If you consider the massive problems this economy has, the fact the government is talking about railcards today is kind of pathetic really.
+1. Doubt this policy is really going to swing many votes. The budget so far seems like it’ll be a damp squib, but we’ll see.
If it can avoid disaster I think it'll have met it's aim, given they cannot compete with completely turning on the money tap. If the criticism that always accompanies the budget is mostly around missed opportunities and small stuff like railcards, then I think they would count that as a relative win.
Brexit is happening. A chunk of the middle class youth vote (and I'd be far more concerned with 25-40 year olds than the under 25s, who have dressed to the Left since time immemorial and didn't much like Cameron either) clearly detest Brexit, but not all, particularly in the regions.
Some reciprocal 2-year youth work visa scheme for the under 30s in the EU, and also with other countries like Canada and Australia, and further help for first time home buyers would seem to do the trick by GE2022.
The rest is getting the rhetoric and mood music right, which matters.
I expect in 20 years time you'll still be wondering why a cohort of 40-60 year olds are so firmly anti-Conservative.
Ok.
Your entire strategy for this group seems to be based around "I'm right, they're wrong and in a couple of years they will see I'm right, or they'll forget if I can dangle a few gewgaws under their nose". To date there hasn't been the slightest indication that this group are being persuaded by Brexit, especially given the incompetent and narrow-minded way in which the negotiations have been conducted by the UK government.
The Conservatives are toxifying themselves for a generation at present.
The tax rise (relief cut) that has seemed 'only a matter of time' for a while is higher rate relief on pension contributions, which is reasonably big money.
Steve Webb used to talk about that I think. Risky territory for a Conservative I suspect...
The problem with squeezing pensions still further is the two-tier system that exists with defined benefits pension arrangements, as well as interest rates being on the floor causing annuity rates to tumble in recent years.
Those in their 50s with good jobs need to be encouraged to shovel every spare penny into pensions, otherwise they’ll be relying on the state in future.
Not sure about that... do many higher rate taxpayers end up relying on the state in later life?
Anyone who’s left it late to start a pension, even if they’re earning £50-£60k a year at retirement, can struggle to get an income of £10-£12k a year in the current annuity market and can end up claiming pension credit. The higher rate relief makes a massive difference to people’s willingness to save, especially to avoid the child benefit withdrawal at £50-60k and personal allowance tapering at £100-£115k incomes.
I’d like to see some evidence on that. I’m suspicious of the idea that wealthy people need generous treatment to be encouraged to save and that this is the best use of govt resources.
I’m 34 and save £1k a month into my pension via a combination of contributions from me and my employer, and tax relief. My latest projected pension income from my pension provider is £12k in 2017 prices.
Everyone is screwed for retirement.
I'm not an expert - but that seems a bit low.
Even if you started saving this year - 12k/year for 30 years = 360k. At a safe withdrawal rate of 4% - which I believe is what the early retire gurus say is basically guaranteed - you should be able to take out 14.4k/year. And that's not counting any of the gains from interest over that 30 year time span.
Brexit is happening. A chunk of the middle class youth vote (and I'd be far more concerned with 25-40 year olds than the under 25s, who have dressed to the Left since time immemorial and didn't much like Cameron either) clearly detest Brexit, but not all, particularly in the regions.
Some reciprocal 2-year youth work visa scheme for the under 30s in the EU, and also with other countries like Canada and Australia, and further help for first time home buyers would seem to do the trick by GE2022.
The rest is getting the rhetoric and mood music right, which matters.
I expect in 20 years time you'll still be wondering why a cohort of 40-60 year olds are so firmly anti-Conservative.
Won't they mostly have emigrated, Alastair?
My son's off, and I believe Smithson Jnr is now a Californian. Could become a stampede.
Given Bernie Sanders currently leads US polls for the 2020 presidential election and Sanders backed Corbyn in June I do not think the US is safe from populism either, Trump v Sanders is hardly a recipe for stability whichever of them wins.
Trudeau's Canada or Australia or even Macron's France (provided he sees off Melenchon and Le Pen in 2022) are all better bets for stability, growth and centrist politics in the next decade than the UK or USA
Well I was teasing re Smithson, Hyufd, who was a Brexit supporter, as you know. Seriously, I would agree with your last paragraph, especially Canada which seems a great option for those that can go there. That would include me, by the way.
Yes he went off to sunnier climes soon after leaving us with Brexit.
Canada is a good option provided you are willing to endure the winters
The tax rise (relief cut) that has seemed 'only a matter of time' for a while is higher rate relief on pension contributions, which is reasonably big money.
Steve Webb used to talk about that I think. Risky territory for a Conservative I suspect...
The problem with squeezing pensions still further is the two-tier system that exists with defined benefits pension arrangements, as well as interest rates being on the floor causing annuity rates to tumble in recent years.
Those in their 50s with good jobs need to be encouraged to shovel every spare penny into pensions, otherwise they’ll be relying on the state in future.
Not sure about that... do many higher rate taxpayers end up relying on the state in later life?
Anyone who’s left it late to start a pension, even if they’re earning £50-£60k a year at retirement, can struggle to get an income of £10-£12k a year in the current annuity market and can end up claiming pension credit. The higher rate relief makes a massive difference to people’s willingness to save, especially to avoid the child benefit withdrawal at £50-60k and personal allowance tapering at £100-£115k incomes.
I’d like to see some evidence on that. I’m suspicious of the idea that wealthy people need generous treatment to be encouraged to save and that this is the best use of govt resources.
Oh I don't doubt you are right on annuities (which as I understand it are normally quite a poor investment).
But evidence on higher rate relief encouraging saving? And encouraging saving in the right groups of people?
From a summary of Private Pensions Institute report for instance:
"There is limited evidence around the effectiveness of tax incentives in encouraging pension saving. However, such evidence as there is suggests that tax relief is not very effective in incentivising saving."
For the masses, for sure. But the minor industry around pensions advice for high earners, and all the trouble successive governments have gone to, introducing and tightening lifetime caps and annual limits on contributions, suggest that the incentives for high earners remain high, and this is my personal experience having worked in the field.
Brexit is happening. A chunk of the middle class youth vote (and I'd be far more concerned with 25-40 year olds than the under 25s, who have dressed to the Left since time immemorial and didn't much like Cameron either) clearly detest Brexit, but not all, particularly in the regions.
Some reciprocal 2-year youth work visa scheme for the under 30s in the EU, and also with other countries like Canada and Australia, and further help for first time home buyers would seem to do the trick by GE2022.
The rest is getting the rhetoric and mood music right, which matters.
I expect in 20 years time you'll still be wondering why a cohort of 40-60 year olds are so firmly anti-Conservative.
Won't they mostly have emigrated, Alastair?
My son's off, and I believe Smithson Jnr is now a Californian. Could become a stampede.
Given Bernie Sanders currently leads US polls for the 2020 presidential election and Sanders backed Corbyn in June I do not think the US is safe from populism either, Trump v Sanders is hardly a recipe for stability whichever of them wins.
Trudeau's Canada or Australia or even Macron's France (provided he sees off Melenchon and Le Pen in 2022) are all better bets for stability, growth and centrist politics in the next decade than the UK or USA
Well I was teasing re Smithson, Hyufd, who was a Brexit supporter, as you know. Seriously, I would agree with your last paragraph, especially Canada which seems a great option for those that can go there. That would include me, by the way.
Yes he went off to sunnier climes soon after leaving us with Brexit.
Canada is a good option provided you are willing to endure the winters
And the property prices. Their boom even put the Uk into the shade
Brexit is happening. A chunk of the middle class youth vote (and I'd be far more concerned with 25-40 year olds than the under 25s, who have dressed to the Left since time immemorial and didn't much like Cameron either) clearly detest Brexit, but not all, particularly in the regions.
Some reciprocal 2-year youth work visa scheme for the under 30s in the EU, and also with other countries like Canada and Australia, and further help for first time home buyers would seem to do the trick by GE2022.
The rest is getting the rhetoric and mood music right, which matters.
I expect in 20 years time you'll still be wondering why a cohort of 40-60 year olds are so firmly anti-Conservative.
Won't they mostly have emigrated, Alastair?
My son's off, and I believe Smithson Jnr is now a Californian. Could become a stampede.
Given Bernie Sanders currently leads US polls for the 2020 presidential election and Sanders backed Corbyn in June I do not think the US is safe from populism either, Trump v Sanders is hardly a recipe for stability whichever of them wins.
Trudeau's Canada or Australia or even Macron's France (provided he sees off Melenchon and Le Pen in 2022) are all better bets for stability, growth and centrist politics in the next decade than the UK or USA
Well I was teasing re Smithson, Hyufd, who was a Brexit supporter, as you know. Seriously, I would agree with your last paragraph, especially Canada which seems a great option for those that can go there. That would include me, by the way.
Yes he went off to sunnier climes soon after leaving us with Brexit.
Canada is a good option provided you are willing to endure the winters
Friend of mine just emigrated from Dubai to Canada - he’s about to discover winter!
Brexit is happening. A chunk of the middle class youth vote (and I'd be far more concerned with 25-40 year olds than the under 25s, who have dressed to the Left since time immemorial and didn't much like Cameron either) clearly detest Brexit, but not all, particularly in the regions.
Some reciprocal 2-year youth work visa scheme for the under 30s in the EU, and also with other countries like Canada and Australia, and further help for first time home buyers would seem to do the trick by GE2022.
The rest is getting the rhetoric and mood music right, which matters.
I expect in 20 years time you'll still be wondering why a cohort of 40-60 year olds are so firmly anti-Conservative.
Won't they mostly have emigrated, Alastair?
My son's off, and I believe Smithson Jnr is now a Californian. Could become a stampede.
Given Bernie Sanders currently leads US polls for the 2020 presidential election and Sanders backed Corbyn in June do not think the US is safe from populism either, Trump v Sanders is hardly a recipe for stability whichever of them wins.
Trudeau's Canada or Australia or even Macron's France (provided he sees off Melenchon and Le Pen in 2022) are all better bets for stability, growth and centrist politics in the next decade than the UK or USA
Stability was one of Britain's USPs. Brexit killed that overnight. Shame.
For the white working class in the UK and USA though stability was not enough given falling living standards and their concerns over insufficient immigration controls
Brexit is happening. A chunk of the middle class youth vote (and I'd be far more concerned with 25-40 year olds than the under 25s, who have dressed to the Left since time immemorial and didn't much like Cameron either) clearly detest Brexit, but not all, particularly in the regions.
Some reciprocal 2-year youth work visa scheme for the under 30s in the EU, and also with other countries like Canada and Australia, and further help for first time home buyers would seem to do the trick by GE2022.
The rest is getting the rhetoric and mood music right, which matters.
I expect in 20 years time you'll still be wondering why a cohort of 40-60 year olds are so firmly anti-Conservative.
Won't they mostly have emigrated, Alastair?
My son's off, and I believe Smithson Jnr is now a Californian. Could become a stampede.
Given Bernie Sanders currently leads US polls for the 2020 presidential election and Sanders backed Corbyn in June I do not think the US is safe from populism either, Trump v Sanders is hardly a recipe for stability whichever of them wins.
Trudeau's Canada or Australia or even Macron's France (provided he sees off Melenchon and Le Pen in 2022) are all better bets for stability, growth and centrist politics in the next decade than the UK or USA
Well I was teasing re Smithson, Hyufd, who was a Brexit supporter, as you know. Seriously, I would agree with your last paragraph, especially Canada which seems a great option for those that can go there. That would include me, by the way.
Yes he went off to sunnier climes soon after leaving us with Brexit.
Canada is a good option provided you are willing to endure the winters
Friend of mine just emigrated from Dubai to Canada - he’s about to discover winter!
Indeed Dubai winters are warmer thsn their summers
For the masses, for sure. But the minor industry around pensions advice for high earners, and all the trouble successive governments have gone to, introducing and tightening lifetime caps and annual limits on contributions, suggest that the incentives for high earners remain high, and this is my personal experience having worked in the field.
But the debate is about "incentivising saving". It is quite likely that all that high earner activity doesn't incentivise a penny of extra saving (except the saving of the tax rebates) because it is money which was always going to be saved anyway.
The tax rise (relief cut) that has seemed 'only a matter of time' for a while is higher rate relief on pension contributions, which is reasonably big money.
...
The problem with squeezing pensions still further is the two-tier system that exists with defined benefits pension arrangements, as well as interest rates being on the floor causing annuity rates to tumble in recent years.
Those in their 50s with good jobs need to be encouraged to shovel every spare penny into pensions .
Not sure about that... do many higher rate taxpayers end up relying on the state in later life?
Anyone who’s left it late to start a pension, even if they’re earning £50-£60k a year at retirement, can struggle to get an income of £10-£12k a year in the current annuity market and can end up claiming pension credit. The higher rate relief makes a massive difference to people’s willingness to save, especially to avoid the child benefit withdrawal at £50-60k and personal allowance tapering es.
