment above is the net amount of the interest received by the APF on government debt minus the interest paid on central bank reserves used to facilitate QE.
When base rates were near zero, that resulted in large gains for the government, meaning the debt under QE cost very little. That persisted up until 2022.
Now the difference between short and long-term rates is much lower, so the debt under QE definitely does count but the interest is tied to BoE base rates not the levels debt was issued at.
I think in addition the treasury transfers funds to Bank of England if it sells Gilts at a loss - having previously recieved transfers when the gilt portfolio was making a profit. Essentially as interest rates rise gilts ( And other fixed interest assets) lose capital value. So in essence HMG takes the long term risk of the portfolio of Gilts the Bank of England hold.
Agreed, there is an indemnity from the Treasury to the BoE on any losses from gilt sales.
I think the only time the Treasury made money from sales were the purchases following Truss's mini budget that were sold a couple of months later.
Right now the BoE is selling relatively few gilts. Most the reduction in holdings is now from not reinvesting maturing gilts, rather than active sales (£50bn out of £70bn that QE holdings will reduce next year are from maturing gilts). I think they should go the whole way to stopping active sales altogether given it simply crystallises a loss and isn't consistent with loosening monetary policy, but I'm not sure it's worth getting too animated about at that size.
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’s a good example of a theme: wanting stuff but not paying for it.
See unfunded pensions, PFI etc.
The problem is that this generation is paying the bills for Brown now…
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.
My Grandad was born in 1920 and had his degree (Bristol, History) interrupted by the war, during which he was variously involved in digging ditches on farmland, working as a hospital orderly, or volunteering for the Friends Ambulance Unit in Northern France and Berlin.
After the war he finished his degree (I think graduating in 1947) and then started a career in teaching, from which he retired 33 years later in 1980. He died, aged 97, in 2017, after 37 years of retirement.
He was obviously one of the lucky ones, and he had gone to all the funerals of his contemporaries, whose earlier deaths helped to make his pension affordable. But I think a lot of people look at a story like that and imagine that everyone can have as long a retirement as that, perhaps making an argument on the lines of fairness, but it's the unfairness of relatively early death for many that makes a long retirement affordable for some.
Basically a tontine ...?
Pensions *were* originally set to start at an age which meant that many wouldn’t get anything, and those that did, didn’t generally get them for long.
The lucky few… so yes, a tontine isn’t a bad way of losing at it.
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?
It should only be a single one, so two should be removed, not one.
I'd remove the 2.5% and inflation, welfare should never rise higher than earnings as a matter of principle.
If not earnings alone used, then inflation alone should be used. And if that means the figure is 50p, or negative, then that's what it should be.
I believe Bismark instituted the first state pension in Prussia to commence at age 65 at that time life expectancy for industrial workers was 66. The idea to give the workers final year in comfort.
So we could take a leaf and make it claimable at 81. Public finances transformed at a stroke. Silver bullet. It'd need cross party support though otherwise some populist charlatan would oppose it and they'd get elected.
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.
My Grandad was born in 1920 and had his degree (Bristol, History) interrupted by the war, during which he was variously involved in digging ditches on farmland, working as a hospital orderly, or volunteering for the Friends Ambulance Unit in Northern France and Berlin.
After the war he finished his degree (I think graduating in 1947) and then started a career in teaching, from which he retired 33 years later in 1980. He died, aged 97, in 2017, after 37 years of retirement.
He was obviously one of the lucky ones, and he had gone to all the funerals of his contemporaries, whose earlier deaths helped to make his pension affordable. But I think a lot of people look at a story like that and imagine that everyone can have as long a retirement as that, perhaps making an argument on the lines of fairness, but it's the unfairness of relatively early death for many that makes a long retirement affordable for some.
Basically a tontine ...?
Pensions *were* originally set to start at an age which meant that many wouldn’t get anything, and those that did, didn’t generally get them for long.
The lucky few… so yes, a tontine isn’t a bad way of losing at it.
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?
It should only be a single one, so two should be removed, not one.
I'd remove the 2.5% and inflation, welfare should never rise higher than earnings as a matter of principle.
If not earnings alone used, then inflation alone should be used. And if that means the figure is 50p, or negative, then that's what it should be.
I believe Bismark instituted the first state pension in Prussia to commence at age 65 at that time life expectancy for industrial workers was 66. The idea to give the workers final year in comfort.
So we could take a leaf and make it claimable at 81. Public finances transformed at a stroke. Silver bullet. It'd need cross party support though otherwise some populist charlatan would oppose it and they'd get elected.
Can't retire and claim a state pension until 81 would be guaranteed to get elected any populist charlatan who opposed it, it would make even May's dementia tax look like a popular policy
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.
My Grandad was born in 1920 and had his degree (Bristol, History) interrupted by the war, during which he was variously involved in digging ditches on farmland, working as a hospital orderly, or volunteering for the Friends Ambulance Unit in Northern France and Berlin.
