politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Marf on Jihadi John and the afternoon round-up
Comments
-
Proper apprenticeships are the way forward, and abandon the utterly pointless '50% do a degree' target. It's done more harm than good.0
-
That would be going a little too far, Peter!Peter_the_Punter said:
And as an extra-special service, could you perhaps produce a sub-set of ELBOW limited to polls that only show the Tories in the lead? (You may even find that you could sell these for a reasonable price.)Sunil_Prasannan said:
Currently we've started splitting YG from non-YouGov, as mentioned up-thread.Ishmael_X said:
Is it possible to produce a subset of ELBOW limited to pollsters with a track record - i.e. Ipsos-Mori, YouGov, Opinium, ComRes phone and ICM, as per this thread:Sunil_Prasannan said:
Indeed, just two Tory leads in August, and one in May. None this year.Sean_F said:
Strangely, they haven't put the Conservatives ahead since August, when, in general, they were giving Labour bigger leads.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Populus mostly give Labour leads (apart from the odd tie, like Monday).Hengists_Gift said:
Is that Populus boy and Tory stooge Andrew Cooper (recently made Lord Cooper of Windrush courtesy of David Cameron) by any chance that is casting aspersions on Survation's polling methods?Scrapheap_as_was said:Comfort polling?
Douglas Carswell MP@DouglasCarswell · 2h 2 hours ago
They might sneer in SW1. But in Thanet, Ukip has an 11 point lead .....
Or maybe not.
Andrew Cooper @AndrewCooper__
The Survation poll in S.Thanet showing Farage ahead says nearly twice as many people voted UKIP there in 2010 as actually did #roguepoll
Retweeted by Stephen Tall
Dog fight in the polling industry?
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/02/26/all-current-surveys-with-con-leads-are-from-pollsters-whichve-been-tested-in-a-ge-unlike-all-but-one-of-those-with-lab-leads/
To paraphrase Harvey Two-Face in Batman: ELBOW is unbiased, unprejudiced, fair.
0 -
Cheers, salut, sláinte.Smarmeron said:@TCPoliticalBetting
You are indeed correct.
Though the point is valid as a general statement, money and stocks are faith based and only have the value of that faith.
Apologies anyway.
0 -
Afternoon all. Must say, I really enjoyed watching the Producers in London a few years back.0
-
Nope, you'd assume the vast majority, having studied medicine at A level then uni that's what they'd want to do. As a highly paid analyst the treasury would still be pleased.TheWatcher said:
Presumably, you'd place restrictions on the eventual careers of such people?blackburn63 said:Here's an idea, with subjects such as science, technology, engineering, maths and medicine, why don't we get rid of tuition fees, after all we don't have enough home grown experts in that field. Its called investing in our future.
If somebody wants to waste three years doing media studies charge them.
Otherwise it's "Whoopee, free first class science degree!", and then walk into a City job as a highly paid Analyst.
0 -
@Charles
You stated that the Labour party were "raiding" the wealthy, which usualy implies that such an action is to be frowned upon?
I them somewhat ironically, offered sympathy.
And, (here I will repeat the question) I asked you how much Ozzie was taking from the least wealthy in Social Security reductions?
Explain how that is putting words in your mouth when the quoted words were verbatim and lifted from your original post please?0 -
We actually also need to get away from this notion that every kid needs to go to uni at 18 full time for 3-4 years. Many would do much better mixing work and study (and proper study not the current nonsense).TheWatcher said:Proper apprenticeships are the way forward, and abandon the utterly pointless '50% do a degree' target. It's done more harm than good.
Same with older workers...we need flexibility, not to just thought that you work 40hrs a week until 60 odd and then you just stop.
Government could do a lot of things to make it very attractive for companies to implement this flexibility at the young and old ends of the spectrum.0 -
CorrectTheWatcher said:Proper apprenticeships are the way forward, and abandon the utterly pointless '50% do a degree' target. It's done more harm than good.
0 -
The detailed figures from today's YouGov and Populus polls give Labour leads of 1.5% and 2.3% respectively.Sunil_Prasannan said:Part-ELBOW for nine polls so far this week (inc. last night's YG and Populus):
Labour lead by 0.8%
Interesting split between the four YG polls and five non-YouGov polls so far this week.
ELBOW of the four YG polls gives Tories a 0.2% lead.
ELBOW of the five non-YG polls gives Labour a 1.9% lead0 -
http://order-order.com/2015/02/27/mps-reveal-their-home-addresses-on-instagram/
We have had twitter tw@ts, Instagram Idiots?0 -
Sunil_Prasannan said:
That would be going a little too far, Peter!Peter_the_Punter said:
And as an extra-special service, could you perhaps produce a sub-set of ELBOW limited to polls that only show the Tories in the lead? (You may even find that you could sell these for a reasonable price.)Sunil_Prasannan said:
Currently we've started splitting YG from non-YouGov, as mentioned up-thread.Ishmael_X said:
Is it possible to produce a subset of ELBOW limited to pollsters with a track record - i.e. Ipsos-Mori, YouGov, Opinium, ComRes phone and ICM, as per this thread:Sunil_Prasannan said:
Indeed, just two Tory leads in August, and one in May. None this year.Sean_F said:
Strangely, they haven't put the Conservatives ahead since August, when, in general, they were giving Labour bigger leads.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Populus mostly give Labour leads (apart from the odd tie, like Monday).Hengists_Gift said:
Is that Populus boy and Tory stooge Andrew Cooper (recently made Lord Cooper of Windrush courtesy of David Cameron) by any chance that is casting aspersions on Survation's polling methods?Scrapheap_as_was said:Comfort polling?
Douglas Carswell MP@DouglasCarswell · 2h 2 hours ago
They might sneer in SW1. But in Thanet, Ukip has an 11 point lead .....
Or maybe not.
Andrew Cooper @AndrewCooper__
The Survation poll in S.Thanet showing Farage ahead says nearly twice as many people voted UKIP there in 2010 as actually did #roguepoll
Retweeted by Stephen Tall
Dog fight in the polling industry?
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/02/26/all-current-surveys-with-con-leads-are-from-pollsters-whichve-been-tested-in-a-ge-unlike-all-but-one-of-those-with-lab-leads/
To paraphrase Harvey Two-Face in Batman: ELBOW is unbiased, unprejudiced, fair.
Of course, Sunil, but until it produces Crossover it will be Wrong.
Now get on with it. Please.
0 -
Re labours policy to reduce English student fees by raiding pension funds and tax breaks I assume this applies to UK wide tax payers and if so are Scots going to be paying towards English students reduced fees, a sort of reverse EVEL and how would the SNP see that as a benefit to Scotland and vote on it0
-
Interesting point. Even though these things are always slightly more complex to who is "Up" and who is "Down", sure SNP can spin it to their advantage in Scotland.Big_G_NorthWales said:Re labours policy to reduce English student fees by raiding pension funds and tax breaks I assume this applies to UK wide tax payers and if so are Scots going to be paying towards English students reduced fees, a sort of reverse EVEL and how would the SNP see that as a benefit to Scotland and vote on it
0 -
A Level Medicine? That's a new one.blackburn63 said:
Nope, you'd assume the vast majority, having studied medicine at A level then uni that's what they'd want to do. As a highly paid analyst the treasury would still be pleased.TheWatcher said:
Presumably, you'd place restrictions on the eventual careers of such people?blackburn63 said:Here's an idea, with subjects such as science, technology, engineering, maths and medicine, why don't we get rid of tuition fees, after all we don't have enough home grown experts in that field. Its called investing in our future.
