I am watching fertilizer prices CLOSELY during our FIGHT FOR FREEDOM in Iran. The United States will not accept PRICE GOUGING from the fertilizer monopoly! American Farmers, we have your back! President DONALD J. TRUMP
Couldn't he just go and breathe over their fields? Loads of bullshit from his mouth should fertilise them nicely.
So Starmer is to increase defence spending more quickly.
Which will require tax rises.
Or instead why don’t we ditch the triple lock.
Does anyone have figures as to how much this would save in the real world?
I assume by “ditching” what is meant is revert to it going up with just inflation (as was the case 1979 - the Coalition)? Or is it actually meant as no rises at all (which would impoverish many quickly)?
Any numbers anyone? Because if defence goes from 2.5 to 3.5% quickly that’s about £20-25bn to find I guess.
To me it's a no-brainer that the triple lock should go. Just pick one measure and stick to it. Even if it doesn't save much money it will be (or be perceived as) a lot more fair. Even the perception has value.
Ok try this perception. I'm a pensioner, who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. Why is it fair that my pension benefit should be somehow right to cut when many other benefit claimants don't work, sometimes never had and pay nothing to the state but expect to be given benefits and infinitum? Cut those benefits first and let them do what I did, work or do without.
I too am a pensioner who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. The proposal is not to cut the pension benefit but to tie increases to one measure rather than best of three. I know many benefits claimants and of the many there are only two or maybe three who could probably work and just prefer the easy money. A life on benefits is not luxury. Whether benefits should be provided for all who enter the country is another question; perhaps there is scope for lessening the pull factor there. I don't know.
I would consider basing the state pension on number of years NI contributions. Manual workers to qualify after 45 years contributions. Office and home based workers qualify after 50 years contributions. A one off 10% increase in the basic state pension, then link it to CPI thereafter. Also set the tax free annual allowance at the same rate as the basic minimum pension.
Unless you became a pensioner >10 years ago, you will be on the new state pension, which IS essentially based on no of years' NI contributions...
Yes, but I’m suggesting that people can only start claiming once they have achieved the relevant number of years contributions. For example, someone who remains in full time education until they are 25, and then works in the civil service, can claim their state pension when they are 75, whereas someone who leaves school at 16 and works as a builder can claim their state pension at 61.
75 is madness, most are well into their years of ill health at that point.
If they have 50 years of a civil service pension, they can choose to retire early without their state pension.
And if they've spent their lives on low end admin work? Most will not have CS pensions.
So Starmer is to increase defence spending more quickly.
Which will require tax rises.
Or instead why don’t we ditch the triple lock.
Does anyone have figures as to how much this would save in the real world?
I assume by “ditching” what is meant is revert to it going up with just inflation (as was the case 1979 - the Coalition)? Or is it actually meant as no rises at all (which would impoverish many quickly)?
Any numbers anyone? Because if defence goes from 2.5 to 3.5% quickly that’s about £20-25bn to find I guess.
To me it's a no-brainer that the triple lock should go. Just pick one measure and stick to it. Even if it doesn't save much money it will be (or be perceived as) a lot more fair. Even the perception has value.
Ok try this perception. I'm a pensioner, who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. Why is it fair that my pension benefit should be somehow right to cut when many other benefit claimants don't work, sometimes never had and pay nothing to the state but expect to be given benefits and infinitum? Cut those benefits first and let them do what I did, work or do without.
I too am a pensioner who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. The proposal is not to cut the pension benefit but to tie increases to one measure rather than best of three. I know many benefits claimants and of the many there are only two or maybe three who could probably work and just prefer the easy money. A life on benefits is not luxury. Whether benefits should be provided for all who enter the country is another question; perhaps there is scope for lessening the pull factor there. I don't know.
I would consider basing the state pension on number of years NI contributions. Manual workers to qualify after 45 years contributions. Office and home based workers qualify after 50 years contributions. A one off 10% increase in the basic state pension, then link it to CPI thereafter. Also set the tax free annual allowance at the same rate as the basic minimum pension.
Unless you became a pensioner >10 years ago, you will be on the new state pension, which IS essentially based on no of years' NI contributions...
Yes, but I’m suggesting that people can only start claiming once they have achieved the relevant number of years contributions. For example, someone who remains in full time education until they are 25, and then works in the civil service, can claim their state pension when they are 75, whereas someone who leaves school at 16 and works as a builder can claim their state pension at 61.
75 is madness, most are well into their years of ill health at that point.
Most people are in ill health by the age of 75? That's not what I would have assumed.
The triple lock has become too much of a political hot potato. Just tax pension income and other forms of state income. I know I'm a low tax hawk arguing for new taxes, but politics is the art of the possible. It also has to be sold as part of every group knuckling under to rescue the country. That includes everyone (most of all the administration of Government) taking a haircut.
I think everyone should be taxed on income. Maybe not actually taxing benefits, but I've long believed that recipients of benefits should get regular information about how much their benefit would have to be to remain at that level if it were taxed. In other words, how much they would notionally 'lose'. Every taxpayer 'loses' that proportion and it would be a shock to many benefit recipients. They would inevitably start to feel the government was 'robbing' them, but so do most taxpayers!
Pension income is subject to income tax but by happy coincidence, the state pension is set at a level just below the personal allowance.
The problem isn't that the state pension is taxable but that many other benefits aren't taxable.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Yet it is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
I'm not sure what constituency that Buttigeg commands the loyalty of. He's simultaneously too centrist to the left wing LGBTQI+ crowd and anathema to much of the black and Hispanic block by virtue of being gay.
Centrist voters win elections and the voters who are most anti gay, even Hispanics and blacks, tend to always vote Republican anyway
I wonder how true that is now? Very difficult to argue anyone who voted for Trump is a centrist.
I think we do have to accept that American politics clearly has a large more or less neo-Nazi constituency while its liberal wing is too confined to particular states to be critical in elections. I would therefore say that you are better off trying to win from the right of centre, not the centre.
Whether the Dems have fully understood that yet is another question.
Being centrist in America would seem quite hard right here.
I think that totting up tick boxes is the wrong way to select a candidate. Much as I like Tim Walz, how much did he actually add to Harris's appeal in the Midwest? The Dems lost every state apart from Illinois and Minnesota, and even they were rather too close for comfort.
More important is to have a good communicator with a clean back history. That is where Harris fell down, apart from her obvious melanin and chromosome faults.
There's more in common between the big cities in Red states and blue and between rural areas in California and Georgia than pundits give credit. The Dems need someone with suburban and small town appeal, like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, and someone who is at least acceptable to Evangelicals, as religion is the biggest determinate of voting in America. They will win the athiests anyway.
I'm not really sure on "Evangelicals".
The White Conservative Evangelicals are further up Trump's rabbit hole than anyone else; as I have it they have voted 80% Republican 3 elections in a row.
It will fray at the edges, but I'm not sure if I see any extensive flipping, though the coalition is shaking at the edges. They have reconciled themselves to an amoral, self-serving, cynical, criminal man furthering their interest. Why would they resile now en masse (though some may over the war) ? IMO they tend to live in silos so may be more sheltered from teh outside world.
The Roman Catholic vote for Trump may be bit softer - he's likely imo to lose support amongst Hispanic Catholics who reached a peak in 2024, but White Catholics have been reliable so far. Trump's picking a fight with Il Papa may affect some.
One thing to watch is that there are lots of Blacks and Latinos now in Evangelical megachurches too. I mean not the traditional Black churches of civil rights history by this.
Chipping away at that Evangelical vote even if it remains majority MAGA can swing a lot of seats. Sure, traditional denominations matter too especially Catholics, but winning over some of the Evangelicals is key, or at least not being toxic to them.
I thought about posting this this morning as a thought provoker - a conversation about how Evangelical Choruses in 2026 are taking violent shards out of the Old Testament and putting them into the heads of worshippers when they are not in "thinking" mode in church, and adding political messages by preachers, and how it can be weaponised from a image into a particular animus against particular groups. It's a bit off topic for PB:
The image is (clearly) from the Egyptians drowning in the Red Sea exodus, which is fine in hymnody. However that is where most of us get much of our theology from (far more than sermons). and we live in a age when argument comes in bits and pieces, not as presented cases.
When the likes of Hegseth or Josh Hawley start using the language of "drowning his enemies", and applied to nations he wants to make war on ... or (for example) we have the language used at Charlie Kirk's funeral., it becomes a little ... Hmmm.
So Starmer is to increase defence spending more quickly.
Which will require tax rises.
Or instead why don’t we ditch the triple lock.
Does anyone have figures as to how much this would save in the real world?
I assume by “ditching” what is meant is revert to it going up with just inflation (as was the case 1979 - the Coalition)? Or is it actually meant as no rises at all (which would impoverish many quickly)?
Any numbers anyone? Because if defence goes from 2.5 to 3.5% quickly that’s about £20-25bn to find I guess.
To me it's a no-brainer that the triple lock should go. Just pick one measure and stick to it. Even if it doesn't save much money it will be (or be perceived as) a lot more fair. Even the perception has value.
Ok try this perception. I'm a pensioner, who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. Why is it fair that my pension benefit should be somehow right to cut when many other benefit claimants don't work, sometimes never had and pay nothing to the state but expect to be given benefits and infinitum? Cut those benefits first and let them do what I did, work or do without.
I too am a pensioner who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. The proposal is not to cut the pension benefit but to tie increases to one measure rather than best of three. I know many benefits claimants and of the many there are only two or maybe three who could probably work and just prefer the easy money. A life on benefits is not luxury. Whether benefits should be provided for all who enter the country is another question; perhaps there is scope for lessening the pull factor there. I don't know.
I would consider basing the state pension on number of years NI contributions. Manual workers to qualify after 45 years contributions. Office and home based workers qualify after 50 years contributions. A one off 10% increase in the basic state pension, then link it to CPI thereafter. Also set the tax free annual allowance at the same rate as the basic minimum pension.
Unless you became a pensioner >10 years ago, you will be on the new state pension, which IS essentially based on no of years' NI contributions...
Yes, but I’m suggesting that people can only start claiming once they have achieved the relevant number of years contributions. For example, someone who remains in full time education until they are 25, and then works in the civil service, can claim their state pension when they are 75, whereas someone who leaves school at 16 and works as a builder can claim their state pension at 61.
75 is madness, most are well into their years of ill health at that point.
Most people are in ill health by the age of 75? That's not what I would have assumed.
Plenty for there to be a significant moral panic about sickness benefits.
Yes, pension age can productively go up, but be prepared that to a fair degree you will just be substituting one state benefit for another, albeit the latter benefit is one the Daily Mail can much more merrily whinge to buggery over.
So Starmer is to increase defence spending more quickly.
Which will require tax rises.
Or instead why don’t we ditch the triple lock.
Does anyone have figures as to how much this would save in the real world?
I assume by “ditching” what is meant is revert to it going up with just inflation (as was the case 1979 - the Coalition)? Or is it actually meant as no rises at all (which would impoverish many quickly)?
Any numbers anyone? Because if defence goes from 2.5 to 3.5% quickly that’s about £20-25bn to find I guess.
To me it's a no-brainer that the triple lock should go. Just pick one measure and stick to it. Even if it doesn't save much money it will be (or be perceived as) a lot more fair. Even the perception has value.
Ok try this perception. I'm a pensioner, who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. Why is it fair that my pension benefit should be somehow right to cut when many other benefit claimants don't work, sometimes never had and pay nothing to the state but expect to be given benefits and infinitum? Cut those benefits first and let them do what I did, work or do without.
Dropping the triple lock would not mean cutting your pension. It would mean your pension not increasing by quite as much.
The original purpose behind the triple lock was very sensible: pensions had fallen well behind what was necessary to give a decent standard of living. Now it is resulting in pensioners receiving a disproportionate share of growth
So simply replace it with a “Pension Guarantee”. Tie it to a percentage of the median national wage and position it as “fairness”.
