Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
Ratcliffe is wrong in saying that the population was 58m in 2020 but Ratcliffe is of that generation which experienced a stable UK population varying between 56m in 1972 to 58m in 2000.
So a 58m population is what he grew used to in his formative years and for which the UK's infrastructure has actually been built for.
Life expectancy has increased significantly since 1970, the over 65 population is several million higher and the dependency ratio (no. Retired to working age) is increasing at the same time their pensions are increasing. So the UK either needs a drastic reduction in old people or working age migrants.
Totally wrong. Totally out of step with British values. He should apologise now.
Really, what are “British values” these days”? Making money on reality tv and insta? Claiming you know your rights when you really don’t? Wanting a car the same as your neighbours or preferably better? Demanding more tax on people who have more than you? Dressing badly? Photographing every meal you have? Giving your child naff names?
I really don’t know what “British values” are because it seems the vast majority aren’t ready to join up for war, want to be educated, would defend democracy to the hilt, accept the rule of law if inconvenient etc. it’s a fantasy Victorian idea - should Ed look at British values from the Georgian period, the Middle Ages, the seventies? What are these mythical values?
Totally wrong. Totally out of step with British values. He should apologise now.
Really, what are “British values” these days”? Making money on reality tv and insta? Claiming you know your rights when you really don’t? Wanting a car the same as your neighbours or preferably better? Demanding more tax on people who have more than you? Dressing badly? Photographing every meal you have? Giving your child naff names?
I really don’t know what “British values” are because it seems the vast majority aren’t ready to join up for war, want to be educated, would defend democracy to the hilt, accept the rule of law if inconvenient etc. it’s a fantasy Victorian idea - should Ed look at British values from the Georgian period, the Middle Ages, the seventies? What are these mythical values?
I think the only "British value" that every one agrees with is - we don't like queue-jumpers.
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
Ratcliffe is wrong in saying that the population was 58m in 2020 but Ratcliffe is of that generation which experienced a stable UK population varying between 56m in 1972 to 58m in 2000.
So a 58m population is what he grew used to in his formative years and for which the UK's infrastructure has actually been built for.
Life expectancy has increased significantly since 1970, the over 65 population is several million higher and the dependency ratio (no. Retired to working age) is increasing at the same time their pensions are increasing. So the UK either needs a drastic reduction in old people or working age migrants.
Life expectancy increased in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s yet the population only rose by 2m.
Now we can talk about worker/dependent ratios but that's another issue and also with other possible solutions - later retirement ages, earlier working ages, higher productivity, fewer non workers.
But the 'we need more immigrants because there are more oldies' is ultimately a human ponzi scheme as the new immigrants themselves grow old.
Jimmy Savile resigns over PM handling of paedo scandals is not the headline I was expecting.
I wonder what was said by the official when the resignation letter was handed in - "your letter is only the start of it, One letter and now you’re a part of it"
What proportion of playing staff has Sir Jim employed from the good honest yeomen of greater Manchester, or England even rather than “immigrants” under his stewardship?
Its a shocking statement, and as a Man Utd supporter since 1952, and former season ticket holder for decades he could not be more wrong
He shames the brand and I am very angry tonight
It'll piss off the players too. Interestingly Ratcliffe is now a resident of Monaco and I notice the two 'likes' for the post were both from Ex Pats. One living in Dubai the other Spain. The number of racists around is something to behold
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
Ratcliffe is wrong in saying that the population was 58m in 2020 but Ratcliffe is of that generation which experienced a stable UK population varying between 56m in 1972 to 58m in 2000.
So a 58m population is what he grew used to in his formative years and for which the UK's infrastructure has actually been built for.
Life expectancy has increased significantly since 1970, the over 65 population is several million higher and the dependency ratio (no. Retired to working age) is increasing at the same time their pensions are increasing. So the UK either needs a drastic reduction in old people or working age migrants.
Life expectancy increased in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s yet the population only rose by 2m.
Now we can talk about worker/dependent ratios but that's another issue and also with other possible solutions - later retirement ages, earlier working ages, higher productivity, fewer non workers.
But the 'we need more immigrants because there are more oldies' is ultimately a human ponzi scheme as the new immigrants themselves grow old.
So milk the working age population harder and longer to keep the already retired in increasing comfort? Graduates already pay a 9% tax supplement, housing costs are high, it's just incentivising working age people to emigrate, retire early or otherwise trade lifestyle for income.