If somebody wants to waste three years doing media studies charge them.
Otherwise it's "Whoopee, free first class science degree!", and then walk into a City job as a highly paid Analyst.
It's ripe for abuse. Savvy students will go for a free degree, and then follow the more lucrative career path.0 -
I make it 1.56% and 2.35% respectively.justin124 said:
The detailed figures from today's YouGov and Populus polls give Labour leads of 1.5% and 2.3% respectively.Sunil_Prasannan said:Part-ELBOW for nine polls so far this week (inc. last night's YG and Populus):
Labour lead by 0.8%
Interesting split between the four YG polls and five non-YouGov polls so far this week.
ELBOW of the four YG polls gives Tories a 0.2% lead.
ELBOW of the five non-YG polls gives Labour a 1.9% lead0 -
Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.0 -
Fully agree. I am about to embark upon teaching a course at a local DC area campus university, where virtually all its students work full-time and are taking courses directly relevant to their work. Needless to say, their motivation to get the most out of their education (which they are paying for themselves) is considerably higher than your average spotty 19-year old doing general studies because that is what 19 year-olds do before they go out into the real world.FrancisUrquhart said:
We actually also need to get away from this notion that every kid needs to go to uni at 18 full time for 3-4 years. Many would do much better mixing work and study (and proper study not the current nonsense).TheWatcher said:Proper apprenticeships are the way forward, and abandon the utterly pointless '50% do a degree' target. It's done more harm than good.
Same with older workers...we need flexibility, not to just thought that you work 40hrs a week until 60 odd and then you just stop.
Government could do a lot of things to make it very attractive for companies to implement this flexibility at the young and old ends of the spectrum.0 -
meanwhile in a universe far far away, there's one rule for France on structural reform and another one for Greece.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2015/02/27/20002-20150227ARTFIG00230-l-operation-seduction-de-macron-envers-bruxelles-et-les-marches-financiers.php0 -
@FrancisUrquhart
Wouldn't the overall effect be to reduce the level of subsidy in Scotland that the Scottish government makes up by other means?0 -
Dair said:
Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.
Why does that worry you, you'd quite happily rob English pensioners to fund scottish fees ?
Your rules.0 -
What a gift to the SNP as if they were not way ahead already. I cannot imagine the SNP wont play this to their great advantageDair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.0 -
Yes, but France is not asking Germany/IMF/ECB to fund its deficit as it still has access to the financial markets. IIRC, France has both lower debt and deficit than the UK so there is not real reason to think that the financial markets won't continue to buy their bonds.Alanbrooke said:meanwhile in a universe far far away, there's one rule for France on structural reform and another one for Greece.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2015/02/27/20002-20150227ARTFIG00230-l-operation-seduction-de-macron-envers-bruxelles-et-les-marches-financiers.php0 -
So how many will study medicine, hardly an easy subject, for 3 years, purely with the intention of becoming an analyst?TheWatcher said:
A Level Medicine? That's a new one.blackburn63 said:
Nope, you'd assume the vast majority, having studied medicine at A level then uni that's what they'd want to do. As a highly paid analyst the treasury would still be pleased.TheWatcher said:
Presumably, you'd place restrictions on the eventual careers of such people?blackburn63 said:Here's an idea, with subjects such as science, technology, engineering, maths and medicine, why don't we get rid of tuition fees, after all we don't have enough home grown experts in that field. Its called investing in our future.
If somebody wants to waste three years doing media studies charge them.
Otherwise it's "Whoopee, free first class science degree!", and then walk into a City job as a highly paid Analyst.
It's ripe for abuse. Savvy students will go for a free degree, and then follow the more lucrative career path.
The figure is so negligible its irrelevant.
0 -
Good afternoon, everyone.
Another good cartoon after the despicable apologists we saw getting airtime yesterday.
McLaren actually seem to be racking up the laps today. Gosh.0 -
I don't see it gaining too much traction, given that the proposal would only affect the very richest (£150,000 /yr).Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a gift to the SNP as if they were not way ahead already. I cannot imagine the SNP wont play this to their great advantageDair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.0 -
The debate over direction of subsidy is pretty much over as far as Scotland is concerned. Scotland believes it overpays to be in the Union and gets less back than it puts in.Alanbrooke said:Dair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.
Why does that worry you, you'd quite happily rob English pensioners to fund scottish fees ?
Your rules.
I think that's true, you may not. It doesn't matter. Scotland has made up it's mind. So your argument has no traction with Scottish voters.
On the other hand "Labour Plans Hammer Scots Grannies to Give Money to Rich English Students" does have traction. A lot of traction.
I think the problem is that Labour have never come to terms as to what the Devolution settlement means. They don't think through their national policies with regards to Scotland. The Tories don't have to, they're irrelevant in Scotland. But for Labour, any hopes they might have of a come back in 2020 rest on the ability to provide a coherent UK policy which is fair to Scotland and England IN THE MINDS OF VOTERS.
I don't think they can.0 -
Fair's fair.Alanbrooke said:Dair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.
Why does that worry you, you'd quite happily rob English pensioners to fund scottish fees ?
Your rules.
After all, Scots would happily be on the receiving end of any tax on English homes.0 -
I'd have thought the Labour plans would need some funding, obviously the FY it is implemented it'd need none, the year after a tiny, tiny amount (Students who have won the lottery that sort of thing), gradually increasing year after year.Dair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.0 -
I could swear I've read that somewhere before......Dair said:
your argument has no traction with Scottish voters.Alanbrooke said:Dair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.
Why does that worry you, you'd quite happily rob English pensioners to fund scottish fees ?
Your rules.