I am currently in Fuengirola in a restaurant looking out to sea. I have not seen a single ship large or small in the last two hours.. Are they all stuck in the Straits of Hormuz?
We are currently producing 112% of our electricity needs, with the excess 12% being sent via connectors or to pumped storage.
Of the 112%, only 7% is gas power. So over 100% renewable or nuclear.
The Irish grid appears to be taking more than a GW from Britain and turning off its own wind turbines.
I'm assuming there's some sort of arbitrage going on whereby it makes sense to do this because the Irish pay wind farms less to turn off when there's excess wind energy.
Almost all warnings and indicators that a wider war is coming are flashing red and it is "breathtaking" that the UK government is failing to better prepare, a top academic has warned.
Dr Rob Johnson, director of the Changing Character of Conflict Centre at Oxford University, said China is taking the steps that would be expected to have the ability to attack Taiwan, while Russia could well be readying to launch military operations against a NATO country.
Russia readying itself for an attack against a NATO country? Is that because their last attempted invasion has gone so swimmingly?
It's precisely because Ukraine is so hard to fight against that Russia may decide it would be easier to take a bite out of Estonia. Plus testing whether there's any resolve in NATO would be invaluable. And panicking European countries to prioritise their own defence over providing supplies to Ukraine has obvious benefits.
Still, they'd be absolutely mad to attempt it. Who would they be calling up to launch this invasion?
But then maybe that's the kind of world we now live in.
I'd assume it would only happen after a ceasefire in Ukraine, at which point they'd suddenly have a couple of hundred thousand spare troops, brutalized by their experience of war, that they wanted to keep occupied rather than return to Russian civil society.
I'm no great military strategist, but my guess is that it might be the optimal strategy for Russia now to attack NATO. The sequence of events could look something like:
1. Ceasefire in Ukraine. 2. Wait a couple of months to replenish ammunition stocks, train more drone units. 3. Meanwhile the British and French stick most of their deployable military units as a guarantor force into Ukraine west of the Dnipro. 4. Little green men in Narva - test the resolve of NATO to respond. 5. Trump declares he's great friends with Putin, Estonia shouldn't have started a war. 6. If Estonia responds then Russia obliterates them with drones. 7. Does the rest of Europe go to war without the US? 8. Even if Britain and France were willing to fight, do they pull their troops back out of Ukraine to fight with? 9. How long does a British brigade last against Russian drone units anyway?
Maybe it would be a massive miscalculation on the part of Russia. Maybe Europe would be willing to fight, and would rapidly get its act together in order to do so. But my fear is that the fear of escalation is too great, that a way to back down would be found. And if an attempt was made to fight initial losses in the face of drones would be horrific, and the ability to replace losses minimal.
Even if you're right about the sequence, I'd have a lot more faith than you in both the willingness and capability of Europe to fight back. And the other question would be where would Ukraine be in all this? I think they'd be fast-tracked to NATO membership and any ceasefire with Russia would not hold.
At a minimum you’d have Poland, Ukraine, the UK, Finland and the other Baltics supporting Estonia.
So Starmer is to increase defence spending more quickly.
Which will require tax rises.
Or instead why don’t we ditch the triple lock.
Does anyone have figures as to how much this would save in the real world?
I assume by “ditching” what is meant is revert to it going up with just inflation (as was the case 1979 - the Coalition)? Or is it actually meant as no rises at all (which would impoverish many quickly)?
Any numbers anyone? Because if defence goes from 2.5 to 3.5% quickly that’s about £20-25bn to find I guess.
To me it's a no-brainer that the triple lock should go. Just pick one measure and stick to it. Even if it doesn't save much money it will be (or be perceived as) a lot more fair. Even the perception has value.
Ok try this perception. I'm a pensioner, who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. Why is it fair that my pension benefit should be somehow right to cut when many other benefit claimants don't work, sometimes never had and pay nothing to the state but expect to be given benefits and infinitum? Cut those benefits first and let them do what I did, work or do without.
Dropping the triple lock would not mean cutting your pension. It would mean your pension not increasing by quite as much.
The original purpose behind the triple lock was very sensible: pensions had fallen well behind what was necessary to give a decent standard of living. Now it is resulting in pensioners receiving a disproportionate share of growth
So simply replace it with a “Pension Guarantee”. Tie it to a percentage of the median national wage and position it as “fairness”.
Make the state pension equal to a certain number of hours at the minimum wage which is equal to the personal allowance. Everyone is then all locked in together.
Exc: the Prime Minister has been accused of a ‘crime against humanity’ over the attempted removal of Chagossians from their homeland
Sir Keir won't be able to believe his luck on how the Chagos thing turned out. At a stroke it removed the British Right's only vaguely popular bit of foreign policy, and they have Donald to thanks for it.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Yet it is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
I'm not sure what constituency that Buttigeg commands the loyalty of. He's simultaneously too centrist to the left wing LGBTQI+ crowd and anathema to much of the black and Hispanic block by virtue of being gay.
Centrist voters win elections and the voters who are most anti gay, even Hispanics and blacks, tend to always vote Republican anyway
I wonder how true that is now? Very difficult to argue anyone who voted for Trump is a centrist.
I think we do have to accept that American politics clearly has a large more or less neo-Nazi constituency while its liberal wing is too confined to particular states to be critical in elections. I would therefore say that you are better off trying to win from the right of centre, not the centre.
Whether the Dems have fully understood that yet is another question.
I think “neo-Nazi” is trite and misleading.
More that the Confederate tendency has never gone away - we’re seeing the final playing out of Nixon’s Southern Strategy. The difference is that economic challenges / decline in the rust belt and Trump’s demagoguery enabled the republicans to add parts of the Midwest to their tally.
So Starmer is to increase defence spending more quickly.
Which will require tax rises.
Or instead why don’t we ditch the triple lock.
Does anyone have figures as to how much this would save in the real world?
I assume by “ditching” what is meant is revert to it going up with just inflation (as was the case 1979 - the Coalition)? Or is it actually meant as no rises at all (which would impoverish many quickly)?
Any numbers anyone? Because if defence goes from 2.5 to 3.5% quickly that’s about £20-25bn to find I guess.
To me it's a no-brainer that the triple lock should go. Just pick one measure and stick to it. Even if it doesn't save much money it will be (or be perceived as) a lot more fair. Even the perception has value.
Ok try this perception. I'm a pensioner, who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. Why is it fair that my pension benefit should be somehow right to cut when many other benefit claimants don't work, sometimes never had and pay nothing to the state but expect to be given benefits and infinitum? Cut those benefits first and let them do what I did, work or do without.
I too am a pensioner who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. The proposal is not to cut the pension benefit but to tie increases to one measure rather than best of three. I know many benefits claimants and of the many there are only two or maybe three who could probably work and just prefer the easy money. A life on benefits is not luxury. Whether benefits should be provided for all who enter the country is another question; perhaps there is scope for lessening the pull factor there. I don't know.
I would consider basing the state pension on number of years NI contributions. Manual workers to qualify after 45 years contributions. Office and home based workers qualify after 50 years contributions. A one off 10% increase in the basic state pension, then link it to CPI thereafter. Also set the tax free annual allowance at the same rate as the basic minimum pension.
Unless you became a pensioner >10 years ago, you will be on the new state pension, which IS essentially based on no of years' NI contributions...
Yes, but I’m suggesting that people can only start claiming once they have achieved the relevant number of years contributions. For example, someone who remains in full time education until they are 25, and then works in the civil service, can claim their state pension when they are 75, whereas someone who leaves school at 16 and works as a builder can claim their state pension at 61.
75 is madness, most are well into their years of ill health at that point.
Most people are in ill health by the age of 75? That's not what I would have assumed.
Males in the UK could expect to spend 60.7 years (77% of life) in "good" general health, compared with 60.9 years (73%) for females; these were decreases of 1.8 and 2.5 years, respectively, compared with the last non-overlapping period (2019 to 2021).
Despite modest increases in life expectancy since 2019 to 2021, healthy life expectancy (HLE) at birth in the UK, for both males and females, decreased to its lowest level since our time series began in 2011 to 2013.
England continued to have the highest HLE at birth among UK constituent countries for both males (60.9 years) and females (61.3 years); Scotland had the lowest for males (59.1 years) and Wales had the lowest for females (58.5 years).
In England, for both males and females, the South East remained the region with the highest HLE at birth (63.0 and 64.3 years, respectively), and the North East remained the region with lowest (57.0 and 56.9 years, respectively); the North East has had the lowest HLE at birth in every period since our time series began.
HLE decreased in most of the UK's local areas compared with 2019 to 2021 (in 83% of areas for males and 88% for females); it decreased in a majority of areas within every constituent country and every region of England.
The gap in HLE at birth across local areas of the UK, measured as the difference between the 97.5th and 2.5th percentiles, was 14.7 years for males and 15.8 years for females; this continued a trend of increasing spatial inequality since the onset of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
So Starmer is to increase defence spending more quickly.
Which will require tax rises.
Or instead why don’t we ditch the triple lock.
Does anyone have figures as to how much this would save in the real world?
I assume by “ditching” what is meant is revert to it going up with just inflation (as was the case 1979 - the Coalition)? Or is it actually meant as no rises at all (which would impoverish many quickly)?
Any numbers anyone? Because if defence goes from 2.5 to 3.5% quickly that’s about £20-25bn to find I guess.
To me it's a no-brainer that the triple lock should go. Just pick one measure and stick to it. Even if it doesn't save much money it will be (or be perceived as) a lot more fair. Even the perception has value.
Ok try this perception. I'm a pensioner, who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. Why is it fair that my pension benefit should be somehow right to cut when many other benefit claimants don't work, sometimes never had and pay nothing to the state but expect to be given benefits and infinitum? Cut those benefits first and let them do what I did, work or do without.
I too am a pensioner who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. The proposal is not to cut the pension benefit but to tie increases to one measure rather than best of three. I know many benefits claimants and of the many there are only two or maybe three who could probably work and just prefer the easy money. A life on benefits is not luxury. Whether benefits should be provided for all who enter the country is another question; perhaps there is scope for lessening the pull factor there. I don't know.
I would consider basing the state pension on number of years NI contributions. Manual workers to qualify after 45 years contributions. Office and home based workers qualify after 50 years contributions. A one off 10% increase in the basic state pension, then link it to CPI thereafter. Also set the tax free annual allowance at the same rate as the basic minimum pension.
Unless you became a pensioner >10 years ago, you will be on the new state pension, which IS essentially based on no of years' NI contributions...
Yes, but I’m suggesting that people can only start claiming once they have achieved the relevant number of years contributions. For example, someone who remains in full time education until they are 25, and then works in the civil service, can claim their state pension when they are 75, whereas someone who leaves school at 16 and works as a builder can claim their state pension at 61.
75 is madness, most are well into their years of ill health at that point.
If that is how you are measuring it then even now with the retirement age set at 67 you are over 6 years into your years of ill health statistically. Healthy life expectancy for men is 60.7 years and for women is 60.9 years.
But I come back to something I posted last year. When the 1946 National Insurance Act was introduced and the state pension age was set at 65, average male life expectancy was 64 years and 8 months. By the time it was actually enacted in 1948 it had crept up to 66.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Yet it is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
That's about name recognition, not about likelihood to win.
Look, I rate Buttigieg, I think he's a very capable person and a brilliant debater. He's also very determined and I think would be a very good President if only because he's so extraordinarily calm. But at this moment he's an outsider and I will be very surprised if he's (a) the nominee and (b) if he wins. Given his age he has time on his side. Come back in 15 years and I think he might well have gone all the way. But not in 2028.
The same was said about Obama in 2008 but he also knew it was early primary and caucus states not national polls that won the nomination
Obama was the clean skin against Hilary Clinton as the classic insider.
What's Buttigieg's pitch on that regard?
He has an absolutely fantastic skin care regime, that could take him all the way.
