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.
Are you serious? Labour as leading party? They are way off Plaid and Reform. A good night for them will be a comfortable third place and able to form a coalition with Plaid. But on a bad night they could be overtaken by Greens - al least in votes but less likely in seats.
I predict that Reform will slip back between now and May due to increased scrutiny of their Welsh policies and candidates. Plaid will be largest party and will try to run a minority government - with Labour, Green & LD support. - but maybenot a formal coalition.
I also predict that Reform 'group' will collapse very quickly in opposition ' losing 5 or 6 of their initial ~25-30 MSs in 6-12 months who will become independents under new rules.
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".
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".
The Welsh are so bad at everything.
Deeside water is produced in Scotland from natural springs in the Cairngorms national park.
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 😂
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".
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.
Are you serious? Labour as leading party? They are way off Plaid and Reform. A good night for them will be a comfortable third place and able to form a coalition with Plaid. But on a bad night they could be overtaken by Greens - al least in votes but less likely in seats.
I predict that Reform will slip back between now and May due to increased scrutiny of their Welsh policies and candidates. Plaid will be largest party and will try to run a minority government - with Labour, Green & LD support. - but maybenot a formal coalition.
I also predict that Reform 'group' will collapse very quickly in opposition ' losing 5 or 6 of their initial ~25-30 MSs in 6-12 months who will become independents under new rules.
Yes, I am serious. If there is one thing Welsh politics has taught me it's that you should never underestimate Labour. They have a remarkable resilience.
If they get squeezed to third or fourth I shall be absolutely delighted, but if they don't I won't be especially surprised.
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".
The Welsh are so bad at everything.
Deeside could refer to Scotland.
And does. It's from the Cairngorms near Balmoral (hence 'Royal').
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.
Are you serious? Labour as leading party? They are way off Plaid and Reform. A good night for them will be a comfortable third place and able to form a coalition with Plaid. But on a bad night they could be overtaken by Greens - al least in votes but less likely in seats.
I predict that Reform will slip back between now and May due to increased scrutiny of their Welsh policies and candidates. Plaid will be largest party and will try to run a minority government - with Labour, Green & LD support. - but maybenot a formal coalition.
I also predict that Reform 'group' will collapse very quickly in opposition ' losing 5 or 6 of their initial ~25-30 MSs in 6-12 months who will become independents under new rules.
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
That’s a thought. Should minimum wage and minimum pension be equal?
It might make the future creation of a universal basic income more comprehensible and concentrate the minds of younger people on the realities of aging on a limited income.
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".
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...
The social life around such trips can be excellent, in spite, sometimes, of the results.
The tribunal found that Ms Ahmed acted dishonestly and without integrity in recording time against matters where she had not and could not have completed the work claimed,” Mr Kyriacou said in the judgment.
“In so doing she had failed to uphold public trust and confidence in the profession.
How on earth would that damage the reputation of the profession? It's like a senior figure at the Post Office claiming defamation for being accused of perjury.
The tribunal found that Ms Ahmed acted dishonestly and without integrity in recording time against matters where she had not and could not have completed the work claimed,” Mr Kyriacou said in the judgment.
“In so doing she had failed to uphold public trust and confidence in the profession.
How on earth would that damage the reputation of the profession? It's like a senior figure at the Post Office claiming defamation for being accused of perjury.
To be honest when I read that I thought it was rather harsh in her circumstances and a formal warning would have been fairer
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".
The Welsh are so bad at everything.
"Deeside" is in Wales, but "Royal Deesside" is in Scotland. Tut.
To be fair - how could anyone in legal 'profession' be accused of damaging the reputation of their 'profession'. They are all shysters, crooks and shoe fetishists with no reputation to uphold.
To be fair - how could anyone in legal 'profession' be accused of damaging the reputation of their 'profession'. They are all shysters, crooks and shoe fetishists with no reputation to uphold.
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.
You're saying Bismarck didn't understand probability distribution?