After the war he finished his degree (I think graduating in 1947) and then started a career in teaching, from which he retired 33 years later in 1980. He died, aged 97, in 2017, after 37 years of retirement.
He was obviously one of the lucky ones, and he had gone to all the funerals of his contemporaries, whose earlier deaths helped to make his pension affordable. But I think a lot of people look at a story like that and imagine that everyone can have as long a retirement as that, perhaps making an argument on the lines of fairness, but it's the unfairness of relatively early death for many that makes a long retirement affordable for some.
Basically a tontine ...?
Pensions *were* originally set to start at an age which meant that many wouldn’t get anything, and those that did, didn’t generally get them for long.
The lucky few… so yes, a tontine isn’t a bad way of losing at it.
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?
It should only be a single one, so two should be removed, not one.
I'd remove the 2.5% and inflation, welfare should never rise higher than earnings as a matter of principle.
If not earnings alone used, then inflation alone should be used. And if that means the figure is 50p, or negative, then that's what it should be.
I believe Bismark instituted the first state pension in Prussia to commence at age 65 at that time life expectancy for industrial workers was 66. The idea to give the workers final year in comfort.
So we could take a leaf and make it claimable at 81. Public finances transformed at a stroke. Silver bullet. It'd need cross party support though otherwise some populist charlatan would oppose it and they'd get elected.
Exactly what my dad did, he delayed claiming it until he was about 80,
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?
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.
My Grandad was born in 1920 and had his degree (Bristol, History) interrupted by the war, during which he was variously involved in digging ditches on farmland, working as a hospital orderly, or volunteering for the Friends Ambulance Unit in Northern France and Berlin.
After the war he finished his degree (I think graduating in 1947) and then started a career in teaching, from which he retired 33 years later in 1980. He died, aged 97, in 2017, after 37 years of retirement.
He was obviously one of the lucky ones, and he had gone to all the funerals of his contemporaries, whose earlier deaths helped to make his pension affordable. But I think a lot of people look at a story like that and imagine that everyone can have as long a retirement as that, perhaps making an argument on the lines of fairness, but it's the unfairness of relatively early death for many that makes a long retirement affordable for some.
Basically a tontine ...?
Pensions *were* originally set to start at an age which meant that many wouldn’t get anything, and those that did, didn’t generally get them for long.
The lucky few… so yes, a tontine isn’t a bad way of losing at it.
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?
It should only be a single one, so two should be removed, not one.
I'd remove the 2.5% and inflation, welfare should never rise higher than earnings as a matter of principle.
If not earnings alone used, then inflation alone should be used. And if that means the figure is 50p, or negative, then that's what it should be.
I believe Bismark instituted the first state pension in Prussia to commence at age 65 at that time life expectancy for industrial workers was 66. The idea to give the workers final year in comfort.
So we could take a leaf and make it claimable at 81. Public finances transformed at a stroke. Silver bullet. It'd need cross party support though otherwise some populist charlatan would oppose it and they'd get elected.
if we do that though, what we should do is we should say it's claimable still at 68 but if you wait until 80 you get a much higher rate.
See how many people would be willing to take a gamble on that basis.
The only thing to say against it is it would favour those in clerical occupations rather than manual ones and would also tend to favour those who are better off and therefore will likely to live longer anyway. But it is effectively how private pensions work.
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 money supply impacts ASSET price inflation (the cost of houses, shares etc). That’s part of the problem.
The cost of living is impacted by energy costs (both government policy and world prices), housing costs (asset price costs and government policy) and wage costs (government policy).
There’s a linking theme here that you might be able to identify
What a moronic answer by Badenoch. When do people ever start singing Last Christmas on New Years Eve? I just don't understand why she'd come out with that. Really pathetic. If this is what she's like when she's supposedly upped her game, she must have been truly dreadful before. Leader of the Opposition we're talking about here. Wants to be Prime Minister. God help us.
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 money supply impacts ASSET price inflation (the cost of houses, shares etc). That’s part of the problem.
The cost of living is impacted by energy costs (both government policy and world prices), housing costs (asset price costs and government policy) and wage costs (government policy).
There’s a linking theme here that you might be able to identify
Exactly, the money has to go somewhere and as the Fed is loosening monetary policy there’s a fair bit of speculation that this will go into assets.
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.
My Grandad was born in 1920 and had his degree (Bristol, History) interrupted by the war, during which he was variously involved in digging ditches on farmland, working as a hospital orderly, or volunteering for the Friends Ambulance Unit in Northern France and Berlin.
After the war he finished his degree (I think graduating in 1947) and then started a career in teaching, from which he retired 33 years later in 1980. He died, aged 97, in 2017, after 37 years of retirement.
He was obviously one of the lucky ones, and he had gone to all the funerals of his contemporaries, whose earlier deaths helped to make his pension affordable. But I think a lot of people look at a story like that and imagine that everyone can have as long a retirement as that, perhaps making an argument on the lines of fairness, but it's the unfairness of relatively early death for many that makes a long retirement affordable for some.