We are currently producing 112% of our electricity needs, with the excess 12% being sent via connectors or to pumped storage.
Of the 112%, only 7% is gas power. So over 100% renewable or nuclear.
The Irish grid appears to be taking more than a GW from Britain and turning off its own wind turbines.
I'm assuming there's some sort of arbitrage going on whereby it makes sense to do this because the Irish pay wind farms less to turn off when there's excess wind energy.
We have 14 years of coalition and conservative governments to thank for that investment
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Yet it is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
That's about name recognition, not about likelihood to win.
Look, I rate Buttigieg, I think he's a very capable person and a brilliant debater. He's also very determined and I think would be a very good President if only because he's so extraordinarily calm. But at this moment he's an outsider and I will be very surprised if he's (a) the nominee and (b) if he wins. Given his age he has time on his side. Come back in 15 years and I think he might well have gone all the way. But not in 2028.
The same was said about Obama in 2008 but he also knew it was early primary and caucus states not national polls that won the nomination
Obama was the clean skin against Hilary Clinton as the classic insider.
What's Buttigieg's pitch on that regard?
He has an absolutely fantastic skin care regime, that could take him all the way.
He's grown a beard.
Who was the last president to have a beard? Benjamin Harrison I think?
Do you even think of the relatives of the 40,000 ordinary citizens recently slaughtered by the regime ?
Roger shared a video recently in which an Iranian propagandist was waxing lyrical about the late Ayatollah's love of French literature. Rog seems to have a particular fondness for cultivated men, including those who's treatment of women leaves a lot to be desired.
So Starmer is to increase defence spending more quickly.
Which will require tax rises.
Or instead why don’t we ditch the triple lock.
Does anyone have figures as to how much this would save in the real world?
I assume by “ditching” what is meant is revert to it going up with just inflation (as was the case 1979 - the Coalition)? Or is it actually meant as no rises at all (which would impoverish many quickly)?
Any numbers anyone? Because if defence goes from 2.5 to 3.5% quickly that’s about £20-25bn to find I guess.
To me it's a no-brainer that the triple lock should go. Just pick one measure and stick to it. Even if it doesn't save much money it will be (or be perceived as) a lot more fair. Even the perception has value.
Ok try this perception. I'm a pensioner, who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. Why is it fair that my pension benefit should be somehow right to cut when many other benefit claimants don't work, sometimes never had and pay nothing to the state but expect to be given benefits and infinitum? Cut those benefits first and let them do what I did, work or do without.
I too am a pensioner who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. The proposal is not to cut the pension benefit but to tie increases to one measure rather than best of three. I know many benefits claimants and of the many there are only two or maybe three who could probably work and just prefer the easy money. A life on benefits is not luxury. Whether benefits should be provided for all who enter the country is another question; perhaps there is scope for lessening the pull factor there. I don't know.
I would consider basing the state pension on number of years NI contributions. Manual workers to qualify after 45 years contributions. Office and home based workers qualify after 50 years contributions. A one off 10% increase in the basic state pension, then link it to CPI thereafter. Also set the tax free annual allowance at the same rate as the basic minimum pension.
Unless you became a pensioner >10 years ago, you will be on the new state pension, which IS essentially based on no of years' NI contributions...
Yes, but I’m suggesting that people can only start claiming once they have achieved the relevant number of years contributions. For example, someone who remains in full time education until they are 25, and then works in the civil service, can claim their state pension when they are 75, whereas someone who leaves school at 16 and works as a builder can claim their state pension at 61.
75 is madness, most are well into their years of ill health at that point.
Most people are in ill health by the age of 75? That's not what I would have assumed.
Males in the UK could expect to spend 60.7 years (77% of life) in "good" general health, compared with 60.9 years (73%) for females; these were decreases of 1.8 and 2.5 years, respectively, compared with the last non-overlapping period (2019 to 2021).
I guess a lot depends on how you define healthy life expectancy.
My Dad is nearly 80 and has had a major heart operation, but he is still able to go on walks in the country and enjoy a beer in the pub afterwards. He has cost the NHS a lot of money to patch up, but is still able to live an independent life.
From what I can gather, whether he is determined to be in good health is wholly a matter of whether he self-reports as being in good health. Maybe he would say yes, because of the independent living, the ability to get out on walks, etc, or maybe he would look at the number of prescriptions he is on, the scars on his chest and say that his health was not so good.
In a similar vein, I'm in my mid-40s, and I've been suffering from chronic fatigue since a viral infection over Christmas. My recovery is very slow and I'm still not able to walk the long and hilly distances that I'm used to being able to walk. I would not report my health as being good, but I'm not in hospital for it, I'm able to feed myself, etc.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Yet it is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
That's about name recognition, not about likelihood to win.
Look, I rate Buttigieg, I think he's a very capable person and a brilliant debater. He's also very determined and I think would be a very good President if only because he's so extraordinarily calm. But at this moment he's an outsider and I will be very surprised if he's (a) the nominee and (b) if he wins. Given his age he has time on his side. Come back in 15 years and I think he might well have gone all the way. But not in 2028.
The same was said about Obama in 2008 but he also knew it was early primary and caucus states not national polls that won the nomination
Obama was the clean skin against Hilary Clinton as the classic insider.
What's Buttigieg's pitch on that regard?
He has an absolutely fantastic skin care regime, that could take him all the way.
He's grown a beard.
Who was the last president to have a beard? Benjamin Harrison I think?
I thought his USP was that he didn't have a beard.
Do you even think of the relatives of the 40,000 ordinary citizens recently slaughtered by the regime ?
Roger shared a video recently in which an Iranian propagandist was waxing lyrical about the late Ayatollah's love of French literature. Rog seems to have a particular fondness for cultivated men, including those who's treatment of women leaves a lot to be desired.
It is always a one sided story with the left
We can all agree Netanyhu is evil, but it also requires the same condemnation for the IRGC and their proxies
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Yet it is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
That's about name recognition, not about likelihood to win.
Look, I rate Buttigieg, I think he's a very capable person and a brilliant debater. He's also very determined and I think would be a very good President if only because he's so extraordinarily calm. But at this moment he's an outsider and I will be very surprised if he's (a) the nominee and (b) if he wins. Given his age he has time on his side. Come back in 15 years and I think he might well have gone all the way. But not in 2028.
The same was said about Obama in 2008 but he also knew it was early primary and caucus states not national polls that won the nomination
Obama was the clean skin against Hilary Clinton as the classic insider.
What's Buttigieg's pitch on that regard?
He has an absolutely fantastic skin care regime, that could take him all the way.
He's grown a beard.
Who was the last president to have a beard? Benjamin Harrison I think?
I thought his USP was that he didn't have a beard.
So Starmer is to increase defence spending more quickly.
Which will require tax rises.
Or instead why don’t we ditch the triple lock.
Does anyone have figures as to how much this would save in the real world?
I assume by “ditching” what is meant is revert to it going up with just inflation (as was the case 1979 - the Coalition)? Or is it actually meant as no rises at all (which would impoverish many quickly)?
Any numbers anyone? Because if defence goes from 2.5 to 3.5% quickly that’s about £20-25bn to find I guess.
To me it's a no-brainer that the triple lock should go. Just pick one measure and stick to it. Even if it doesn't save much money it will be (or be perceived as) a lot more fair. Even the perception has value.
Ok try this perception. I'm a pensioner, who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. Why is it fair that my pension benefit should be somehow right to cut when many other benefit claimants don't work, sometimes never had and pay nothing to the state but expect to be given benefits and infinitum? Cut those benefits first and let them do what I did, work or do without.
I too am a pensioner who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. The proposal is not to cut the pension benefit but to tie increases to one measure rather than best of three. I know many benefits claimants and of the many there are only two or maybe three who could probably work and just prefer the easy money. A life on benefits is not luxury. Whether benefits should be provided for all who enter the country is another question; perhaps there is scope for lessening the pull factor there. I don't know.
I would consider basing the state pension on number of years NI contributions. Manual workers to qualify after 45 years contributions. Office and home based workers qualify after 50 years contributions. A one off 10% increase in the basic state pension, then link it to CPI thereafter. Also set the tax free annual allowance at the same rate as the basic minimum pension.
Unless you became a pensioner >10 years ago, you will be on the new state pension, which IS essentially based on no of years' NI contributions...
Yes, but I’m suggesting that people can only start claiming once they have achieved the relevant number of years contributions. For example, someone who remains in full time education until they are 25, and then works in the civil service, can claim their state pension when they are 75, whereas someone who leaves school at 16 and works as a builder can claim their state pension at 61.
75 is madness, most are well into their years of ill health at that point.
If that is how you are measuring it then even now with the retirement age set at 67 you are over 6 years into your years of ill health statistically. Healthy life expectancy for men is 60.7 years and for women is 60.9 years.
But I come back to something I posted last year. When the 1946 National Insurance Act was introduced and the state pension age was set at 65, average male life expectancy was 64 years and 8 months. By the time it was actually enacted in 1948 it had crept up to 66.
Life expectancy in the UK for men is currently a bit over 79.
So Starmer is to increase defence spending more quickly.
Which will require tax rises.
Or instead why don’t we ditch the triple lock.
Does anyone have figures as to how much this would save in the real world?
I assume by “ditching” what is meant is revert to it going up with just inflation (as was the case 1979 - the Coalition)? Or is it actually meant as no rises at all (which would impoverish many quickly)?
Any numbers anyone? Because if defence goes from 2.5 to 3.5% quickly that’s about £20-25bn to find I guess.
To me it's a no-brainer that the triple lock should go. Just pick one measure and stick to it. Even if it doesn't save much money it will be (or be perceived as) a lot more fair. Even the perception has value.
Ok try this perception. I'm a pensioner, who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. Why is it fair that my pension benefit should be somehow right to cut when many other benefit claimants don't work, sometimes never had and pay nothing to the state but expect to be given benefits and infinitum? Cut those benefits first and let them do what I did, work or do without.
Dropping the triple lock would not mean cutting your pension. It would mean your pension not increasing by quite as much.
The original purpose behind the triple lock was very sensible: pensions had fallen well behind what was necessary to give a decent standard of living. Now it is resulting in pensioners receiving a disproportionate share of growth
So simply replace it with a “Pension Guarantee”. Tie it to a percentage of the median national wage and position it as “fairness”.
Make the state pension equal to a certain number of hours at the minimum wage which is equal to the personal allowance. Everyone is then all locked in together.
And then ask pensioners to volunteer for a portion of those hours…
So Starmer is to increase defence spending more quickly.
Which will require tax rises.
Or instead why don’t we ditch the triple lock.
Does anyone have figures as to how much this would save in the real world?
I assume by “ditching” what is meant is revert to it going up with just inflation (as was the case 1979 - the Coalition)? Or is it actually meant as no rises at all (which would impoverish many quickly)?
Any numbers anyone? Because if defence goes from 2.5 to 3.5% quickly that’s about £20-25bn to find I guess.
To me it's a no-brainer that the triple lock should go. Just pick one measure and stick to it. Even if it doesn't save much money it will be (or be perceived as) a lot more fair. Even the perception has value.
Ok try this perception. I'm a pensioner, who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. Why is it fair that my pension benefit should be somehow right to cut when many other benefit claimants don't work, sometimes never had and pay nothing to the state but expect to be given benefits and infinitum? Cut those benefits first and let them do what I did, work or do without.
I too am a pensioner who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. The proposal is not to cut the pension benefit but to tie increases to one measure rather than best of three. I know many benefits claimants and of the many there are only two or maybe three who could probably work and just prefer the easy money. A life on benefits is not luxury. Whether benefits should be provided for all who enter the country is another question; perhaps there is scope for lessening the pull factor there. I don't know.
I would consider basing the state pension on number of years NI contributions. Manual workers to qualify after 45 years contributions. Office and home based workers qualify after 50 years contributions. A one off 10% increase in the basic state pension, then link it to CPI thereafter. Also set the tax free annual allowance at the same rate as the basic minimum pension.