Here’s Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer lecturing in 2014. He’d just stepped down as DPP and was claiming that none of Jimmy Savile’s victims - there were at least 600 - had come forward before Operation Yewtree. We all know now that wasn’t true. It was a good story while it lasted
Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer, in April 2014 just after stepping down as DPP, claimed only 4 of Jimmy Savile’s victims who’d come forward to Yewtree, had previously complained. In the video above, just before his MP selection, it was ‘zero’. Which is right? Spoiler - neither.
What proportion of playing staff has Sir Jim employed from the good honest yeomen of greater Manchester, or England even rather than “immigrants” under his stewardship?
Its a shocking statement, and as a Man Utd supporter since 1952, and former season ticket holder for decades he could not be more wrong
He shames the brand and I am very angry tonight
It'll piss off the players too. Interestingly Ratcliffe is now a resident of Monaco and I notice the two 'likes' for the post were both from Ex Pats. One living in Dubai the other Spain. The number of racists around is something to behold
And Farage endorses it
No matter who you support, we should all agree to do everything we can to ensure Farage and Reform do not come into office in our country
Told my Dad about the invermectin story, and he said a mate of his was told in December his cancer had returned, and spread, and the doctor gave him three months to live. His friend told his kids, the rest of his friends and family and was resigned to his fate. Yesterday he went to have a dose of chemo… and they gave him the all clear!
Fantastic news, but isn’t there something amiss? I can’t believe the hospital can get it THAT wrong. I’m suspicious they we’re looking at the wrong notes. What if he thought ‘oh fuck it, in going to live recklessly for the time I have left?’, died or injured himself somehow only to be found to be cancer free??
And it’s ivermectin, one ‘n’. The misspelling of invermectin is generally seen on what we might call less reliable websites.
Oh that's it then! I will tell Science Direct that I have spelled the drug's name incorrectly a couple of times and ask them to adjust their findings accordingly!
I was spelling it from listening to my friend's story about her brother on the phone, so it wasn't a case of copying from nasty websites, ooh heaven forbid!
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
Ratcliffe is wrong in saying that the population was 58m in 2020 but Ratcliffe is of that generation which experienced a stable UK population varying between 56m in 1972 to 58m in 2000.
So a 58m population is what he grew used to in his formative years and for which the UK's infrastructure has actually been built for.
Life expectancy has increased significantly since 1970, the over 65 population is several million higher and the dependency ratio (no. Retired to working age) is increasing at the same time their pensions are increasing. So the UK either needs a drastic reduction in old people or working age migrants.
Life expectancy increased in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s yet the population only rose by 2m.
Now we can talk about worker/dependent ratios but that's another issue and also with other possible solutions - later retirement ages, earlier working ages, higher productivity, fewer non workers.
But the 'we need more immigrants because there are more oldies' is ultimately a human ponzi scheme as the new immigrants themselves grow old.
So milk the working age population harder and longer to keep the already retired in increasing comfort? Graduates already pay a 9% tax supplement, housing costs are high, it's just incentivising working age people to emigrate, retire early or otherwise trade lifestyle for income.
Indeed.
Which is why I'm in favour of ending the triple lock and getting rid of both pension credits and winter fuel allowance for oldies.
I'd also stop the inexorable rise in health spending as that benefits mostly the oldies.
What proportion of playing staff has Sir Jim employed from the good honest yeomen of greater Manchester, or England even rather than “immigrants” under his stewardship?
Its a shocking statement, and as a Man Utd supporter since 1952, and former season ticket holder for decades he could not be more wrong
He shames the brand and I am very angry tonight
It'll piss off the players too. Interestingly Ratcliffe is now a resident of Monaco and I notice the two 'likes' for the post were both from Ex Pats. One living in Dubai the other Spain. The number of racists around is something to behold
And Farage endorses it
No matter who you support, we should all agree to do everything we can to ensure Farage and Reform do not come into office in our country
"No matter who you support" doesn't really apply if you're excluding support for the party that's leading in the polls.
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
Ratcliffe is wrong in saying that the population was 58m in 2020 but Ratcliffe is of that generation which experienced a stable UK population varying between 56m in 1972 to 58m in 2000.
So a 58m population is what he grew used to in his formative years and for which the UK's infrastructure has actually been built for.