New Statesman list of the 25 Brits who have defined the century so far is interesting, and provocative. In ascending order:
25 Amy Winehouse 24 Nicola Sturgeon 23 Norman Foster 22 Liz Truss 21 Sadiq Khan 20 Doreen Lawrence 19 Ricky Gervais 18 Gary Lineker 17 Rebekah Brooks 16 Tracey Emin 15 Simon Cowell 14 George Osborne 13 Tim Stokely 12 Demis Hassabis 11 Fred the Shred 10 Prince Harry 9 Hilary Mantel 8 Lee Rigby 7 Boris Johnson 6 Maggie Oliver 5 Danny Boyle 4 Jeremy Corbyn 3 Tony Blair 2 Nigel Farage 1 J K Rowling
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
Maybe it's time for formal dress to come back into fashion again.
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.
You're saying Bismarck didn't understand probability distribution?
Or indeed the difference between life expectancy, and life expectancy at 65 ...
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".
The Welsh are so bad at everything.
Deeside water is produced in Scotland from natural springs in the Cairngorms national park.
By a workforce of Welsh people? A bit of glass never hurt anyone. Who remembers the guy in the 1960s who ate a Cessna?
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.
You're saying Bismarck didn't understand probability distribution?
When it comes to open access / closed access the BBC must have the distinction of making exactly the WRONG decision on every single point since probably about 1974. That is one hell of an achievement. They don't need Farage or Trump to destroy them they are quite capable of doing it themselves ! Happy New Year
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".
The Welsh are so bad at everything.
Deeside water is produced in Scotland from natural springs in the Cairngorms national park.
By a workforce of Welsh people? A bit better f glass never hurt anyone. Who remembers the guy in the 1960s who ate his car.
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
Maybe it's time for formal dress to come back into fashion again.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
Any party campaigning on the line "You never had it so good" would be slaughtered, but in economic terms would be correct.
The problem is not so much economic, albeit tha economy is rather sluggish, but more a crisis of confidence in wider civic society. This is common to much of the developed world, rather than being UK specific of course.
Is the future to be one of digital hermits being fed narrowcasting by shadowy billionaires or are we going to engage with our neighbours? This is why I found the Primrose Hill closure depressing. Spontaneous, free and chaotic inter-reactions are deplored.
I was eavesdropping on couple of our Gen Z staff in the coffee room the other day. There are fewer and fewer random introductions via friends in the dating world now, and the Apps are increasingly awful, being dominated by men using the Boomhauer technique. No wonder the TFR is dropping faster than Starmers ratings.
You do realise we have an astonishingly high deficit and our debt interest payments dwarf our Defence budget? That's not a minor matter.
Point of order, the current deficit isn't especially high by historic standards and is expected to fall according to the OBR, not least because Rachel Reeves is raising some unpopular taxes
The debt is more the issue than the deficit. Specifically its servicing costs now that the cheap money era is over.
The Bank of England holds about 30% of government debt - over £550b. The government pays interest on this debt (part of the £110b annual interest payments) This money is then returned to the Treasury so the interest cost is net zero. This debt doesn't matter.
Unfortunately the BoE is selling this debt to private banks (Quantitative Tightening) in order to "control inflation" by taking money out of the money supply. Wrong headed!
The UK inflation problem isn't surplus UK money causing surplus demand (there is a cost of living crisis), it is the cost of energy and other commodities at world prices, and also UK shortage of supply of eg houses, which require investment.
By taking money out of the money supply, the BoE is increasing interest rates (it has to give higher interest rates for the private sector to buy the government debt) and restricting investment (which is need to increase supply and growth and relieve inflation). Aargh. It's completely the wrong approach. Because it is somewhat technical, it isn't often debated
I thought that they had stopped doing that.
And, when they were, inflation was much higher. A government (or the Bank) have very limited levers that they can pull. They have the base rate, they have the fiscal position and they have the ability through QE and its reverse to do something about the money supply. They have no control whatsoever over international commodity prices so they need to offset inflation in these using the limited tools available.
Personally, I would have had the government tighten the fiscal position by significantly reducing the deficit but given the governments (the Tories were almost as bad) of the day were not willing to do that I think that the Bank were right to use quantitative tightening to offset the consequences of our fiscal incompetence/cowardice/stupidity.
The problem is that BoE has been given the responsibility to control inflation and, as you say, its only weapon is money supply/interest rates which don't work against international commodity prices and can be counter productive.