Basically a tontine ...?
Pensions *were* originally set to start at an age which meant that many wouldn’t get anything, and those that did, didn’t generally get them for long.
The lucky few… so yes, a tontine isn’t a bad way of losing at it.
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?
It should only be a single one, so two should be removed, not one.
I'd remove the 2.5% and inflation, welfare should never rise higher than earnings as a matter of principle.
If not earnings alone used, then inflation alone should be used. And if that means the figure is 50p, or negative, then that's what it should be.
I believe Bismark instituted the first state pension in Prussia to commence at age 65 at that time life expectancy for industrial workers was 66. The idea to give the workers final year in comfort.
So we could take a leaf and make it claimable at 81. Public finances transformed at a stroke. Silver bullet. It'd need cross party support though otherwise some populist charlatan would oppose it and they'd get elected.
if we do that though, what we should do is we should say it's claimable still at 68 but if you wait until 80 you get a much higher rate.
See how many people would be willing to take a gamble on that basis.
The only thing to say against it is it would favour those in clerical occupations rather than manual ones and would also tend to favour those who are better off and therefore will likely to live longer anyway. But it is effectively how private pensions work.
I thought you could delay and it increases accordingly ?
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.
My Grandad was born in 1920 and had his degree (Bristol, History) interrupted by the war, during which he was variously involved in digging ditches on farmland, working as a hospital orderly, or volunteering for the Friends Ambulance Unit in Northern France and Berlin.
After the war he finished his degree (I think graduating in 1947) and then started a career in teaching, from which he retired 33 years later in 1980. He died, aged 97, in 2017, after 37 years of retirement.
He was obviously one of the lucky ones, and he had gone to all the funerals of his contemporaries, whose earlier deaths helped to make his pension affordable. But I think a lot of people look at a story like that and imagine that everyone can have as long a retirement as that, perhaps making an argument on the lines of fairness, but it's the unfairness of relatively early death for many that makes a long retirement affordable for some.
Basically a tontine ...?
Pensions *were* originally set to start at an age which meant that many wouldn’t get anything, and those that did, didn’t generally get them for long.
The lucky few… so yes, a tontine isn’t a bad way of losing at it.
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?
It should only be a single one, so two should be removed, not one.
I'd remove the 2.5% and inflation, welfare should never rise higher than earnings as a matter of principle.
If not earnings alone used, then inflation alone should be used. And if that means the figure is 50p, or negative, then that's what it should be.
I believe Bismark instituted the first state pension in Prussia to commence at age 65 at that time life expectancy for industrial workers was 66. The idea to give the workers final year in comfort.
So we could take a leaf and make it claimable at 81. Public finances transformed at a stroke. Silver bullet. It'd need cross party support though otherwise some populist charlatan would oppose it and they'd get elected.
if we do that though, what we should do is we should say it's claimable still at 68 but if you wait until 80 you get a much higher rate.
See how many people would be willing to take a gamble on that basis.
The only thing to say against it is it would favour those in clerical occupations rather than manual ones and would also tend to favour those who are better off and therefore will likely to live longer anyway. But it is effectively how private pensions work.
With life expectancy still only 82 in the UK I can't see many takers
What a moronic answer by Badenoch. When do people ever start singing Last Christmas on New Years Eve? I just don't get why she'd come out with that. Really pathetic. If this is what she's like when she's supposedly upped her game, she must have been truly dreadful before. Leader of the Opposition we're talking about here. Wants to be Prime Minister. God help us.
Its also doesn't matter if you "don't do karoke", just pick a song you like that is vaguely popular. You aren't going to be asked to perform it. Its like getting twisted in knots in being asked about favourite biscuit.
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.
My Grandad was born in 1920 and had his degree (Bristol, History) interrupted by the war, during which he was variously involved in digging ditches on farmland, working as a hospital orderly, or volunteering for the Friends Ambulance Unit in Northern France and Berlin.
After the war he finished his degree (I think graduating in 1947) and then started a career in teaching, from which he retired 33 years later in 1980. He died, aged 97, in 2017, after 37 years of retirement.
He was obviously one of the lucky ones, and he had gone to all the funerals of his contemporaries, whose earlier deaths helped to make his pension affordable. But I think a lot of people look at a story like that and imagine that everyone can have as long a retirement as that, perhaps making an argument on the lines of fairness, but it's the unfairness of relatively early death for many that makes a long retirement affordable for some.
Basically a tontine ...?
Pensions *were* originally set to start at an age which meant that many wouldn’t get anything, and those that did, didn’t generally get them for long.
The lucky few… so yes, a tontine isn’t a bad way of losing at it.
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?
It should only be a single one, so two should be removed, not one.
I'd remove the 2.5% and inflation, welfare should never rise higher than earnings as a matter of principle.