Unless you became a pensioner >10 years ago, you will be on the new state pension, which IS essentially based on no of years' NI contributions...
Yes, but I’m suggesting that people can only start claiming once they have achieved the relevant number of years contributions. For example, someone who remains in full time education until they are 25, and then works in the civil service, can claim their state pension when they are 75, whereas someone who leaves school at 16 and works as a builder can claim their state pension at 61.
75 is madness, most are well into their years of ill health at that point.
If that is how you are measuring it then even now with the retirement age set at 67 you are over 6 years into your years of ill health statistically. Healthy life expectancy for men is 60.7 years and for women is 60.9 years.
But I come back to something I posted last year. When the 1946 National Insurance Act was introduced and the state pension age was set at 65, average male life expectancy was 64 years and 8 months. By the time it was actually enacted in 1948 it had crept up to 66.
Life expectancy in the UK for men is currently a bit over 79.
Indeed but healthy life expectancy is just over 60. My point is that I don't think HLE is a reasonable measure to use to judge when we should set retirement age.
Indeed the gap between actual life expectancy and retirement age has grown pretty steadily ever since the NI Act in 1946. It seems reasonable to me that we should be taking steps to corect that drift and reduce the gap given that someone (us in one way or another) has to pay for our retirement. And I say that as someone who has lready seen my official retirement age increase from 65 to 67. I see no issue with it increasing to 70. That still gives an average of 9 years between retirement age and average life expectancy.
We are currently producing 112% of our electricity needs, with the excess 12% being sent via connectors or to pumped storage.
Of the 112%, only 7% is gas power. So over 100% renewable or nuclear.
The Irish grid appears to be taking more than a GW from Britain and turning off its own wind turbines.
I'm assuming there's some sort of arbitrage going on whereby it makes sense to do this because the Irish pay wind farms less to turn off when there's excess wind energy.
We have 14 years of coalition and conservative governments to thank for that investment
My image for today is taken from grid.iamkate.com
You can see that electricity prices were stable while a lot of decarbonisation happened on the grid up to 2019, but prices really took off as the global economy came out of the pandemic in 2021, and then with Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Some people will try to convince you that it was the move to renewables that has pushed up prices. This would suggest otherwise.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Yet it is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
That's about name recognition, not about likelihood to win.
Look, I rate Buttigieg, I think he's a very capable person and a brilliant debater. He's also very determined and I think would be a very good President if only because he's so extraordinarily calm. But at this moment he's an outsider and I will be very surprised if he's (a) the nominee and (b) if he wins. Given his age he has time on his side. Come back in 15 years and I think he might well have gone all the way. But not in 2028.
The same was said about Obama in 2008 but he also knew it was early primary and caucus states not national polls that won the nomination
Obama was the clean skin against Hilary Clinton as the classic insider.
What's Buttigieg's pitch on that regard?
He has an absolutely fantastic skin care regime, that could take him all the way.
He's grown a beard.
Who was the last president to have a beard? Benjamin Harrison I think?
Yup. Teddy Roosevelt had an impressive tash, but no beard.
Ooh. I can get onto the comments section after several days of being unable to do so. Back to wasting an hour or more each day!
Does anyone know why this happened to certain users? I, and many others, had no idea that folk weren't able to access. It merely checked I was human once for a couple of seconds.
I was shut out for about 2 days. I managed to get back in via the Vanilla website and once I had logged in there I could get back onto the main website. But only as long as I kept my vanilla page logged in in the background. If I closed my browser and came back later I had to go through the whole process again.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Yet it is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
That's about name recognition, not about likelihood to win.
Look, I rate Buttigieg, I think he's a very capable person and a brilliant debater. He's also very determined and I think would be a very good President if only because he's so extraordinarily calm. But at this moment he's an outsider and I will be very surprised if he's (a) the nominee and (b) if he wins. Given his age he has time on his side. Come back in 15 years and I think he might well have gone all the way. But not in 2028.
The same was said about Obama in 2008 but he also knew it was early primary and caucus states not national polls that won the nomination
Obama was the clean skin against Hilary Clinton as the classic insider.
What's Buttigieg's pitch on that regard?
He has an absolutely fantastic skin care regime, that could take him all the way.
He's grown a beard.
Who was the last president to have a beard? Benjamin Harrison I think?
Yup. Teddy Roosevelt had an impressive tash, but no beard.
We are currently producing 112% of our electricity needs, with the excess 12% being sent via connectors or to pumped storage.
Of the 112%, only 7% is gas power. So over 100% renewable or nuclear.
Farage and Badenoch read, weep, apologise and go and eat coal.
Its a fun but pointless measure. To know the true value of each contribution you have to look at it over the year. And in that case gas still contributes around a third of our power generation. That is before you take into account home gas usage. There were a few days in 2025 where renewables contributed as low as 10% of power generation.
We need better ways to bridge that gap but we don't have it yet. Hopefully it is coming.
So Starmer is to increase defence spending more quickly.
Which will require tax rises.
Or instead why don’t we ditch the triple lock.
Does anyone have figures as to how much this would save in the real world?
I assume by “ditching” what is meant is revert to it going up with just inflation (as was the case 1979 - the Coalition)? Or is it actually meant as no rises at all (which would impoverish many quickly)?
Any numbers anyone? Because if defence goes from 2.5 to 3.5% quickly that’s about £20-25bn to find I guess.
To me it's a no-brainer that the triple lock should go. Just pick one measure and stick to it. Even if it doesn't save much money it will be (or be perceived as) a lot more fair. Even the perception has value.
Ok try this perception. I'm a pensioner, who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. Why is it fair that my pension benefit should be somehow right to cut when many other benefit claimants don't work, sometimes never had and pay nothing to the state but expect to be given benefits and infinitum? Cut those benefits first and let them do what I did, work or do without.
I too am a pensioner who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. The proposal is not to cut the pension benefit but to tie increases to one measure rather than best of three. I know many benefits claimants and of the many there are only two or maybe three who could probably work and just prefer the easy money. A life on benefits is not luxury. Whether benefits should be provided for all who enter the country is another question; perhaps there is scope for lessening the pull factor there. I don't know.
I would consider basing the state pension on number of years NI contributions. Manual workers to qualify after 45 years contributions. Office and home based workers qualify after 50 years contributions. A one off 10% increase in the basic state pension, then link it to CPI thereafter. Also set the tax free annual allowance at the same rate as the basic minimum pension.
Unless you became a pensioner >10 years ago, you will be on the new state pension, which IS essentially based on no of years' NI contributions...
Yes, but I’m suggesting that people can only start claiming once they have achieved the relevant number of years contributions. For example, someone who remains in full time education until they are 25, and then works in the civil service, can claim their state pension when they are 75, whereas someone who leaves school at 16 and works as a builder can claim their state pension at 61.
75 is madness, most are well into their years of ill health at that point.
Most people are in ill health by the age of 75? That's not what I would have assumed.
Males in the UK could expect to spend 60.7 years (77% of life) in "good" general health, compared with 60.9 years (73%) for females; these were decreases of 1.8 and 2.5 years, respectively, compared with the last non-overlapping period (2019 to 2021).
I guess a lot depends on how you define healthy life expectancy.
My Dad is nearly 80 and has had a major heart operation, but he is still able to go on walks in the country and enjoy a beer in the pub afterwards. He has cost the NHS a lot of money to patch up, but is still able to live an independent life.
From what I can gather, whether he is determined to be in good health is wholly a matter of whether he self-reports as being in good health. Maybe he would say yes, because of the independent living, the ability to get out on walks, etc, or maybe he would look at the number of prescriptions he is on, the scars on his chest and say that his health was not so good.
In a similar vein, I'm in my mid-40s, and I've been suffering from chronic fatigue since a viral infection over Christmas. My recovery is very slow and I'm still not able to walk the long and hilly distances that I'm used to being able to walk. I would not report my health as being good, but I'm not in hospital for it, I'm able to feed myself, etc.
Like you say I think its v-difficult to classify who is healthy for work in the 21st century. Is an ailing 70 year old able to compete with much younger colleagues? Can a cognitive worker produce high quality work into their 60s? Can someone blessed with a great physicality keep up a manual trade for 50 years? Its all individual variation and we're trying to squeeze them into blanket age ranges and work classifications.
I find it exceptionally sad that with modern day efficiency and productivity we cannot find the economic output to keep people from having to work at ages greater than say 60. What is the point of a modern society if the retirement age ratchets higher and higher whilst our expected healthy years have seen very little growth. It feels very human for their to be a little reward at the end of the working life.
So Starmer is to increase defence spending more quickly.
Which will require tax rises.
Or instead why don’t we ditch the triple lock.
Does anyone have figures as to how much this would save in the real world?
I assume by “ditching” what is meant is revert to it going up with just inflation (as was the case 1979 - the Coalition)? Or is it actually meant as no rises at all (which would impoverish many quickly)?
Any numbers anyone? Because if defence goes from 2.5 to 3.5% quickly that’s about £20-25bn to find I guess.
To me it's a no-brainer that the triple lock should go. Just pick one measure and stick to it. Even if it doesn't save much money it will be (or be perceived as) a lot more fair. Even the perception has value.
Ok try this perception. I'm a pensioner, who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. Why is it fair that my pension benefit should be somehow right to cut when many other benefit claimants don't work, sometimes never had and pay nothing to the state but expect to be given benefits and infinitum? Cut those benefits first and let them do what I did, work or do without.
I too am a pensioner who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. The proposal is not to cut the pension benefit but to tie increases to one measure rather than best of three. I know many benefits claimants and of the many there are only two or maybe three who could probably work and just prefer the easy money. A life on benefits is not luxury. Whether benefits should be provided for all who enter the country is another question; perhaps there is scope for lessening the pull factor there. I don't know.
I would consider basing the state pension on number of years NI contributions. Manual workers to qualify after 45 years contributions. Office and home based workers qualify after 50 years contributions. A one off 10% increase in the basic state pension, then link it to CPI thereafter. Also set the tax free annual allowance at the same rate as the basic minimum pension.
Unless you became a pensioner >10 years ago, you will be on the new state pension, which IS essentially based on no of years' NI contributions...
Yes, but I’m suggesting that people can only start claiming once they have achieved the relevant number of years contributions. For example, someone who remains in full time education until they are 25, and then works in the civil service, can claim their state pension when they are 75, whereas someone who leaves school at 16 and works as a builder can claim their state pension at 61.
75 is madness, most are well into their years of ill health at that point.
If that is how you are measuring it then even now with the retirement age set at 67 you are over 6 years into your years of ill health statistically. Healthy life expectancy for men is 60.7 years and for women is 60.9 years.
But I come back to something I posted last year. When the 1946 National Insurance Act was introduced and the state pension age was set at 65, average male life expectancy was 64 years and 8 months. By the time it was actually enacted in 1948 it had crept up to 66.
The act was 80 yeas ago with our modern wealth why can't we keep the retirement age at 64? That tremendous growth in GDP per capital has to be worth something.
A little glib i know but it does feel like the modern economy doesn’t work well for most of its participants and the ever ratcheting retirement age is one of my sore spots.
We are currently producing 112% of our electricity needs, with the excess 12% being sent via connectors or to pumped storage.
Of the 112%, only 7% is gas power. So over 100% renewable or nuclear.
Farage and Badenoch read, weep, apologise and go and eat coal.
Its a fun but pointless measure. To know the true value of each contribution you have to look at it over the year. And in that case gas still contributes around a third of our power generation. That is before you take into account home gas usage. There were a few days in 2025 where renewables contributed as low as 10% of power generation.
We need better ways to bridge that gap but we don't have it yet. Hopefully it is coming.
Ooh. I can get onto the comments section after several days of being unable to do so. Back to wasting an hour or more each day!
Does anyone know why this happened to certain users? I, and many others, had no idea that folk weren't able to access. It merely checked I was human once for a couple of seconds.
