Would you support 1p in the £ income tax rise to provide additional NHS funding ?
Yes
Income is the wrong thing to tax further though - wealth tax is the way to go.
Could be a big vote looser depending on what you call wealth
Well wealth is easy enough to define. Assets less liabilities, future pension pots discounted to a PV.
Ooh that’ll go down like a mug of cold sick when the whopping value all those public sector pensions becomes taxable then....
... not many Tory votes there to lose.
But it shows that defining “wealth” is tricky.
NPV of a pension may be X today but might be X minus tomorrow. Do I get a credit then? What’s my house worth? You think X I think Y . Who decides? What’s the appeal process?
What is the value of a private business. Christ knows!
I suspect if taxes such as this were introduced gold coins in deposit boxes would proliferate too. It’ll all get messy and harder to define pdq.
Would you support 1p in the £ income tax rise to provide additional NHS funding ?
I'm not sure I would: it will buy us about 5 years, whereupon the NHS will be desperate for yet another 1p rise - just to stand still.
Healthcare is going to consume an ever greater % of national income on current trends as people live longer, and more conditions become treatable or containable, whilst also being chronic.
The long-term solution has to be to move to more flexible working for retirees with them able to take employment, pensions set at life-expectancy minus seven years, and a more mixed funding model of public, private and personal healthcare - just as we've done for pensions.
But, that's politically toxic at the moment.
Life expectancy minus 7? I think that’s a brave policy.
I always thought the voucher scheme from the 2005 Tory manifesto was a good idea.
It could be 8 years, or 9 years, or perhaps even 10. But it can't be 20.
The basic problem is that if you're only working for 40-45 years, you're always going to struggle to save/tax enough to go another 20+ years doing nothing at all.
The full pension/working ratio needs to be a solid 4/1 or 5/1, not 2/1.
I'm also not convinced it's good for your mental or physical health to fully retire 100% at 65, or even 70, and I think different choices will become easier in time as working patterns/employment culture becomes more flexible, and ageism diminishes.
I'm not sure I would: it will buy us about 5 years, whereupon the NHS will be desperate for yet another 1p rise - just to stand still.
Healthcare is going to consume an ever greater % of national income on current trends as people live longer, and more conditions become treatable or containable, whilst also being chronic.
The long-term solution has to be to move to more flexible working for retirees with them able to take employment, pensions set at life-expectancy minus seven years, and a more mixed funding model of public, private and personal healthcare - just as we've done for pensions.
But, that's politically toxic at the moment.
To be honest, this "problem" has existed for decades and no Govenrment of any stripe has had the courage to take it on .
It cuts to the core of what kind of society we want to be - we could accept Scandinavian-style tax rates in return for a (possibly) world class health service or we could try to adapt the economic culture of society to put more emphasis on healthcare financial planning and perhaps less emphasis on conspicuous consumption.
Interesting debate.
It is an interesting debate. It doesn't go anywhere because the NHS is a key pillar of British identity and pride.
Of course, the UK isn't Scandinavia: which has a very different cultural and economic make-up, with tightly-knit far smaller populations. I suspect if we tried it here, we'd get the taxation without the results, and with economic stagnation on top.
Would you support 1p in the £ income tax rise to provide additional NHS funding ?
I'm not sure I would: it will buy us about 5 years, whereupon the NHS will be desperate for yet another 1p rise - just to stand still.
Healthcare is going to consume an ever greater % of national income on current trends as people live longer, and more conditions become treatable or containable, whilst also being chronic.
The long-term solution has to be to move to more flexible working for retirees with them able to take employment, pensions set at life-expectancy minus seven years, and a more mixed funding model of public, private and personal healthcare - just as we've done for pensions.
But, that's politically toxic at the moment.
Life expectancy minus 7? I think that’s a brave policy.
I always thought the voucher scheme from the 2005 Tory manifesto was a good idea.
It could be 8 years, or 9 years, or perhaps even 10. But it can't be 20.