0 -
It's not about France raising debt, it's about France repeatedly ignoring EU directives and having a structural deficit it progressively kicks down the road while admonishing everyone else for not respecting their targets.MTimT said:
Yes, but France is not asking Germany/IMF/ECB to fund its deficit as it still has access to the financial markets. IIRC, France has both lower debt and deficit than the UK so there is not real reason to think that the financial markets won't continue to buy their bonds.Alanbrooke said:meanwhile in a universe far far away, there's one rule for France on structural reform and another one for Greece.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2015/02/27/20002-20150227ARTFIG00230-l-operation-seduction-de-macron-envers-bruxelles-et-les-marches-financiers.php
0 -
Maybe but how soon till it is reduced to lower levels as the need to reduce the deficit becomes critical as I cannot see any steps labour are taking in this respect. It seems its all tax and spend at presentRobD said:
I don't see it gaining too much traction, given that the proposal would only affect the very richest (£150,000 /yr).Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a gift to the SNP as if they were not way ahead already. I cannot imagine the SNP wont play this to their great advantageDair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.0 -
They are capping tax relief at pension pots of £1m or £25k a year (or less if you get unlucky with your choice of Fund). That's a very middle income aim. The SNP can snaffle up middle and high income voters with a promise to block Labour implementing this.RobD said:
I don't see it gaining too much traction, given that the proposal would only affect the very richest (£150,000 /yr).Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a gift to the SNP as if they were not way ahead already. I cannot imagine the SNP wont play this to their great advantageDair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.0 -
oil $60 a barrel.Dair said:
The debate over direction of subsidy is pretty much over as far as Scotland is concerned. Scotland believes it overpays to be in the Union and gets less back than it puts in.Alanbrooke said:Dair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.
Why does that worry you, you'd quite happily rob English pensioners to fund scottish fees ?
Your rules.
I think that's true, you may not. It doesn't matter. Scotland has made up it's mind. So your argument has no traction with Scottish voters.
On the other hand "Labour Plans Hammer Scots Grannies to Give Money to Rich English Students" does have traction. A lot of traction.
I think the problem is that Labour have never come to terms as to what the Devolution settlement means. They don't think through their national policies with regards to Scotland. The Tories don't have to, they're irrelevant in Scotland. But for Labour, any hopes they might have of a come back in 2020 rest on the ability to provide a coherent UK policy which is fair to Scotland and England IN THE MINDS OF VOTERS.
I don't think they can.
your economics are out of date.0 -
Technically you might need some funding in Year One for those very rich who just pay the fees (even if financially it would be better to let their kids take the loans and repay later, there are some who will just pay it).Pulpstar said:
I'd have thought the Labour plans would need some funding, obviously the FY it is implemented it'd need none, the year after a tiny, tiny amount (Students who have won the lottery that sort of thing), gradually increasing year after year.Dair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.
But we're talking trivial numbers here. It is effectively costless.0 -
Ah, sorry. The BBC article stated "He says a Labour government would pay for the fee cut from £9,000 by reducing tax relief on pensions for those earning over £150,000 per year.".Dair said:
They are capping tax relief at pension pots of £1m or £25k a year (or less if you get unlucky with your choice of Fund). That's a very middle income aim. The SNP can snaffle up middle and high income voters with a promise to block Labour implementing this.RobD said:
I don't see it gaining too much traction, given that the proposal would only affect the very richest (£150,000 /yr).Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a gift to the SNP as if they were not way ahead already. I cannot imagine the SNP wont play this to their great advantageDair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.0 -
Agreed - Nicola and Alex must be delighted - this election is going to create an amazing gridlock of a ParliamentDair said:
They are capping tax relief at pension pots of £1m or £25k a year (or less if you get unlucky with your choice of Fund). That's a very middle income aim. The SNP can snaffle up middle and high income voters with a promise to block Labour implementing this.RobD said:
I don't see it gaining too much traction, given that the proposal would only affect the very richest (£150,000 /yr).Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a gift to the SNP as if they were not way ahead already. I cannot imagine the SNP wont play this to their great advantageDair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.0 -
As we know with Universal Pensioner Benefits and the difficulty for politicians in ending them, people still have an out of date view of "poor pensioners". The word pensioner is filled with out-dated and factually incorrect meaning.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Maybe but how soon till it is reduced to lower levels as the need to reduce the deficit becomes critical as I cannot see any steps labour are taking in this respect. It seems its all tax and spend at presentRobD said:
I don't see it gaining too much traction, given that the proposal would only affect the very richest (£150,000 /yr).Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a gift to the SNP as if they were not way ahead already. I cannot imagine the SNP wont play this to their great advantageDair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.
The headline just says "Scots Pensioners Robbed for English Students".0 -
Didn't say I approved, just that it wouldn't gain that much traction. Saying that, apparently I was wrong about the change just being to those earning £150,000. According to Dair the maximum tax relief is being capped too.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Maybe but how soon till it is reduced to lower levels as the need to reduce the deficit becomes critical as I cannot see any steps labour are taking in this respect. It seems its all tax and spend at presentRobD said:
I don't see it gaining too much traction, given that the proposal would only affect the very richest (£150,000 /yr).Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a gift to the SNP as if they were not way ahead already. I cannot imagine the SNP wont play this to their great advantageDair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.0 -
Very few, but the prospect of a good, and free degree with no restriction on future careers, would encourage many bright students to cheat the system and save £000's.blackburn63 said:
So how many will study medicine, hardly an easy subject, for 3 years, purely with the intention of becoming an analyst?TheWatcher said:
A Level Medicine? That's a new one.blackburn63 said:
Nope, you'd assume the vast majority, having studied medicine at A level then uni that's what they'd want to do. As a highly paid analyst the treasury would still be pleased.TheWatcher said:
Presumably, you'd place restrictions on the eventual careers of such people?blackburn63 said:Here's an idea, with subjects such as science, technology, engineering, maths and medicine, why don't we get rid of tuition fees, after all we don't have enough home grown experts in that field. Its called investing in our future.
If somebody wants to waste three years doing media studies charge them.
Otherwise it's "Whoopee, free first class science degree!", and then walk into a City job as a highly paid Analyst.
It's ripe for abuse. Savvy students will go for a free degree, and then follow the more lucrative career path.
Regardless, the idea's unworkable. Someone would take HMG to court for discrimination, and win.0 -
But that is just Europe. There is no Europe in a unitary sense, just a collection of nation states seeking their own national interests and getting away with what they can. And as with all international law, the biggest states can ignore it, the smaller ones can't. But I agree, it is an irritating situation, particularly for the smaller members, which I think will become intolerable in the longer term. In that sense, I agree with the dirigistes that the only way Europe can continue in the longer-term is through addressing the democratic deficit, which means further political integration, which will mean stripping powers from the Commission and giving them to a pan-Europe assembly. The trouble is, that is not what the peoples of Europe really want. So this sort of thing will just continue.Alanbrooke said:
It's not about France raising debt, it's about France repeatedly ignoring EU directives and having a structural deficit it progressively kicks down the road while admonishing everyone else for not respecting their targets.MTimT said:
Yes, but France is not asking Germany/IMF/ECB to fund its deficit as it still has access to the financial markets. IIRC, France has both lower debt and deficit than the UK so there is not real reason to think that the financial markets won't continue to buy their bonds.Alanbrooke said:meanwhile in a universe far far away, there's one rule for France on structural reform and another one for Greece.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2015/02/27/20002-20150227ARTFIG00230-l-operation-seduction-de-macron-envers-bruxelles-et-les-marches-financiers.php0 -
I'm sure the Scots will be swayed by the eloquence of Miliband's argument.
Ahem.0 -
Again you seem completely oblivious to the most important aspect of politics.Alanbrooke said:
oil $60 a barrel.Dair said:
The debate over direction of subsidy is pretty much over as far as Scotland is concerned. Scotland believes it overpays to be in the Union and gets less back than it puts in.Alanbrooke said:Dair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.