If not earnings alone used, then inflation alone should be used. And if that means the figure is 50p, or negative, then that's what it should be.
I believe Bismark instituted the first state pension in Prussia to commence at age 65 at that time life expectancy for industrial workers was 66. The idea to give the workers final year in comfort.
So we could take a leaf and make it claimable at 81. Public finances transformed at a stroke. Silver bullet. It'd need cross party support though otherwise some populist charlatan would oppose it and they'd get elected.
if we do that though, what we should do is we should say it's claimable still at 68 but if you wait until 80 you get a much higher rate.
See how many people would be willing to take a gamble on that basis.
The only thing to say against it is it would favour those in clerical occupations rather than manual ones and would also tend to favour those who are better off and therefore will likely to live longer anyway. But it is effectively how private pensions work.
I thought you could delay and it increases accordingly ?
You can - defer for a year and you get an extra 10.4% for life, or a lump sum equivalent to 2% above the BOE base rate. If you expect to live ten years or more, that's a decent offer. It's a bet the government probably wins, from the many optimists who expect to live that long but dont.
What a moronic answer by Badenoch. When do people ever start singing Last Christmas on New Years Eve? I just don't get why she'd come out with that. Really pathetic. If this is what she's like when she's supposedly upped her game, she must have been truly dreadful before. Leader of the Opposition we're talking about here. Wants to be Prime Minister. God help us.
Its also doesn't matter if you "don't do karoke", just pick a song you like that is vaguely popular. You aren't going to be asked to perform it. Its like getting twisted in knots in being asked about favourite biscuit.
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.
I didn't mean it literally, I know what the KKK stand for, but I just can't fathom how you can get so nasty and warped about race to that extent that you'd want to do what they do.
On one level it was only coincidentally about race. It was really about a class of economically challenged people who feared for their future hanging up against another group of people that they saw as a threat to their way of life
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
That's a pretty significant reversal then - and one that quite a lot of business owners have missed given the coverage. £5 million (inc. the marriage allowance) is still an enormous chunk of wealth. I'm loosely associated with a decent sized family business (certainly won't inherit it) and it's nowhere near that kind of valuation. In a standard manufacturing business I'd guess that would be at least 50 headcount, retail maybe 100-200, to give you a sense of how large these firms could be.
What a moronic answer by Badenoch. When do people ever start singing Last Christmas on New Years Eve? I just don't get why she'd come out with that. Really pathetic. If this is what she's like when she's supposedly upped her game, she must have been truly dreadful before. Leader of the Opposition we're talking about here. Wants to be Prime Minister. God help us.
Its also doesn't matter if you "don't do karoke", just pick a song you like that is vaguely popular. You aren't going to be asked to perform it. Its like getting twisted in knots in being asked about favourite biscuit.
What a moronic answer by Badenoch. When do people ever start singing Last Christmas on New Years Eve? I just don't get why she'd come out with that. Really pathetic. If this is what she's like when she's supposedly upped her game, she must have been truly dreadful before. Leader of the Opposition we're talking about here. Wants to be Prime Minister. God help us.
Its also doesn't matter if you "don't do karoke", just pick a song you like that is vaguely popular. You aren't going to be asked to perform it. Its like getting twisted in knots in being asked about favourite biscuit.
Maybe they should have to perform it. That would focus the mind.
What a moronic answer by Badenoch. When do people ever start singing Last Christmas on New Years Eve? I just don't get why she'd come out with that. Really pathetic. If this is what she's like when she's supposedly upped her game, she must have been truly dreadful before. Leader of the Opposition we're talking about here. Wants to be Prime Minister. God help us.
Its also doesn't matter if you "don't do karoke", just pick a song you like that is vaguely popular. You aren't going to be asked to perform it. Its like getting twisted in knots in being asked about favourite biscuit.
Maybe they should have to perform it. That would focus the mind.
I would rather listen to Radiohead Live at Glastonbury.....
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.
My Grandad was born in 1920 and had his degree (Bristol, History) interrupted by the war, during which he was variously involved in digging ditches on farmland, working as a hospital orderly, or volunteering for the Friends Ambulance Unit in Northern France and Berlin.
After the war he finished his degree (I think graduating in 1947) and then started a career in teaching, from which he retired 33 years later in 1980. He died, aged 97, in 2017, after 37 years of retirement.
He was obviously one of the lucky ones, and he had gone to all the funerals of his contemporaries, whose earlier deaths helped to make his pension affordable. But I think a lot of people look at a story like that and imagine that everyone can have as long a retirement as that, perhaps making an argument on the lines of fairness, but it's the unfairness of relatively early death for many that makes a long retirement affordable for some.
Basically a tontine ...?
Pensions *were* originally set to start at an age which meant that many wouldn’t get anything, and those that did, didn’t generally get them for long.
The lucky few… so yes, a tontine isn’t a bad way of losing at it.
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?