Life expectancy has increased significantly since 1970, the over 65 population is several million higher and the dependency ratio (no. Retired to working age) is increasing at the same time their pensions are increasing. So the UK either needs a drastic reduction in old people or working age migrants.
Life expectancy increased in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s yet the population only rose by 2m.
Now we can talk about worker/dependent ratios but that's another issue and also with other possible solutions - later retirement ages, earlier working ages, higher productivity, fewer non workers.
But the 'we need more immigrants because there are more oldies' is ultimately a human ponzi scheme as the new immigrants themselves grow old.
So milk the working age population harder and longer to keep the already retired in increasing comfort? Graduates already pay a 9% tax supplement, housing costs are high, it's just incentivising working age people to emigrate, retire early or otherwise trade lifestyle for income.
Indeed.
Which is why I'm in favour of ending the triple lock and getting rid of both pension credits and winter fuel allowance for oldies.
I'd also stop the inexorable rise in health spending as that benefits mostly the oldies.
Should put an end to the surge in support for Reform and herald the beginning of an era of Green-Labour coalition governments as an EU member.
Maybe Starmer isn't such an unlucky General. Another tough day at the office only to find a high profile business person has just gone and done a massive racialism and doubly so by invoking colonising. Which will now dominate the media for a good day or two as people rush to the mic to say how racist his racism was.
Britain has undergone unprecedented mass immigration that has changed the character of many areas in our country.
Labour may try to ignore that but Reform won’t.
Farage looking for a donation?
Did Ratcliffe donate to Labour in the end or just host Starmer and endorse them for the GE? At the time it was held up as a big coup that Labour finally got a big business person to back them, as up until then it was the classic letter writing of not really business people / former business people saying Labour best for jobs.
Now obviously Jim and Gay Neville was looking for the government to back redevelopment around Old Trafford which they got, although I don't think it has been settled who is paying exactly for what.
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
Ratcliffe is wrong in saying that the population was 58m in 2020 but Ratcliffe is of that generation which experienced a stable UK population varying between 56m in 1972 to 58m in 2000.
So a 58m population is what he grew used to in his formative years and for which the UK's infrastructure has actually been built for.
Life expectancy has increased significantly since 1970, the over 65 population is several million higher and the dependency ratio (no. Retired to working age) is increasing at the same time their pensions are increasing. So the UK either needs a drastic reduction in old people or working age migrants.
Life expectancy increased in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s yet the population only rose by 2m.
Now we can talk about worker/dependent ratios but that's another issue and also with other possible solutions - later retirement ages, earlier working ages, higher productivity, fewer non workers.
But the 'we need more immigrants because there are more oldies' is ultimately a human ponzi scheme as the new immigrants themselves grow old.
So milk the working age population harder and longer to keep the already retired in increasing comfort? Graduates already pay a 9% tax supplement, housing costs are high, it's just incentivising working age people to emigrate, retire early or otherwise trade lifestyle for income.
Indeed.
Which is why I'm in favour of ending the triple lock and getting rid of both pension credits and winter fuel allowance for oldies.
I'd also stop the inexorable rise in health spending as that benefits mostly the oldies.
Means test them but don't end them, pensioners on state pension alone have an income half the minimum wage now. See how unpopular WFA cuts for almost all pensioners was and ended up means tested anyway
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
Ratcliffe is wrong in saying that the population was 58m in 2020 but Ratcliffe is of that generation which experienced a stable UK population varying between 56m in 1972 to 58m in 2000.
So a 58m population is what he grew used to in his formative years and for which the UK's infrastructure has actually been built for.
Life expectancy has increased significantly since 1970, the over 65 population is several million higher and the dependency ratio (no. Retired to working age) is increasing at the same time their pensions are increasing. So the UK either needs a drastic reduction in old people or working age migrants.
Life expectancy increased in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s yet the population only rose by 2m.
Now we can talk about worker/dependent ratios but that's another issue and also with other possible solutions - later retirement ages, earlier working ages, higher productivity, fewer non workers.
But the 'we need more immigrants because there are more oldies' is ultimately a human ponzi scheme as the new immigrants themselves grow old.
So milk the working age population harder and longer to keep the already retired in increasing comfort? Graduates already pay a 9% tax supplement, housing costs are high, it's just incentivising working age people to emigrate, retire early or otherwise trade lifestyle for income.