Why does that worry you, you'd quite happily rob English pensioners to fund scottish fees ?
Your rules.
I think that's true, you may not. It doesn't matter. Scotland has made up it's mind. So your argument has no traction with Scottish voters.
On the other hand "Labour Plans Hammer Scots Grannies to Give Money to Rich English Students" does have traction. A lot of traction.
I think the problem is that Labour have never come to terms as to what the Devolution settlement means. They don't think through their national policies with regards to Scotland. The Tories don't have to, they're irrelevant in Scotland. But for Labour, any hopes they might have of a come back in 2020 rest on the ability to provide a coherent UK policy which is fair to Scotland and England IN THE MINDS OF VOTERS.
I don't think they can.
your economics are out of date.
Facts are irrelevant. I don't agree that oil prices harm Scotland's case for Independence. But that's not relevant. Despite the fall in price, SNP vote remains somewhere near 50%, Independence support has risen.
Perception matters. Nothing else.0 -
I think Dair is right about how Scotland sees itself vis-a-vis who pays who in the UK and the politics of grievance. There is no policy possible for Labour that doesn't either pander to the Scots or piss them off. Lose / lose. The union is already over emotionally. The reality will just need some time to catch up.
Eck and his Westminster team will be pushing that along as fast as they can.0 -
I thought he was also reducing the total pot size cap from £1.25m to £1m ?RobD said:
Ah, sorry. The BBC article stated "He says a Labour government would pay for the fee cut from £9,000 by reducing tax relief on pensions for those earning over £150,000 per year.".Dair said:
They are capping tax relief at pension pots of £1m or £25k a year (or less if you get unlucky with your choice of Fund). That's a very middle income aim. The SNP can snaffle up middle and high income voters with a promise to block Labour implementing this.RobD said:
I don't see it gaining too much traction, given that the proposal would only affect the very richest (£150,000 /yr).Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a gift to the SNP as if they were not way ahead already. I cannot imagine the SNP wont play this to their great advantageDair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.0 -
Almost the entire Westminster establishment wanted to preserve the unionBig_G_NorthWales said:
Agreed - Nicola and Alex must be delighted - this election is going to create an amazing gridlock of a ParliamentDair said:
They are capping tax relief at pension pots of £1m or £25k a year (or less if you get unlucky with your choice of Fund). That's a very middle income aim. The SNP can snaffle up middle and high income voters with a promise to block Labour implementing this.RobD said:
I don't see it gaining too much traction, given that the proposal would only affect the very richest (£150,000 /yr).Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a gift to the SNP as if they were not way ahead already. I cannot imagine the SNP wont play this to their great advantageDair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.
0 -
Well for once I can say that Ed Balls was right to oppose this latest Labour policy. The policy seems to do the opposite of what Labour surely meant to achieve, and it might even hand the SNP a stick to beat Labour with. No wonder Balls was against it.0
-
Mr. Dair, you're correct about the cap being reduced.
Edited extra bit: at least, according to a snippet of news I saw a little while ago.0 -
@Dair
You are entirely correct. The Scots are (mostly) too closed-minded to understand that they are being subsidised. Therefore they have adoped a contrarian falsehood through pure stubbornness and will not be shifted.
It's time to reward that ingratitude with a referendum south of the border to throw them out.0 -
The most important aspect to politics is money and Scotland has less to look forward to than it did last year. You're simply backing a time lag.Dair said:
Again you seem completely oblivious to the most important aspect of politics.Alanbrooke said:
oil $60 a barrel.Dair said:
The debate over direction of subsidy is pretty much over as far as Scotland is concerned. Scotland believes it overpays to be in the Union and gets less back than it puts in.Alanbrooke said:Dair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.
Why does that worry you, you'd quite happily rob English pensioners to fund scottish fees ?
Your rules.
I think that's true, you may not. It doesn't matter. Scotland has made up it's mind. So your argument has no traction with Scottish voters.
On the other hand "Labour Plans Hammer Scots Grannies to Give Money to Rich English Students" does have traction. A lot of traction.
I think the problem is that Labour have never come to terms as to what the Devolution settlement means. They don't think through their national policies with regards to Scotland. The Tories don't have to, they're irrelevant in Scotland. But for Labour, any hopes they might have of a come back in 2020 rest on the ability to provide a coherent UK policy which is fair to Scotland and England IN THE MINDS OF VOTERS.
I don't think they can.
your economics are out of date.
Facts are irrelevant. I don't agree that oil prices harm Scotland's case for Independence. But that's not relevant. Despite the fall in price, SNP vote remains somewhere near 50%, Independence support has risen.
Perception matters. Nothing else.
How's that Sovereign wealth fund coming along ?0 -
Can't see that in the article. And is £1m really a middle-class sized pension pot? According to the first result in google, the UK average is £70k (which does sound quite low).Dair said:
I thought he was also reducing the total pot size cap from £1.25m to £1m ?RobD said:
Ah, sorry. The BBC article stated "He says a Labour government would pay for the fee cut from £9,000 by reducing tax relief on pensions for those earning over £150,000 per year.".Dair said:
They are capping tax relief at pension pots of £1m or £25k a year (or less if you get unlucky with your choice of Fund). That's a very middle income aim. The SNP can snaffle up middle and high income voters with a promise to block Labour implementing this.RobD said:
I don't see it gaining too much traction, given that the proposal would only affect the very richest (£150,000 /yr).Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a gift to the SNP as if they were not way ahead already. I cannot imagine the SNP wont play this to their great advantageDair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-2820476/How-big-pension-pot-people-buy-annuity-income-buy-them.html0 -
Agree 100%Moses_ said:I just have to say that the Marf cartoon is as damming as it is poignant as it is utterly brilliant all in equal measures. By far the best I have seen from on this specific subject not only here but in the mainstream.
In sums up entirely in one drawing the complete and terrible mess we are in from cradle to grave.
Marf, you have nailed that one.0 -
so we'll be getting Scots pensioners hammered to fund North Sea tax cuts for english oil firms will we ?Patrick said:I think Dair is right about how Scotland sees itself vis-a-vis who pays who in the UK and the politics of grievance. There is no policy possible for Labour that doesn't either pander to the Scots or piss them off. Lose / lose. The union is already over emotionally. The reality will just need some time to catch up.