I think the solution is to remove the responsibility for inflation from the BoE and replace it with a growth target (together with stability of the banking sector).
Inflation, as you suggest, should be controlled fiscally by the government raising or reducing taxes to reduce or increase demand to match supply.
This would be a much more effective approach. It means breaking the mindset of: Increasing taxes - bad, and debt/deficit is all that matters. I think Polanski is slowly getting there.
I’d like to ask the BoE what levers it wants to create a -1% reduction in house prices year on year. Then think about their response.
Entire generations trapped into rental dependency feels unwise.
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
No they don't. Minimum wage is an hourly-worked rate, not a fixed rate.
They have an income below full-time minimum wage. They have an income above many of those working part time minimum wage. They have an income well above those working zero hours on minimum wage.
Considering they're not working, why shouldn't those who are working have a higher income? Especially given there are costs to working?
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".
The Welsh are so bad at everything.
Deeside water is produced in Scotland from natural springs in the Cairngorms national park.
By a workforce of Welsh people? A bit better f glass never hurt anyone. Who remembers the guy in the 1960s who ate his car.
Kemi Badenoch: "I don’t do karaoke. But I do like it when everyone starts singing Last Christmas"
People who won't do karaoke are emotionally stunted cowards who can't be trusted with anything.
My default karaoke number is Don't Wanna Miss a Thing by Aerosmith.
I used to hate it then grew up and stopped caring. I’m usually butchering Mystify by INXS. I’m impressed you do it though as I think you don’t drink. Maybe I didn’t grow up enough and can’t unshackle my shame without four hundred beers in me.
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".
The Welsh are so bad at everything.
Deeside water is produced in Scotland from natural springs in the Cairngorms national park.
By a workforce of Welsh people? A bit better f glass never hurt anyone. Who remembers the guy in the 1960s who ate his car.
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".
The Welsh are so bad at everything.
Deeside water is produced in Scotland from natural springs in the Cairngorms national park.
By a workforce of Welsh people? A bit better f glass never hurt anyone. Who remembers the guy in the 1960s who ate his car.
New Statesman list of the 25 Brits who have defined the century so far is interesting, and provocative. In ascending order:
25 Amy Winehouse 24 Nicola Sturgeon 23 Norman Foster 22 Liz Truss 21 Sadiq Khan 20 Doreen Lawrence 19 Ricky Gervais 18 Gary Lineker 17 Rebekah Brooks 16 Tracey Emin 15 Simon Cowell 14 George Osborne 13 Tim Stokely 12 Demis Hassabis 11 Fred the Shred 10 Prince Harry 9 Hilary Mantel 8 Lee Rigby 7 Boris Johnson 6 Maggie Oliver 5 Danny Boyle 4 Jeremy Corbyn 3 Tony Blair 2 Nigel Farage 1 J K Rowling
New Statesman list of the 25 Brits who have defined the century so far is interesting, and provocative. In ascending order:
25 Amy Winehouse 24 Nicola Sturgeon 23 Norman Foster 22 Liz Truss 21 Sadiq Khan 20 Doreen Lawrence 19 Ricky Gervais 18 Gary Lineker 17 Rebekah Brooks 16 Tracey Emin 15 Simon Cowell 14 George Osborne 13 Tim Stokely 12 Demis Hassabis 11 Fred the Shred 10 Prince Harry 9 Hilary Mantel 8 Lee Rigby 7 Boris Johnson 6 Maggie Oliver 5 Danny Boyle 4 Jeremy Corbyn 3 Tony Blair 2 Nigel Farage 1 J K Rowling
New Statesman list of the 25 Brits who have defined the century so far is interesting, and provocative. In ascending order:
25 Amy Winehouse 24 Nicola Sturgeon 23 Norman Foster 22 Liz Truss 21 Sadiq Khan 20 Doreen Lawrence 19 Ricky Gervais 18 Gary Lineker 17 Rebekah Brooks 16 Tracey Emin 15 Simon Cowell 14 George Osborne 13 Tim Stokely 12 Demis Hassabis 11 Fred the Shred 10 Prince Harry 9 Hilary Mantel 8 Lee Rigby 7 Boris Johnson 6 Maggie Oliver 5 Danny Boyle 4 Jeremy Corbyn 3 Tony Blair 2 Nigel Farage 1 J K Rowling
Hmm.