The basic problem is that if you're only working for 40-45 years, you're always going to struggle to save/tax enough to go another 20+ years doing nothing at all.
The full pension/working ratio needs to be a solid 4/1 or 5/1, not 2/1.
I'm also not convinced it's good for your mental or physical health to fully retire 100% at 65, or even 70, and I think different choices will become easier in time as working patterns/employment culture becomes more flexible, and ageism diminishes.
I agree with you on this point Casino. It's a shame pension age wasnt linked to average life expectancy when the state pension was first introduced - it would have been entirely non-contraversial then. Much harder to introduce now but needs to be done.
Would you support 1p in the £ income tax rise to provide additional NHS funding ?
I'm not sure I would: it will buy us about 5 years, whereupon the NHS will be desperate for yet another 1p rise - just to stand still.
Healthcare is going to consume an ever greater % of national income on current trends as people live longer, and more conditions become treatable or containable, whilst also being chronic.
The long-term solution has to be to move to more flexible working for retirees with them able to take employment, pensions set at life-expectancy minus seven years, and a more mixed funding model of public, private and personal healthcare - just as we've done for pensions.
But, that's politically toxic at the moment.
What we need to do is buy some time to do a proper fix (if one is possible), so the 1p plan plus some longer term thinking.
I'd like to see almost everyone employed, and employers offering private healthcare insurance as standard, as they are now required to do for private pensions.
I'd then encourage individuals to invest in personal healthcare savings accounts (a bit like stocks and shares ISAs) to fund major healthcare costs in their later years, either directly or by purchasing extra cover.
The NHS can then focus on general practice, A&E, and operations, and a solid safety net, all free at the point of use, but also not overstrained.
Totally muddled thinking imo. What are the parts the NHS is not focusing on in your vision?
As we live longer - because our health "survivability" increases - we don't die, but we do live much longer with chronic conditions where we're no longer in peak 100% health.
Of course, that's a sign of success - probably better to be living to aged 90 with arthritis, survivable cancers and diabetes than dead at 65 of a heart attack - but it is very expensive.
I think the burden of some of that cost, should shift to the individual, who should start to help plan and save for it during their working lives.
Would you support 1p in the £ income tax rise to provide additional NHS funding ?
I'm not sure I would: it will buy us about 5 years, whereupon the NHS will be desperate for yet another 1p rise - just to stand still.
Healthcare is going to consume an ever greater % of national income on current trends as people live longer, and more conditions become treatable or containable, whilst also being chronic.
The long-term solution has to be to move to more flexible working for retirees with them able to take employment, pensions set at life-expectancy minus seven years, and a more mixed funding model of public, private and personal healthcare - just as we've done for pensions.
But, that's politically toxic at the moment.
Life expectancy minus 7? I think that’s a brave policy.
I always thought the voucher scheme from the 2005 Tory manifesto was a good idea.
It could be 8 years, or 9 years, or perhaps even 10. But it can't be 20.
The basic problem is that if you're only working for 40-45 years, you're always going to struggle to save/tax enough to go another 20+ years doing nothing at all.
The full pension/working ratio needs to be a solid 4/1 or 5/1, not 2/1.
I'm also not convinced it's good for your mental or physical health to fully retire 100% at 65, or even 70, and I think different choices will become easier in time as working patterns/employment culture becomes more flexible, and ageism diminishes.
I agree with you on this point Casino. It's a shame pension age wasnt linked to average life expectancy when the state pension was first introduced - it would have been entirely non-contraversial then. Much harder to introduce now but needs to be done.
Would you support 1p in the £ income tax rise to provide additional NHS funding ?
I'm not sure I would: it will buy us about 5 years, whereupon the NHS will be desperate for yet another 1p rise - just to stand still.
Healthcare is going to consume an ever greater % of national income on current trends as people live longer, and more conditions become treatable or containable, whilst also being chronic.
The long-term solution has to be to move to more flexible working for retirees with them able to take employment, pensions set at life-expectancy minus seven years, and a more mixed funding model of public, private and personal healthcare - just as we've done for pensions.