Eck and his Westminster team will be pushing that along as fast as they can.0 -
I am still of the opinion that the Conservatives post the election should trump labour by offering Scotland full control of its finances including corporation tax. With my Scottish family association going back 60 years I am certain the SNP will be the dominant power in Scotland for years to come with their social conscience but very pro business and tax agenda. While my wife and I are for the Union we would be voting SNP if we were still in Scotland.Pulpstar said:
Almost the entire Westminster establishment wanted to preserve the unionBig_G_NorthWales said:
Agreed - Nicola and Alex must be delighted - this election is going to create an amazing gridlock of a ParliamentDair said:
They are capping tax relief at pension pots of £1m or £25k a year (or less if you get unlucky with your choice of Fund). That's a very middle income aim. The SNP can snaffle up middle and high income voters with a promise to block Labour implementing this.RobD said:
I don't see it gaining too much traction, given that the proposal would only affect the very richest (£150,000 /yr).Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a gift to the SNP as if they were not way ahead already. I cannot imagine the SNP wont play this to their great advantageDair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.0 -
Well, that's how the SNP ran the independence campaign......Dair said:
Facts are irrelevant.Alanbrooke said:
oil $60 a barrel.Dair said:
The debate over direction of subsidy is pretty much over as far as Scotland is concerned. Scotland believes it overpays to be in the Union and gets less back than it puts in.Alanbrooke said:Dair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.
Why does that worry you, you'd quite happily rob English pensioners to fund scottish fees ?
Your rules.
I think that's true, you may not. It doesn't matter. Scotland has made up it's mind. So your argument has no traction with Scottish voters.
On the other hand "Labour Plans Hammer Scots Grannies to Give Money to Rich English Students" does have traction. A lot of traction.
I think the problem is that Labour have never come to terms as to what the Devolution settlement means. They don't think through their national policies with regards to Scotland. The Tories don't have to, they're irrelevant in Scotland. But for Labour, any hopes they might have of a come back in 2020 rest on the ability to provide a coherent UK policy which is fair to Scotland and England IN THE MINDS OF VOTERS.
I don't think they can.
your economics are out of date.0 -
Think mine was ~ £30k when I last looked...RobD said:
Can't see that in the article. And is £1m really a middle-class sized pension pot? According to the first result in google, the UK average is £70k (which does sound quite low).Dair said:
I thought he was also reducing the total pot size cap from £1.25m to £1m ?RobD said:
Ah, sorry. The BBC article stated "He says a Labour government would pay for the fee cut from £9,000 by reducing tax relief on pensions for those earning over £150,000 per year.".Dair said:
They are capping tax relief at pension pots of £1m or £25k a year (or less if you get unlucky with your choice of Fund). That's a very middle income aim. The SNP can snaffle up middle and high income voters with a promise to block Labour implementing this.RobD said:
I don't see it gaining too much traction, given that the proposal would only affect the very richest (£150,000 /yr).Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a gift to the SNP as if they were not way ahead already. I cannot imagine the SNP wont play this to their great advantageDair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-2820476/How-big-pension-pot-people-buy-annuity-income-buy-them.html0 -
Dair is also dead right about perceptions mattering way way more than facts in politics. Labour are generally much stronger on this than the Tories - but not, it seems, in Scotland.0
-
The referendum is in the past, dude. Time to like, you know, move on.CarlottaVance said:
Well, that's how the SNP ran the independence campaign......Dair said:
Facts are irrelevant.Alanbrooke said:
oil $60 a barrel.Dair said:
The debate over direction of subsidy is pretty much over as far as Scotland is concerned. Scotland believes it overpays to be in the Union and gets less back than it puts in.Alanbrooke said:Dair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.
Why does that worry you, you'd quite happily rob English pensioners to fund scottish fees ?
Your rules.
I think that's true, you may not. It doesn't matter. Scotland has made up it's mind. So your argument has no traction with Scottish voters.
On the other hand "Labour Plans Hammer Scots Grannies to Give Money to Rich English Students" does have traction. A lot of traction.
I think the problem is that Labour have never come to terms as to what the Devolution settlement means. They don't think through their national policies with regards to Scotland. The Tories don't have to, they're irrelevant in Scotland. But for Labour, any hopes they might have of a come back in 2020 rest on the ability to provide a coherent UK policy which is fair to Scotland and England IN THE MINDS OF VOTERS.
I don't think they can.
your economics are out of date.0 -
Mr. Wales, no. There comes a certain point whereby independence is more rational than staying together.
With an English Parliament that had equal power, that might work. Without it, it'd be crackers.0 -
It's not Scotland's case for independence, it's the case for an independent Scotland. There is a very big difference. Scots were recently given the (once in a lifetime, copyright A. Salmond, N. Sturgeon) option to go it alone. They chose not to.Dair said:
Again you seem completely oblivious to the most important aspect of politics.Alanbrooke said:
oil $60 a barrel.Dair said:
The debate over direction of subsidy is pretty much over as far as Scotland is concerned. Scotland believes it overpays to be in the Union and gets less back than it puts in.Alanbrooke said:Dair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.
Why does that worry you, you'd quite happily rob English pensioners to fund scottish fees ?
Your rules.
I think that's true, you may not. It doesn't matter. Scotland has made up it's mind. So your argument has no traction with Scottish voters.
On the other hand "Labour Plans Hammer Scots Grannies to Give Money to Rich English Students" does have traction. A lot of traction.
I think the problem is that Labour have never come to terms as to what the Devolution settlement means. They don't think through their national policies with regards to Scotland. The Tories don't have to, they're irrelevant in Scotland. But for Labour, any hopes they might have of a come back in 2020 rest on the ability to provide a coherent UK policy which is fair to Scotland and England IN THE MINDS OF VOTERS.
I don't think they can.
your economics are out of date.
Facts are irrelevant. I don't agree that oil prices harm Scotland's case for Independence. But that's not relevant. Despite the fall in price, SNP vote remains somewhere near 50%, Independence support has risen.
Perception matters. Nothing else.
That said, I agree with you. The price of oil is irrelevant to whether Scotland could be an independent country. Self-evidently it could be. The issue is much more whether it could afford to be and continue to support current levels of spending, based on an oil price of $60 a barrel and a currency it does not control.
0 -
Get saving, peasant! Only £970,000 to goPulpstar said:
Think mine was ~ £30k when I last looked...RobD said:
Can't see that in the article. And is £1m really a middle-class sized pension pot? According to the first result in google, the UK average is £70k (which does sound quite low).Dair said:
I thought he was also reducing the total pot size cap from £1.25m to £1m ?RobD said:
Ah, sorry. The BBC article stated "He says a Labour government would pay for the fee cut from £9,000 by reducing tax relief on pensions for those earning over £150,000 per year.".Dair said:
They are capping tax relief at pension pots of £1m or £25k a year (or less if you get unlucky with your choice of Fund). That's a very middle income aim. The SNP can snaffle up middle and high income voters with a promise to block Labour implementing this.RobD said:
I don't see it gaining too much traction, given that the proposal would only affect the very richest (£150,000 /yr).Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a gift to the SNP as if they were not way ahead already. I cannot imagine the SNP wont play this to their great advantageDair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-2820476/How-big-pension-pot-people-buy-annuity-income-buy-them.html 0 -
kicking and screaming the UK is heading towards a federal system. The one good thing about the Indyref is it has forced the pace on it. As a nation we are overcentralised.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Wales, no. There comes a certain point whereby independence is more rational than staying together.