It should only be a single one, so two should be removed, not one.
I'd remove the 2.5% and inflation, welfare should never rise higher than earnings as a matter of principle.
If not earnings alone used, then inflation alone should be used. And if that means the figure is 50p, or negative, then that's what it should be.
I believe Bismark instituted the first state pension in Prussia to commence at age 65 at that time life expectancy for industrial workers was 66. The idea to give the workers final year in comfort.
So we could take a leaf and make it claimable at 81. Public finances transformed at a stroke. Silver bullet. It'd need cross party support though otherwise some populist charlatan would oppose it and they'd get elected.
What a moronic answer by Badenoch. When do people ever start singing Last Christmas on New Years Eve? I just don't get why she'd come out with that. Really pathetic. If this is what she's like when she's supposedly upped her game, she must have been truly dreadful before. Leader of the Opposition we're talking about here. Wants to be Prime Minister. God help us.
Its also doesn't matter if you "don't do karoke", just pick a song you like that is vaguely popular. You aren't going to be asked to perform it. Its like getting twisted in knots in being asked about favourite biscuit.
Gosh! Is that an actual answer?! I assumed it was a parody of some kind 😂
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.
My Grandad was born in 1920 and had his degree (Bristol, History) interrupted by the war, during which he was variously involved in digging ditches on farmland, working as a hospital orderly, or volunteering for the Friends Ambulance Unit in Northern France and Berlin.
After the war he finished his degree (I think graduating in 1947) and then started a career in teaching, from which he retired 33 years later in 1980. He died, aged 97, in 2017, after 37 years of retirement.
He was obviously one of the lucky ones, and he had gone to all the funerals of his contemporaries, whose earlier deaths helped to make his pension affordable. But I think a lot of people look at a story like that and imagine that everyone can have as long a retirement as that, perhaps making an argument on the lines of fairness, but it's the unfairness of relatively early death for many that makes a long retirement affordable for some.
Basically a tontine ...?
Pensions *were* originally set to start at an age which meant that many wouldn’t get anything, and those that did, didn’t generally get them for long.
The lucky few… so yes, a tontine isn’t a bad way of losing at it.
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?
It should only be a single one, so two should be removed, not one.
I'd remove the 2.5% and inflation, welfare should never rise higher than earnings as a matter of principle.
If not earnings alone used, then inflation alone should be used. And if that means the figure is 50p, or negative, then that's what it should be.
I believe Bismark instituted the first state pension in Prussia to commence at age 65 at that time life expectancy for industrial workers was 66. The idea to give the workers final year in comfort.
So we could take a leaf and make it claimable at 81. Public finances transformed at a stroke. Silver bullet. It'd need cross party support though otherwise some populist charlatan would oppose it and they'd get elected.
if we do that though, what we should do is we should say it's claimable still at 68 but if you wait until 80 you get a much higher rate.
See how many people would be willing to take a gamble on that basis.
The only thing to say against it is it would favour those in clerical occupations rather than manual ones and would also tend to favour those who are better off and therefore will likely to live longer anyway. But it is effectively how private pensions work.
I thought you could delay and it increases accordingly ?
You can - defer for a year and you get an extra 10.4% for life, or a lump sum equivalent to 2% above the BOE base rate. If you expect to live ten years or more, that's a decent offer. It's a bet the government probably wins, from the many optimists who expect to live that long but dont.
I’d be tempted for a year or two, I’m not likely to get that from my drawdown, and it has the added advantage of compounding too.
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.
My Grandad was born in 1920 and had his degree (Bristol, History) interrupted by the war, during which he was variously involved in digging ditches on farmland, working as a hospital orderly, or volunteering for the Friends Ambulance Unit in Northern France and Berlin.
After the war he finished his degree (I think graduating in 1947) and then started a career in teaching, from which he retired 33 years later in 1980. He died, aged 97, in 2017, after 37 years of retirement.
He was obviously one of the lucky ones, and he had gone to all the funerals of his contemporaries, whose earlier deaths helped to make his pension affordable. But I think a lot of people look at a story like that and imagine that everyone can have as long a retirement as that, perhaps making an argument on the lines of fairness, but it's the unfairness of relatively early death for many that makes a long retirement affordable for some.
Basically a tontine ...?
Pensions *were* originally set to start at an age which meant that many wouldn’t get anything, and those that did, didn’t generally get them for long.
The lucky few… so yes, a tontine isn’t a bad way of losing at it.
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?
It should only be a single one, so two should be removed, not one.
I'd remove the 2.5% and inflation, welfare should never rise higher than earnings as a matter of principle.
If not earnings alone used, then inflation alone should be used. And if that means the figure is 50p, or negative, then that's what it should be.
I believe Bismark instituted the first state pension in Prussia to commence at age 65 at that time life expectancy for industrial workers was 66. The idea to give the workers final year in comfort.