I was shut out for about 2 days. I managed to get back in via the Vanilla website and once I had logged in there I could get back onto the main website. But only as long as I kept my vanilla page logged in in the background. If I closed my browser and came back later I had to go through the whole process again.
Yeah, I found something similar -- the check-for-a-human process got stuck on the main site, but worked ok directly on the vanilla website, and once I'd passed it on the vanilla site then the check didn't appear on the main site, so I could go back to reading on the main site again.
So Starmer is to increase defence spending more quickly.
Which will require tax rises.
Or instead why don’t we ditch the triple lock.
Does anyone have figures as to how much this would save in the real world?
I assume by “ditching” what is meant is revert to it going up with just inflation (as was the case 1979 - the Coalition)? Or is it actually meant as no rises at all (which would impoverish many quickly)?
Any numbers anyone? Because if defence goes from 2.5 to 3.5% quickly that’s about £20-25bn to find I guess.
To me it's a no-brainer that the triple lock should go. Just pick one measure and stick to it. Even if it doesn't save much money it will be (or be perceived as) a lot more fair. Even the perception has value.
Ok try this perception. I'm a pensioner, who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. Why is it fair that my pension benefit should be somehow right to cut when many other benefit claimants don't work, sometimes never had and pay nothing to the state but expect to be given benefits and infinitum? Cut those benefits first and let them do what I did, work or do without.
I too am a pensioner who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. The proposal is not to cut the pension benefit but to tie increases to one measure rather than best of three. I know many benefits claimants and of the many there are only two or maybe three who could probably work and just prefer the easy money. A life on benefits is not luxury. Whether benefits should be provided for all who enter the country is another question; perhaps there is scope for lessening the pull factor there. I don't know.
I would consider basing the state pension on number of years NI contributions. Manual workers to qualify after 45 years contributions. Office and home based workers qualify after 50 years contributions. A one off 10% increase in the basic state pension, then link it to CPI thereafter. Also set the tax free annual allowance at the same rate as the basic minimum pension.
Unless you became a pensioner >10 years ago, you will be on the new state pension, which IS essentially based on no of years' NI contributions...
Yes, but I’m suggesting that people can only start claiming once they have achieved the relevant number of years contributions. For example, someone who remains in full time education until they are 25, and then works in the civil service, can claim their state pension when they are 75, whereas someone who leaves school at 16 and works as a builder can claim their state pension at 61.
75 is madness, most are well into their years of ill health at that point.
If that is how you are measuring it then even now with the retirement age set at 67 you are over 6 years into your years of ill health statistically. Healthy life expectancy for men is 60.7 years and for women is 60.9 years.
But I come back to something I posted last year. When the 1946 National Insurance Act was introduced and the state pension age was set at 65, average male life expectancy was 64 years and 8 months. By the time it was actually enacted in 1948 it had crept up to 66.
The act was 80 yeas ago with our modern wealth why can't we keep the retirement age at 64? That tremendous growth in GDP per capital has to be worth something.
A little glib i know but it does feel like the modern economy doesn’t work well for most of its participants and the ever ratcheting retirement age is one of my sore spots.
We could... it would just mean someone paying more tax.
Right from the start there were people holding back from supporting Ukraine too much, on the basis of what Russia would do if, say, the Donbas or even Crimea were ever seriously going to be regained.
We are currently producing 112% of our electricity needs, with the excess 12% being sent via connectors or to pumped storage.
Of the 112%, only 7% is gas power. So over 100% renewable or nuclear.
Farage and Badenoch read, weep, apologise and go and eat coal.
Its a fun but pointless measure. To know the true value of each contribution you have to look at it over the year. And in that case gas still contributes around a third of our power generation. That is before you take into account home gas usage. There were a few days in 2025 where renewables contributed as low as 10% of power generation.
We need better ways to bridge that gap but we don't have it yet. Hopefully it is coming.
Yes but this is also before the planned huge increase in wind and solar over the next 5 years or so. And from that page I see gas down at 27% over the past year for electricity. That is significant but falling and it won't be long before it's below nuclear.
And no one doubts gas will still play a role as the intermittent energy source of last resort. But as we build excess capacity the economic case grows for both 1) switching from oil to electric cars (or gas to electric heaters); 2) battery or pumped storage. Batteries in particular are getting cheaper and cheaper so will be more economic over time.
I'm quite optimistic that we will succeed in our energy transition. And I think the (eventually) end result - stable energy costs, immunised against geopolitical events - will be much better for people in this country than what we've faced for years with periodic crises.
We are currently producing 112% of our electricity needs, with the excess 12% being sent via connectors or to pumped storage.
Of the 112%, only 7% is gas power. So over 100% renewable or nuclear.
The Irish grid appears to be taking more than a GW from Britain and turning off its own wind turbines.
I'm assuming there's some sort of arbitrage going on whereby it makes sense to do this because the Irish pay wind farms less to turn off when there's excess wind energy.
We have 14 years of coalition and conservative governments to thank for that investment
What Lost Password is describing isn't a good thing for pity's sake. It means effectively that British billpayers are subsidising power that they aren't receiving - because the British subsidy regime is so much more generous than Ireland's, it's cheaper for them to use dumped power, kindly discounted by grannies in the UK, and constrain their own supply.
That isn't something to be celebrated, it's an epic farce.
So Starmer is to increase defence spending more quickly.
Which will require tax rises.
Or instead why don’t we ditch the triple lock.
Does anyone have figures as to how much this would save in the real world?
I assume by “ditching” what is meant is revert to it going up with just inflation (as was the case 1979 - the Coalition)? Or is it actually meant as no rises at all (which would impoverish many quickly)?
Any numbers anyone? Because if defence goes from 2.5 to 3.5% quickly that’s about £20-25bn to find I guess.
To me it's a no-brainer that the triple lock should go. Just pick one measure and stick to it. Even if it doesn't save much money it will be (or be perceived as) a lot more fair. Even the perception has value.
Ok try this perception. I'm a pensioner, who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. Why is it fair that my pension benefit should be somehow right to cut when many other benefit claimants don't work, sometimes never had and pay nothing to the state but expect to be given benefits and infinitum? Cut those benefits first and let them do what I did, work or do without.
I too am a pensioner who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. The proposal is not to cut the pension benefit but to tie increases to one measure rather than best of three. I know many benefits claimants and of the many there are only two or maybe three who could probably work and just prefer the easy money. A life on benefits is not luxury. Whether benefits should be provided for all who enter the country is another question; perhaps there is scope for lessening the pull factor there. I don't know.
I would consider basing the state pension on number of years NI contributions. Manual workers to qualify after 45 years contributions. Office and home based workers qualify after 50 years contributions. A one off 10% increase in the basic state pension, then link it to CPI thereafter. Also set the tax free annual allowance at the same rate as the basic minimum pension.
Unless you became a pensioner >10 years ago, you will be on the new state pension, which IS essentially based on no of years' NI contributions...
Yes, but I’m suggesting that people can only start claiming once they have achieved the relevant number of years contributions. For example, someone who remains in full time education until they are 25, and then works in the civil service, can claim their state pension when they are 75, whereas someone who leaves school at 16 and works as a builder can claim their state pension at 61.
75 is madness, most are well into their years of ill health at that point.
Most people are in ill health by the age of 75? That's not what I would have assumed.
Males in the UK could expect to spend 60.7 years (77% of life) in "good" general health, compared with 60.9 years (73%) for females; these were decreases of 1.8 and 2.5 years, respectively, compared with the last non-overlapping period (2019 to 2021).
I guess a lot depends on how you define healthy life expectancy.
My Dad is nearly 80 and has had a major heart operation, but he is still able to go on walks in the country and enjoy a beer in the pub afterwards. He has cost the NHS a lot of money to patch up, but is still able to live an independent life.
From what I can gather, whether he is determined to be in good health is wholly a matter of whether he self-reports as being in good health. Maybe he would say yes, because of the independent living, the ability to get out on walks, etc, or maybe he would look at the number of prescriptions he is on, the scars on his chest and say that his health was not so good.
In a similar vein, I'm in my mid-40s, and I've been suffering from chronic fatigue since a viral infection over Christmas. My recovery is very slow and I'm still not able to walk the long and hilly distances that I'm used to being able to walk. I would not report my health as being good, but I'm not in hospital for it, I'm able to feed myself, etc.
Like you say I think its v-difficult to classify who is healthy for work in the 21st century. Is an ailing 70 year old able to compete with much younger colleagues? Can a cognitive worker produce high quality work into their 60s? Can someone blessed with a great physicality keep up a manual trade for 50 years? Its all individual variation and we're trying to squeeze them into blanket age ranges and work classifications.
I find it exceptionally sad that with modern day efficiency and productivity we cannot find the economic output to keep people from having to work at ages greater than say 60. What is the point of a modern society if the retirement age ratchets higher and higher whilst our expected healthy years have seen very little growth. It feels very human for their to be a little reward at the end of the working life.
I'm 76 and generally in good health despite a stroke a couple of years ago, but don't totally trust my memory. I'd welcome more opportunity to work part-time, and find entirely retired life pleasant but a bit dull. Society is organised on the principle that you either work full-time or you're retired and maybe do a bit of voluntary work - something in between would be good both for society and for many individuals.
So Starmer is to increase defence spending more quickly.
Which will require tax rises.
Or instead why don’t we ditch the triple lock.
Does anyone have figures as to how much this would save in the real world?
I assume by “ditching” what is meant is revert to it going up with just inflation (as was the case 1979 - the Coalition)? Or is it actually meant as no rises at all (which would impoverish many quickly)?
Any numbers anyone? Because if defence goes from 2.5 to 3.5% quickly that’s about £20-25bn to find I guess.
To me it's a no-brainer that the triple lock should go. Just pick one measure and stick to it. Even if it doesn't save much money it will be (or be perceived as) a lot more fair. Even the perception has value.
Ok try this perception. I'm a pensioner, who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. Why is it fair that my pension benefit should be somehow right to cut when many other benefit claimants don't work, sometimes never had and pay nothing to the state but expect to be given benefits and infinitum? Cut those benefits first and let them do what I did, work or do without.
I too am a pensioner who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. The proposal is not to cut the pension benefit but to tie increases to one measure rather than best of three. I know many benefits claimants and of the many there are only two or maybe three who could probably work and just prefer the easy money. A life on benefits is not luxury. Whether benefits should be provided for all who enter the country is another question; perhaps there is scope for lessening the pull factor there. I don't know.
I would consider basing the state pension on number of years NI contributions. Manual workers to qualify after 45 years contributions. Office and home based workers qualify after 50 years contributions. A one off 10% increase in the basic state pension, then link it to CPI thereafter. Also set the tax free annual allowance at the same rate as the basic minimum pension.
Unless you became a pensioner >10 years ago, you will be on the new state pension, which IS essentially based on no of years' NI contributions...
Yes, but I’m suggesting that people can only start claiming once they have achieved the relevant number of years contributions. For example, someone who remains in full time education until they are 25, and then works in the civil service, can claim their state pension when they are 75, whereas someone who leaves school at 16 and works as a builder can claim their state pension at 61.
75 is madness, most are well into their years of ill health at that point.
Most people are in ill health by the age of 75? That's not what I would have assumed.
Males in the UK could expect to spend 60.7 years (77% of life) in "good" general health, compared with 60.9 years (73%) for females; these were decreases of 1.8 and 2.5 years, respectively, compared with the last non-overlapping period (2019 to 2021).
I guess a lot depends on how you define healthy life expectancy.
My Dad is nearly 80 and has had a major heart operation, but he is still able to go on walks in the country and enjoy a beer in the pub afterwards. He has cost the NHS a lot of money to patch up, but is still able to live an independent life.
From what I can gather, whether he is determined to be in good health is wholly a matter of whether he self-reports as being in good health. Maybe he would say yes, because of the independent living, the ability to get out on walks, etc, or maybe he would look at the number of prescriptions he is on, the scars on his chest and say that his health was not so good.