I’d like to see some evidence on that. I’m suspicious of the idea that wealthy people need generous treatment to be encouraged to save and that this is the best use of govt resources.
I’m 34 and save £1k a month into my pension via a combination of contributions from me and my employer, and tax relief. My latest projected pension income from my pension provider is £12k in 2017 prices.
Everyone is screwed for retirement.
I'm not an expert - but that seems a bit low.
Even if you started saving this year - 12k/year for 30 years = 360k. At a safe withdrawal rate of 4% - which I believe is what the early retire gurus say is basically guaranteed - you should be able to take out 14.4k/year. And that's not counting any of the gains from interest over that 30 year time span.
That's close enough, given all the different assumptions that can be made over such a long time period. There is also the cost of add-on benefits such as spouses pension to consider. And of course most people take 25% out up front as a tax free lump sum. There is no real interest rate at the moment (the return from most cash pension funds is currently exceeded by the annual deduction in fees), although you would still expect some real long run return from equities.
The bottom line is that near-zero interest rates make future pensions cost out as very expensive. If interest rates do return to the long-run average (noting that this 'if' has been around for almost ten years now) one of the benefits is that the pension funding position becomes a lot more healthy.
Off topic, is Murder on the Orient Express the most disappointing Kenneth Branagh film ever?
You should have seen it at the Royal Albert Hall premiere, with the cast sat just behind you so you couldn't walk out!
Pointless project when there is a servicable all-star movie version and the incomparable Suchet TV version. In the light of the strong hint that he will do Death on the Nile next, I can only think Branagh was looking for another franchise after Wallander.
It is worth remembering that the so-called omnishambles of the 2012 was based around one policy and turned out to be no such shambles at all - roughly 12 months later, GDP growth picked up markedly.
Brexit is happening. A chunk of the middle class youth vote (and I'd be far more concerned with 25-40 year olds than the under 25s, who have dressed to the Left since time immemorial and didn't much like Cameron either) clearly detest Brexit, but not all, particularly in the regions.
Some reciprocal 2-year youth work visa scheme for the under 30s in the EU, and also with other countries like Canada and Australia, and further help for first time home buyers would seem to do the trick by GE2022.
The rest is getting the rhetoric and mood music right, which matters.
I expect in 20 years time you'll still be wondering why a cohort of 40-60 year olds are so firmly anti-Conservative.
Ok.
Your entire strategy for this group seems to be based around "I'm right, they're wrong and in a couple of years they will see I'm right, or they'll forget if I can dangle a few gewgaws under their nose". To date there hasn't been the slightest indication that this group are being persuaded by Brexit, especially given the incompetent and narrow-minded way in which the negotiations have been conducted by the UK government.
The Conservatives are toxifying themselves for a generation at present.
You got GE2017 wrong, as did I. We can't see 17 months into the future, yet alone 17 years.
The World and the landscape of British politics will look very different in 20 years time, to which all major political parties will have adapted, so I'm relaxed about this.
As for Brexit we've already established you believe the mandate should be implemented in the spirit it was won, whilst simultaneous criticising for not reaching out to those who disagree, so it's difficult to see how to square that particular circle other than accept it, and move on.
Interesting that almost 40% of 18-24 year olds want to see immigration reduced to the tens of thousands.
Much higher than I thought it'd be.
If that’s really the main thing you took from the article, that might explain why the Conservatives still aren’t breaking through with younger demographics. Throughout this post GE period I’ve seen a number of Conservatives now - including Sean_F and yourself draw comfort from ‘this significant minority’ supports this view on Brexit/Immigration, instead of confronting the reasons why the Conservatives lost among this demographic so badly.
Reality is, the Conservatives likely already enjoy a sizeable share among those 39%. Mori’s post election poll showed that the Tories polled around 27% approx with 18-24 year olds.
The more worrying statistic for the Tories (which was perhaps the point Curtis was trying to make) is that among the under 40s more generally, 54% have a positive view of immigration, as opposed to only 34% of the over 65s viewing it this way, and that this difference in cultural outlook is likely to be a millstone round the Conservatives’ neck.
I am a touch surprised that only 54% of the under 40's have a positive view of immigration. I would have expected it to be higher.
If I was Hammond, I'd be tempted to troll both the EU and Osborne:
"It is possible - but outside my control - that in the coming months, I may have to appear before the House with an Emergency Budget. With an extra £40 billion to spend...."
Brexit is happening. A chunk of the middle class youth vote (and I'd be far more concerned with 25-40 year olds than the under 25s, who have dressed to the Left since time immemorial and didn't much like Cameron either) clearly detest Brexit, but not all, particularly in the regions.
Some reciprocal 2-year youth work visa scheme for the under 30s in the EU, and also with other countries like Canada and Australia, and further help for first time home buyers would seem to do the trick by GE2022.
The rest is getting the rhetoric and mood music right, which matters.
I expect in 20 years time you'll still be wondering why a cohort of 40-60 year olds are so firmly anti-Conservative.
Ok.
Your entire strategy for this group seems to be based around "I'm right, they're wrong and in a couple of years they will see I'm right, or they'll forget if I can dangle a few gewgaws under their nose". To date there hasn't been the slightest indication that this group are being persuaded by Brexit, especially given the incompetent and narrow-minded way in which the negotiations have been conducted by the UK government.
The Conservatives are toxifying themselves for a generation at present.
You got GE2017 wrong, as did I. We can't see 17 months into the future, yet alone 17 years.
The World and the landscape of British politics will look very different in 20 years time, to which all major political parties will have adapted, so I'm relaxed about this.
As for Brexit we've already established you believe the mandate should be implemented in the spirit it was won, whilst simultaneous criticising for not reaching out to those who disagree, so it's difficult to see how to square that particular circle other than accept it, and move on.
The circle could have been squared quite easily. But Leavers were too busy exulting in their victory and telling potentially persuadable Remain voters to "suck it up, losers" to try.
Because of dire interest rates/gilts/annuity rates (all linked really to each other) a million quid (ie the Govt's limit on private money purchase pensions before 55% tax kicks in), buys you a "civil service" style pension (inflation linked uplift, 50% for spouse on death) of just under £28K via an annuity (ie secure). You can get a bit more in the real world by drawdown (riskier) or by taking the 25% lump sum and investing it (also somewhat risky), but we still talking about £30k ish.
Not bad per se, but that's for whole £million which is just a nuts state of affairs, given that's way beyond normal folk.
Such are the penalties of on the floor interest rates, a failure by society to recognise that if we all live to 90, the maths ceases to add up to retire at 65 so we need to accept that shibboleth has to move upwards faster than it is, and all topped off by G Brown's brainless pension tax raid of 1997, which is still there sucking like a leach as it has done every day for more than two decades.
Interesting that almost 40% of 18-24 year olds want to see immigration reduced to the tens of thousands.
Much higher than I thought it'd be.
If that’s really the main thing you took from the article, that might explain why the Conservatives still aren’t breaking through with younger demographics. Throughout this post GE period I’ve seen a number of Conservatives now - including Sean_F and yourself draw comfort from ‘this significant minority’ supports this view on Brexit/Immigration, instead of confronting the reasons why the Conservatives lost among this demographic so badly.
Reality is, the Conservatives likely already enjoy a sizeable share among those 39%. Mori’s post election poll showed that the Tories polled around 27% approx with 18-24 year olds.
The more worrying statistic for the Tories (which was perhaps the point Curtis was trying to make) is that among the under 40s more generally, 54% have a positive view of immigration, as opposed to only 34% of the over 65s viewing it this way, and that this difference in cultural outlook is likely to be a millstone round the Conservatives’ neck.
I am a touch surprised that only 54% of the under 40's have a positive view of immigration. I would have expected it to be higher.
Plenty of people under 40s still scarred by a period of youth unemployment. Not too difficult to join the dots to see who they blame for that....
It is worth remembering that the so-called omnishambles of the 2012 was based around one policy and turned out to be no such shambles at all - roughly 12 months later, GDP growth picked up markedly.
Just the one, dear? (AbFab quote)
On charities, the reality is that the Prime Minister is not making the rich worse off. He is making charities worse off. Over the past month we have seen the charity tax shambles, the churches tax shambles, the caravan tax shambles and the pasty tax shambles, so we are all keen to hear the Prime Minister’s view on why he thinks, four weeks on from the Budget, even people within Downing Street are calling it an omnishambles Budget.
Brexit is happening. A chunk of the middle class youth vote (and I'd be far more concerned with 25-40 year olds than the under 25s, who have dressed to the Left since time immemorial and didn't much like Cameron either) clearly detest Brexit, but not all, particularly in the regions.
Some reciprocal 2-year youth work visa scheme for the under 30s in the EU, and also with other countries like Canada and Australia, and further help for first time home buyers would seem to do the trick by GE2022.
The rest is getting the rhetoric and mood music right, which matters.
I expect in 20 years time you'll still be wondering why a cohort of 40-60 year olds are so firmly anti-Conservative.
Ok.
Your entire strategy for this group seems to be based around "I'm right, they're wrong and in a couple of years they will see I'm right, or they'll forget if I can dangle a few gewgaws under their nose". To date there hasn't been the slightest indication that this group are being persuaded by Brexit, especially given the incompetent and narrow-minded way in which the negotiations have been conducted by the UK government.
The Conservatives are toxifying themselves for a generation at present.
You got GE2017 wrong, as did I. We can't see 17 months into the future, yet alone 17 years.
The World and the landscape of British politics will look very different in 20 years time, to which all major political parties will have adapted, so I'm relaxed about this.
As for Brexit we've already established you believe the mandate should be implemented in the spirit it was won, whilst simultaneous criticising for not reaching out to those who disagree, so it's difficult to see how to square that particular circle other than accept it, and move on.
I tend to Alastair's view about the effect of Brexit - remembering that even something relatively small (with hindsight) like the crash out of the ERM did the Tories lasting political damage - but I agree that it's speculation rather than certainty.
What is more certain is that a generation is being priced out of the housing market as the average age of first home ownership rises inexorably toward 40. If that isn't reversed, the Tories do have a long-term problem.
Brexit is happening. A chunk of the middle class youth vote (and I'd be far more concerned with 25-40 year olds than the under 25s, who have dressed to the Left since time immemorial and didn't much like Cameron either) clearly detest Brexit, but not all, particularly in the regions.
Some reciprocal 2-year youth work visa scheme for the under 30s in the EU, and also with other countries like Canada and Australia, and further help for first time home buyers would seem to do the trick by GE2022.
The rest is getting the rhetoric and mood music right, which matters.
I expect in 20 years time you'll still be wondering why a cohort of 40-60 year olds are so firmly anti-Conservative.
Won't they mostly have emigrated, Alastair?
My son's off, and I believe Smithson Jnr is now a Californian. Could become a stampede.
Given Bernie Sanders currently leads US polls for the 2020 presidential election and Sanders backed Corbyn in June do not think the US is safe from populism either, Trump v Sanders is hardly a recipe for stability whichever of them wins.
Trudeau's Canada or Australia or even Macron's France (provided he sees off Melenchon and Le Pen in 2022) are all better bets for stability, growth and centrist politics in the next decade than the UK or USA
Stability was one of Britain's USPs. Brexit killed that overnight. Shame.
In every month from February 1998 onwards the UK has had a trade deficit - is that stability good ?
In every year from 2002 onwards the UK's government debt as a percentage of GDP has increased - is that stability good ?
In every year from 2003 onwards home ownership levels in the UK have fallen - is that stability good ?
For the last decade UK productivity and wages have been stagnant - is that stability good ?
From 2000 UK manufacturing has been in depression - is that stability good ?
From 1999 until the Referendum the FTSE100 was in depression - was that stability good ?
There is no real interest rate at the moment (the return from most cash pension funds is currently exceeded by the annual deduction in fees), although you would still expect some real long run return from equities.
This to me seems to reflect rather poorly on whoever is supposed to be managing these pension funds.
Brexit is happening. A chunk of the middle class youth vote (and I'd be far more concerned with 25-40 year olds than the under 25s, who have dressed to the Left since time immemorial and didn't much like Cameron either) clearly detest Brexit, but not all, particularly in the regions.
Some reciprocal 2-year youth work visa scheme for the under 30s in the EU, and also with other countries like Canada and Australia, and further help for first time home buyers would seem to do the trick by GE2022.
The rest is getting the rhetoric and mood music right, which matters.
I expect in 20 years time you'll still be wondering why a cohort of 40-60 year olds are so firmly anti-Conservative.
Ok.
Your entire strategy for this group seems to be based around "I'm right, they're wrong and in a couple of years they will see I'm right, or they'll forget if I can dangle a few gewgaws under their nose". To date there hasn't been the slightest indication that this group are being persuaded by Brexit, especially given the incompetent and narrow-minded way in which the negotiations have been conducted by the UK government.