I feel they couldn't bear to put Farage first.
It is mad, literally mad to put Corbyn or Mantel or Emin on that list while ignoring David Cameron and Gordon Brown, especially the latter. They're clearly just pulling up random names for clickbait purposes.
New Statesman list of the 25 Brits who have defined the century so far is interesting, and provocative. In ascending order:
25 Amy Winehouse 24 Nicola Sturgeon 23 Norman Foster 22 Liz Truss 21 Sadiq Khan 20 Doreen Lawrence 19 Ricky Gervais 18 Gary Lineker 17 Rebekah Brooks 16 Tracey Emin 15 Simon Cowell 14 George Osborne 13 Tim Stokely 12 Demis Hassabis 11 Fred the Shred 10 Prince Harry 9 Hilary Mantel 8 Lee Rigby 7 Boris Johnson 6 Maggie Oliver 5 Danny Boyle 4 Jeremy Corbyn 3 Tony Blair 2 Nigel Farage 1 J K Rowling
Hmm.
I feel they couldn't bear to put Farage first.
KC3 should be first. I say this as a man with great wisdom, or at least enough wisdom to note that there were a thousand gongs handed out for the most imponderable of achievements.
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".
The Welsh are so bad at everything.
"Deeside" is in Wales, but "Royal Deesside" is in Scotland. Tut.
I think you should all forget my mistake about Deeside otherwise I might have to deploy that photo.
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".
The Welsh are so bad at everything.
"Deeside" is in Wales, but "Royal Deesside" is in Scotland. Tut.
I think you should all forget my mistake about Deeside otherwise I might have to deploy that photo.
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".
New Statesman list of the 25 Brits who have defined the century so far is interesting, and provocative. In ascending order:
25 Amy Winehouse 24 Nicola Sturgeon 23 Norman Foster 22 Liz Truss 21 Sadiq Khan 20 Doreen Lawrence 19 Ricky Gervais 18 Gary Lineker 17 Rebekah Brooks 16 Tracey Emin 15 Simon Cowell 14 George Osborne 13 Tim Stokely 12 Demis Hassabis 11 Fred the Shred 10 Prince Harry 9 Hilary Mantel 8 Lee Rigby 7 Boris Johnson 6 Maggie Oliver 5 Danny Boyle 4 Jeremy Corbyn 3 Tony Blair 2 Nigel Farage 1 J K Rowling
Hmm.
I feel they couldn't bear to put Farage first.
It is mad, literally mad to put Corbyn or Mantel or Emin on that list while ignoring David Cameron and Gordon Brown, especially the latter. They're clearly just pulling up random names for clickbait purposes.
The fact that the dolt Prince Harry is on there proves it’s a list made by the Honourable Company of Village Idiots who felt the need to crowbar one of their members right up there.
Kemi Badenoch: "I don’t do karaoke. But I do like it when everyone starts singing Last Christmas"
People who won't do karaoke are emotionally stunted cowards who can't be trusted with anything.
My default karaoke number is Don't Wanna Miss a Thing by Aerosmith.
Good choice. Impressed if you can pull off the key change, though I guess the karoake version doesn't extend into that bit?
Always helps if you know the words off by heart and can make sustained eye contact with your immediate superior. Hero by Enrqiue Ingelsias gets you suitably close to the HR line.
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.
You're saying Bismarck didn't understand probability distribution?
It didn't. If it had it would never have tried to break into the North Atlantic with the Prinz Eugen.
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
I do.
My trouble with (at least) semi formal is that I’ve got so much trouble with my hands that I can’t tie a tie nowadays. And I refuse to wear a pre-tied one on elastic.
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.
You're saying Bismarck didn't understand probability distribution?
It didn't. If it had it would never have tried to break into the North Atlantic with the Prinz Eugen.
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
Maybe it's time for formal dress to come back into fashion again.
Men - in particular- are atrociously dressed these days.
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
Maybe it's time for formal dress to come back into fashion again.