In a similar vein, I'm in my mid-40s, and I've been suffering from chronic fatigue since a viral infection over Christmas. My recovery is very slow and I'm still not able to walk the long and hilly distances that I'm used to being able to walk. I would not report my health as being good, but I'm not in hospital for it, I'm able to feed myself, etc.
Like you say I think its v-difficult to classify who is healthy for work in the 21st century. Is an ailing 70 year old able to compete with much younger colleagues? Can a cognitive worker produce high quality work into their 60s? Can someone blessed with a great physicality keep up a manual trade for 50 years? Its all individual variation and we're trying to squeeze them into blanket age ranges and work classifications.
I find it exceptionally sad that with modern day efficiency and productivity we cannot find the economic output to keep people from having to work at ages greater than say 60. What is the point of a modern society if the retirement age ratchets higher and higher whilst our expected healthy years have seen very little growth. It feels very human for their to be a little reward at the end of the working life.
I'm 76 and generally in good health despite a stroke a couple of years ago, but don't totally trust my memory. I'd welcome more opportunity to work part-time, and find entirely retired life pleasant but a bit dull. Society is organised on the principle that you either work full-time or you're retired and maybe do a bit of voluntary work - something in between would be good both for society and for many individuals.
Given how many people worry about deteriorating quickly after retirement, part time work (not bourne out of financial desperation and necessity) would probably appeal to many.
Indeed, it's one reason some people become councillors after retirement!
So Starmer is to increase defence spending more quickly.
Which will require tax rises.
Or instead why don’t we ditch the triple lock.
Does anyone have figures as to how much this would save in the real world?
I assume by “ditching” what is meant is revert to it going up with just inflation (as was the case 1979 - the Coalition)? Or is it actually meant as no rises at all (which would impoverish many quickly)?
Any numbers anyone? Because if defence goes from 2.5 to 3.5% quickly that’s about £20-25bn to find I guess.
To me it's a no-brainer that the triple lock should go. Just pick one measure and stick to it. Even if it doesn't save much money it will be (or be perceived as) a lot more fair. Even the perception has value.
Ok try this perception. I'm a pensioner, who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. Why is it fair that my pension benefit should be somehow right to cut when many other benefit claimants don't work, sometimes never had and pay nothing to the state but expect to be given benefits and infinitum? Cut those benefits first and let them do what I did, work or do without.
I too am a pensioner who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. The proposal is not to cut the pension benefit but to tie increases to one measure rather than best of three. I know many benefits claimants and of the many there are only two or maybe three who could probably work and just prefer the easy money. A life on benefits is not luxury. Whether benefits should be provided for all who enter the country is another question; perhaps there is scope for lessening the pull factor there. I don't know.
I would consider basing the state pension on number of years NI contributions. Manual workers to qualify after 45 years contributions. Office and home based workers qualify after 50 years contributions. A one off 10% increase in the basic state pension, then link it to CPI thereafter. Also set the tax free annual allowance at the same rate as the basic minimum pension.
Unless you became a pensioner >10 years ago, you will be on the new state pension, which IS essentially based on no of years' NI contributions...
Yes, but I’m suggesting that people can only start claiming once they have achieved the relevant number of years contributions. For example, someone who remains in full time education until they are 25, and then works in the civil service, can claim their state pension when they are 75, whereas someone who leaves school at 16 and works as a builder can claim their state pension at 61.
75 is madness, most are well into their years of ill health at that point.
If they have 50 years of a civil service pension, they can choose to retire early without their state pension.
So Starmer is to increase defence spending more quickly.
Which will require tax rises.
Or instead why don’t we ditch the triple lock.
Does anyone have figures as to how much this would save in the real world?
I assume by “ditching” what is meant is revert to it going up with just inflation (as was the case 1979 - the Coalition)? Or is it actually meant as no rises at all (which would impoverish many quickly)?
Any numbers anyone? Because if defence goes from 2.5 to 3.5% quickly that’s about £20-25bn to find I guess.
To me it's a no-brainer that the triple lock should go. Just pick one measure and stick to it. Even if it doesn't save much money it will be (or be perceived as) a lot more fair. Even the perception has value.
Ok try this perception. I'm a pensioner, who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. Why is it fair that my pension benefit should be somehow right to cut when many other benefit claimants don't work, sometimes never had and pay nothing to the state but expect to be given benefits and infinitum? Cut those benefits first and let them do what I did, work or do without.
I too am a pensioner who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. The proposal is not to cut the pension benefit but to tie increases to one measure rather than best of three. I know many benefits claimants and of the many there are only two or maybe three who could probably work and just prefer the easy money. A life on benefits is not luxury. Whether benefits should be provided for all who enter the country is another question; perhaps there is scope for lessening the pull factor there. I don't know.
I would consider basing the state pension on number of years NI contributions. Manual workers to qualify after 45 years contributions. Office and home based workers qualify after 50 years contributions. A one off 10% increase in the basic state pension, then link it to CPI thereafter. Also set the tax free annual allowance at the same rate as the basic minimum pension.
Unless you became a pensioner >10 years ago, you will be on the new state pension, which IS essentially based on no of years' NI contributions...
Yes, but I’m suggesting that people can only start claiming once they have achieved the relevant number of years contributions. For example, someone who remains in full time education until they are 25, and then works in the civil service, can claim their state pension when they are 75, whereas someone who leaves school at 16 and works as a builder can claim their state pension at 61.
75 is madness, most are well into their years of ill health at that point.
Most people are in ill health by the age of 75? That's not what I would have assumed.
Many people experience health issues once they are past 50 and they tend not to improve through the 60s and 70s!
So Starmer is to increase defence spending more quickly.
Which will require tax rises.
Or instead why don’t we ditch the triple lock.
Does anyone have figures as to how much this would save in the real world?
I assume by “ditching” what is meant is revert to it going up with just inflation (as was the case 1979 - the Coalition)? Or is it actually meant as no rises at all (which would impoverish many quickly)?
Any numbers anyone? Because if defence goes from 2.5 to 3.5% quickly that’s about £20-25bn to find I guess.
To me it's a no-brainer that the triple lock should go. Just pick one measure and stick to it. Even if it doesn't save much money it will be (or be perceived as) a lot more fair. Even the perception has value.
Ok try this perception. I'm a pensioner, who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. Why is it fair that my pension benefit should be somehow right to cut when many other benefit claimants don't work, sometimes never had and pay nothing to the state but expect to be given benefits and infinitum? Cut those benefits first and let them do what I did, work or do without.
I too am a pensioner who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. The proposal is not to cut the pension benefit but to tie increases to one measure rather than best of three. I know many benefits claimants and of the many there are only two or maybe three who could probably work and just prefer the easy money. A life on benefits is not luxury. Whether benefits should be provided for all who enter the country is another question; perhaps there is scope for lessening the pull factor there. I don't know.
I would consider basing the state pension on number of years NI contributions. Manual workers to qualify after 45 years contributions. Office and home based workers qualify after 50 years contributions. A one off 10% increase in the basic state pension, then link it to CPI thereafter. Also set the tax free annual allowance at the same rate as the basic minimum pension.
Unless you became a pensioner >10 years ago, you will be on the new state pension, which IS essentially based on no of years' NI contributions...
Yes, but I’m suggesting that people can only start claiming once they have achieved the relevant number of years contributions. For example, someone who remains in full time education until they are 25, and then works in the civil service, can claim their state pension when they are 75, whereas someone who leaves school at 16 and works as a builder can claim their state pension at 61.
75 is madness, most are well into their years of ill health at that point.
If they have 50 years of a civil service pension, they can choose to retire early without their state pension.
This what I did.
I did with my two small DB pensions and my ‘fuck you’ money.
Once the ‘fuck you’ money has gone I’ll start on my DC pots.
So Starmer is to increase defence spending more quickly.
Which will require tax rises.
Or instead why don’t we ditch the triple lock.
Does anyone have figures as to how much this would save in the real world?
I assume by “ditching” what is meant is revert to it going up with just inflation (as was the case 1979 - the Coalition)? Or is it actually meant as no rises at all (which would impoverish many quickly)?
Any numbers anyone? Because if defence goes from 2.5 to 3.5% quickly that’s about £20-25bn to find I guess.
To me it's a no-brainer that the triple lock should go. Just pick one measure and stick to it. Even if it doesn't save much money it will be (or be perceived as) a lot more fair. Even the perception has value.
Ok try this perception. I'm a pensioner, who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. Why is it fair that my pension benefit should be somehow right to cut when many other benefit claimants don't work, sometimes never had and pay nothing to the state but expect to be given benefits and infinitum? Cut those benefits first and let them do what I did, work or do without.
I too am a pensioner who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. The proposal is not to cut the pension benefit but to tie increases to one measure rather than best of three. I know many benefits claimants and of the many there are only two or maybe three who could probably work and just prefer the easy money. A life on benefits is not luxury. Whether benefits should be provided for all who enter the country is another question; perhaps there is scope for lessening the pull factor there. I don't know.
I would consider basing the state pension on number of years NI contributions. Manual workers to qualify after 45 years contributions. Office and home based workers qualify after 50 years contributions. A one off 10% increase in the basic state pension, then link it to CPI thereafter. Also set the tax free annual allowance at the same rate as the basic minimum pension.
Unless you became a pensioner >10 years ago, you will be on the new state pension, which IS essentially based on no of years' NI contributions...
Yes, but I’m suggesting that people can only start claiming once they have achieved the relevant number of years contributions. For example, someone who remains in full time education until they are 25, and then works in the civil service, can claim their state pension when they are 75, whereas someone who leaves school at 16 and works as a builder can claim their state pension at 61.
75 is madness, most are well into their years of ill health at that point.
If they have 50 years of a civil service pension, they can choose to retire early without their state pension.
This what I did.
I did with my two small DB pensions and my ‘fuck you’ money.
Once the ‘fuck you’ money has gone I’ll start on my DC pots.
I'm into my 18 th year of retirement - well over what the number crunchers expect for these things so I'm not complaining!
So Starmer is to increase defence spending more quickly.
Which will require tax rises.
Or instead why don’t we ditch the triple lock.
Does anyone have figures as to how much this would save in the real world?
I assume by “ditching” what is meant is revert to it going up with just inflation (as was the case 1979 - the Coalition)? Or is it actually meant as no rises at all (which would impoverish many quickly)?
Any numbers anyone? Because if defence goes from 2.5 to 3.5% quickly that’s about £20-25bn to find I guess.
To me it's a no-brainer that the triple lock should go. Just pick one measure and stick to it. Even if it doesn't save much money it will be (or be perceived as) a lot more fair. Even the perception has value.
Ok try this perception. I'm a pensioner, who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. Why is it fair that my pension benefit should be somehow right to cut when many other benefit claimants don't work, sometimes never had and pay nothing to the state but expect to be given benefits and infinitum? Cut those benefits first and let them do what I did, work or do without.
I too am a pensioner who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. The proposal is not to cut the pension benefit but to tie increases to one measure rather than best of three. I know many benefits claimants and of the many there are only two or maybe three who could probably work and just prefer the easy money. A life on benefits is not luxury. Whether benefits should be provided for all who enter the country is another question; perhaps there is scope for lessening the pull factor there. I don't know.
I would consider basing the state pension on number of years NI contributions. Manual workers to qualify after 45 years contributions. Office and home based workers qualify after 50 years contributions. A one off 10% increase in the basic state pension, then link it to CPI thereafter. Also set the tax free annual allowance at the same rate as the basic minimum pension.
Unless you became a pensioner >10 years ago, you will be on the new state pension, which IS essentially based on no of years' NI contributions...
Yes, but I’m suggesting that people can only start claiming once they have achieved the relevant number of years contributions. For example, someone who remains in full time education until they are 25, and then works in the civil service, can claim their state pension when they are 75, whereas someone who leaves school at 16 and works as a builder can claim their state pension at 61.