Indeed.
Which is why I'm in favour of ending the triple lock and getting rid of both pension credits and winter fuel allowance for oldies.
I'd also stop the inexorable rise in health spending as that benefits mostly the oldies.
Means test them but don't end them, pensioners on state pension alone have an income half the minimum wage now. See how unpopular WFA cuts for almost all pensioners was and ended up means tested anyway
Means testing results in the transfer in wealth from those who worked and paid taxes and saved into their own pensions to those who didn't and didn't and didn't.
With pension auto enrolment having been established over a decade ago there is increasingly little excuse for anyone to retire without their own pension provision.
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
Ratcliffe is wrong in saying that the population was 58m in 2020 but Ratcliffe is of that generation which experienced a stable UK population varying between 56m in 1972 to 58m in 2000.
So a 58m population is what he grew used to in his formative years and for which the UK's infrastructure has actually been built for.
Life expectancy has increased significantly since 1970, the over 65 population is several million higher and the dependency ratio (no. Retired to working age) is increasing at the same time their pensions are increasing. So the UK either needs a drastic reduction in old people or working age migrants.
Life expectancy increased in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s yet the population only rose by 2m.
Now we can talk about worker/dependent ratios but that's another issue and also with other possible solutions - later retirement ages, earlier working ages, higher productivity, fewer non workers.
But the 'we need more immigrants because there are more oldies' is ultimately a human ponzi scheme as the new immigrants themselves grow old.
So milk the working age population harder and longer to keep the already retired in increasing comfort? Graduates already pay a 9% tax supplement, housing costs are high, it's just incentivising working age people to emigrate, retire early or otherwise trade lifestyle for income.
Indeed.
Which is why I'm in favour of ending the triple lock and getting rid of both pension credits and winter fuel allowance for oldies.
I'd also stop the inexorable rise in health spending as that benefits mostly the oldies.
Means test them but don't end them, pensioners on state pension alone have an income half the minimum wage now. See how unpopular WFA cuts for almost all pensioners was and ended up means tested anyway
Means testing results in the transfer in wealth from those who worked and paid taxes and saved into their own pensions to those who didn't and didn't and didn't.
With pension auto enrolment having been established over a decade ago there is increasingly little excuse for anyone to retire without their own pension provision.
Most state pensioners also paid in for it when working via National Insurance
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
Ratcliffe is wrong in saying that the population was 58m in 2020 but Ratcliffe is of that generation which experienced a stable UK population varying between 56m in 1972 to 58m in 2000.
So a 58m population is what he grew used to in his formative years and for which the UK's infrastructure has actually been built for.
Life expectancy has increased significantly since 1970, the over 65 population is several million higher and the dependency ratio (no. Retired to working age) is increasing at the same time their pensions are increasing. So the UK either needs a drastic reduction in old people or working age migrants.
Life expectancy increased in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s yet the population only rose by 2m.
Now we can talk about worker/dependent ratios but that's another issue and also with other possible solutions - later retirement ages, earlier working ages, higher productivity, fewer non workers.
But the 'we need more immigrants because there are more oldies' is ultimately a human ponzi scheme as the new immigrants themselves grow old.
So milk the working age population harder and longer to keep the already retired in increasing comfort? Graduates already pay a 9% tax supplement, housing costs are high, it's just incentivising working age people to emigrate, retire early or otherwise trade lifestyle for income.
Indeed.
Which is why I'm in favour of ending the triple lock and getting rid of both pension credits and winter fuel allowance for oldies.
I'd also stop the inexorable rise in health spending as that benefits mostly the oldies.
Means test them but don't end them, pensioners on state pension alone have an income half the minimum wage now. See how unpopular WFA cuts for almost all pensioners was and ended up means tested anyway
Means testing results in the transfer in wealth from those who worked and paid taxes and saved into their own pensions to those who didn't and didn't and didn't.
With pension auto enrolment having been established over a decade ago there is increasingly little excuse for anyone to retire without their own pension provision.
Most state pensioners also paid in for it when working via National Insurance
No, they paid NI and then voted for parties that spent it all (and some).
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
Ratcliffe is wrong in saying that the population was 58m in 2020 but Ratcliffe is of that generation which experienced a stable UK population varying between 56m in 1972 to 58m in 2000.