Men - in particular- are atrociously dressed these days.
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
Maybe it's time for formal dress to come back into fashion again.
I wear a suit to my club. One has to.
It's a scale, but the debate always ends up being binary.
I'm happy wearing a sports blazer, shirt, chinos and loafers for example - or similar mix, don't pick holes - but I don't really want to be obliged to "relax" in a full lounge suit.
By the same token, I don't want to see sportswear or jeans and white trainers either.
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
I do.
My trouble with (at least) semi formal is that I’ve got so much trouble with my hands that I can’t tie a tie nowadays. And I refuse to wear a pre-tied one on elastic.
Suit with crisp open-necked white shirt looks cool.
Kemi Badenoch: "I don’t do karaoke. But I do like it when everyone starts singing Last Christmas"
People who won't do karaoke are emotionally stunted cowards who can't be trusted with anything.
My default karaoke number is Don't Wanna Miss a Thing by Aerosmith.
I used to hate it then grew up and stopped caring. I’m usually butchering Mystify by INXS. I’m impressed you do it though as I think you don’t drink. Maybe I didn’t grow up enough and can’t unshackle my shame without four hundred beers in me.
My mother was a music teacher so I am a quite good tenor. I can't hit the A5 on the outro of Don't Wanna Miss a Thing like Steven Tyler but nobody (except my mother) ever notices.
If called upon for an encore, it's Rainbow in the Dark.
New Statesman list of the 25 Brits who have defined the century so far is interesting, and provocative. In ascending order:
25 Amy Winehouse 24 Nicola Sturgeon 23 Norman Foster 22 Liz Truss 21 Sadiq Khan 20 Doreen Lawrence 19 Ricky Gervais 18 Gary Lineker 17 Rebekah Brooks 16 Tracey Emin 15 Simon Cowell 14 George Osborne 13 Tim Stokely 12 Demis Hassabis 11 Fred the Shred 10 Prince Harry 9 Hilary Mantel 8 Lee Rigby 7 Boris Johnson 6 Maggie Oliver 5 Danny Boyle 4 Jeremy Corbyn 3 Tony Blair 2 Nigel Farage 1 J K Rowling
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
I do.
My trouble with (at least) semi formal is that I’ve got so much trouble with my hands that I can’t tie a tie nowadays. And I refuse to wear a pre-tied one on elastic.
Suit with crisp open-necked white shirt looks cool.
Good idea and the advice is appreciated, but the vast majority of formal (or fairly formal) events I go to nowadays are funerals.
New Statesman list of the 25 Brits who have defined the century so far is interesting, and provocative. In ascending order:
25 Amy Winehouse 24 Nicola Sturgeon 23 Norman Foster 22 Liz Truss 21 Sadiq Khan 20 Doreen Lawrence 19 Ricky Gervais 18 Gary Lineker 17 Rebekah Brooks 16 Tracey Emin 15 Simon Cowell 14 George Osborne 13 Tim Stokely 12 Demis Hassabis 11 Fred the Shred 10 Prince Harry 9 Hilary Mantel 8 Lee Rigby 7 Boris Johnson 6 Maggie Oliver 5 Danny Boyle 4 Jeremy Corbyn 3 Tony Blair 2 Nigel Farage 1 J K Rowling
Hmm.
Random and a bit unconvincing.
It's also not a very diverse list. You'd think Britain still had the demographics of 50 years ago based on that.
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 ?
Yes, I delayed till a couple of years ago (I'm 75).
New Statesman list of the 25 Brits who have defined the century so far is interesting, and provocative. In ascending order:
25 Amy Winehouse 24 Nicola Sturgeon 23 Norman Foster 22 Liz Truss 21 Sadiq Khan 20 Doreen Lawrence 19 Ricky Gervais 18 Gary Lineker 17 Rebekah Brooks 16 Tracey Emin 15 Simon Cowell 14 George Osborne 13 Tim Stokely 12 Demis Hassabis 11 Fred the Shred 10 Prince Harry 9 Hilary Mantel 8 Lee Rigby 7 Boris Johnson 6 Maggie Oliver 5 Danny Boyle 4 Jeremy Corbyn 3 Tony Blair 2 Nigel Farage 1 J K Rowling
Kemi Badenoch: "I don’t do karaoke. But I do like it when everyone starts singing Last Christmas"
People who won't do karaoke are emotionally stunted cowards who can't be trusted with anything.