But, that's politically toxic at the moment.
Life expectancy minus 7? I think that’s a brave policy.
I always thought the voucher scheme from the 2005 Tory manifesto was a good idea.
It could be 8 years, or 9 years, or perhaps even 10. But it can't be 20.
The basic problem is that if you're only working for 40-45 years, you're always going to struggle to save/tax enough to go another 20+ years doing nothing at all.
The full pension/working ratio needs to be a solid 4/1 or 5/1, not 2/1.
I'm also not convinced it's good for your mental or physical health to fully retire 100% at 65, or even 70, and I think different choices will become easier in time as working patterns/employment culture becomes more flexible, and ageism diminishes.
I agree with you on this point Casino. It's a shame pension age wasnt linked to average life expectancy when the state pension was first introduced - it would have been entirely non-contraversial then. Much harder to introduce now but needs to be done.
The first state pensions in 1908 were means tested and the qualifying age was 70, when average life expectancy was 50. If we had kept that up you would start to get the state pension at 101.
Would you support 1p in the £ income tax rise to provide additional NHS funding ?
I'm not sure I would: it will buy us about 5 years, whereupon the NHS will be desperate for yet another 1p rise - just to stand still.
Healthcare is going to consume an ever greater % of national income on current trends as people live longer, and more conditions become treatable or containable, whilst also being chronic.
The long-term solution has to be to move to more flexible working for retirees with them able to take employment, pensions set at life-expectancy minus seven years, and a more mixed funding model of public, private and personal healthcare - just as we've done for pensions.
But, that's politically toxic at the moment.
Life expectancy minus 7? I think that’s a brave policy.
I always thought the voucher scheme from the 2005 Tory manifesto was a good idea.
It could be 8 years, or 9 years, or perhaps even 10. But it can't be 20.
The basic problem is that if you're only working for 40-45 years, you're always going to struggle to save/tax enough to go another 20+ years doing nothing at all.
The full pension/working ratio needs to be a solid 4/1 or 5/1, not 2/1.
I'm also not convinced it's good for your mental or physical health to fully retire 100% at 65, or even 70, and I think different choices will become easier in time as working patterns/employment culture becomes more flexible, and ageism diminishes.
I think a better solution than forcing people to work into sick old age is to force them to save more. Auto-enrolment is a necessary first step, but opting out should be banned and the contributions from employers and employees stepped up significantly.
Retired people with free time are the mainstay of great institutions like the National Trust and the Conservative Party. They can’t volunteer if they’re still working!
Would you support 1p in the £ income tax rise to provide additional NHS funding ?
I'm not sure I would: it will buy us about 5 years, whereupon the NHS will be desperate for yet another 1p rise - just to stand still.
Healthcare is going to consume an ever greater % of national income on current trends as people live longer, and more conditions become treatable or containable, whilst also being chronic.
The long-term solution has to be to move to more flexible working for retirees with them able to take employment, pensions set at life-expectancy minus seven years, and a more mixed funding model of public, private and personal healthcare - just as we've done for pensions.
But, that's politically toxic at the moment.
Life expectancy minus 7? I think that’s a brave policy.
I always thought the voucher scheme from the 2005 Tory manifesto was a good idea.
It could be 8 years, or 9 years, or perhaps even 10. But it can't be 20.
The basic problem is that if you're only working for 40-45 years, you're always going to struggle to save/tax enough to go another 20+ years doing nothing at all.
The full pension/working ratio needs to be a solid 4/1 or 5/1, not 2/1.
I'm also not convinced it's good for your mental or physical health to fully retire 100% at 65, or even 70, and I think different choices will become easier in time as working patterns/employment culture becomes more flexible, and ageism diminishes.
I agree that a dependency ratio of 2:1 is not sustainable, but there is the very real demographic problem that even on current rates of inward migration the working age population is projected to remain stable for the next decade. Population growth of 2.5 million is in the over 75's, and possibilities or desire to work at that age are going to be limited. Cut immigration and the problem becomes more acute.