So a 58m population is what he grew used to in his formative years and for which the UK's infrastructure has actually been built for.
Life expectancy has increased significantly since 1970, the over 65 population is several million higher and the dependency ratio (no. Retired to working age) is increasing at the same time their pensions are increasing. So the UK either needs a drastic reduction in old people or working age migrants.
Life expectancy increased in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s yet the population only rose by 2m.
Now we can talk about worker/dependent ratios but that's another issue and also with other possible solutions - later retirement ages, earlier working ages, higher productivity, fewer non workers.
But the 'we need more immigrants because there are more oldies' is ultimately a human ponzi scheme as the new immigrants themselves grow old.
So milk the working age population harder and longer to keep the already retired in increasing comfort? Graduates already pay a 9% tax supplement, housing costs are high, it's just incentivising working age people to emigrate, retire early or otherwise trade lifestyle for income.
Indeed.
Which is why I'm in favour of ending the triple lock and getting rid of both pension credits and winter fuel allowance for oldies.
I'd also stop the inexorable rise in health spending as that benefits mostly the oldies.
Means test them but don't end them, pensioners on state pension alone have an income half the minimum wage now. See how unpopular WFA cuts for almost all pensioners was and ended up means tested anyway
Means testing results in the transfer in wealth from those who worked and paid taxes and saved into their own pensions to those who didn't and didn't and didn't.
With pension auto enrolment having been established over a decade ago there is increasingly little excuse for anyone to retire without their own pension provision.
Auto-enrolment? That's some high concentration copium you have there.
Auto-enrolment reached everyone from 2018, so it will make a difference to retirements from around 2065 to 2070.
So come back with that case in about half a century.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police state they will continue to identify transsexual school shooting suspect Jesse Van Rootselaar by his "gender of choice;" female — NYT
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
They were critiquing the 2020 figure
"The UK has been colonised by immigrants, really, hasn't it? I mean, the population of the UK was 58 million in 2020, now it's 70 million. That's 12 million people."
However, data from the Office for National Statistics estimates that the UK's population in mid-2025 was 69.4 million, compared with 66.7 million in mid-2020.
I've just addressed that point.
Ratcliffe is correct that the UK's population has increased by 12m, he just has the timescale wrong and used 2020 instead of 2000.
Now could you look back to 2000 and see whether the government was predicting that the UK's population would increase by 12m over the next generation.
I would suggest that successive governments allowing such an increase without proper planning and repeatedly denying such a thing would happen has been rather more damaging than some old giffer saying 2020 instead of 2000.
Pedantry over the numbers is great distraction activity though to avoid the central issue: the UK population has massively increased over the last 25 years, and chiefly due to mass immigration. We all know this.
The fact liberals refuse to engage in this debate - and, if absolutely forced, just say how great it is, and that if anything there's not enough of it - explains much of why Reform are now leading the polls.
Liberals have their own dogmatic ideology. Just like the parties they criticise on the fringes of politics.
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
Ratcliffe is wrong in saying that the population was 58m in 2020 but Ratcliffe is of that generation which experienced a stable UK population varying between 56m in 1972 to 58m in 2000.
At 5:00pm today The New Statement posted a podcast (grr). It told you that the problem with the Left is that it has no answers to 21st century problems and past solutions don't work now. The link is here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl3tl-YV6QE
You don't pay me enough.
Thanks for this. Incidentally I'm still a True Believer in modernism, of the 1970s, rational economics type. Even though no-one else is.
That's one of the reason I dislike the so-called Nudge Unit so much. It's existence is an admittance that most people aren't rational/logical in the way they think and do things.
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
Ratcliffe is wrong in saying that the population was 58m in 2020 but Ratcliffe is of that generation which experienced a stable UK population varying between 56m in 1972 to 58m in 2000.
So a 58m population is what he grew used to in his formative years and for which the UK's infrastructure has actually been built for.
Life expectancy has increased significantly since 1970, the over 65 population is several million higher and the dependency ratio (no. Retired to working age) is increasing at the same time their pensions are increasing. So the UK either needs a drastic reduction in old people or working age migrants.
Life expectancy increased in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s yet the population only rose by 2m.
Now we can talk about worker/dependent ratios but that's another issue and also with other possible solutions - later retirement ages, earlier working ages, higher productivity, fewer non workers.