My default karaoke number is Don't Wanna Miss a Thing by Aerosmith.
I used to hate it then grew up and stopped caring. I’m usually butchering Mystify by INXS. I’m impressed you do it though as I think you don’t drink. Maybe I didn’t grow up enough and can’t unshackle my shame without four hundred beers in me.
I actually once won a karaoke contest in Lanzarote. Got a tee shirt as the prize. Can't recall for sure what I did but I think it was Sweet's Love Is Like Oxygen. I do remember the year though. 1992.
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.
The only Karaoke song I have done is "Du Hast" by Rammstein, and I think it went okay.
And yes, I pass this on purely to cue up the meme.
Hate to say it, but dude jumped his shark.
Bro does know what his audience (decrepit right wing c-nts) likes (fucking drivel that reinforces their moronic prejudices) and serves it up to them. Can't hate the hustle.
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
Maybe it's time for formal dress to come back into fashion again.
Men - in particular- are atrociously dressed these days.
It's like they can't be arsed.
Quietly slopes away......
I’m sure that Plato has something on the dress sense of the young.
New Statesman list of the 25 Brits who have defined the century so far is interesting, and provocative. In ascending order:
25 Amy Winehouse 24 Nicola Sturgeon 23 Norman Foster 22 Liz Truss 21 Sadiq Khan 20 Doreen Lawrence 19 Ricky Gervais 18 Gary Lineker 17 Rebekah Brooks 16 Tracey Emin 15 Simon Cowell 14 George Osborne 13 Tim Stokely 12 Demis Hassabis 11 Fred the Shred 10 Prince Harry 9 Hilary Mantel 8 Lee Rigby 7 Boris Johnson 6 Maggie Oliver 5 Danny Boyle 4 Jeremy Corbyn 3 Tony Blair 2 Nigel Farage 1 J K Rowling
Hmm.
Can't say I've heard of 6, 11, 12, and 13.
I can sympathise with 12 and 13, because I've no clue who they are either, but I'm surprised you've never heard of Fred 'The Shred' Goodwin, CEO of RBS when it went bellyup in 2008.
The tribunal found that Ms Ahmed acted dishonestly and without integrity in recording time against matters where she had not and could not have completed the work claimed,” Mr Kyriacou said in the judgment.
“In so doing she had failed to uphold public trust and confidence in the profession.
How on earth would that damage the reputation of the profession? It's like a senior figure at the Post Office claiming defamation for being accused of perjury.
Or someone in the DfE claiming that it was defamation to call them incompetent and useless….
Kemi Badenoch: "I don’t do karaoke. But I do like it when everyone starts singing Last Christmas"
People who won't do karaoke are emotionally stunted cowards who can't be trusted with anything.
My default karaoke number is Don't Wanna Miss a Thing by Aerosmith.
I used to hate it then grew up and stopped caring. I’m usually butchering Mystify by INXS. I’m impressed you do it though as I think you don’t drink. Maybe I didn’t grow up enough and can’t unshackle my shame without four hundred beers in me.
My mother was a music teacher so I am a quite good tenor. I can't hit the A5 on the outro of Don't Wanna Miss a Thing like Steven Tyler but nobody (except my mother) ever notices.
If called upon for an encore, it's Rainbow in the Dark.
Interesting stat from John Burn-Murdoch on More Or Less this am: social media use is falling internationally except for Canada, USA and the old. Nothing less cool to the young I guess than seeing Trump boogying to Village People and Musk setting his algorithm to tell people how fab Musk is. There's hope yet..
Yes. You're into aesthetics, aren't you? Well there's the answer. The whole New Right thing is a style disaster. Forget the politics just look at the people.
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.
The only Karaoke song I have done is "Du Hast" by Rammstein, and I think it went okay.
I'm picturing that and I think so too. More than ok in fact. It was a moment in time.