The Conservatives are toxifying themselves for a generation at present.
Not just the younger generation. Those of us with children worry about their future.
I tend to the view, possibly naively, that had the government tried to implement Brexit in a generous, open-minded and, above all, competent way, some - if not all - of those who voted Remain might have become reconciled in time.
It is not too late (again I am possibly being naive) - for a politician with guts and a determination to do the best for the country - but, sadly, May is not that politician.
Interesting that almost 40% of 18-24 year olds want to see immigration reduced to the tens of thousands.
Much higher than I thought it'd be.
If that’s really the main thing you took from the article, that might explain why the Conservatives still aren’t breaking through with younger demographics. Throughout this post GE period I’ve seen a number of Conservatives now - including Sean_F and yourself draw comfort from ‘this significant minority’ supports this view on Brexit/Immigration, instead of confronting the reasons why the Conservatives lost among this demographic so badly.
Reality is, the Conservatives likely already enjoy a sizeable share among those 39%. Mori’s post election poll showed that the Tories polled around 27% approx with 18-24 year olds.
The more worrying statistic for the Tories (which was perhaps the point Curtis was trying to make) is that among the under 40s more generally, 54% have a positive view of immigration, as opposed to only 34% of the over 65s viewing it this way, and that this difference in cultural outlook is likely to be a millstone round the Conservatives’ neck.
I am a touch surprised that only 54% of the under 40's have a positive view of immigration. I would have expected it to be higher.
Because you (plural) hear lots in the media about the young graduates in the AB classes, and not so much about the young tradesmen fighting for work with more experienced EU colleagues who are keeping wages down among the C2s?
Brexit is happening. A chunk of the middle class youth vote (and I'd be far more concerned with 25-40 year olds than the under 25s, who have dressed to the Left since time immemorial and didn't much like Cameron either) clearly detest Brexit, but not all, particularly in the regions.
Some reciprocal 2-year youth work visa scheme for the under 30s in the EU, and also with other countries like Canada and Australia, and further help for first time home buyers would seem to do the trick by GE2022.
The rest is getting the rhetoric and mood music right, which matters.
I expect in 20 years time you'll still be wondering why a cohort of 40-60 year olds are so firmly anti-Conservative.
Ok.
Your entire strategy for this group seems to be based around "I'm right, they're wrong and in a couple of years they will see I'm right, or they'll forget if I can dangle a few gewgaws under their nose". To date there hasn't been the slightest indication that this group are being persuaded by Brexit, especially given the incompetent and narrow-minded way in which the negotiations have been conducted by the UK government.
The Conservatives are toxifying themselves for a generation at present.
You got GE2017 wrong, as did I. We can't see 17 months into the future, yet alone 17 years.
The World and the landscape of British politics will look very different in 20 years time, to which all major political parties will have adapted, so I'm relaxed about this.
As for Brexit we've already established you believe the mandate should be implemented in the spirit it was won, whilst simultaneous criticising for not reaching out to those who disagree, so it's difficult to see how to square that particular circle other than accept it, and move on.
I tend to Alastair's view about the effect of Brexit - remembering that even something relatively small (with hindsight) like the crash out of the ERM did the Tories lasting political damage - but I agree that it's speculation rather than certainty.
What is more certain is that a generation is being priced out of the housing market as the average age of first home ownership rises inexorably toward 40. If that isn't reversed, the Tories do have a long-term problem.
The ERM and Black Wednesday were not directly the action of the voters.
There was some talk on the previous thread about Bristol and council tax
Westminster sent a letter yesterday Band H council taxpayers consulting on the introduction of a voluntary "community contribution" equivalent to Band H tax payable by owners of a houses worth >£10m (effectively doubling council tax at the top end)
Brexit is happening. A chunk of the middle class youth vote (and I'd be far more concerned with 25-40 year olds than the under 25s, who have dressed to the Left since time immemorial and didn't much like Cameron either) clearly detest Brexit, but not all, particularly in the regions.
Some reciprocal 2-year youth work visa scheme for the under 30s in the EU, and also with other countries like Canada and Australia, and further help for first time home buyers would seem to do the trick by GE2022.
The rest is getting the rhetoric and mood music right, which matters.
I expect in 20 years time you'll still be wondering why a cohort of 40-60 year olds are so firmly anti-Conservative.
Won't they mostly have emigrated, Alastair?
My son's off, and I believe Smithson Jnr is now a Californian. Could become a stampede.
Given Bernie Sanders currently leads US polls for the 2020 presidential election and Sanders backed Corbyn in June I do not think the US is safe from populism either, Trump v Sanders is hardly a recipe for stability whichever of them wins.
Trudeau's Canada or Australia or even Macron's France (provided he sees off Melenchon and Le Pen in 2022) are all better bets for stability, growth and centrist politics in the next decade than the UK or USA
Well I was teasing re Smithson, Hyufd, who was a Brexit supporter, as you know. Seriously, I would agree with your last paragraph, especially Canada which seems a great option for those that can go there. That would include me, by the way.
Yes he went off to sunnier climes soon after leaving us with Brexit.
Canada is a good option provided you are willing to endure the winters
For a start, they have enough bottle to able to secure trade deals with the EU without rolling over and paying through the nose for the privilege.
Interesting that almost 40% of 18-24 year olds want to see immigration reduced to the tens of thousands.
Much higher than I thought it'd be.
If that’s really the main thing you took from the article, that might explain why the Conservatives still aren’t breaking through with younger demographics. Throughout this post GE period I’ve seen a number of Conservatives now - including Sean_F and yourself draw comfort from ‘this significant minority’ supports this view on Brexit/Immigration, instead of confronting the reasons why the Conservatives lost among this demographic so badly.
Reality is, the Conservatives likely already enjoy a sizeable share among those 39%. Mori’s post election poll showed that the Tories polled around 27% approx with 18-24 year olds.
The more worrying statistic for the Tories (which was perhaps the point Curtis was trying to make) is that among the under 40s more generally, 54% have a positive view of immigration, as opposed to only 34% of the over 65s viewing it this way, and that this difference in cultural outlook is likely to be a millstone round the Conservatives’ neck.
I am a touch surprised that only 54% of the under 40's have a positive view of immigration. I would have expected it to be higher.
The same numbers that when applied to voting intention all of sudden are treated as concerning for the Conservatives. So they aren’t really that all surprising.
Interesting that almost 40% of 18-24 year olds want to see immigration reduced to the tens of thousands.
Much higher than I thought it'd be.
If that’s really the main thing you took from the article, that might explain why the Conservatives still aren’t breaking through with younger demographics. Throughout this post GE period I’ve seen a number of Conservatives now - including Sean_F and yourself draw comfort from ‘this significant minority’ supports this view on Brexit/Immigration, instead of confronting the reasons why the Conservatives lost among this demographic so badly.
Reality is, the Conservatives likely already enjoy a sizeable share among those 39%. Mori’s post election poll showed that the Tories polled around 27% approx with 18-24 year olds.
The more worrying statistic for the Tories (which was perhaps the point Curtis was trying to make) is that among the under 40s more generally, 54% have a positive view of immigration, as opposed to only 34% of the over 65s viewing it this way, and that this difference in cultural outlook is likely to be a millstone round the Conservatives’ neck.
I am a touch surprised that only 54% of the under 40's have a positive view of immigration. I would have expected it to be higher.
Plenty of people under 40s still scarred by a period of youth unemployment. Not too difficult to join the dots to see who they blame for that....
And yet a Conservative campaign that took a hardline position on immigration actually went backwards with the under 40s. Judging by the GE results, I’d suggest that they blame a significant amount of their misfortune on the Conservative government, joining the dots together.
We disagree on Brexit - no problem. In an ideal world, staying in the Common Market, but exiting the EU would be the ideal solution.
This isn't on offer because the EU can't be seen to offering it without risking losing more countries. I repeat this isn't on offer because of the EU. I'm no Tory voter, but I'm quite sure Mrs May would snap their hand off if it was offered.
I'm not sure what these hysterical protests from the Remainers are about. We lost but we should have our way anyway? We must stay in the Common Market and if that means staying in the EU, we have to accept it?
The squawking of spoilt children. Where is the logic? Perhaps you can explain even if you don't agree.
Because of dire interest rates/gilts/annuity rates (all linked really to each other) a million quid (ie the Govt's limit on private money purchase pensions before 55% tax kicks in), buys you a "civil service" style pension (inflation linked uplift, 50% for spouse on death) of just under £28K via an annuity (ie secure). You can get a bit more in the real world by drawdown (riskier) or by taking the 25% lump sum and investing it (also somewhat risky), but we still talking about £30k ish.
Not bad per se, but that's for whole £million which is just a nuts state of affairs, given that's way beyond normal folk.
Such are the penalties of on the floor interest rates, a failure by society to recognise that if we all live to 90, the maths ceases to add up to retire at 65 so we need to accept that shibboleth has to move upwards faster than it is, and all topped off by G Brown's brainless pension tax raid of 1997, which is still there sucking like a leach as it has done every day for more than two decades.
You're right. There are signs however that rising life expectancy, which has been one of the biggest strains on pension costs, is topping out. Medical science continues to improve, but the lifestyles of the currently middle aged aren't as healthy as those of our parents, who got more exercise and ate and drunk less than we do.
I expect him to do something on UC. Cut the wait by a week or perhaps two. Which will do nothing to stop the crisis that UC brings to a community and will demonstrate again that the Conservatives have no idea who receives this benefit, why, or how their lives work.
What's the reason behind the six week wait for UC ?
Not having followed the issue is there a reason why it shouldn't be paid asap rather than after any delay at all ?
Interesting that almost 40% of 18-24 year olds want to see immigration reduced to the tens of thousands.
Much higher than I thought it'd be.
If that’s really the main thing you took from the article, that might explain why the Conservatives still aren’t breaking through with younger demographics. Throughout this post GE period I’ve seen a number of Conservatives now - including Sean_F and yourself draw comfort from ‘this significant minority’ supports this view on Brexit/Immigration, instead of confronting the reasons why the Conservatives lost among this demographic so badly.
Reality is, the Conservatives likely already enjoy a sizeable share among those 39%. Mori’s post election poll showed that the Tories polled around 27% approx with 18-24 year olds.
The more worrying statistic for the Tories (which was perhaps the point Curtis was trying to make) is that among the under 40s more generally, 54% have a positive view of immigration, as opposed to only 34% of the over 65s viewing it this way, and that this difference in cultural outlook is likely to be a millstone round the Conservatives’ neck.
I am a touch surprised that only 54% of the under 40's have a positive view of immigration. I would have expected it to be higher.
Plenty of people under 40s still scarred by a period of youth unemployment. Not too difficult to join the dots to see who they blame for that....
And yet a Conservative campaign that took a hardline position on immigration actually went backwards with the under 40s. Judging by the GE results, I’d suggest that they blame a significant amount of their misfortune on the Conservative government, joining the dots together.
Many will have voted Leave to reduce immigration then for Corbyn against capitalism and austerity
Downing Street has started discussing who could replace Damian Green. It follows claims of a widening Cabinet Office inquiry into whether he viewed pornography on a parliamentary computer and whether he made inappropriate advances to an activist.
Michael Gove is among the candidates to replace Theresa May’s de facto deputy if he resigns. Tory MPs said that Amber Rudd’s name had also been mentioned as a possible first secretary of state. Alternatively Mrs May could dispense with the role.
Whitehall sources said that the investigation into Mr Green was taking so long because of the need to examine every government computer he had access to, to see if there was a pattern of the alleged behaviour. Mr Green denies the allegations and any wrongdoing.
Some senior figures are pushing Mr Gove forward because of his influence with Brexiteers. The environment secretary is close to Gavin Barwell, Mrs May’s chief of staff, who was his parliamentary aide when he was education secretary.
However, some of those closest to the prime minister suggest that she does not yet trust Mr Gove, a former Times journalist, not to leak sensitive material from inside government to colleagues and the media.
Mrs May could ask Ms Rudd, the home secretary, or Mr Gove to continue in their jobs while assuming the title of first secretary.
Brexit is happening. A chunk of the middle class youth vote (and I'd be far more concerned with 25-40 year olds than the under 25s, who have dressed to the Left since time immemorial and didn't much like Cameron either) clearly detest Brexit, but not all, particularly in the regions.
Some reciprocal 2-year youth work visa scheme for the under 30s in the EU, and also with other countries like Canada and Australia, and further help for first time home buyers would seem to do the trick by GE2022.
The rest is getting the rhetoric and mood music right, which matters.
I expect in 20 years time you'll still be wondering why a cohort of 40-60 year olds are so firmly anti-Conservative.
Won't they mostly have emigrated, Alastair?
My son's off, and I believe Smithson Jnr is now a Californian. Could become a stampede.