But the 'we need more immigrants because there are more oldies' is ultimately a human ponzi scheme as the new immigrants themselves grow old.
So milk the working age population harder and longer to keep the already retired in increasing comfort? Graduates already pay a 9% tax supplement, housing costs are high, it's just incentivising working age people to emigrate, retire early or otherwise trade lifestyle for income.
Indeed.
Which is why I'm in favour of ending the triple lock and getting rid of both pension credits and winter fuel allowance for oldies.
I'd also stop the inexorable rise in health spending as that benefits mostly the oldies.
Means test them but don't end them, pensioners on state pension alone have an income half the minimum wage now. See how unpopular WFA cuts for almost all pensioners was and ended up means tested anyway
Means testing results in the transfer in wealth from those who worked and paid taxes and saved into their own pensions to those who didn't and didn't and didn't.
With pension auto enrolment having been established over a decade ago there is increasingly little excuse for anyone to retire without their own pension provision.
Auto-enrolment? That's some high concentration copium you have there.
Auto-enrolment reached everyone from 2018, so it will make a difference to retirements from around 2065 to 2070.
So come back with that case in about half a century.
If the world hasn't blown up by then, politically, economically or environmentally.
Comments
So the UK either needs a drastic reduction in old people or working age migrants.
You have the chance to cast your vote for a Knight in the by election, Sir Oink a Lot is standing for the OMRLP
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cddg8dq3p1jo
I really don’t know what “British values” are because it seems the vast majority aren’t ready to join up for war, want to be educated, would defend democracy to the hilt, accept the rule of law if inconvenient etc. it’s a fantasy Victorian idea - should Ed look at British values from the Georgian period, the Middle Ages, the seventies? What are these mythical values?
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/voting-intention?crossBreak=abc1
Italy's Meloni moves to allow naval blockades against migrants
Now we can talk about worker/dependent ratios but that's another issue and also with other possible solutions - later retirement ages, earlier working ages, higher productivity, fewer non workers.
But the 'we need more immigrants because there are more oldies' is ultimately a human ponzi scheme as the new immigrants themselves grow old.
One letter and now you’re a part of it"
Graduates already pay a 9% tax supplement, housing costs are high, it's just incentivising working age people to emigrate, retire early or otherwise trade lifestyle for income.
Here’s Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer lecturing in 2014. He’d just stepped down as DPP and was claiming that none of Jimmy Savile’s victims - there were at least 600 - had come forward before Operation Yewtree. We all know now that wasn’t true. It was a good story while it lasted
https://x.com/joerichlaw/status/1646157900643987457?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer, in April 2014 just after stepping down as DPP, claimed only 4 of Jimmy Savile’s victims who’d come forward to Yewtree, had previously complained. In the video above, just before his MP selection, it was ‘zero’. Which is right? Spoiler - neither.
https://x.com/joerichlaw/status/1646432715657428995?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
No matter who you support, we should all agree to do everything we can to ensure Farage and Reform do not come into office in our country
Which is why I'm in favour of ending the triple lock and getting rid of both pension credits and winter fuel allowance for oldies.
I'd also stop the inexorable rise in health spending as that benefits mostly the oldies.
Did Ratcliffe donate to Labour in the end or just host Starmer and endorse them for the GE? At the time it was held up as a big coup that Labour finally got a big business person to back them, as up until then it was the classic letter writing of not really business people / former business people saying Labour best for jobs.
Now obviously Jim and Gay Neville was looking for the government to back redevelopment around Old Trafford which they got, although I don't think it has been settled who is paying exactly for what.
With pension auto enrolment having been established over a decade ago there is increasingly little excuse for anyone to retire without their own pension provision.
Dyche to spurs, de zerbi to Forest, Thomas Frank to take up the vacancy at Duke of York
I have met Sean Dyche in a social setting. Top bloke and a lot smarter / informed than most people think.
Auto-enrolment reached everyone from 2018, so it will make a difference to retirements from around 2065 to 2070.
So come back with that case in about half a century.
The fact liberals refuse to engage in this debate - and, if absolutely forced, just say how great it is, and that if anything there's not enough of it - explains much of why Reform are now leading the polls.
Liberals have their own dogmatic ideology. Just like the parties they criticise on the fringes of politics.
It changed when Blair took the brakes off post 1997.
It was easily his biggest mistake.