New Statesman list of the 25 Brits who have defined the century so far is interesting, and provocative. In ascending order:
25 Amy Winehouse 24 Nicola Sturgeon 23 Norman Foster 22 Liz Truss 21 Sadiq Khan 20 Doreen Lawrence 19 Ricky Gervais 18 Gary Lineker 17 Rebekah Brooks 16 Tracey Emin 15 Simon Cowell 14 George Osborne 13 Tim Stokely 12 Demis Hassabis 11 Fred the Shred 10 Prince Harry 9 Hilary Mantel 8 Lee Rigby 7 Boris Johnson 6 Maggie Oliver 5 Danny Boyle 4 Jeremy Corbyn 3 Tony Blair 2 Nigel Farage 1 J K Rowling
Hmm.
Random and a bit unconvincing.
It's also not a very diverse list. You'd think Britain still had the demographics of 50 years ago based on that.
That's fine by the New Statesman, provided they have the right politics.
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.
How’s that zero tolerance for domestic violence campaign going?
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
Maybe it's time for formal dress to come back into fashion again.
Men - in particular- are atrociously dressed these days.
It's like they can't be arsed.
Quietly slopes away......
I expect most of the men (and it is mostly men) who post on politicalbetting are usually atrociously dressed, being quite a nerdy site.
That doesn't mean they wouldn't by and large scrub up well, if they put in the effort.
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
That’s a thought. Should minimum wage and minimum pension be equal?
It might make the future creation of a universal basic income more comprehensible and concentrate the minds of younger people on the realities of aging on a limited income.
Basic state pension of £230 per week is equivalent to a 18.8 hour week on minimum wage
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.
How’s that zero tolerance for domestic violence campaign going?
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.
The only Karaoke song I have done is "Du Hast" by Rammstein, and I think it went okay.
I'm picturing that and I think so too. More than ok in fact. It was a moment in time.
Rammstein got cancelled - see the Till Lindemann stuff.
The tribunal found that Ms Ahmed acted dishonestly and without integrity in recording time against matters where she had not and could not have completed the work claimed,” Mr Kyriacou said in the judgment.
“In so doing she had failed to uphold public trust and confidence in the profession.
How on earth would that damage the reputation of the profession? It's like a senior figure at the Post Office claiming defamation for being accused of perjury.
To be honest when I read that I thought it was rather harsh in her circumstances and a formal warning would have been fairer
She is clearly an idoot
The firm uncovered her erroneous hours in April 2022 and told her to stop overstating how much work she had done.
But she was dismissed on June 30 that year after she continued to exaggerate her hours.
But also worth noting that her employers paid back £98,000 to tax payers based on her hourly charge out rate
New Statesman list of the 25 Brits who have defined the century so far is interesting, and provocative. In ascending order:
25 Amy Winehouse 24 Nicola Sturgeon 23 Norman Foster 22 Liz Truss 21 Sadiq Khan 20 Doreen Lawrence 19 Ricky Gervais 18 Gary Lineker 17 Rebekah Brooks 16 Tracey Emin 15 Simon Cowell 14 George Osborne 13 Tim Stokely 12 Demis Hassabis 11 Fred the Shred 10 Prince Harry 9 Hilary Mantel 8 Lee Rigby 7 Boris Johnson 6 Maggie Oliver 5 Danny Boyle 4 Jeremy Corbyn 3 Tony Blair 2 Nigel Farage 1 J K Rowling
And yes, I pass this on purely to cue up the meme.
Hate to say it, but dude jumped his shark.
Bro does know what his audience (decrepit right wing c-nts) likes (fucking drivel that reinforces their moronic prejudices) and serves it up to them. Can't hate the hustle.
Once upon a time he aspired to a little more, I think. But you have a point.
The tribunal found that Ms Ahmed acted dishonestly and without integrity in recording time against matters where she had not and could not have completed the work claimed,” Mr Kyriacou said in the judgment.
“In so doing she had failed to uphold public trust and confidence in the profession.
How on earth would that damage the reputation of the profession? It's like a senior figure at the Post Office claiming defamation for being accused of perjury.
To be honest when I read that I thought it was rather harsh in her circumstances and a formal warning would have been fairer
She is clearly an idoot
The firm uncovered her erroneous hours in April 2022 and told her to stop overstating how much work she had done.