With an English Parliament that had equal power, that might work. Without it, it'd be crackers.0 -
Erm...not sure I get who this one is aimed at or what point it is making. Dave gets zero MPs from Scotland (or near enough). I'm not sure any policy that hits pensions only in Scotland is possible from the Treasury. Only Holyrood could do that.Alanbrooke said:
so we'll be getting Scots pensioners hammered to fund North Sea tax cuts for english oil firms will we ?Patrick said:I think Dair is right about how Scotland sees itself vis-a-vis who pays who in the UK and the politics of grievance. There is no policy possible for Labour that doesn't either pander to the Scots or piss them off. Lose / lose. The union is already over emotionally. The reality will just need some time to catch up.
Eck and his Westminster team will be pushing that along as fast as they can.0 -
Kind of off topic - but that is why Britain is fucked. That is indeed quite a healthy Money Purchase Scheme pot. It's also only going to pay about £400 a month.RobD said:
Can't see that in the article. And is £1m really a middle-class sized pension pot? According to the first result in google, the UK average is £70k (which does sound quite low).Dair said:
I thought he was also reducing the total pot size cap from £1.25m to £1m ?RobD said:
Ah, sorry. The BBC article stated "He says a Labour government would pay for the fee cut from £9,000 by reducing tax relief on pensions for those earning over £150,000 per year.".Dair said:
They are capping tax relief at pension pots of £1m or £25k a year (or less if you get unlucky with your choice of Fund). That's a very middle income aim. The SNP can snaffle up middle and high income voters with a promise to block Labour implementing this.RobD said:
I don't see it gaining too much traction, given that the proposal would only affect the very richest (£150,000 /yr).Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a gift to the SNP as if they were not way ahead already. I cannot imagine the SNP wont play this to their great advantageDair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-2820476/How-big-pension-pot-people-buy-annuity-income-buy-them.html
Good luck being the government when that's the majority of pensioners instead of the £1500 that Final Salary would be paying.
Not to mention all those Final Salary retirees today who have paid off mortgages. Those £400 a month retirees in 2030 won't be mortgage free (or anything close to it).0 -
We may be moving rapidly to that conclusion but there is still a strong desire to retain the Union albeit as a federal arrangementMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Wales, no. There comes a certain point whereby independence is more rational than staying together.
With an English Parliament that had equal power, that might work. Without it, it'd be crackers.0 -
Alanbrooke said:
so we'll be getting Scots pensioners hammered to fund North Sea tax cuts for english oil firms will we ?Patrick said:I think Dair is right about how Scotland sees itself vis-a-vis who pays who in the UK and the politics of grievance. There is no policy possible for Labour that doesn't either pander to the Scots or piss them off. Lose / lose. The union is already over emotionally. The reality will just need some time to catch up.
Eck and his Westminster team will be pushing that along as fast as they can.
http://forums.scottishfootballforums.co.uk/uploads/monthly_06_2014/post-1990-0-46786300-1404158698.jpg
"Better Together, Best of both worlds"
0 -
Mr. Brooke, we'll see.
Westminster is happy to throw powers at Scotland (and only today a story has appeared with more being offered to Wales) but they refuse to even consider an English Parliament. The left want shitty little political fiefdoms, the Conservatives don't want Westminster to be emasculated. That said, at least the blues want to take a step in the right direction instead of carving England up for the convenience of party politics.0 -
I'm hoping those city boys can roll it up large for me between their hookers and coke. Oh Who am I kidding - I'm only bothering because my company matches what I stick in.RobD said:
Get saving, peasant! Only £970,000 to goPulpstar said:
Think mine was ~ £30k when I last looked...RobD said:
Can't see that in the article. And is £1m really a middle-class sized pension pot? According to the first result in google, the UK average is £70k (which does sound quite low).Dair said:
I thought he was also reducing the total pot size cap from £1.25m to £1m ?RobD said:
Ah, sorry. The BBC article stated "He says a Labour government would pay for the fee cut from £9,000 by reducing tax relief on pensions for those earning over £150,000 per year.".Dair said:
They are capping tax relief at pension pots of £1m or £25k a year (or less if you get unlucky with your choice of Fund). That's a very middle income aim. The SNP can snaffle up middle and high income voters with a promise to block Labour implementing this.RobD said:
I don't see it gaining too much traction, given that the proposal would only affect the very richest (£150,000 /yr).Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a gift to the SNP as if they were not way ahead already. I cannot imagine the SNP wont play this to their great advantageDair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-2820476/How-big-pension-pot-people-buy-annuity-income-buy-them.html
The growth forecasts I've seen are ludicrous for the pot.0 -
It was aimed at our SNP chums given nearly every Scottish party is demanding big tax breaks for NS oil. And since tax is currently a central government item any reduction will have to be made up for by the rest of us including scottish pensioners.Patrick said:
Erm...not sure I get who this one is aimed at or what point it is making. Dave gets zero MPs from Scotland (or near enough). I'm not sure any policy that hits pensions only in Scotland is possible from the Treasury. Only Holyrood could do that.Alanbrooke said:
so we'll be getting Scots pensioners hammered to fund North Sea tax cuts for english oil firms will we ?Patrick said:I think Dair is right about how Scotland sees itself vis-a-vis who pays who in the UK and the politics of grievance. There is no policy possible for Labour that doesn't either pander to the Scots or piss them off. Lose / lose. The union is already over emotionally. The reality will just need some time to catch up.
Eck and his Westminster team will be pushing that along as fast as they can.0 -
Not just low but worthless. The average person with this much stands to lose means-tested benefits which are worth as much as the pension pot he or she has saved.RobD said:
Can't see that in the article. And is £1m really a middle-class sized pension pot? According to the first result in google, the UK average is £70k (which does sound quite low).Dair said:
I thought he was also reducing the total pot size cap from £1.25m to £1m ?RobD said:
Ah, sorry. The BBC article stated "He says a Labour government would pay for the fee cut from £9,000 by reducing tax relief on pensions for those earning over £150,000 per year.".Dair said:
They are capping tax relief at pension pots of £1m or £25k a year (or less if you get unlucky with your choice of Fund). That's a very middle income aim. The SNP can snaffle up middle and high income voters with a promise to block Labour implementing this.RobD said:
I don't see it gaining too much traction, given that the proposal would only affect the very richest (£150,000 /yr).Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a gift to the SNP as if they were not way ahead already. I cannot imagine the SNP wont play this to their great advantageDair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-2820476/How-big-pension-pot-people-buy-annuity-income-buy-them.html
I think the Telegraph once estimated that you must save more than £180k before your pension pot will buy you a higher standard of living than you would otherwise have, living on Pension Credit, Council Tax credit, council-paid care home fees, etc, ad nauseam.
What a barmy system we have.0 -
I very much hope we're heading towards a free and equal federation. English Parliament and all.Alanbrooke said:
kicking and screaming the UK is heading towards a federal system. The one good thing about the Indyref is it has forced the pace on it. As a nation we are overcentralised.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Wales, no. There comes a certain point whereby independence is more rational than staying together.
With an English Parliament that had equal power, that might work. Without it, it'd be crackers.