Given Bernie Sanders currently leads US polls for the 2020 presidential election and Sanders backed Corbyn in June I do not think the US is safe from populism either, Trump v Sanders is hardly a recipe for stability whichever of them wins.
Trudeau's Canada or Australia or even Macron's France (provided he sees off Melenchon and Le Pen in 2022) are all better bets for stability, growth and centrist politics in the next decade than the UK or USA
Well I was teasing re Smithson, Hyufd, who was a Brexit supporter, as you know. Seriously, I would agree with your last paragraph, especially Canada which seems a great option for those that can go there. That would include me, by the way.
Yes he went off to sunnier climes soon after leaving us with Brexit.
Canada is a good option provided you are willing to endure the winters
For a start, they have enough bottle to able to secure trade deals with the EU without rolling over and paying through the nose for the privilege.
Interesting that almost 40% of 18-24 year olds want to see immigration reduced to the tens of thousands.
Much higher than I thought it'd be.
If that’s really the main thing you took from the article, that might explain why the Conservatives still aren’t breaking through with younger demographics. Throughout this post GE period I’ve seen a number of Conservatives now - including Sean_F and yourself draw comfort from ‘this significant minority’ supports this view on Brexit/Immigration, instead of confronting the reasons why the Conservatives lost among this demographic so badly.
Reality is, the Conservatives likely already enjoy a sizeable share among those 39%. Mori’s post election poll showed that the Tories polled around 27% approx with 18-24 year olds.
The more worrying statistic for the Tories (which was perhaps the point Curtis was trying to make) is that among the under 40s more generally, 54% have a positive view of immigration, as opposed to only 34% of the over 65s viewing it this way, and that this difference in cultural outlook is likely to be a millstone round the Conservatives’ neck.
I am a touch surprised that only 54% of the under 40's have a positive view of immigration. I would have expected it to be higher.
The same numbers that when applied to voting intention all of sudden are treated as concerning for the Conservatives. So they aren’t really that all surprising.
I would have expected it to be higher because the under 40's and indeed those older than them would have lived with immigration all their lives. Also, not everyone who is positive about immigration necessarily votes Labour. Me for one. But I have not done a detailed analysis.
We disagree on Brexit - no problem. In an ideal world, staying in the Common Market, but exiting the EU would be the ideal solution.
This isn't on offer because the EU can't be seen to offering it without risking losing more countries. I repeat this isn't on offer because of the EU. I'm no Tory voter, but I'm quite sure Mrs May would snap their hand off if it was offered.
I'm not sure what these hysterical protests from the Remainers are about. We lost but we should have our way anyway? We must stay in the Common Market and if that means staying in the EU, we have to accept it?
The squawking of spoilt children. Where is the logic? Perhaps you can explain even if you don't agree.
That is worth a thread rather than a few lines, but in brief you can divide those you would call Remoaners into the following groups:
1) Those who believe that leaving the EU is catastrophic and must be halted; the public simply got it wrong.
2) Those who believe that leaving the EU is greatly inferior to staying in and that as many as possible of the benefits must be retained, and that the government is throwing away the possibility of doing so by fetishising immigration control.
3) Those who are simply appalled at the vindictive and ugly way in which the government is pursuing what they already consider to be a really bad idea, alienating Britain's neighbours and allies.
All three are logical positions, even if you don't like them.
Because of dire interest rates/gilts/annuity rates (all linked really to each other) a million quid (ie the Govt's limit on private money purchase pensions before 55% tax kicks in), buys you a "civil service" style pension (inflation linked uplift, 50% for spouse on death) of just under £28K via an annuity (ie secure). You can get a bit more in the real world by drawdown (riskier) or by taking the 25% lump sum and investing it (also somewhat risky), but we still talking about £30k ish.
Not bad per se, but that's for whole £million which is just a nuts state of affairs, given that's way beyond normal folk.
Such are the penalties of on the floor interest rates, a failure by society to recognise that if we all live to 90, the maths ceases to add up to retire at 65 so we need to accept that shibboleth has to move upwards faster than it is, and all topped off by G Brown's brainless pension tax raid of 1997, which is still there sucking like a leach as it has done every day for more than two decades.
You're right. There are signs however that rising life expectancy, which has been one of the biggest strains on pension costs, is topping out. Medical science continues to improve, but the lifestyles of the currently middle aged aren't as healthy as those of our parents, who got more exercise and ate and drunk less than we do.
Interesting that almost 40% of 18-24 year olds want to see immigration reduced to the tens of thousands.
Much higher than I thought it'd be.
If that’s really the main thing you took from the article, that might explain why the Conservatives still aren’t breaking through with younger demographics. Throughout this post GE period I’ve seen a number of Conservatives now - including Sean_F and yourself draw comfort from ‘this significant minority’ supports this view on Brexit/Immigration, instead of confronting the reasons why the Conservatives lost among this demographic so badly.
Reality is, the Conservatives likely already enjoy a sizeable share among those 39%. Mori’s post election poll showed that the Tories polled around 27% approx with 18-24 year olds.
The more worrying statistic for the Tories (which was perhaps the point Curtis was trying to make) is that among the under 40s more generally, 54% have a positive view of immigration, as opposed to only 34% of the over 65s viewing it this way, and that this difference in cultural outlook is likely to be a millstone round the Conservatives’ neck.
I am a touch surprised that only 54% of the under 40's have a positive view of immigration. I would have expected it to be higher.
Plenty of people under 40s still scarred by a period of youth unemployment. Not too difficult to join the dots to see who they blame for that....
And yet a Conservative campaign that took a hardline position on immigration actually went backwards with the under 40s. Judging by the GE results, I’d suggest that they blame a significant amount of their misfortune on the Conservative government, joining the dots together.
Many will have voted Leave to reduce immigration then for Corbyn against capitalism and austerity
That’s true. But equally it reveals that a section of those sceptical about immigration who the Tories appear to be drawing hope from, aren’t patricularly inclined to support them at the ballot box, even with their stance on immigration.
I expect him to do something on UC. Cut the wait by a week or perhaps two. Which will do nothing to stop the crisis that UC brings to a community and will demonstrate again that the Conservatives have no idea who receives this benefit, why, or how their lives work.
What's the reason behind the six week wait for UC ?
Not having followed the issue is there a reason why it shouldn't be paid asap rather than after any delay at all ?
George Osborne thought it would save money. He and IDS had a big falling out and the minister resigned.
Interesting that almost 40% of 18-24 year olds want to see immigration reduced to the tens of thousands.
Much higher than I thought it'd be.
If that’s really the main thing you took from the article, that might explain why the Conservatives still aren’t breaking through with younger demographics. Throughout this post GE period I’ve seen a number of Conservatives now - including Sean_F and yourself draw comfort from ‘this significant minority’ supports this view on Brexit/Immigration, instead of confronting the reasons why the Conservatives lost among this demographic so badly.
Reality is, the Conservatives likely already enjoy a sizeable share among those 39%. Mori’s post election poll showed that the Tories polled around 27% approx with 18-24 year olds.
The more worrying statistic for the Tories (which was perhaps the point Curtis was trying to make) is that among the under 40s more generally, 54% have a positive view of immigration, as opposed to only 34% of the over 65s viewing it this way, and that this difference in cultural outlook is likely to be a millstone round the Conservatives’ neck.
I am a touch surprised that only 54% of the under 40's have a positive view of immigration. I would have expected it to be higher.
The same numbers that when applied to voting intention all of sudden are treated as concerning for the Conservatives. So they aren’t really that all surprising.
The ironic thing is that its the young who have lost out most on jobs, wages and housing because of high immigration.
The British young that is - its clearly been beneficial for the young of much of Eastern and Southern Europe.
To benefit from free migration you need to have countries which have higher pay than yours and for which you speak the language. For the British youth that might apply to the USA, Canada and Australia but not to many EU countries.
Brexit is happening. A chunk of the middle class youth vote (and I'd be far more concerned with 25-40 year olds than the under 25s, who have dressed to the Left since time immemorial and didn't much like Cameron either) clearly detest Brexit, but not all, particularly in the regions.
Some reciprocal 2-year youth work visa scheme for the under 30s in the EU, and also with other countries like Canada and Australia, and further help for first time home buyers would seem to do the trick by GE2022.
The rest is getting the rhetoric and mood music right, which matters.
I expect in 20 years time you'll still be wondering why a cohort of 40-60 year olds are so firmly anti-Conservative.
Ok.
Your entire strategy for this group seems to be based around "I'm right, they're wrong and in a couple of years they will see I'm right, or they'll forget if I can dangle a few gewgaws under their nose". To date there hasn't been the slightest indication that this group are being persuaded by Brexit, especially given the incompetent and narrow-minded way in which the negotiations have been conducted by the UK government.
The Conservatives are toxifying themselves for a generation at present.
You got GE2017 wrong, as did I. We can't see 17 months into the future, yet alone 17 years.
The World and the landscape of British politics will look very different in 20 years time, to which all major political parties will have adapted, so I'm relaxed about this.
As for Brexit we've already established you believe the mandate should be implemented in the spirit it was won, whilst simultaneous criticising for not reaching out to those who disagree, so it's difficult to see how to square that particular circle other than accept it, and move on.
The circle could have been squared quite easily. But Leavers were too busy exulting in their victory and telling potentially persuadable Remain voters to "suck it up, losers" to try.
You're right. There are signs however that rising life expectancy, which has been one of the biggest strains on pension costs, is topping out. Medical science continues to improve, but the lifestyles of the currently middle aged aren't as healthy as those of our parents, who got more exercise and ate and drunk less than we do.
Interesting aspect to the tailing off of rising life expectancy - could it be that those who have arrived as immigrants have had an impact because they are coming from countries with much lower life expectancy to start with? Life expectancy of, for example, Somalis in Somalia is under 52. OK, they come to the UK and have access to much better health care etc - but I'd suggest that their life expectancy doesn't immediately jump to that of the rest of the UK population, because of all the stresses and strains their bodies have endured in earlier life.
The point being, that for those born in the UK, their life expectancy might still be going upwards - and the stresses on pensions, health etc still expanding - whilst this effect is being masked by averaging in several million migrants with a lower life expectancy.
Interesting that almost 40% of 18-24 year olds want to see immigration reduced to the tens of thousands.
Much higher than I thought it'd be.
If that’s really the main thing you took from the article, that might explain why the Conservatives still aren’t breaking through with younger demographics. Throughout this post GE period I’ve seen a number of Conservatives now - including Sean_F and yourself draw comfort from ‘this significant minority’ supports this view on Brexit/Immigration, instead of confronting the reasons why the Conservatives lost among this demographic so badly.
Reality is, the Conservatives likely already enjoy a sizeable share among those 39%. Mori’s post election poll showed that the Tories polled around 27% approx with 18-24 year olds.
The more worrying statistic for the Tories (which was perhaps the point Curtis was trying to make) is that among the under 40s more generally, 54% have a positive view of immigration, as opposed to only 34% of the over 65s viewing it this way, and that this difference in cultural outlook is likely to be a millstone round the Conservatives’ neck.
I am a touch surprised that only 54% of the under 40's have a positive view of immigration. I would have expected it to be higher.
Plenty of people under 40s still scarred by a period of youth unemployment. Not too difficult to join the dots to see who they blame for that....
And yet a Conservative campaign that took a hardline position on immigration actually went backwards with the under 40s. Judging by the GE results, I’d suggest that they blame a significant amount of their misfortune on the Conservative government, joining the dots together.
Many will have voted Leave to reduce immigration then for Corbyn against capitalism and austerity
That’s true. But equally it reveals that a section of those sceptical about immigration who the Tories appear to be drawing hope from, aren’t patricularly inclined to support them at the ballot box, even with their stance on immigration.
True but then of course ABs voted Remain but still voted Tory in June.
Immigration sceptics may have considered UKIP but if they are normally Labour voters probably not the Tories
Downing Street has started discussing who could replace Damian Green. It follows claims of a widening Cabinet Office inquiry into whether he viewed pornography on a parliamentary computer and whether he made inappropriate advances to an activist.
Michael Gove is among the candidates to replace Theresa May’s de facto deputy if he resigns. Tory MPs said that Amber Rudd’s name had also been mentioned as a possible first secretary of state. Alternatively Mrs May could dispense with the role.
Whitehall sources said that the investigation into Mr Green was taking so long because of the need to examine every government computer he had access to, to see if there was a pattern of the alleged behaviour. Mr Green denies the allegations and any wrongdoing.
Some senior figures are pushing Mr Gove forward because of his influence with Brexiteers. The environment secretary is close to Gavin Barwell, Mrs May’s chief of staff, who was his parliamentary aide when he was education secretary.
However, some of those closest to the prime minister suggest that she does not yet trust Mr Gove, a former Times journalist, not to leak sensitive material from inside government to colleagues and the media.
Mrs May could ask Ms Rudd, the home secretary, or Mr Gove to continue in their jobs while assuming the title of first secretary.