So we could take a leaf and make it claimable at 81. Public finances transformed at a stroke. Silver bullet. It'd need cross party support though otherwise some populist charlatan would oppose it and they'd get elected.
The WASPIs wouldn’t be happy
We'd all become WASPIs in that event, I think. Tremendous unrest.
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.
My Grandad was born in 1920 and had his degree (Bristol, History) interrupted by the war, during which he was variously involved in digging ditches on farmland, working as a hospital orderly, or volunteering for the Friends Ambulance Unit in Northern France and Berlin.
After the war he finished his degree (I think graduating in 1947) and then started a career in teaching, from which he retired 33 years later in 1980. He died, aged 97, in 2017, after 37 years of retirement.
He was obviously one of the lucky ones, and he had gone to all the funerals of his contemporaries, whose earlier deaths helped to make his pension affordable. But I think a lot of people look at a story like that and imagine that everyone can have as long a retirement as that, perhaps making an argument on the lines of fairness, but it's the unfairness of relatively early death for many that makes a long retirement affordable for some.
Basically a tontine ...?
Pensions *were* originally set to start at an age which meant that many wouldn’t get anything, and those that did, didn’t generally get them for long.
The lucky few… so yes, a tontine isn’t a bad way of losing at it.
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?
It should only be a single one, so two should be removed, not one.
I'd remove the 2.5% and inflation, welfare should never rise higher than earnings as a matter of principle.
If not earnings alone used, then inflation alone should be used. And if that means the figure is 50p, or negative, then that's what it should be.
I believe Bismark instituted the first state pension in Prussia to commence at age 65 at that time life expectancy for industrial workers was 66. The idea to give the workers final year in comfort.
So we could take a leaf and make it claimable at 81. Public finances transformed at a stroke. Silver bullet. It'd need cross party support though otherwise some populist charlatan would oppose it and they'd get elected.
if we do that though, what we should do is we should say it's claimable still at 68 but if you wait until 80 you get a much higher rate.
See how many people would be willing to take a gamble on that basis.
The only thing to say against it is it would favour those in clerical occupations rather than manual ones and would also tend to favour those who are better off and therefore will likely to live longer anyway. But it is effectively how private pensions work.
I thought you could delay and it increases accordingly ?
You can - defer for a year and you get an extra 10.4% for life, or a lump sum equivalent to 2% above the BOE base rate. If you expect to live ten years or more, that's a decent offer. It's a bet the government probably wins, from the many optimists who expect to live that long but dont.
I’d be tempted for a year or two, I’m not likely to get that from my drawdown, and it has the added advantage of compounding too.
Looking back I don't think I'd have been tempted and my wife certainly wouldn't. Although I did do some part-time bits and pieces during the 5 years between 65 and 70, but nothing which stopped us having a few fairly lengthy trips. (Including watching England cricket on tour!)
What I find so funny about that is that Young Conservatives are still wearing suits today.
We were told 25 years ago when I was a student, rightly so, that was a real turn-off for recruiting young people to the cause - and yet people not yet born then are still doing it now.
What I find so funny about that is that Young Conservatives are still wearing suits today.
We were told 25 years ago when I was a student, rightly so, that was a real turn-off for recruiting young people to the cause - and yet people not yet born then are still doing it now.
People don't even wear suits at weddings and funerals these days
A bottled water sold at Waitrose could contain glass and should be returned to the store, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) warned.
The 750ml No1 Royal Deeside Mineral Water and the sparkling variety are being recalled "because of the possible presence of glass fragments upon opening the bottles," which the FSA said "may cause injury and makes it unsafe to drink".
He hasn’t got the results from the focus group back yet
The answer I hope he gave was, "piss off it's none of your business". That's how I'd be advising him. Sharpen up those comms. Surprise people. One minute, charm personified, next minute slap them around the chops.
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.
My Grandad was born in 1920 and had his degree (Bristol, History) interrupted by the war, during which he was variously involved in digging ditches on farmland, working as a hospital orderly, or volunteering for the Friends Ambulance Unit in Northern France and Berlin.
After the war he finished his degree (I think graduating in 1947) and then started a career in teaching, from which he retired 33 years later in 1980. He died, aged 97, in 2017, after 37 years of retirement.
He was obviously one of the lucky ones, and he had gone to all the funerals of his contemporaries, whose earlier deaths helped to make his pension affordable. But I think a lot of people look at a story like that and imagine that everyone can have as long a retirement as that, perhaps making an argument on the lines of fairness, but it's the unfairness of relatively early death for many that makes a long retirement affordable for some.
Basically a tontine ...?
Pensions *were* originally set to start at an age which meant that many wouldn’t get anything, and those that did, didn’t generally get them for long.
The lucky few… so yes, a tontine isn’t a bad way of losing at it.
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?
It should only be a single one, so two should be removed, not one.
I'd remove the 2.5% and inflation, welfare should never rise higher than earnings as a matter of principle.