Ultimately the problem is demographic, from the money point of view we just need to pick the point on the XYZ axes we want to be, where X is availability of care, Y is money spent and Z is whether the money is private or public. There will always be the issue that the payers are mostly wealthier and the recipients mostly older and poorer.
The biggest problem is staff, both less skilled HSC workers and highly skilled professionals. This is an internationally mobile workforce and an international problem, and retention rates are appalling.
Would you support 1p in the £ income tax rise to provide additional NHS funding ?
I'm not sure I would: it will buy us about 5 years, whereupon the NHS will be desperate for yet another 1p rise - just to stand still.
Healthcare is going to consume an ever greater % of national income on current trends as people live longer, and more conditions become treatable or containable, whilst also being chronic.
The long-term solution has to be to move to more flexible working for retirees with them able to take employment, pensions set at life-expectancy minus seven years, and a more mixed funding model of public, private and personal healthcare - just as we've done for pensions.
But, that's politically toxic at the moment.
Life expectancy minus 7? I think that’s a brave policy.
I always thought the voucher scheme from the 2005 Tory manifesto was a good idea.
It could be 8 years, or 9 years, or perhaps even 10. But it can't be 20.
The basic problem is that if you're only working for 40-45 years, you're always going to struggle to save/tax enough to go another 20+ years doing nothing at all.
The full pension/working ratio needs to be a solid 4/1 or 5/1, not 2/1.
I'm also not convinced it's good for your mental or physical health to fully retire 100% at 65, or even 70, and I think different choices will become easier in time as working patterns/employment culture becomes more flexible, and ageism diminishes.
I think a better solution than forcing people to work into sick old age is to force them to save more. Auto-enrolment is a necessary first step, but opting out should be banned and the contributions from employers and employees stepped up significantly.
Retired people with free time are the mainstay of great institutions like the National Trust and the Conservative Party. They can’t volunteer if they’re still working!
And who would serve in local government if not the retired?
Would you support 1p in the £ income tax rise to provide additional NHS funding ?
I'm not sure I would: it will buy us about 5 years, whereupon the NHS will be desperate for yet another 1p rise - just to stand still.
Healthcare is going to consume an ever greater % of national income on current trends as people live longer, and more conditions become treatable or containable, whilst also being chronic.
The long-term solution has to be to move to more flexible working for retirees with them able to take employment, pensions set at life-expectancy minus seven years, and a more mixed funding model of public, private and personal healthcare - just as we've done for pensions.
But, that's politically toxic at the moment.
What we need to do is buy some time to do a proper fix (if one is possible), so the 1p plan plus some longer term thinking.
I'd like to see almost everyone employed, and employers offering private healthcare insurance as standard, as they are now required to do for private pensions.
I'd then encourage individuals to invest in personal healthcare savings accounts (a bit like stocks and shares ISAs) to fund major healthcare costs in their later years, either directly or by purchasing extra cover.
The NHS can then focus on general practice, A&E, and operations, and a solid safety net, all free at the point of use, but also not overstrained.
Totally muddled thinking imo. What are the parts the NHS is not focusing on in your vision?
As we live longer - because our health "survivability" increases - we don't die, but we do live much longer with chronic conditions where we're no longer in peak 100% health.
Of course, that's a sign of success - probably better to be living to aged 90 with arthritis, survivable cancers and diabetes than dead at 65 of a heart attack - but it is very expensive.
I think the burden of some of that cost, should shift to the individual, who should start to help plan and save for it during their working lives.
So are you advocating compulsory insurance rather than increased taxation? Either way the costs will have to be met. The US approach based largely on private provision gives them the most expensive health care in the world per capita... oh an a lower life expectancy than the UK's - so I am not sure that's the way to go.
Plus Mrs May has a habit of ditching her staff to save her own skin.
What is it about the men who work closely with TMay? Nick Timothy, Gavin Wiiliamson, Damien Green and now this guy
Indeed.