I tend to Alastair's view about the effect of Brexit - remembering that even something relatively small (with hindsight) like the crash out of the ERM did the Tories lasting political damage - but I agree that it's speculation rather than certainty.
What is more certain is that a generation is being priced out of the housing market as the average age of first home ownership rises inexorably toward 40. If that isn't reversed, the Tories do have a long-term problem.
Pricing out is not new: the expression "Bank of Mum and Dad has been around since the millennium. What is new is the perception that something can be done about it (by Jezza). The things that can actually be done are: 1. Double incomes 2. Halve houseprices 3. Build houses (increase supply) 4. Reduce demand (Brexit). 3. is the only sane possibility, which is why Phil needs to introduce a gamechangingly large building policy this afternoon.
Because of dire interest rates/gilts/annuity rates (all linked really to each other) a million quid (ie the Govt's limit on private money purchase pensions before 55% tax kicks in), buys you a "civil service" style pension (inflation linked uplift, 50% for spouse on death) of just under £28K via an annuity (ie secure). You can get a bit more in the real world by drawdown (riskier) or by taking the 25% lump sum and investing it (also somewhat risky), but we still talking about £30k ish.
Not bad per se, but that's for whole £million which is just a nuts state of affairs, given that's way beyond normal folk.
Such are the penalties of on the floor interest rates, a failure by society to recognise that if we all live to 90, the maths ceases to add up to retire at 65 so we need to accept that shibboleth has to move upwards faster than it is, and all topped off by G Brown's brainless pension tax raid of 1997, which is still there sucking like a leach as it has done every day for more than two decades.
You're right. There are signs however that rising life expectancy, which has been one of the biggest strains on pension costs, is topping out. Medical science continues to improve, but the lifestyles of the currently middle aged aren't as healthy as those of our parents, who got more exercise and ate and drunk less than we do.
Indeed. A "bit more death" does wonders for pension funds (!). I think there's something of a theory that the "1930's cohort", ended up by accident being a bit blessed in the longevity stakes by hitting a sweet spot of a lot of childhood disease being much less prevalent than earlier generations, and the war (ironically) making sure, via rationing, that people ate enough but healthily. I suppose there's probably something in the "they were out climbing trees, playing on swings, kicking footballs, not sat playing video games" to throw in there too about people eating less and moving more.
Either way, though they've lasted better than any 1950's actuary's worst nightmare (when they signed up for pension schemes), as you say, the mortality tables' improvements are flattening out over recent years, which may in a darkly ironic way substantially ease the pensions crisis.
Something has to, or the young now worrying about graduate fees will gradually avert their gaze from that issue, as they age, to see the next problem heading their way like a train, and the reality will sink in that for probably the majority, working much longer (75?) is the only way to make the sums add up.
I expect him to do something on UC. Cut the wait by a week or perhaps two. Which will do nothing to stop the crisis that UC brings to a community and will demonstrate again that the Conservatives have no idea who receives this benefit, why, or how their lives work.
What's the reason behind the six week wait for UC ?
Not having followed the issue is there a reason why it shouldn't be paid asap rather than after any delay at all ?
George Osborne thought it would save money. He and IDS had a big falling out and the minister resigned.
So another Osborne fuckup to go with triple lock pensions, student debt and help to raise house prices.
Re younger voters, the Tories were pretty much level among 25-34 year olds at the start, and had a big lead among 35-44 year olds. Both groups shifted hugely to Labour during the campaign, which suggests that the Conservatives' piss-poor effort, and Corbyn's very good effort were key.
The same numbers that when applied to voting intention all of sudden are treated as concerning for the Conservatives. So they aren’t really that all surprising.
I would have expected it to be higher because the under 40's and indeed those older than them would have lived with immigration all their lives. Also, not everyone who is positive about immigration necessarily votes Labour. Me for one. But I have not done a detailed analysis.
Re your first point: that is also true of the baby boomer generation, who tend towards a negative view of immigration - they would have experienced increasing immigration in public life growing up in the 50s and 60s. Although there is data that suggests that people are less concerned with ‘established minorities’ I presume this to be refer to descendants of immigration - than first generation immigrants, so there is a factor of familiarity. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379416300932
I didn’t mean to suggest that literally everyone who votes Labour is positive about immigration, but rather than overall more often than not those who vote Labour among the under 40s are generally speaking are more positive.
You're right. There are signs however that rising life expectancy, which has been one of the biggest strains on pension costs, is topping out. Medical science continues to improve, but the lifestyles of the currently middle aged aren't as healthy as those of our parents, who got more exercise and ate and drunk less than we do.
Interesting aspect to the tailing off of rising life expectancy - could it be that those who have arrived as immigrants have had an impact because they are coming from countries with much lower life expectancy to start with? Life expectancy of, for example, Somalis in Somalia is under 52. OK, they come to the UK and have access to much better health care etc - but I'd suggest that their life expectancy doesn't immediately jump to that of the rest of the UK population, because of all the stresses and strains their bodies have endured in earlier life.
The point being, that for those born in the UK, their life expectancy might still be going upwards - and the stresses on pensions, health etc still expanding - whilst this effect is being masked by averaging in several million migrants with a much lower life expectancy.
Thoughts?
I really don't know. Some of the long-term trends towards healthiness, such as not smoking and general health/lifestyle awareness, are still slowly feeding through the generations. Others, such as drinking, sedentary lifestyles and a higher calorie diet, trend in the opposite direction.
A low calorie diet, even to near starvation levels, has a significant beneficial effect on expectancy. Somalia's expectancy is low principally because of inadequate healthcare, and more dangerous lifestyles. The first step toward answering your question would be to get some data on life expectancy of immigrant communities in the Uk, normalised as far as is possible for other variables such as age and class.
Without any data, I doubt that the inflow of immigrants has been so big as to dramatically effect the data on life expectancy for the general population? Particularly as many of the working age ones will return home.
Your entire strategy for this group seems to be based around "I'm right, they're wrong and in a couple of years they will see I'm right, or they'll forget if I can dangle a few gewgaws under their nose". To date there hasn't been the slightest indication that this group are being persuaded by Brexit, especially given the incompetent and narrow-minded way in which the negotiations have been conducted by the UK government.
The Conservatives are toxifying themselves for a generation at present.
You got GE2017 wrong, as did I. We can't see 17 months into the future, yet alone 17 years.
The World and the landscape of British politics will look very different in 20 years time, to which all major political parties will have adapted, so I'm relaxed about this.
As for Brexit we've already established you believe the mandate should be implemented in the spirit it was won, whilst simultaneous criticising for not reaching out to those who disagree, so it's difficult to see how to square that particular circle other than accept it, and move on.
The circle could have been squared quite easily. But Leavers were too busy exulting in their victory and telling potentially persuadable Remain voters to "suck it up, losers" to try.
Humour me. How?
Theresa May actually got it half-right.
What it needed was the government to set out immediately the parameters that it considered the referendum set and to explain that Brexit was to be negotiated within those parameters, reassuring Leave voters that the vote would be respected. A tick for the PM there, despite the endless wailing that Leave supporters irrationally inflicted on the nation about impending betrayal.
But it also needed the government to set out meaningfully what the longterm relationship between Britain and the rest of the EU would look like. In this part, the government could show how the fears of Remain voters would be addressed. I expect that the loopier Leave voters would have howled betrayal again here at the points where the government made contact with reality on subjects like immigration, trade and co-operation between the EU and Britain.
There has been no attempt to offer a longterm vision of what post-Brexit Britain would look like. As a result, it's been filled by the meanest, nastiest, maddest Leave ideas.
Remain voters and the EU have responded accordingly.
Why didn't the second half happen? Partly it was failure by the government. And partly it was because far too big a part of the Leave coalition was vindictive, small-minded and nasty to allow the government the freedom of manoeuvre to make such an approach safe for the government to pursue.
Interesting that almost 40% of 18-24 year olds want to see immigration reduced to the tens of thousands.
Much higher than I thought it'd be.
If that’s really the main thing you took from the article, that might explain why the Conservatives still aren’t breaking through with younger demographics. Throughout this post GE period I’ve seen a number of Conservatives now - including Sean_F and yourself draw comfort from ‘this significant minority’ supports this view on Brexit/Immigration, instead of confronting the reasons why the Conservatives lost among this demographic so badly.
Reality is, the Conservatives likely already enjoy a sizeable share among those 39%. Mori’s post election poll showed that the Tories polled around 27% approx with 18-24 year olds.
The more worrying statistic for the Tories (which was perhaps the point Curtis was trying to make) is that among the under 40s more generally, 54% have a positive view of immigration, as opposed to only 34% of the over 65s viewing it this way, and that this difference in cultural outlook is likely to be a millstone round the Conservatives’ neck.
I am a touch surprised that only 54% of the under 40's have a positive view of immigration. I would have expected it to be higher.
Plenty of people under 40s still scarred by a period of youth unemployment. Not too difficult to join the dots to see who they blame for that....
And yet a Conservative campaign that took a hardline position on immigration actually went backwards with the under 40s. Judging by the GE results, I’d suggest that they blame a significant amount of their misfortune on the Conservative government, joining the dots together.
Many will have voted Leave to reduce immigration then for Corbyn against capitalism and austerity
That’s true. But equally it reveals that a section of those sceptical about immigration who the Tories appear to be drawing hope from, aren’t patricularly inclined to support them at the ballot box, even with their stance on immigration.
True but then of course ABs voted Remain but still voted Tory in June.
Immigration sceptics may have considered UKIP but if they are normally Labour voters probably not the Tories
ABs overall still voted Tory, but there was a shift to Labour.
Downing Street has started discussing who could replace Damian Green. It follows claims of a widening Cabinet Office inquiry into whether he viewed pornography on a parliamentary computer and whether he made inappropriate advances to an activist.
Michael Gove is among the candidates to replace Theresa May’s de facto deputy if he resigns. Tory MPs said that Amber Rudd’s name had also been mentioned as a possible first secretary of state. Alternatively Mrs May could dispense with the role.
Whitehall sources said that the investigation into Mr Green was taking so long because of the need to examine every government computer he had access to, to see if there was a pattern of the alleged behaviour. Mr Green denies the allegations and any wrongdoing.
Some senior figures are pushing Mr Gove forward because of his influence with Brexiteers. The environment secretary is close to Gavin Barwell, Mrs May’s chief of staff, who was his parliamentary aide when he was education secretary.
However, some of those closest to the prime minister suggest that she does not yet trust Mr Gove, a former Times journalist, not to leak sensitive material from inside government to colleagues and the media.
Mrs May could ask Ms Rudd, the home secretary, or Mr Gove to continue in their jobs while assuming the title of first secretary.
I really hope they don't move Gove. As with his time at Justice he seems to he a radical thinker who is willing to listen to every side and make decisions based on what is best for the country rather than for short term gain or sound bites. He was moved from Justice far too soon and it would be a great shame to see him moved from DEFRA when we finally seem to have a minister who understands the really serious issues around farming practice and the environment.
Because of dire interest rates/gilts/annuity rates (all linked really to each other) a million quid (ie the Govt's limit on private money purchase pensions before 55% tax kicks in), buys you a "civil service" style pension (inflation linked uplift, 50% for spouse on death) of just under £28K via an annuity (ie secure). You can get a bit more in the real world by drawdown (riskier) or by taking the 25% lump sum and investing it (also somewhat risky), but we still talking about £30k ish.
Not bad per se, but that's for whole £million which is just a nuts state of affairs, given that's way beyond normal folk.
Such are the penalties of on the floor interest rates, a failure by society to recognise that if we all live to 90, the maths ceases to add up to retire at 65 so we need to accept that shibboleth has to move upwards faster than it is, and all topped off by G Brown's brainless pension tax raid of 1997, which is still there sucking like a leach as it has done every day for more than two decades.
You're right. There are signs however that rising life expectancy, which has been one of the biggest strains on pension costs, is topping out. Medical science continues to improve, but the lifestyles of the currently middle aged aren't as healthy as those of our parents, who got more exercise and ate and drunk less than we do.
Indeed. A "bit more death" does wonders for pension funds (!). I think there's something of a theory that the "1930's cohort", ended up by accident being a bit blessed in the longevity stakes by hitting a sweet spot of a lot of childhood disease being much less prevalent than earlier generations, and the war (ironically) making sure, via rationing, that people ate enough but healthily. I suppose there's probably something in the "they were out climbing trees, playing on swings, kicking footballs, not sat playing video games" to throw in there too about people eating less and moving more.
Either way, though they've lasted better than any 1950's actuary's worst nightmare (when they signed up for pension schemes), as you say, the mortality tables' improvements are flattening out over recent years, which may in a darkly ironic way substantially ease the pensions crisis.
Something has to, or the young now worrying about graduate fees will gradually avert their gaze from that issue, as they age, to see the next problem heading their way like a train, and the reality will sink in that for probably the majority, working much longer (75?) is the only way to make the sums add up.