75 is madness, most are well into their years of ill health at that point.
Most people are in ill health by the age of 75? That's not what I would have assumed.
Males in the UK could expect to spend 60.7 years (77% of life) in "good" general health, compared with 60.9 years (73%) for females; these were decreases of 1.8 and 2.5 years, respectively, compared with the last non-overlapping period (2019 to 2021).
I guess a lot depends on how you define healthy life expectancy.
My Dad is nearly 80 and has had a major heart operation, but he is still able to go on walks in the country and enjoy a beer in the pub afterwards. He has cost the NHS a lot of money to patch up, but is still able to live an independent life.
From what I can gather, whether he is determined to be in good health is wholly a matter of whether he self-reports as being in good health. Maybe he would say yes, because of the independent living, the ability to get out on walks, etc, or maybe he would look at the number of prescriptions he is on, the scars on his chest and say that his health was not so good.
In a similar vein, I'm in my mid-40s, and I've been suffering from chronic fatigue since a viral infection over Christmas. My recovery is very slow and I'm still not able to walk the long and hilly distances that I'm used to being able to walk. I would not report my health as being good, but I'm not in hospital for it, I'm able to feed myself, etc.
Like you say I think its v-difficult to classify who is healthy for work in the 21st century. Is an ailing 70 year old able to compete with much younger colleagues? Can a cognitive worker produce high quality work into their 60s? Can someone blessed with a great physicality keep up a manual trade for 50 years? Its all individual variation and we're trying to squeeze them into blanket age ranges and work classifications.
I find it exceptionally sad that with modern day efficiency and productivity we cannot find the economic output to keep people from having to work at ages greater than say 60. What is the point of a modern society if the retirement age ratchets higher and higher whilst our expected healthy years have seen very little growth. It feels very human for their to be a little reward at the end of the working life.
I'm 76 and generally in good health despite a stroke a couple of years ago, but don't totally trust my memory. I'd welcome more opportunity to work part-time, and find entirely retired life pleasant but a bit dull. Society is organised on the principle that you either work full-time or you're retired and maybe do a bit of voluntary work - something in between would be good both for society and for many individuals.
Why did you retire? Also, I thought you worked as a town councillor? Would seem to be the ideal job for you, as an experiened public servant
Or maybe political consultancy for some animals rights charities. They are getting a bad rep, they need steering
I was having this same discussion today, with a Turkish woman in her 50s. She said she loves her job and cannot imagine retiring unless forced. She think she'd hate retirement and be bored. I told her I am exactly the same. God willing I will keep doing this until one (distant) day I drop dead in Dakota or Dahomey
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Yet it is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
I'm not sure what constituency that Buttigeg commands the loyalty of. He's simultaneously too centrist to the left wing LGBTQI+ crowd and anathema to much of the black and Hispanic block by virtue of being gay.
Centrist voters win elections and the voters who are most anti gay, even Hispanics and blacks, tend to always vote Republican anyway
I wonder how true that is now? Very difficult to argue anyone who voted for Trump is a centrist.
I think we do have to accept that American politics clearly has a large more or less neo-Nazi constituency while its liberal wing is too confined to particular states to be critical in elections. I would therefore say that you are better off trying to win from the right of centre, not the centre.
Whether the Dems have fully understood that yet is another question.
Being centrist in America would seem quite hard right here.
I think that totting up tick boxes is the wrong way to select a candidate. Much as I like Tim Walz, how much did he actually add to Harris's appeal in the Midwest? The Dems lost every state apart from Illinois and Minnesota, and even they were rather too close for comfort.
More important is to have a good communicator with a clean back history. That is where Harris fell down, apart from her obvious melanin and chromosome faults.
There's more in common between the big cities in Red states and blue and between rural areas in California and Georgia than pundits give credit. The Dems need someone with suburban and small town appeal, like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, and someone who is at least acceptable to Evangelicals, as religion is the biggest determinate of voting in America. They will win the athiests anyway.
As a general point it's a mistake to think that centrists always mop up everyone to their left (cf. LibDems vs Greens in this country). What the Democrats need is charisma and enthusiasm, which they might get from a centrist or someone further left.
I suggest that an enthusiastic, charismatic candidate who doesn't believe in border control, capitalism or law and order is unlikely to win. Taking the view that 'Trump is nutty so why can't we be' is a dangerous game to play.
Well, yes, I wouldn't expect someone opposed to law and order etc. to win. But it's an error to assume that people are on a straight line from left to right and pitching for the centre therefore maximises votes - if that were true, then we'd always have LibDem government, but in practice people tend to feel it's not really worth voting LibDem as they aren't perceived as reliably standing for anything realistic in particular. The winning formula is IMO being broadly centrist but having a couple of credible high-profile policies associated with the left (or right) - that keeps voter turnout up in a way that merely being centrist doesn't. Blair's embrace of the NHS was a good example - lots of us on the left forgave him a lot because he was committed to that.
So Starmer is to increase defence spending more quickly.
Which will require tax rises.
Or instead why don’t we ditch the triple lock.
Does anyone have figures as to how much this would save in the real world?
I assume by “ditching” what is meant is revert to it going up with just inflation (as was the case 1979 - the Coalition)? Or is it actually meant as no rises at all (which would impoverish many quickly)?
Any numbers anyone? Because if defence goes from 2.5 to 3.5% quickly that’s about £20-25bn to find I guess.
To me it's a no-brainer that the triple lock should go. Just pick one measure and stick to it. Even if it doesn't save much money it will be (or be perceived as) a lot more fair. Even the perception has value.
Ok try this perception. I'm a pensioner, who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. Why is it fair that my pension benefit should be somehow right to cut when many other benefit claimants don't work, sometimes never had and pay nothing to the state but expect to be given benefits and infinitum? Cut those benefits first and let them do what I did, work or do without.
I too am a pensioner who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. The proposal is not to cut the pension benefit but to tie increases to one measure rather than best of three. I know many benefits claimants and of the many there are only two or maybe three who could probably work and just prefer the easy money. A life on benefits is not luxury. Whether benefits should be provided for all who enter the country is another question; perhaps there is scope for lessening the pull factor there. I don't know.
I would consider basing the state pension on number of years NI contributions. Manual workers to qualify after 45 years contributions. Office and home based workers qualify after 50 years contributions. A one off 10% increase in the basic state pension, then link it to CPI thereafter. Also set the tax free annual allowance at the same rate as the basic minimum pension.
Unless you became a pensioner >10 years ago, you will be on the new state pension, which IS essentially based on no of years' NI contributions...
Yes, but I’m suggesting that people can only start claiming once they have achieved the relevant number of years contributions. For example, someone who remains in full time education until they are 25, and then works in the civil service, can claim their state pension when they are 75, whereas someone who leaves school at 16 and works as a builder can claim their state pension at 61.
75 is madness, most are well into their years of ill health at that point.
Most people are in ill health by the age of 75? That's not what I would have assumed.
You're in for a big surprise then.
No one in my family has ever made it to 80 (75 and counting is the oldest), so I'm not massively optimistic I'll be in good health by my retirement.
It seems strange to me that the public really want the state pension to keep increasing in amount but dont seem terribly fussed that the age is creeping ever upwards.
So Starmer is to increase defence spending more quickly.
Which will require tax rises.
Or instead why don’t we ditch the triple lock.
Does anyone have figures as to how much this would save in the real world?
I assume by “ditching” what is meant is revert to it going up with just inflation (as was the case 1979 - the Coalition)? Or is it actually meant as no rises at all (which would impoverish many quickly)?
Any numbers anyone? Because if defence goes from 2.5 to 3.5% quickly that’s about £20-25bn to find I guess.
To me it's a no-brainer that the triple lock should go. Just pick one measure and stick to it. Even if it doesn't save much money it will be (or be perceived as) a lot more fair. Even the perception has value.
Ok try this perception. I'm a pensioner, who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. Why is it fair that my pension benefit should be somehow right to cut when many other benefit claimants don't work, sometimes never had and pay nothing to the state but expect to be given benefits and infinitum? Cut those benefits first and let them do what I did, work or do without.
I too am a pensioner who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. The proposal is not to cut the pension benefit but to tie increases to one measure rather than best of three. I know many benefits claimants and of the many there are only two or maybe three who could probably work and just prefer the easy money. A life on benefits is not luxury. Whether benefits should be provided for all who enter the country is another question; perhaps there is scope for lessening the pull factor there. I don't know.
I would consider basing the state pension on number of years NI contributions. Manual workers to qualify after 45 years contributions. Office and home based workers qualify after 50 years contributions. A one off 10% increase in the basic state pension, then link it to CPI thereafter. Also set the tax free annual allowance at the same rate as the basic minimum pension.
Unless you became a pensioner >10 years ago, you will be on the new state pension, which IS essentially based on no of years' NI contributions...
Yes, but I’m suggesting that people can only start claiming once they have achieved the relevant number of years contributions. For example, someone who remains in full time education until they are 25, and then works in the civil service, can claim their state pension when they are 75, whereas someone who leaves school at 16 and works as a builder can claim their state pension at 61.
75 is madness, most are well into their years of ill health at that point.
Most people are in ill health by the age of 75? That's not what I would have assumed.
Many people experience health issues once they are past 50 and they tend not to improve through the 60s and 70s!
I'm going to assume there is an issue where some people don't think about the many smaller matters of poor health which are not debilitating when thinking about 'ill health'.
It seems strange to me that the public really want the state pension to keep increasing in amount but dont seem terribly fussed that the age is creeping ever upwards.
It seems strange to me that the public really want the state pension to keep increasing in amount but dont seem terribly fussed that the age is creeping ever upwards.
Tell that to the WASPI women.
Yes good point! But no comparable group complaining about rises for men and women.
It seems strange to me that the public really want the state pension to keep increasing in amount but dont seem terribly fussed that the age is creeping ever upwards.
Tell that to the WASPI women.
Yes good point! But no comparable group complaining about rises for men and women.
In France I think its kryptonite.
Macron has spent most of his presidency trying to deal with it, pushed it through, and I think the latest is his government has had to roll it back. Hope he has other parts to his legacy.
We are currently producing 112% of our electricity needs, with the excess 12% being sent via connectors or to pumped storage.
Of the 112%, only 7% is gas power. So over 100% renewable or nuclear.
Farage and Badenoch read, weep, apologise and go and eat coal.
Its a fun but pointless measure. To know the true value of each contribution you have to look at it over the year. And in that case gas still contributes around a third of our power generation. That is before you take into account home gas usage. There were a few days in 2025 where renewables contributed as low as 10% of power generation.
We need better ways to bridge that gap but we don't have it yet. Hopefully it is coming.
What's the clincher going to be
Battery storage??
Direct Air Capture plants utilising the surplus leccy, offsetting the emissions from fossil peaking plants when they need to fire up.
Or using Green Hydrogen as an energy storage vector.
Exc: the Prime Minister has been accused of a ‘crime against humanity’ over the attempted removal of Chagossians from their homeland
I think we would all agree there is irrefutable evidence that Starmer is most likely a wicked international law breaker and war criminal and there is a place in a court in the Hague for his genocide of 80,000 Gazans, Good, we've cleared that up, but don't you agree William his co conspirators Bibi and Trump should be beside him in the dock.
I think the idea floated by this government was that private pensions would cover the gap between when people actually retire and the later starting age of the State pension. Automatic enrollment in a private pension has been compulsory since at least 2018 with a minimum 8% contribution shared between employer and employee.
It seems strange to me that the public really want the state pension to keep increasing in amount but dont seem terribly fussed that the age is creeping ever upwards.
That's the trouble with creating entitlements - you also create the entitled!
Arsenal aren't going to Devon Loch the premier league again?
They are now the same price (1.46) to win the league as Rory is with his 6 shot halfway lead to win the Masters.
I think if Man City win all their games they win the league.
I hope they don't, Man City have won enough over the last decade, but Arsenal seem to lvoe choking.