If not earnings alone used, then inflation alone should be used. And if that means the figure is 50p, or negative, then that's what it should be.
I believe Bismark instituted the first state pension in Prussia to commence at age 65 at that time life expectancy for industrial workers was 66. The idea to give the workers final year in comfort.
So we could take a leaf and make it claimable at 81. Public finances transformed at a stroke. Silver bullet. It'd need cross party support though otherwise some populist charlatan would oppose it and they'd get elected.
if we do that though, what we should do is we should say it's claimable still at 68 but if you wait until 80 you get a much higher rate.
See how many people would be willing to take a gamble on that basis.
The only thing to say against it is it would favour those in clerical occupations rather than manual ones and would also tend to favour those who are better off and therefore will likely to live longer anyway. But it is effectively how private pensions work.
I thought you could delay and it increases accordingly ?
You can - defer for a year and you get an extra 10.4% for life, or a lump sum equivalent to 2% above the BOE base rate. If you expect to live ten years or more, that's a decent offer. It's a bet the government probably wins, from the many optimists who expect to live that long but dont.
I’d be tempted for a year or two, I’m not likely to get that from my drawdown, and it has the added advantage of compounding too.
Looking back I don't think I'd have been tempted and my wife certainly wouldn't. Although I did do some part-time bits and pieces during the 5 years between 65 and 70, but nothing which stopped us having a few fairly lengthy trips. (Including watching England cricket on tour!)
I would say 'I'm jealous,' but I've been following the Ashes...
Comments
Though even that poll has the SNP down 2 seats on 2021 and the SNP vote down 13% on the constituency vote to just 34% from 47%.
What we saw in the Hamilton by election was the SNP vote down 16% on 2021 to 29%, so not miles off even the FON poll, and the Labour vote only down 2% to 31% with Reform getting 26%, so Labour gained the seat
Strasbourg court questions Britain on decision to strip 26-year-old of her citizenship after she joined Islamic State
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/31/european-human-rights-court-shamima-begum/
I am sure Hermer and Starmer will fight really hard against this.
I can't see Reform taking that Borders seat for example, or the Tories taking only 2 seats in South of Scotland
In some respects SNP complacency is good for Labour and Reform and the Greens and LDs, the media have already decided the SNP will be re elected comfortably but I suspect it will be closer
A major issue is complete lack of domain knowledge. And something akin to an active dislike for it.
See the specification for the Bat Tunnel - “no bats can be harmed” without understanding that nothing is 100%. And would result in nearly infinite costs attempting that.
See the attempt to specify a percentage of asylum seekers working on SMRs - when it is illegal for them to have jobs.
See the RAAC farce of declaring it “safe” despite it being fiat decision based on no technical knowledge, just cost.
See the BritVolt comedy, where people were *glad* they weren’t dealing with dirty handed technologists.
We have a similar emphasis in the UK, where there are plenty of BNP retreads and even National Front people still around. They don't go away.
If you train a society from birth, that a black person who isn’t subservient is a danger and that a black person who is armed *has started the fight* - just by existing - the KKK is inevitable.
It looks mad to you, because it is. But it happened because an entire population swam in the same sea of madness. And fish don’t see the water.
Teenager detained for boy's New Year's Eve murder https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c17p2yz4rl0o
Of course that old story is completely missing from the reports
https://news.sky.com/story/hamilton-larkhall-and-stonehouse-by-election-who-are-the-candidates-13378474
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crrkreqvzy2o
After the war he finished his degree (I think graduating in 1947) and then started a career in teaching, from which he retired 33 years later in 1980. He died, aged 97, in 2017, after 37 years of retirement.
He was obviously one of the lucky ones, and he had gone to all the funerals of his contemporaries, whose earlier deaths helped to make his pension affordable. But I think a lot of people look at a story like that and imagine that everyone can have as long a retirement as that, perhaps making an argument on the lines of fairness, but it's the unfairness of relatively early death for many that makes a long retirement affordable for some.
But shutting things down is easier.
The fact that this then feeds the perception that public spaces are too dangerous is ignored.
It’s Broken Windows Theory in reverse.
The lucky few… so yes, a tontine isn’t a bad way of losing at it.
There has not been a recession this year and we are a number of years from our last significant recession (albeit there was a small technical one in 2023/24).
Our deficit should cyclically be higher in recessions than non-recession years, maxing out the deficit in non-recession years means that when a recession hits catastrophe is inevitable. See blowing the deficit wide open from a surplus in 2002 to a major deficit in 2008 without a recession in the interim and what happened next.
If they are turning blind eye to stuff at an international airport its a lost cause.
(Not advocating it) but in China you get the mace and electric cattle prod treatment if you misbehave in the train station or airport public areas.
I'd remove the 2.5% and inflation, welfare should never rise higher than earnings as a matter of principle.
If not earnings alone used, then inflation alone should be used. And if that means the figure is 50p, or negative, then that's what it should be.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/pTE6YfrcOU8
So the whole thing wouldn’t cost much.