Unless triple lock pensions are reformed 75 will the state pension age for the present under 30s.
You're right. There are signs however that rising life expectancy, which has been one of the biggest strains on pension costs, is topping out. Medical science continues to improve, but the lifestyles of the currently middle aged aren't as healthy as those of our parents, who got more exercise and ate and drunk less than we do.
Interesting aspect to the tailing off of rising life expectancy - could it be that those who have arrived as immigrants have had an impact because they are coming from countries with much lower life expectancy to start with? Life expectancy of, for example, Somalis in Somalia is under 52. OK, they come to the UK and have access to much better health care etc - but I'd suggest that their life expectancy doesn't immediately jump to that of the rest of the UK population, because of all the stresses and strains their bodies have endured in earlier life.
The point being, that for those born in the UK, their life expectancy might still be going upwards - and the stresses on pensions, health etc still expanding - whilst this effect is being masked by averaging in several million migrants with a much lower life expectancy.
Thoughts?
I really don't know. Some of the long-term trends towards healthiness, such as not smoking and general health/lifestyle awareness, are still slowly feeding through the generations. Others, such as drinking, sedentary lifestyles and a higher calorie diet, trend in the opposite direction.
A low calorie diet, even to near starvation levels, has a significant beneficial effect on expectancy. Somalia's expectancy is low principally because of inadequate healthcare, and more dangerous lifestyles. The first step toward answering your question would be to get some data on life expectancy of immigrant communities in the Uk, normalised as far as is possible for other variables such as age and class.
I think that data would be quite fascinating. Of course, if it shows that migrants do indeed get a massive and immediate uplift in life expectancy by coming here, then that data will probably be sat on by Government!
Whitehall sources said that the investigation into Mr Green was taking so long because of the need to examine every government computer he had access to, to see if there was a pattern of the alleged behaviour. Mr Green denies the allegations and any wrongdoing.
Downing Street has started discussing who could replace Damian Green. It follows claims of a widening Cabinet Office inquiry into whether he viewed pornography on a parliamentary computer and whether he made inappropriate advances to an activist.
Michael Gove is among the candidates to replace Theresa May’s de facto deputy if he resigns. Tory MPs said that Amber Rudd’s name had also been mentioned as a possible first secretary of state. Alternatively Mrs May could dispense with the role.
Whitehall sources said that the investigation into Mr Green was taking so long because of the need to examine every government computer he had access to, to see if there was a pattern of the alleged behaviour. Mr Green denies the allegations and any wrongdoing.
Some senior figures are pushing Mr Gove forward because of his influence with Brexiteers. The environment secretary is close to Gavin Barwell, Mrs May’s chief of staff, who was his parliamentary aide when he was education secretary.
However, some of those closest to the prime minister suggest that she does not yet trust Mr Gove, a former Times journalist, not to leak sensitive material from inside government to colleagues and the media.
Mrs May could ask Ms Rudd, the home secretary, or Mr Gove to continue in their jobs while assuming the title of first secretary.
I really hope they don't move Gove. As with his time at Justice he seems to he a radical thinker who is willing to listen to every side and make decisions based on what is best for the country rather than for short term gain or sound bites. He was moved from Justice far too soon and it would be a great shame to see him moved from DEFRA when we finally seem to have a minister who understands the really serious issues around farming practice and the environment.
+1. DEFRA is also the biggest department affected by Brexit, there’s going to need to be huge changes forced on them by the withdrawal from the CAP, needs to have a big brain in charge who can think outside the box.
I expect him to do something on UC. Cut the wait by a week or perhaps two. Which will do nothing to stop the crisis that UC brings to a community and will demonstrate again that the Conservatives have no idea who receives this benefit, why, or how their lives work.
What's the reason behind the six week wait for UC ?
Not having followed the issue is there a reason why it shouldn't be paid asap rather than after any delay at all ?
George Osborne thought it would save money. He and IDS had a big falling out and the minister resigned.
So another Osborne fuckup to go with triple lock pensions, student debt and help to raise house prices.
On basic humanity, it is impossible to support Osborne's contention on this aspect of UC.
We disagree on Brexit - no problem. In an ideal world, staying in the Common Market, but exiting the EU would be the ideal solution.
This isn't on offer because the EU can't be seen to offering it without risking losing more countries. I repeat this isn't on offer because of the EU. I'm no Tory voter, but I'm quite sure Mrs May would snap their hand off if it was offered.
I'm not sure what these hysterical protests from the Remainers are about. We lost but we should have our way anyway? We must stay in the Common Market and if that means staying in the EU, we have to accept it?
The squawking of spoilt children. Where is the logic? Perhaps you can explain even if you don't agree.
That is worth a thread rather than a few lines, but in brief you can divide those you would call Remoaners into the following groups:
1) Those who believe that leaving the EU is catastrophic and must be halted; the public simply got it wrong.
2) Those who believe that leaving the EU is greatly inferior to staying in and that as many as possible of the benefits must be retained, and that the government is throwing away the possibility of doing so by fetishising immigration control.
3) Those who are simply appalled at the vindictive and ugly way in which the government is pursuing what they already consider to be a really bad idea, alienating Britain's neighbours and allies.
All three are logical positions, even if you don't like them.
You're right. There are signs however that rising life expectancy, which has been one of the biggest strains on pension costs, is topping out. Medical science continues to improve, but the lifestyles of the currently middle aged aren't as healthy as those of our parents, who got more exercise and ate and drunk less than we do.
Interesting aspect to the tailing off of rising life expectancy - could it be that those who have arrived as immigrants have had an impact because they are coming from countries with much lower life expectancy to start with? Life expectancy of, for example, Somalis in Somalia is under 52. OK, they come to the UK and have access to much better health care etc - but I'd suggest that their life expectancy doesn't immediately jump to that of the rest of the UK population, because of all the stresses and strains their bodies have endured in earlier life.
The point being, that for those born in the UK, their life expectancy might still be going upwards - and the stresses on pensions, health etc still expanding - whilst this effect is being masked by averaging in several million migrants with a lower life expectancy.
Thoughts?
Last week Kenneth Kaunda (93) sat down with Robert Mugabe (93) to discuss the retirement of the latter, not on health grounds. It is an astonishing achievement to be not just non-demented but robust enough for power politics in ones 90s. Which suggests that the Sub-Saharan African genome plus effective Western medicine implies greater longevity.
Immigration isn't a massive issue for me, but it is for many. Having misspent much of my youth working on the land in most of my school holidays, I have some sympathy for those who would rather do something else. When you're in the middle of long-hoe weeding a two mile row of cabbages and the Siberian wind is whistling through you, the attraction of a warm environment is high.
Automation has helped a little, but certainly Poles and Lithuanians are much less fussy. And they're good Catholics lads, and like their beer/vodka, even if they increase the drink-driving stats quite a lot.
But this is about democracy. Once you decide you know better ( I think I do, but I try to suppress these urges), and refuse to accept that perhaps others have a right to influence policy, we become the bigots.
I'm disappointed with some Remainers. They seem to have some elements of Christianity (care for others less fortunate etc), but they add in a generous dollop of pure hatred. And that care for others is very selective.
We may end up with a less than an ideal Brexit for us, but much of the blame deserves to be laid at the door of the EU. Appointing Juncker and Barnier said ... "No surrender." I can be awkward at times and the EU is forcing me to be so.
I expect him to do something on UC. Cut the wait by a week or perhaps two. Which will do nothing to stop the crisis that UC brings to a community and will demonstrate again that the Conservatives have no idea who receives this benefit, why, or how their lives work.
What's the reason behind the six week wait for UC ?
Not having followed the issue is there a reason why it shouldn't be paid asap rather than after any delay at all ?
George Osborne thought it would save money. He and IDS had a big falling out and the minister resigned.
So another Osborne fuckup to go with triple lock pensions, student debt and help to raise house prices.
On basic humanity, it is impossible to support Osborne's contention on this aspect of UC.
Although, perhaps TSE will try?
Why does the thought of George Osborne deciding that benefits claimants would be fine to wait six weeks remind me of Marie Antionette's 'let them eat cake'?
I expect him to do something on UC. Cut the wait by a week or perhaps two. Which will do nothing to stop the crisis that UC brings to a community and will demonstrate again that the Conservatives have no idea who receives this benefit, why, or how their lives work.
What's the reason behind the six week wait for UC ?
Not having followed the issue is there a reason why it shouldn't be paid asap rather than after any delay at all ?
George Osborne thought it would save money. He and IDS had a big falling out and the minister resigned.
So another Osborne fuckup to go with triple lock pensions, student debt and help to raise house prices.
I could be wrong but iirc IDS resigned over the marginal rate at which UC is withdrawn when earning starts, not the six weeks.
IDS wanted a month as he thought it was a) the same as anyone starting a new job and being paid in arrears and b) would instil discipline in jobless (as the money would always be monthly not fortnightly as per old benefits).
I think however Osborne forced an extra week in there by saying no one on any benefit could start claiming within 5 working days of their new circumstances (e.g. losing a job).
Quite. The only "out" from the conundrum the voters in their infinite wisdom delivered to all political parties in June (Thou shalt never ever, under any circumstances even think about touching pensions even with the longest bargepole you can imagine, because electoral flaming death and eternal ballot box damnation awaits ye"), is to increase the pension age faster.
We can afford just about any pension we like if we are prepared to wait till 80 odd to get it. The electorate will find out, that's what they have voted for.
Does anyone think there's a chance of the pension tax free sum being reduced to 20% with immediate effect? If so, it will screw me royally as I retire next month
Still, as I have been advocating taxes need to go up, that will appear as sweet justice to any neo-liberal PBers. Hey-ho!
You're right. There are signs however that rising life expectancy, which has been one of the biggest strains on pension costs, is topping out. Medical science continues to improve, but the lifestyles of the currently middle aged aren't as healthy as those of our parents, who got more exercise and ate and drunk less than we do.
Interesting aspect to the tailing off of rising life expectancy - could it be that those who have arrived as immigrants have had an impact because they are coming from countries with much lower life expectancy to start with? Life expectancy of, for example, Somalis in Somalia is under 52. OK, they come to the UK and have access to much better health care etc - but I'd suggest that their life expectancy doesn't immediately jump to that of the rest of the UK population, because of all the stresses and strains their bodies have endured in earlier life.
The point being, that for those born in the UK, their life expectancy might still be going upwards - and the stresses on pensions, health etc still expanding - whilst this effect is being masked by averaging in several million migrants with a much lower life expectancy.
Thoughts?
I really don't know. Some of the long-term trends towards healthiness, such as not smoking and general health/lifestyle awareness, are still slowly feeding through the generations. Others, such as drinking, sedentary lifestyles and a higher calorie diet, trend in the opposite direction.
A low calorie diet, even to near starvation levels, has a significant beneficial effect on expectancy. Somalia's expectancy is low principally because of inadequate healthcare, and more dangerous lifestyles. The first step toward answering your question would be to get some data on life expectancy of immigrant communities in the Uk, normalised as far as is possible for other variables such as age and class.
I think that data would be quite fascinating. Of course, if it shows that migrants do indeed get a massive and immediate uplift in life expectancy by coming here, then that data will probably be sat on by Government!
I found this from Australia, which has proportionately higher immigration than we do. Their data suggests expectancy for immigrants did increase compared to their home country, and indeed their expectancy was higher than the rest of Australians. The profile of their immigration is heavily tilted towards SE Asia, and therefore different from ours.
I expect him to do something on UC. Cut the wait by a week or perhaps two. Which will do nothing to stop the crisis that UC brings to a community and will demonstrate again that the Conservatives have no idea who receives this benefit, why, or how their lives work.
What's the reason behind the six week wait for UC ?
Not having followed the issue is there a reason why it shouldn't be paid asap rather than after any delay at all ?
George Osborne thought it would save money. He and IDS had a big falling out and the minister resigned.
So another Osborne fuckup to go with triple lock pensions, student debt and help to raise house prices.
On basic humanity, it is impossible to support Osborne's contention on this aspect of UC.
Although, perhaps TSE will try?
1) I'm not a fan of the six week delay, I've said before on here and told George Osborne CH make it two/three weeks like it is for benefits like JSA.
2) The six week delay was originally proposed by IDS, but like many of the ideas of IDS on UC it sounded good in theory but really doesn't survive first contact with reality and he's denying it was nothing to do with him.
We disagree on Brexit - no problem. In an ideal world, staying in the Common Market, but exiting the EU would be the ideal solution.
This isn't on offer because the EU can't be seen to offering it without risking losing more countries. I repeat this isn't on offer because of the EU. I'm no Tory voter, but I'm quite sure Mrs May would snap their hand off if it was offered.
I'm not sure what these hysterical protests from the Remainers are about. We lost but we should have our way anyway? We must stay in the Common Market and if that means staying in the EU, we have to accept it?