But...the Eeyore in me doesn't see it. Scotland will go if they don't forever get preferential public spending vs rUK and the rUK will never wear that long term in a federation.0 -
Spend it all, retire poor and fleece the taxpayer seems to be the way forward.rural_voter said:
Not just low but worthless. The average person with this much stands to lose means-tested benefits which are worth as much as the pension pot he or she has saved.RobD said:
Can't see that in the article. And is £1m really a middle-class sized pension pot? According to the first result in google, the UK average is £70k (which does sound quite low).Dair said:
I thought he was also reducing the total pot size cap from £1.25m to £1m ?RobD said:
Ah, sorry. The BBC article stated "He says a Labour government would pay for the fee cut from £9,000 by reducing tax relief on pensions for those earning over £150,000 per year.".Dair said:
They are capping tax relief at pension pots of £1m or £25k a year (or less if you get unlucky with your choice of Fund). That's a very middle income aim. The SNP can snaffle up middle and high income voters with a promise to block Labour implementing this.RobD said:
I don't see it gaining too much traction, given that the proposal would only affect the very richest (£150,000 /yr).Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a gift to the SNP as if they were not way ahead already. I cannot imagine the SNP wont play this to their great advantageDair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-2820476/How-big-pension-pot-people-buy-annuity-income-buy-them.html
I think the Telegraph once estimated that you must save more than £180k before your pension pot will buy you a higher standard of living than you would otherwise have, living on Pension Credit, Council Tax credit, council-paid care home fees, etc, ad nauseam.
What a barmy system we have.0 -
Shuddering and whining seems more aposite..Alanbrooke said:
kicking and screaming the UK is heading towards a federal system.
0 -
Apart from the tax problems and the lack of employer matching in many cases, the fixed annual costs in the UK are the highest in the world.Pulpstar said:
I'm hoping those city boys can roll it up large for me between their hookers and coke. Oh Who am I kidding - I'm only bothering because my company matches what I stick in.RobD said:
Get saving, peasant! Only £970,000 to goPulpstar said:
Think mine was ~ £30k when I last looked...RobD said:
Can't see that in the article. And is £1m really a middle-class sized pension pot? According to the first result in google, the UK average is £70k (which does sound quite low).Dair said:
I thought he was also reducing the total pot size cap from £1.25m to £1m ?RobD said:
Ah, sorry. The BBC article stated "He says a Labour government would pay for the fee cut from £9,000 by reducing tax relief on pensions for those earning over £150,000 per year.".Dair said:
They are capping tax relief at pension pots of £1m or £25k a year (or less if you get unlucky with your choice of Fund). That's a very middle income aim. The SNP can snaffle up middle and high income voters with a promise to block Labour implementing this.RobD said:
I don't see it gaining too much traction, given that the proposal would only affect the very richest (£150,000 /yr).Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a gift to the SNP as if they were not way ahead already. I cannot imagine the SNP wont play this to their great advantageDair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-2820476/How-big-pension-pot-people-buy-annuity-income-buy-them.html
The growth forecasts I've seen are ludicrous for the pot.
I doubt many people's pots will have grown at all since 2008. 6 years of stagnant growth in an already poor instrument. It's just so badly wrong. Most people don't think about it.
That might be for the best. I thought about it and realised it was a pointless waste of money.0 -
Very good cartoon Marf. One of your best in my opinion.
I'm starting to think we have all misjudged Milliband Junior. His pension cut and student fee reduction felled two birds with one stone. I'm quite a fan of Vince Cable but his interview at lunchtime was a car crash. All it succeeded in doing (whether by accident or design) was to make his leader appear ridiculous. As for the pension changes they're well overdue. The system has been manifestly unfair for years and as a reasonably high earner they're an embarrassment.0 -
it's the british way divvie.Theuniondivvie said:
Shuddering and whining seems more aposite..Alanbrooke said:
kicking and screaming the UK is heading towards a federal system.0 -
The rich today and you tomorrowRobD said:
I don't see it gaining too much traction, given that the proposal would only affect the very richest (£150,000 /yr).Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a gift to the SNP as if they were not way ahead already. I cannot imagine the SNP wont play this to their great advantageDair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.0 -
Putting aside that government would be implementing this and they could rewrite any laws to ensure it did not come under legal scrutiny, under what legislation would they be able to get legal redress for such discrimination? Unless government has defined something that applies any discrimination would be legal.TheWatcher said:
Very few, but the prospect of a good, and free degree with no restriction on future careers, would encourage many bright students to cheat the system and save £000's.blackburn63 said:
So how many will study medicine, hardly an easy subject, for 3 years, purely with the intention of becoming an analyst?TheWatcher said:
A Level Medicine? That's a new one.blackburn63 said:
Nope, you'd assume the vast majority, having studied medicine at A level then uni that's what they'd want to do. As a highly paid analyst the treasury would still be pleased.TheWatcher said:
Presumably, you'd place restrictions on the eventual careers of such people?blackburn63 said:Here's an idea, with subjects such as science, technology, engineering, maths and medicine, why don't we get rid of tuition fees, after all we don't have enough home grown experts in that field. Its called investing in our future.
If somebody wants to waste three years doing media studies charge them.
Otherwise it's "Whoopee, free first class science degree!", and then walk into a City job as a highly paid Analyst.
It's ripe for abuse. Savvy students will go for a free degree, and then follow the more lucrative career path.
Regardless, the idea's unworkable. Someone would take HMG to court for discrimination, and win.
After all, if it were the case that such discrimination was forbidden surely the whole scholarship system in this country would have to be abolished because effectively what the government would be doing is offering Government scholarships?0 -
Roger, you do realise you can organise your affairs so you can pay the maximum amount of tax possible ? And then make vountary additional payments in case that's not enough.Roger said:Very good cartoon Marf. One of your best in my opinion.
I'm starting to think we have all misjudged Milliband Junior. His pension cut and student fee reduction felled two birds with one stone. I'm quite a fan of Vince Cable but his interview at lunchtime was a car crash. All it succeeded in doing (whether by accident or design) was to make his leader appear ridiculous. As for the pension changes they're well overdue. The system has been manifestly unfair for years and as a reasonably high earner they're an embarrassment.