But she was dismissed on June 30 that year after she continued to exaggerate her hours.
But also worth noting that her employers paid back £98,000 to tax payers based on her hourly charge out rate
Committing an obvious fraud that was common enough that they used it as movie plot (several) argues idiocy.
Comments
I predict that Reform will slip back between now and May due to increased scrutiny of their Welsh policies and candidates. Plaid will be largest party and will try to run a minority government - with Labour, Green & LD support. - but maybenot a formal coalition.
I also predict that Reform 'group' will collapse very quickly in opposition ' losing 5 or 6 of their initial ~25-30 MSs in 6-12 months who will become independents under new rules.
If they get squeezed to third or fourth I shall be absolutely delighted, but if they don't I won't be especially surprised.
I’m okay without AI created imagery.
And I’d prefer to avoid unnecessary hard thinking.
It might make the future creation of a universal basic income more comprehensible and concentrate the minds of younger people on the realities of aging on a limited income.
The tribunal found that Ms Ahmed acted dishonestly and without integrity in recording time against matters where she had not and could not have completed the work claimed,” Mr Kyriacou said in the judgment.
“In so doing she had failed to uphold public trust and confidence in the profession.
“The tribunal found that the seriousness of Ms Ahmed’s dishonest conduct was at the highest level and the resulting, foreseeable harm, both to others and to the reputation of the profession, was such that the sanction of striking off the roll was fair, reasonable and proportionate.”
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/solicitor-claimed-she-worked-28-hours-a-day-to-earn-70k-bonus/ar-AA1TlPLb?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=695551ac4b0b481db36439c59f4318b8&ei=10
How on earth would that damage the reputation of the profession? It's like a senior figure at the Post Office claiming defamation for being accused of perjury.
25 Amy Winehouse
24 Nicola Sturgeon
23 Norman Foster
22 Liz Truss
21 Sadiq Khan
20 Doreen Lawrence
19 Ricky Gervais
18 Gary Lineker
17 Rebekah Brooks
16 Tracey Emin
15 Simon Cowell
14 George Osborne
13 Tim Stokely
12 Demis Hassabis
11 Fred the Shred
10 Prince Harry
9 Hilary Mantel
8 Lee Rigby
7 Boris Johnson
6 Maggie Oliver
5 Danny Boyle
4 Jeremy Corbyn
3 Tony Blair
2 Nigel Farage
1 J K Rowling
Hmm.
My default karaoke number is Don't Wanna Miss a Thing by Aerosmith.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Lotito Now he's banned sunshine in 2025? Bastard!
Starmer fans please explain.
Entire generations trapped into rental dependency feels unwise.
They have an income below full-time minimum wage. They have an income above many of those working part time minimum wage. They have an income well above those working zero hours on minimum wage.
Considering they're not working, why shouldn't those who are working have a higher income? Especially given there are costs to working?
Confidence is everything!
Always helps if you know the words off by heart and can make sustained eye contact with your immediate superior. Hero by Enrqiue Ingelsias gets you suitably close to the HR line.
I don't.
https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/ottejk/bismarck_fire_control_computer_c38_k_983x672/#lightbox
It's like they can't be arsed.
I'm happy wearing a sports blazer, shirt, chinos and loafers for example - or similar mix, don't pick holes - but I don't really want to be obliged to "relax" in a full lounge suit.
By the same token, I don't want to see sportswear or jeans and white trainers either.
And yes, I pass this on purely to cue up the meme.
And then click on the circled "i".
If called upon for an encore, it's Rainbow in the Dark.
A random guy turned up at my mother in law's funeral and sang it, unplanned and a capella. Indelible impression.
That doesn't mean they wouldn't by and large scrub up well, if they put in the effort.
The firm uncovered her erroneous hours in April 2022 and told her to stop overstating how much work she had done.
But she was dismissed on June 30 that year after she continued to exaggerate her hours.
But also worth noting that her employers paid back £98,000 to tax payers based on her hourly charge out rate
But you have a point.
I know he's the greatest living Englishman, but the article isn't particularly well researched. What would we do without Wikipedia?