Full disclosure, I really dislike Stephen Parkinson, for two reasons
1) He worked for No2AV during the AV referendum.
2) Like Nick Timothy he refused to go campaigning for the Tories in the Rochester & Strood by election, so Grant Shapps blackballed both of them for standing as Tory candidates at the 2015 general election.
Perhaps they hate the English flag that white van drivers in that neck of the woods hang out of windows
Would you support 1p in the £ income tax rise to provide additional NHS funding ?
I'm not sure I would: it will buy us about 5 years, whereupon the NHS will be desperate for yet another 1p rise - just to stand still.
Healthcare is going to consume an ever greater % of national income on current trends as people live longer, and more conditions become treatable or containable, whilst also being chronic.
The long-term solution has to be to move to more flexible working for retirees with them able to take employment, pensions set at life-expectancy minus seven years, and a more mixed funding model of public, private and personal healthcare - just as we've done for pensions.
But, that's politically toxic at the moment.
Life expectancy minus 7? I think that’s a brave policy.
I always thought the voucher scheme from the 2005 Tory manifesto was a good idea.
It could be 8 years, or 9 years, or perhaps even 10. But it can't be 20.
The basic problem is that if you're only working for 40-45 years, you're always going to struggle to save/tax enough to go another 20+ years doing nothing at all.
The full pension/working ratio needs to be a solid 4/1 or 5/1, not 2/1.
I'm also not convinced it's good for your mental or physical health to fully retire 100% at 65, or even 70, and I think different choices will become easier in time as working patterns/employment culture becomes more flexible, and ageism diminishes.
I think a better solution than forcing people to work into sick old age is to force them to save more. Auto-enrolment is a necessary first step, but opting out should be banned and the contributions from employers and employees stepped up significantly.
Retired people with free time are the mainstay of great institutions like the National Trust and the Conservative Party. They can’t volunteer if they’re still working!
Not interesting in forcing anyone. But I think many old people get lonely, and 2 x 4-hour shifts a week at a till behind Waitrose, say, or in a coffee shop would do them the world of good. Volunteering is fine too.
I'm being dumb, how do those emails make the statement false?
It implies that when Shahmir sent the email on 10 March 2016, he had not met Stephen but Chris Wylie had already communicated Shahmir's existence and wishes to Stephen.
I think one issue is the meaning of the word "introduced". Young people use[1] the words "meet" or "talk to" to refer to interacting via Skype, WhatsApp or email, as well as physical meeting or speech. It may well be that Chris is correct oldschool - he may not have introduced them physically in the presence of them both - but Shahmir is correct newstyle - Chris mentioned Shahmir to Stephen online.
[1] And this usage annoys the fuck out of me. See also "reach out".
Would you support 1p in the £ income tax rise to provide additional NHS funding ?
I'm not sure I would: it will buy us about 5 years, whereupon the NHS will be desperate for yet another 1p rise - just to stand still.
Healthcare is going to consume an ever greater % of national income on current trends as people live longer, and more conditions become treatable or containable, whilst also being chronic.
The long-term solution has to be to move to more flexible working for retirees with them able to take employment, pensions set at life-expectancy minus seven years, and a more mixed funding model of public, private and personal healthcare - just as we've done for pensions.
But, that's politically toxic at the moment.
Life expectancy minus 7? I think that’s a brave policy.
I always thought the voucher scheme from the 2005 Tory manifesto was a good idea.
It could be 8 years, or 9 years, or perhaps even 10. But it can't be 20.
The basic problem is that if you're only working for 40-45 years, you're always going to struggle to save/tax enough to go another 20+ years doing nothing at all.
The full pension/working ratio needs to be a solid 4/1 or 5/1, not 2/1.
I'm also not convinced it's good for your mental or physical health to fully retire 100% at 65, or even 70, and I think different choices will become easier in time as working patterns/employment culture becomes more flexible, and ageism diminishes.
I agree with you on this point Casino. It's a shame pension age wasnt linked to average life expectancy when the state pension was first introduced - it would have been entirely non-contraversial then. Much harder to introduce now but needs to be done.