The squawking of spoilt children. Where is the logic? Perhaps you can explain even if you don't agree.
That is worth a thread rather than a few lines, but in brief you can divide those you would call Remoaners into the following groups:
1) Those who believe that leaving the EU is catastrophic and must be halted; the public simply got it wrong.
2) Those who believe that leaving the EU is greatly inferior to staying in and that as many as possible of the benefits must be retained, and that the government is throwing away the possibility of doing so by fetishising immigration control.
3) Those who are simply appalled at the vindictive and ugly way in which the government is pursuing what they already consider to be a really bad idea, alienating Britain's neighbours and allies.
All three are logical positions, even if you don't like them.
2) with a dollop of 3) for me.
I think the inclusion of (3) is misleading as I don't believe this is in any way a defining group of Remoaners. Indeed there are a great many Leavers and Remainers who have accepted the result of the referendum who also feel exactly the same way about the way the Government is pursuing Brexit.
You're right. There are signs however that rising life expectancy, which has been one of the biggest strains on pension costs, is topping out. Medical science continues to improve, but the lifestyles of the currently middle aged aren't as healthy as those of our parents, who got more exercise and ate and drunk less than we do.
Interesting aspect to the tailing off of rising life expectancy - could it be that those who have arrived as immigrants have had an impact because they are coming from countries with much lower life expectancy to start with? Life expectancy of, for example, Somalis in Somalia is under 52. OK, they come to the UK and have access to much better health care etc - but I'd suggest that their life expectancy doesn't immediately jump to that of the rest of the UK population, because of all the stresses and strains their bodies have endured in earlier life.
The point being, that for those born in the UK, their life expectancy might still be going upwards - and the stresses on pensions, health etc still expanding - whilst this effect is being masked by averaging in several million migrants with a much lower life expectancy.
Thoughts?
I really don't know. Some of the long-term trends towards healthiness, such as not smoking and general health/lifestyle awareness, are still slowly feeding through the generations. Others, such as drinking, sedentary lifestyles and a higher calorie diet, trend in the opposite direction.
A low calorie diet, even to near starvation levels, has a significant beneficial effect on expectancy. Somalia's expectancy is low principally because of inadequate healthcare, and more dangerous lifestyles. The first step toward answering your question would be to get some data on life expectancy of immigrant communities in the Uk, normalised as far as is possible for other variables such as age and class.
Without any data, I doubt that the inflow of immigrants has been so big as to dramatically effect the data on life expectancy for the general population? Particularly as many of the working age ones will return home.
Life expectancy figures in Somalia and the like are mostly due to infant mortality, violence and HIV. None of these apply in a big way when in UK. Somalis do have higher rates of diabetes and obesity here though.
Bangladeshis now have similar life expectancy as Britons, as infant mortality drops. Indeed the world is ageing fast, not just here.
Mostly the stalling of increasing life expectancy here is lifestyle related, with obesity and diabetes the big culprits.
Interesting that almost 40% of 18-24 year olds want to see immigration reduced to the tens of thousands.
Much higher than I thought it'd be.
If that’s really the main thing you took from the article, that might explain why the Conservatives still aren’t breaking through with younger demographics. Throughout this post GE period I’ve seen a number of Conservatives now - including Sean_F and yourself draw comfort from ‘this significant minority’ supports this view on Brexit/Immigration, instead of confronting the reasons why the Conservatives lost among this demographic so badly.
Reality is, the Conservatives likely already enjoy a sizeable share among those 39%. Mori’s post election poll showed that the Tories polled around 27% approx with 18-24 year olds.
The more worrying statistic for the Tories (which was perhaps the point Curtis was trying to make) is that among the under 40s more generally, 54% have a positive view of immigration, as opposed to only 34% of the over 65s viewing it this way, and that this difference in cultural outlook is likely to be a millstone round the Conservatives’ neck.
I am a touch surprised that only 54% of the under 40's have a positive view of immigration. I would have expected it to be higher.
Seems about right. It's one reason people acting like only old tories care about immigration are being silly. They just care about it more.
You're right. There are signs however that rising life expectancy, which has been one of the biggest strains on pension costs, is topping out. Medical science continues to improve, but the lifestyles of the currently middle aged aren't as healthy as those of our parents, who got more exercise and ate and drunk less than we do.
Interesting aspect to the tailing off of rising life expectancy - could it be that those who have arrived as immigrants have had an impact because they are coming from countries with much lower life expectancy to start with? Life expectancy of, for example, Somalis in Somalia is under 52. OK, they come to the UK and have access to much better health care etc - but I'd suggest that their life expectancy doesn't immediately jump to that of the rest of the UK population, because of all the stresses and strains their bodies have endured in earlier life.
The point being, that for those born in the UK, their life expectancy might still be going upwards - and the stresses on pensions, health etc still expanding - whilst this effect is being masked by averaging in several million migrants with a lower life expectancy.
Thoughts?
Last week Kenneth Kaunda (93) sat down with Robert Mugabe (93) to discuss the retirement of the latter, not on health grounds. It is an astonishing achievement to be not just non-demented but robust enough for power politics in ones 90s. Which suggests that the Sub-Saharan African genome plus effective Western medicine implies greater longevity.
You're right. There are signs however that rising life expectancy, which has been one of the biggest strains on pension costs, is topping out. Medical science continues to improve, but the lifestyles of the currently middle aged aren't as healthy as those of our parents, who got more exercise and ate and drunk less than we do.
Interesting aspect to the tailing off of rising life expectancy - could it be that those who have arrived as immigrants have had an impact because they are coming from countries with much lower life expectancy to start with? Life expectancy of, for example, Somalis in Somalia is under 52. OK, they come to the UK and have access to much better health care etc - but I'd suggest that their life expectancy doesn't immediately jump to that of the rest of the UK population, because of all the stresses and strains their bodies have endured in earlier life.
The point being, that for those born in the UK, their life expectancy might still be going upwards - and the stresses on pensions, health etc still expanding - whilst this effect is being masked by averaging in several million migrants with a lower life expectancy.
Thoughts?
Last week Kenneth Kaunda (93) sat down with Robert Mugabe (93) to discuss the retirement of the latter, not on health grounds. It is an astonishing achievement to be not just non-demented but robust enough for power politics in ones 90s. Which suggests that the Sub-Saharan African genome plus effective Western medicine implies greater longevity.
Or they are outliers and it may say nothing about genome at all.
What it needed was the government to set out immediately the parameters that it considered the referendum set and to explain that Brexit was to be negotiated within those parameters, reassuring Leave voters that the vote would be respected. A tick for the PM there, despite the endless wailing that Leave supporters irrationally inflicted on the nation about impending betrayal.
But it also needed the government to set out meaningfully what the longterm relationship between Britain and the rest of the EU would look like. In this part, the government could show how the fears of Remain voters would be addressed. I expect that the loopier Leave voters would have howled betrayal again here at the points where the government made contact with reality on subjects like immigration, trade and co-operation between the EU and Britain.
There has been no attempt to offer a longterm vision of what post-Brexit Britain would look like. As a result, it's been filled by the meanest, nastiest, maddest Leave ideas.
I think that setting out the longterm relationship between Britain and the EU needed to be done before or, at least, at the same time as setting out the parameters within which Brexit was to be negotiated. May's error, to my mind, was to set out very early her view of those parameters without involving anyone else or, critically, thinking through the consequences, both for how Brexit needed to be implemented and for the long-term relationship.
And, even worse, she then put in charge people who were completely unable to do any of that sort of thinking for her.
She did that because she was unwilling or too afraid to face down the mean nasty cohort within Leave and the Tories. It is odd that someone whose only real claim to fame was her speech to Tory activists about being seen as the "nasty" party was so willing to pander to a group which is now turning the Tories into the "nasty" party all over again.
Perhaps not so odd given Parliamentary arithmetic. But at a time when she was unchallengeable and apparently riding high in the polls she really could have reached out in a way that would have made her look like the Prime Minister of the nation rather than simply a Tory PM trying to keep a fractious party together.
Courage. There are times when it is really needed. We have lacked politicians with courage in the last year and a half and it explains much of the mess we're in.
May is not courageous. She's not brave. She's foolhardy. She's like a driver who drives at 35 mph most of the time and then suddenly decides to overtake on a blind bend going up a hill.
Does anyone think there's a chance of the pension tax free sum being reduced to 20% with immediate effect? If so, it will screw me royally as I retire next month
Still, as I have been advocating taxes need to go up, that will appear as sweet justice to any neo-liberal PBers. Hey-ho!
Dunno, but the danger with govts of whatever stripe tinkering about like this, is that it destroys the faith of younger people to save in a pension at all, because you are hostage to some sticky fingered Chancellor in future decades, right at the point there's no time for you to do anything about it, despite having done "the right thing" for years.
I know one person who has saved for decades assiduously and well but outside the "pensions architecture" and keeps the vast majority now in pure cash in the bank ready to go anywhere at a moment's notice for precisely that reason.
We disagree on Brexit - no problem. In an ideal world, staying in the Common Market, but exiting the EU would be the ideal solution.
This isn't on offer because the EU can't be seen to offering it without risking losing more countries. I repeat this isn't on offer because of the EU. I'm no Tory voter, but I'm quite sure Mrs May would snap their hand off if it was offered.
I'm not sure what these hysterical protests from the Remainers are about. We lost but we should have our way anyway? We must stay in the Common Market and if that means staying in the EU, we have to accept it?
The squawking of spoilt children. Where is the logic? Perhaps you can explain even if you don't agree.
That is worth a thread rather than a few lines, but in brief you can divide those you would call Remoaners into the following groups:
1) Those who believe that leaving the EU is catastrophic and must be halted; the public simply got it wrong.
2) Those who believe that leaving the EU is greatly inferior to staying in and that as many as possible of the benefits must be retained, and that the government is throwing away the possibility of doing so by fetishising immigration control.
3) Those who are simply appalled at the vindictive and ugly way in which the government is pursuing what they already consider to be a really bad idea, alienating Britain's neighbours and allies.
All three are logical positions, even if you don't like them.
2) with a dollop of 3) for me.
I think the inclusion of (3) is misleading as I don't believe this is in any way a defining group of Remoaners. Indeed there are a great many Leavers and Remainers who have accepted the result of the referendum who also feel exactly the same way about the way the Government is pursuing Brexit.
That is true although if I were a hard Brexiter (gasp, cough) I would endorse May's approach. That it is entirely impractical and unrealistic might not put me off from the fact that in my eyes she would be pursuing the cake and eat it strategy that I wanted.
You're right. There are signs however that rising life expectancy, which has been one of the biggest strains on pension costs, is topping out. Medical science continues to improve, but the lifestyles of the currently middle aged aren't as healthy as those of our parents, who got more exercise and ate and drunk less than we do.
Interesting aspect to the tailing off of rising life expectancy - could it be that those who have arrived as immigrants have had an impact because they are coming from countries with much lower life expectancy to start with? Life expectancy of, for example, Somalis in Somalia is under 52. OK, they come to the UK and have access to much better health care etc - but I'd suggest that their life expectancy doesn't immediately jump to that of the rest of the UK population, because of all the stresses and strains their bodies have endured in earlier life.
The point being, that for those born in the UK, their life expectancy might still be going upwards - and the stresses on pensions, health etc still expanding - whilst this effect is being masked by averaging in several million migrants with a much lower life expectancy.
Thoughts?
I really don't know. Some of the long-term trends towards healthiness, such as not smoking and general health/lifestyle awareness, are still slowly feeding through the generations. Others, such as drinking, sedentary lifestyles and a higher calorie diet, trend in the opposite direction.
A low calorie diet, even to near starvation levels, has a significant beneficial effect on expectancy. Somalia's expectancy is low principally because of inadequate healthcare, and more dangerous lifestyles. The first step toward answering your question would be to get some data on life expectancy of immigrant communities in the Uk, normalised as far as is possible for other variables such as age and class.
Without any data, I doubt that the inflow of immigrants has been so big as to dramatically effect the data on life expectancy for the general population? Particularly as many of the working age ones will return home.
Life expectancy figures in Somalia and the like are mostly due to infant mortality, violence and HIV. None of these apply in a big way when in UK. Somalis do have higher rates of diabetes and obesity here though.
Bangladeshis now have similar life expectancy as Britons, as infant mortality drops. Indeed the world is ageing fast, not just here.
Mostly the stalling of increasing life expectancy here is lifestyle related, with obesity and diabetes the big culprits.
From martin wolf FT article, killer stat I suspect:
"Those aged 22-39 experienced a 10 per cent fall in real earnings between 2007 and 2017."
It's 2.6% across the population - so presumably some age groups have seen their income rise, or hold more or less steady...
Pensioners. Triple lock. Will we see that unwound a bit today? May be a bit brave.
David, since The Ashes start tonight, I take it I don't have to remind you not to curse the England team with your praise for the next couple of months.