I remember when Man Citeh were languishing in the third tier (as were Chelsea). ALL their silverware has been bought using tainted foreign cash.
Arsenal and Liverpool have won their silverware without quite such dirty money, same goes for United. In fact their foreign benefactors rather than throw money at the trophy cabinet robbed them blind.
Justify the triple lock and the current student loans arrangement. You cannot.
Actually, posts further up the page have got me thinking on this. Our problem is we’re paying ever more to an ever increasing cohort of OAPs. Is the solution to limit pension increases, or is it to ratchet up the pension age?
I’ve not done the maths, but a generous pension that you only get once within say 10 years of average life expectancy might be a more equitable answer than a less generous pension that everyone gets even when they’ve got 15 years or more left.
Justify the triple lock and the current student loans arrangement. You cannot.
Actually, posts further up the page have got me thinking on this. Our problem is we’re paying ever more to an ever increasing cohort of OAPs. Is the solution to limit pension increases, or is it to ratchet up the pension age?
I’ve not done the maths, but a generous pension that you only get once within say 10 years of average life expectancy might be a more equitable answer than a less generous pension that everyone gets even when they’ve got 15 years or more left.
We are currently producing 112% of our electricity needs, with the excess 12% being sent via connectors or to pumped storage.
Of the 112%, only 7% is gas power. So over 100% renewable or nuclear.
The Irish grid appears to be taking more than a GW from Britain and turning off its own wind turbines.
I'm assuming there's some sort of arbitrage going on whereby it makes sense to do this because the Irish pay wind farms less to turn off when there's excess wind energy.
We have 14 years of coalition and conservative governments to thank for that investment
What Lost Password is describing isn't a good thing for pity's sake. It means effectively that British billpayers are subsidising power that they aren't receiving - because the British subsidy regime is so much more generous than Ireland's, it's cheaper for them to use dumped power, kindly discounted by grannies in the UK, and constrain their own supply.
That isn't something to be celebrated, it's an epic farce.
I mean, sure, but the 'epic farce' subsidy price is much, much lower than what we would pay for gas powered electricity at current prices.
These things are announced ten times more often than they happen. Check back in five years...
Some nerd has managed to get five minutes with the PM to tell him how great Linux supposedly is, and the government has announced grand plans with no conception of how (I'm assuming) embedded Windows is for most of their civil service operations.
We are currently producing 112% of our electricity needs, with the excess 12% being sent via connectors or to pumped storage.
Of the 112%, only 7% is gas power. So over 100% renewable or nuclear.
Farage and Badenoch read, weep, apologise and go and eat coal.
Its a fun but pointless measure. To know the true value of each contribution you have to look at it over the year. And in that case gas still contributes around a third of our power generation. That is before you take into account home gas usage. There were a few days in 2025 where renewables contributed as low as 10% of power generation.
We need better ways to bridge that gap but we don't have it yet. Hopefully it is coming.
What's the clincher going to be
Battery storage??
Direct Air Capture plants utilising the surplus leccy, offsetting the emissions from fossil peaking plants when they need to fire up.
Or using Green Hydrogen as an energy storage vector.
There is vast, vast scope for more solar and batteries in all European countries, combined with electrification of transport and home heating. That much becomes clear when you see 12gw of solar being generated on an April afternoon despite most roofs and industrial units not having any panels on them, and battery storage so miniscule it doesn’t even show up on the monitors. There are thousands of miles of motorway verges, railway cuttings, brownfield zones that could be festooned with the things. And they’re so cheap.
It’s like English vineyards. People worry we have peaked, yet in most of the South of England you have to go out of your way to find a vineyard, while across the channel there are seas of the things. We make a fraction of one appellation. I just drove back from Dijon to our house through 2 hours of almost unbroken vines.
EXCL: Labour MP Afzal Khan claimed he "briefly" attended event — but left upon realising Lord Ahmed, jailed for child sex crimes against girl as young as 4, was there. Now video shows the pair smiling walking down red carpet and sitting next to each other
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZe0vvZD5Yc
This includes an example of an American general using religious hymns as part of his preparation for his troops for war on Native Americans.
An example is this one, called "Praise", of which the first verse includes the line:
"I'll praise when outnumbered
Praise when surrounded
'Cause praise is the water
My enemies drown in."
Here are a presentation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2oxGYpuLkw
The image is (clearly) from the Egyptians drowning in the Red Sea exodus, which is fine in hymnody. However that is where most of us get much of our theology from (far more than sermons). and we live in a age when argument comes in bits and pieces, not as presented cases.
When the likes of Hegseth or Josh Hawley start using the language of "drowning his enemies", and applied to nations he wants to make war on ... or (for example) we have the language used at Charlie Kirk's funeral., it becomes a little ... Hmmm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fWepuacT3M
Yes, pension age can productively go up, but be prepared that to a fair degree you will just be substituting one state benefit for another, albeit the latter benefit is one the Daily Mail can much more merrily whinge to buggery over.
Exc: the Prime Minister has been accused of a ‘crime against humanity’ over the attempted removal of Chagossians from their homeland
A huge bladder full of hydrogen in the garage. I can't see any problems there.
So simply replace it with a “Pension Guarantee”. Tie it to a percentage of the median national wage and position it as “fairness”.
I'm assuming there's some sort of arbitrage going on whereby it makes sense to do this because the Irish pay wind farms less to turn off when there's excess wind energy.
More that the Confederate tendency has never gone away - we’re seeing the final playing out of Nixon’s Southern Strategy. The difference is that economic challenges / decline in the rust belt and Trump’s demagoguery enabled the republicans to add parts of the Midwest to their tally.
1. Main points
In 2022 to 2024:
Males in the UK could expect to spend 60.7 years (77% of life) in "good" general health, compared with 60.9 years (73%) for females; these were decreases of 1.8 and 2.5 years, respectively, compared with the last non-overlapping period (2019 to 2021).
Despite modest increases in life expectancy since 2019 to 2021, healthy life expectancy (HLE) at birth in the UK, for both males and females, decreased to its lowest level since our time series began in 2011 to 2013.
England continued to have the highest HLE at birth among UK constituent countries for both males (60.9 years) and females (61.3 years); Scotland had the lowest for males (59.1 years) and Wales had the lowest for females (58.5 years).
In England, for both males and females, the South East remained the region with the highest HLE at birth (63.0 and 64.3 years, respectively), and the North East remained the region with lowest (57.0 and 56.9 years, respectively); the North East has had the lowest HLE at birth in every period since our time series began.
HLE decreased in most of the UK's local areas compared with 2019 to 2021 (in 83% of areas for males and 88% for females); it decreased in a majority of areas within every constituent country and every region of England.
The gap in HLE at birth across local areas of the UK, measured as the difference between the 97.5th and 2.5th percentiles, was 14.7 years for males and 15.8 years for females; this continued a trend of increasing spatial inequality since the onset of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
But I come back to something I posted last year. When the 1946 National Insurance Act was introduced and the state pension age was set at 65, average male life expectancy was 64 years and 8 months. By the time it was actually enacted in 1948 it had crept up to 66.
Who was the last president to have a beard? Benjamin Harrison I think?
My Dad is nearly 80 and has had a major heart operation, but he is still able to go on walks in the country and enjoy a beer in the pub afterwards. He has cost the NHS a lot of money to patch up, but is still able to live an independent life.
From what I can gather, whether he is determined to be in good health is wholly a matter of whether he self-reports as being in good health. Maybe he would say yes, because of the independent living, the ability to get out on walks, etc, or maybe he would look at the number of prescriptions he is on, the scars on his chest and say that his health was not so good.
In a similar vein, I'm in my mid-40s, and I've been suffering from chronic fatigue since a viral infection over Christmas. My recovery is very slow and I'm still not able to walk the long and hilly distances that I'm used to being able to walk. I would not report my health as being good, but I'm not in hospital for it, I'm able to feed myself, etc.
I was each way on Jagwar and Johnnywho, but failed to back I Am Maximus, who actually won.
We can all agree Netanyhu is evil, but it also requires the same condemnation for the IRGC and their proxies
Indeed the gap between actual life expectancy and retirement age has grown pretty steadily ever since the NI Act in 1946. It seems reasonable to me that we should be taking steps to corect that drift and reduce the gap given that someone (us in one way or another) has to pay for our retirement. And I say that as someone who has lready seen my official retirement age increase from 65 to 67. I see no issue with it increasing to 70. That still gives an average of 9 years between retirement age and average life expectancy.
You can see that electricity prices were stable while a lot of decarbonisation happened on the grid up to 2019, but prices really took off as the global economy came out of the pandemic in 2021, and then with Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Some people will try to convince you that it was the move to renewables that has pushed up prices. This would suggest otherwise.
@phildstewart
·
1h
U.S. VESSEL WENT BACK AFTER THE WARNING - SENIOR IRANIAN MILITARY OFFICIAL TELLS IRANIAN STATE TV
We need better ways to bridge that gap but we don't have it yet. Hopefully it is coming.
I find it exceptionally sad that with modern day efficiency and productivity we cannot find the economic output to keep people from having to work at ages greater than say 60. What is the point of a modern society if the retirement age ratchets higher and higher whilst our expected healthy years have seen very little growth. It feels very human for their to be a little reward at the end of the working life.
A little glib i know but it does feel like the modern economy doesn’t work well for most of its participants and the ever ratcheting retirement age is one of my sore spots.
Battery storage??
https://x.com/DanJamesRacing/status/2042938896506347951?s=20
When you watch it back and see how far back the winner got after a few errors, the patience of the jockey was outstanding.
Right from the start there were people holding back from supporting Ukraine too much, on the basis of what Russia would do if, say, the Donbas or even Crimea were ever seriously going to be regained.
And no one doubts gas will still play a role as the intermittent energy source of last resort. But as we build excess capacity the economic case grows for both 1) switching from oil to electric cars (or gas to electric heaters); 2) battery or pumped storage. Batteries in particular are getting cheaper and cheaper so will be more economic over time.
I'm quite optimistic that we will succeed in our energy transition. And I think the (eventually) end result - stable energy costs, immunised against geopolitical events - will be much better for people in this country than what we've faced for years with periodic crises.
That isn't something to be celebrated, it's an epic farce.
Indeed, it's one reason some people become councillors after retirement!
Once the ‘fuck you’ money has gone I’ll start on my DC pots.
Or maybe political consultancy for some animals rights charities. They are getting a bad rep, they need steering
I was having this same discussion today, with a Turkish woman in her 50s. She said she loves her job and cannot imagine retiring unless forced. She think she'd hate retirement and be bored. I told her I am exactly the same. God willing I will keep doing this until one (distant) day I drop dead in Dakota or Dahomey
https://www.techbuzz.ai/articles/france-dumps-windows-for-linux-in-push-for-tech-independence
No one in my family has ever made it to 80 (75 and counting is the oldest), so I'm not massively optimistic I'll be in good health by my retirement.
In France I think its kryptonite.
Or using Green Hydrogen as an energy storage vector.
Plus some of the Arsenal fanbase are really annoying, so for this one season only, I am City Till I Die.
Arsenal and Liverpool have won their silverware without quite such dirty money, same goes for United. In fact their foreign benefactors rather than throw money at the trophy cabinet robbed them blind.
I’ve not done the maths, but a generous pension that you only get once within say 10 years of average life expectancy might be a more equitable answer than a less generous pension that everyone gets even when they’ve got 15 years or more left.
Governments have flawless records of delivering huge IT projects brilliantly on schedule and on budget every single time.
In other news, the sun always rises in the west and socialism always works.
I think your anger is misdirected.
It’s like English vineyards. People worry we have peaked, yet in most of the South of England you have to go out of your way to find a vineyard, while across the channel there are seas of the things. We make a fraction of one appellation. I just drove back from Dijon to our house through 2 hours of almost unbroken vines.
https://x.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/2042999401967194486?s=20
Gabriel Pogrund seems to be doing a lot of legwork past few months on stories.