It's called tax gorging and should save you years of future embarassment.0 -
A mix of gold bars and property is by far the best retirement planning in the UK today.TheWatcher said:
Spend it all, retire poor and fleece the taxpayer seems to be the way forward.0 -
Pension credit is going, the new state pension is paid at a higher rate. Presumably it is still worth paying off a mortgage and living in free accommodation, as then much more of your income is disposable.rural_voter said:
Not just low but worthless. The average person with this much stands to lose means-tested benefits which are worth as much as the pension pot he or she has saved.RobD said:
Can't see that in the article. And is £1m really a middle-class sized pension pot? According to the first result in google, the UK average is £70k (which does sound quite low).Dair said:
I thought he was also reducing the total pot size cap from £1.25m to £1m ?RobD said:
Ah, sorry. The BBC article stated "He says a Labour government would pay for the fee cut from £9,000 by reducing tax relief on pensions for those earning over £150,000 per year.".Dair said:
They are capping tax relief at pension pots of £1m or £25k a year (or less if you get unlucky with your choice of Fund). That's a very middle income aim. The SNP can snaffle up middle and high income voters with a promise to block Labour implementing this.RobD said:
I don't see it gaining too much traction, given that the proposal would only affect the very richest (£150,000 /yr).Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a gift to the SNP as if they were not way ahead already. I cannot imagine the SNP wont play this to their great advantageDair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-2820476/How-big-pension-pot-people-buy-annuity-income-buy-them.html
I think the Telegraph once estimated that you must save more than £180k before your pension pot will buy you a higher standard of living than you would otherwise have, living on Pension Credit, Council Tax credit, council-paid care home fees, etc, ad nauseam.
What a barmy system we have.
0 -
I listened to a program on Radio 4 about the shortage of GP's and how this had been driven by the early retirement of many GP's as a result of the cap on Lifetime Pension Allowance which took away the incentive for experienced GP's in the mid 50's from continuing in practice.
It's very easy to find money by curtailing higher rate relief but the unintended consequences could be far more expensive.0 -
Yep. I don't approve of the policy, but as it stands I don't think there will be much sympathy for the people on six figure salaries.malcolmg said:
The rich today and you tomorrowRobD said:
I don't see it gaining too much traction, given that the proposal would only affect the very richest (£150,000 /yr).Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a gift to the SNP as if they were not way ahead already. I cannot imagine the SNP wont play this to their great advantageDair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.0 -
Great news for UKIP then - a majority of people DONT think they are racist.TGOHF said:@DPJHodges: Comres poll for ITV News. 44% of people believe Ukip is a racist party.
Rather like the BBC saying - Great news 73% of muslims don't approve of killing journalists for publishing cartoons of their 'prophet'.
0 -
Farage's speech very similar to Carswell's piece in The Time in terms of placing the emphasis on a positive message rather than complaining...
Maybe it was a deliberate strategy rather that a leadership tear up?
0 -
Gold! I'd rather have something paying a dividend or coupon thanks.Dair said:
A mix of gold bars and property is by far the best retirement planning in the UK today.TheWatcher said:
Spend it all, retire poor and fleece the taxpayer seems to be the way forward.0 -
Patrick , they will not let go of any powers , it will break in the end unfortunately.Patrick said:
I very much hope we're heading towards a free and equal federation. English Parliament and all.Alanbrooke said:
kicking and screaming the UK is heading towards a federal system. The one good thing about the Indyref is it has forced the pace on it. As a nation we are overcentralised.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Wales, no. There comes a certain point whereby independence is more rational than staying together.
With an English Parliament that had equal power, that might work. Without it, it'd be crackers.
But...the Eeyore in me doesn't see it. Scotland will go if they don't forever get preferential public spending vs rUK and the rUK will never wear that long term in a federation.0 -
Mr. G, welcome to pb.com.0
-
No, a majority of those who expressed an opinion thought that UKIP was a racist party. 36% thought that it wasn't a racist party. 20% didn't know.weejonnie said:
Great news for UKIP then - a majority of people DONT think they are racist.TGOHF said:@DPJHodges: Comres poll for ITV News. 44% of people believe Ukip is a racist party.
Rather like the BBC saying - Great news 73% of muslims don't approve of killing journalists for publishing cartoons of their 'prophet'.0 -
Seconded. Welcome to the madhouse.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. G, welcome to pb.com.
0 -
True , but once up there you pay eyewatering amounts to the taxman, and not many get it for sitting about doing nothing.RobD said:
Yep. I don't approve of the policy, but as it stands I don't think there will be much sympathy for the people on six figure salaries.malcolmg said:
The rich today and you tomorrowRobD said:
I don't see it gaining too much traction, given that the proposal would only affect the very richest (£150,000 /yr).Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a gift to the SNP as if they were not way ahead already. I cannot imagine the SNP wont play this to their great advantageDair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.0 -
As a long term investment, Gold is quite attractive. There might be better choices of commodity but VAT means Gold is the only choice for UK citizens. Hold the money in a savings account, buy 100g at a time when the price looks good.Alistair said:
Gold! I'd rather have something paying a dividend or coupon thanks.Dair said:
A mix of gold bars and property is by far the best retirement planning in the UK today.TheWatcher said:
Spend it all, retire poor and fleece the taxpayer seems to be the way forward.0 -
Why thank you MD, you forgot who I amMorris_Dancer said:Mr. G, welcome to pb.com.
0 -
Which other commodities do you get charged VAT on?Dair said:
As a long term investment, Gold is quite attractive. There might be better choices of commodity but VAT means Gold is the only choice for UK citizens. Hold the money in a savings account, buy 100g at a time when the price looks good.Alistair said:
Gold! I'd rather have something paying a dividend or coupon thanks.Dair said:
A mix of gold bars and property is by far the best retirement planning in the UK today.TheWatcher said:
Spend it all, retire poor and fleece the taxpayer seems to be the way forward.0 -
Mr. G (the other one), it's not my fault you chaps have the same surname.0
-
Former chairman of Labour's NEC speaks at UKIP's conference0
-
You do know that companies fund final pension schemes by buying shares, and bonds?Dair said:
Kind of off topic - but that is why Britain is fucked. That is indeed quite a healthy Money Purchase Scheme pot. It's also only going to pay about £400 a month.RobD said:
Can't see that in the article. And is £1m really a middle-class sized pension pot? According to the first result in google, the UK average is £70k (which does sound quite low).Dair said:
I thought he was also reducing the total pot size cap from £1.25m to £1m ?RobD said:
Ah, sorry. The BBC article stated "He says a Labour government would pay for the fee cut from £9,000 by reducing tax relief on pensions for those earning over £150,000 per year.".Dair said:
They are capping tax relief at pension pots of £1m or £25k a year (or less if you get unlucky with your choice of Fund). That's a very middle income aim. The SNP can snaffle up middle and high income voters with a promise to block Labour implementing this.RobD said:
I don't see it gaining too much traction, given that the proposal would only affect the very richest (£150,000 /yr).Big_G_NorthWales said:
What a gift to the SNP as if they were not way ahead already. I cannot imagine the SNP wont play this to their great advantageDair said:Labour's plan is to rob Scottish pensioners on the pretence of funding a cut in fees for English students (which doesn't actually need any funding).
Better Together indeed.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-2820476/How-big-pension-pot-people-buy-annuity-income-buy-them.html
Good luck being the government when that's the majority of pensioners instead of the £1500 that Final Salary would be paying.
Not to mention all those Final Salary retirees today who have paid off mortgages. Those £400 a month retirees in 2030 won't be mortgage free (or anything close to it).
All a "final salary scheme" does is to move the risk onto the employer. Which means companies wouldn't make as much money (as they'd need to keep making extra contributions to their schemes). Which, in turn, means their profits and share prices would be lower.0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