Re younger voters, the Tories were pretty much level among 25-34 year olds at the start, and had a big lead among 35-44 year olds. Both groups shifted hugely to Labour during the campaign, which suggests that the Conservatives' piss-poor effort, and Corbyn's very good effort were key.
But it might equally suggest that the polls led the voting - Corbyn as a no hoper was an easy stick to beat the government with (on Brexit) because there was no chance that he would actually win.
Comments
https://mobile.twitter.com/DianeJamesMEP/status/933245844249198592
The Conservatives are toxifying themselves for a generation at present.
Even if you started saving this year - 12k/year for 30 years = 360k.
At a safe withdrawal rate of 4% - which I believe is what the early retire gurus say is basically guaranteed - you should be able to take out 14.4k/year. And that's not counting any of the gains from interest over that 30 year time span.
Canada is a good option provided you are willing to endure the winters
The bottom line is that near-zero interest rates make future pensions cost out as very expensive. If interest rates do return to the long-run average (noting that this 'if' has been around for almost ten years now) one of the benefits is that the pension funding position becomes a lot more healthy.
Pointless project when there is a servicable all-star movie version and the incomparable Suchet TV version. In the light of the strong hint that he will do Death on the Nile next, I can only think Branagh was looking for another franchise after Wallander.
https://twitter.com/election_data/status/933255988873805824
The World and the landscape of British politics will look very different in 20 years time, to which all major political parties will have adapted, so I'm relaxed about this.
As for Brexit we've already established you believe the mandate should be implemented in the spirit it was won, whilst simultaneous criticising for not reaching out to those who disagree, so it's difficult to see how to square that particular circle other than accept it, and move on.
"It is possible - but outside my control - that in the coming months, I may have to appear before the House with an Emergency Budget. With an extra £40 billion to spend...."
Because of dire interest rates/gilts/annuity rates (all linked really to each other) a million quid (ie the Govt's limit on private money purchase pensions before 55% tax kicks in), buys you a "civil service" style pension (inflation linked uplift, 50% for spouse on death) of just under £28K via an annuity (ie secure). You can get a bit more in the real world by drawdown (riskier) or by taking the 25% lump sum and investing it (also somewhat risky), but we still talking about £30k ish.
Not bad per se, but that's for whole £million which is just a nuts state of affairs, given that's way beyond normal folk.
Such are the penalties of on the floor interest rates, a failure by society to recognise that if we all live to 90, the maths ceases to add up to retire at 65 so we need to accept that shibboleth has to move upwards faster than it is, and all topped off by G Brown's brainless pension tax raid of 1997, which is still there sucking like a leach as it has done every day for more than two decades.
But here's the thing - everyone banging on about how he can't be sacked by May - why ? How many MPs would die on the hill of spreadsheet Phil ?
1 ?
On charities, the reality is that the Prime Minister is not making the rich worse off. He is making charities worse off. Over the past month we have seen the charity tax shambles, the churches tax shambles, the caravan tax shambles and the pasty tax shambles, so we are all keen to hear the Prime Minister’s view on why he thinks, four weeks on from the Budget, even people within Downing Street are calling it an omnishambles Budget.
What is more certain is that a generation is being priced out of the housing market as the average age of first home ownership rises inexorably toward 40. If that isn't reversed, the Tories do have a long-term problem.
In every year from 2002 onwards the UK's government debt as a percentage of GDP has increased - is that stability good ?
In every year from 2003 onwards home ownership levels in the UK have fallen - is that stability good ?
For the last decade UK productivity and wages have been stagnant - is that stability good ?
From 2000 UK manufacturing has been in depression - is that stability good ?
From 1999 until the Referendum the FTSE100 was in depression - was that stability good ?
Not just the younger generation. Those of us with children worry about their future.
I tend to the view, possibly naively, that had the government tried to implement Brexit in a generous, open-minded and, above all, competent way, some - if not all - of those who voted Remain might have become reconciled in time.
It is not too late (again I am possibly being naive) - for a politician with guts and a determination to do the best for the country - but, sadly, May is not that politician.
Brexit directly was.
What does "voluntary" mean in this context?
The same numbers that when applied to voting intention all of sudden are treated as concerning for the Conservatives. So they aren’t really that all surprising.
"Those aged 22-39 experienced a 10 per cent fall in real earnings between 2007 and 2017."
It's 2.6% across the population - so presumably some age groups have seen their income rise, or hold more or less steady...
We disagree on Brexit - no problem. In an ideal world, staying in the Common Market, but exiting the EU would be the ideal solution.
This isn't on offer because the EU can't be seen to offering it without risking losing more countries. I repeat this isn't on offer because of the EU. I'm no Tory voter, but I'm quite sure Mrs May would snap their hand off if it was offered.
I'm not sure what these hysterical protests from the Remainers are about. We lost but we should have our way anyway? We must stay in the Common Market and if that means staying in the EU, we have to accept it?
The squawking of spoilt children. Where is the logic? Perhaps you can explain even if you don't agree.
Not having followed the issue is there a reason why it shouldn't be paid asap rather than after any delay at all ?
Michael Gove is among the candidates to replace Theresa May’s de facto deputy if he resigns. Tory MPs said that Amber Rudd’s name had also been mentioned as a possible first secretary of state. Alternatively Mrs May could dispense with the role.
Whitehall sources said that the investigation into Mr Green was taking so long because of the need to examine every government computer he had access to, to see if there was a pattern of the alleged behaviour. Mr Green denies the allegations and any wrongdoing.
Some senior figures are pushing Mr Gove forward because of his influence with Brexiteers. The environment secretary is close to Gavin Barwell, Mrs May’s chief of staff, who was his parliamentary aide when he was education secretary.
However, some of those closest to the prime minister suggest that she does not yet trust Mr Gove, a former Times journalist, not to leak sensitive material from inside government to colleagues and the media.
Mrs May could ask Ms Rudd, the home secretary, or Mr Gove to continue in their jobs while assuming the title of first secretary.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dece0f2e-cf07-11e7-a505-dffc08ac33de
1) Those who believe that leaving the EU is catastrophic and must be halted; the public simply got it wrong.
2) Those who believe that leaving the EU is greatly inferior to staying in and that as many as possible of the benefits must be retained, and that the government is throwing away the possibility of doing so by fetishising immigration control.
3) Those who are simply appalled at the vindictive and ugly way in which the government is pursuing what they already consider to be a really bad idea, alienating Britain's neighbours and allies.
All three are logical positions, even if you don't like them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42078457
http://www.lifestuff.xyz/blog/money-can-t-buy-health
The British young that is - its clearly been beneficial for the young of much of Eastern and Southern Europe.
To benefit from free migration you need to have countries which have higher pay than yours and for which you speak the language. For the British youth that might apply to the USA, Canada and Australia but not to many EU countries.
The point being, that for those born in the UK, their life expectancy might still be going upwards - and the stresses on pensions, health etc still expanding - whilst this effect is being masked by averaging in several million migrants with a lower life expectancy.
Thoughts?
Immigration sceptics may have considered UKIP but if they are normally Labour voters probably not the Tories
Either way, though they've lasted better than any 1950's actuary's worst nightmare (when they signed up for pension schemes), as you say, the mortality tables' improvements are flattening out over recent years, which may in a darkly ironic way substantially ease the pensions crisis.
Something has to, or the young now worrying about graduate fees will gradually avert their gaze from that issue, as they age, to see the next problem heading their way like a train, and the reality will sink in that for probably the majority, working much longer (75?) is the only way to make the sums add up.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379416300932
I didn’t mean to suggest that literally everyone who votes Labour is positive about immigration, but rather than overall more often than not those who vote Labour among the under 40s are generally speaking are more positive.
A low calorie diet, even to near starvation levels, has a significant beneficial effect on expectancy. Somalia's expectancy is low principally because of inadequate healthcare, and more dangerous lifestyles. The first step toward answering your question would be to get some data on life expectancy of immigrant communities in the Uk, normalised as far as is possible for other variables such as age and class.
Without any data, I doubt that the inflow of immigrants has been so big as to dramatically effect the data on life expectancy for the general population? Particularly as many of the working age ones will return home.
What it needed was the government to set out immediately the parameters that it considered the referendum set and to explain that Brexit was to be negotiated within those parameters, reassuring Leave voters that the vote would be respected. A tick for the PM there, despite the endless wailing that Leave supporters irrationally inflicted on the nation about impending betrayal.
But it also needed the government to set out meaningfully what the longterm relationship between Britain and the rest of the EU would look like. In this part, the government could show how the fears of Remain voters would be addressed. I expect that the loopier Leave voters would have howled betrayal again here at the points where the government made contact with reality on subjects like immigration, trade and co-operation between the EU and Britain.
There has been no attempt to offer a longterm vision of what post-Brexit Britain would look like. As a result, it's been filled by the meanest, nastiest, maddest Leave ideas.
Remain voters and the EU have responded accordingly.
Why didn't the second half happen? Partly it was failure by the government. And partly it was because far too big a part of the Leave coalition was vindictive, small-minded and nasty to allow the government the freedom of manoeuvre to make such an approach safe for the government to pursue.
http://www.lifestuff.xyz/blog/spin-the-budget
Although, perhaps TSE will try?
Thank you for your reply.
Immigration isn't a massive issue for me, but it is for many. Having misspent much of my youth working on the land in most of my school holidays, I have some sympathy for those who would rather do something else. When you're in the middle of long-hoe weeding a two mile row of cabbages and the Siberian wind is whistling through you, the attraction of a warm environment is high.
Automation has helped a little, but certainly Poles and Lithuanians are much less fussy. And they're good Catholics lads, and like their beer/vodka, even if they increase the drink-driving stats quite a lot.
But this is about democracy. Once you decide you know better ( I think I do, but I try to suppress these urges), and refuse to accept that perhaps others have a right to influence policy, we become the bigots.
I'm disappointed with some Remainers. They seem to have some elements of Christianity (care for others less fortunate etc), but they add in a generous dollop of pure hatred. And that care for others is very selective.
We may end up with a less than an ideal Brexit for us, but much of the blame deserves to be laid at the door of the EU. Appointing Juncker and Barnier said ... "No surrender." I can be awkward at times and the EU is forcing me to be so.
Cry havoc, and let loose the dogs of war.
Oh, and best wishes to you and yours.
45% believe the allegations against him, 34% don't, and 21% do, but support him anyway.
IDS wanted a month as he thought it was a) the same as anyone starting a new job and being paid in arrears and b) would instil discipline in jobless (as the money would always be monthly not fortnightly as per old benefits).
I think however Osborne forced an extra week in there by saying no one on any benefit could start claiming within 5 working days of their new circumstances (e.g. losing a job).
@ another_richard
Quite. The only "out" from the conundrum the voters in their infinite wisdom delivered to all political parties in June (Thou shalt never ever, under any circumstances even think about touching pensions even with the longest bargepole you can imagine, because electoral flaming death and eternal ballot box damnation awaits ye"), is to increase the pension age faster.
We can afford just about any pension we like if we are prepared to wait till 80 odd to get it. The electorate will find out, that's what they have voted for.
Still, as I have been advocating taxes need to go up, that will appear as sweet justice to any neo-liberal PBers. Hey-ho!
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/featurearticlesbytitle/D09B5C96564AAE67CA256B820080412D?OpenDocument
2) The six week delay was originally proposed by IDS, but like many of the ideas of IDS on UC it sounded good in theory but really doesn't survive first contact with reality and he's denying it was nothing to do with him.
Bangladeshis now have similar life expectancy as Britons, as infant mortality drops. Indeed the world is ageing fast, not just here.
Mostly the stalling of increasing life expectancy here is lifestyle related, with obesity and diabetes the big culprits.
https://twitter.com/simongerman600/status/926311907103006720
And, even worse, she then put in charge people who were completely unable to do any of that sort of thinking for her.
She did that because she was unwilling or too afraid to face down the mean nasty cohort within Leave and the Tories. It is odd that someone whose only real claim to fame was her speech to Tory activists about being seen as the "nasty" party was so willing to pander to a group which is now turning the Tories into the "nasty" party all over again.
Perhaps not so odd given Parliamentary arithmetic. But at a time when she was unchallengeable and apparently riding high in the polls she really could have reached out in a way that would have made her look like the Prime Minister of the nation rather than simply a Tory PM trying to keep a fractious party together.
Courage. There are times when it is really needed. We have lacked politicians with courage in the last year and a half and it explains much of the mess we're in.
May is not courageous. She's not brave. She's foolhardy. She's like a driver who drives at 35 mph most of the time and then suddenly decides to overtake on a blind bend going up a hill.
I know one person who has saved for decades assiduously and well but outside the "pensions architecture" and keeps the vast majority now in pure cash in the bank ready to go anywhere at a moment's notice for precisely that reason.
You're only allowed to praise the Aussies.