Then those darn’ medicos stuffed it all up. Along with the water companies and supermarkets.
Linky plz?
I'm sure they will be able to get numbers down. More productive? Who knows.
'South Park' alum Toby Morton responds to unnamed lawyers regarding his registering the Trump-Kennedy Center domain names: "Satire is protected speech... I'll proceed accordingly while you go f^ck yourselves."
https://x.com/Mollyploofkins/status/2006326258838519818
Barriers go up at Primrose Hill in Camden, Greenwich Park closes early and Hyde Park shuts at midnight
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/31/grotesque-barriers-block-primrose-hill-new-years-eve/
The BoE buys the gilts not directly from the government through its Asset Purchase Facility (APF). When purchases are made, new central bank reserves are created for the bank the gilts have been purchased off. The BoE pays interest on the reserves to the commercial banks at a rate that closely corresponds to the BoE base rate.
The amount of interest the BoE returns to the government in your comment above is the net amount of the interest received by the APF on government debt minus the interest paid on central bank reserves used to facilitate QE.
When base rates were near zero, that resulted in large gains for the government, meaning the debt under QE cost very little. That persisted up until 2022.
Now the difference between short and long-term rates is much lower, so the debt under QE definitely does count but the interest is tied to BoE base rates not the levels debt was issued at.
Have a two minute silence instead.
At first National Insurance was a goldmine - lots of tax, not much payout. So no upfront costs.
By the time the realisation dawned that demographics and medicine had permanently* altered the population pyramid, dogma had taken over.
When it was suggested, as an option, for pensions to be moved to investment accounts (pension review under Major) it was shot down as “free market insanity”.
The quiet bit was the enormous amount of contributions required - the state pension is equivalent to a pension funded with £250k. The contributions are nothing like that.
Such a plan would have required a big increase in contributions, combined with a *cut* in the pension probably.
Tony Blair & Co went for the simple option - raising pension age.
And here we are.
Nigel Farage: "New York, New York" by Frank Sinatra
Zack Polanski: "Don’t Stop Me Now" by Queen
Ed Davey: "Sweet Caroline" by Neil Diamond
Jeremy Corbyn: "American Pie" by Don McLean
Kemi Badenoch: "I don’t do karaoke. But I do like it when everyone starts singing Last Christmas"
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/2006367566860636509?s=20
And Starmer ?
I'm learning about this area of economics.
It strikes me as important but quite technical and therefore not well understood or discussed.
I understand that the US Federal Bank has a dual mandate of maximum employment and stable prices. This goal implicitly supports economic growth to facilitate maximum employment.
The prime responsibility of the BoE is price stability - which is defined by the government's inflation target of 2% as measured by the Consumer Prices Index. Subject to achieving the inflation target, the BoE is also required to support the Government's economic policy, including its objectives for "strong, sustainable and balanced growth" and employment. So growth is very subsidiary and in practice is lost in the focus on inflation, money supply and interest rates.
If the government wants growth, I believe it should move closer to the US model with a greater BoE focus on growth, and take on some or all of the responsibility for controlling inflation by fiscal means, managing demand.
Is anyone in government considering or promoting radical change such as this?
Or will it be left to Polanski?
I think the only time the Treasury made money from sales were the purchases following Truss's mini budget that were sold a couple of months later.
Right now the BoE is selling relatively few gilts. Most the reduction in holdings is now from not reinvesting maturing gilts, rather than active sales (£50bn out of £70bn that QE holdings will reduce next year are from maturing gilts). I think they should go the whole way to stopping active sales altogether given it simply crystallises a loss and isn't consistent with loosening monetary policy, but I'm not sure it's worth getting too animated about at that size.
See unfunded pensions, PFI etc.
The problem is that this generation is paying the bills for Brown now…
* Politically speaking.
(That’s trademarked @Malmesbury )
See how many people would be willing to take a gamble on that basis.
The only thing to say against it is it would favour those in clerical occupations rather than manual ones and would also tend to favour those who are better off and therefore will likely to live longer anyway. But it is effectively how private pensions work.
The cost of living is impacted by energy costs (both government policy and world prices), housing costs (asset price costs and government policy) and wage costs (government policy).
There’s a linking theme here that you might be able to identify
Kemi Badenoch: "I don't do karaoke but I like it when people start singing Auld Lang Syne"
Lol, unbelievable.
Edit - Here’s footage of her singing it.
https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1975325591499952222?s=61&t=c6bcp0cjChLfQN5Tc8A_6g
Why get in such a pickle?
We were told 25 years ago when I was a student, rightly so, that was a real turn-off for recruiting young people to the cause - and yet people not yet born then are still doing it now.
The 750ml No1 Royal Deeside Mineral Water and the sparkling variety are being recalled "because of the possible presence of glass fragments upon opening the bottles," which the FSA said "may cause injury and makes it unsafe to drink".