The first state pensions in 1908 were means tested and the qualifying age was 70, when average life expectancy was 50. If we had kept that up you would start to get the state pension at 101.
Yes well, fair enough - maybe that is a bit extreme!
Would you support 1p in the £ income tax rise to provide additional NHS funding ?
I'm not sure I would: it will buy us about 5 years, whereupon the NHS will be desperate for yet another 1p rise - just to stand still.
Healthcare is going to consume an ever greater % of national income on current trends as people live longer, and more conditions become treatable or containable, whilst also being chronic.
The long-term solution has to be to move to more flexible working for retirees with them able to take employment, pensions set at life-expectancy minus seven years, and a more mixed funding model of public, private and personal healthcare - just as we've done for pensions.
But, that's politically toxic at the moment.
What we need to do is buy some time to do a proper fix (if one is possible), so the 1p plan plus some longer term thinking.
I'd like to see almost everyone employed, and employers offering private healthcare insurance as standard, as they are now required to do for private pensions.
I'd then encourage individuals to invest in personal healthcare savings accounts (a bit like stocks and shares ISAs) to fund major healthcare costs in their later years, either directly or by purchasing extra cover.
The NHS can then focus on general practice, A&E, and operations, and a solid safety net, all free at the point of use, but also not overstrained.
Totally muddled thinking imo. What are the parts the NHS is not focusing on in your vision?
As we live longer - because our health "survivability" increases - we don't die, but we do live much longer with chronic conditions where we're no longer in peak 100% health.
Of course, that's a sign of success - probably better to be living to aged 90 with arthritis, survivable cancers and diabetes than dead at 65 of a heart attack - but it is very expensive.
I think the burden of some of that cost, should shift to the individual, who should start to help plan and save for it during their working lives.
And we need to rethink the world of work for older people - allow people to retire later subject to medical fitness plus allowing people to cut back their hours / move down career rungs without loss of earned pension rights. We could also make the basic state pension allowable to be taken earlier but be worth pennies, and have it get better for each year you delay taking it - and it could get great if you delay a lot (at the risk of dying before you retire as used to be the case).
I'm being dumb, how do those emails make the statement false?
It implies that when Shahmir sent the email on 10 March 2016, he had not met Stephen but Chris Wylie had already communicated Shahmir's existence and wishes to Stephen.
I think one issue is the meaning of the word "introduced". Young people use[1] the words "meet" or "talk to" to refer to interacting via Skype, WhatsApp or email, as well as physical meeting or speech. It may well be that Chris is correct oldschool - he may not have introduced them physically in the presence of them both - but Shahmir is correct newstyle - Chris mentioned Shahmir to Stephen online.
[1] And this usage annoys the fuck out of me. See also "reach out".
Plus Mrs May has a habit of ditching her staff to save her own skin.
This could be the awkward bit: twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/977647864615710720
I'm being dumb, how do those emails make the statement false?
It implies that when Shahmir sent the email on 10 March 2016, he had not met Stephen but Chris Wylie had already communicated Shahmir's existence and wishes to Stephen.
I think one issue is the meaning of the word "introduced". Young people use[1] the words "meet" or "talk to" to refer to interacting via Skype, WhatsApp or email, as well as physical meeting or speech. It may well be that Chris is correct oldschool - he may not have introduced them physically in the presence of them both - but Shahmir is correct newstyle - Chris mentioned Shahmir to Stephen online.
[1] And this usage annoys the fuck out of me. See also "reach out".
But I don't see Wylie's name in the email, so how is that implied? Again, I'm probably being dumb.
Would you support 1p in the £ income tax rise to provide additional NHS funding ?
I'm not sure I would: it will buy us about 5 years, whereupon the NHS will be desperate for yet another 1p rise - just to stand still.
But, that's politically toxic at the moment.
What we need to do is buy some time to do a proper fix (if one is possible), so the 1p plan plus some longer term thinking.
The NHS can then focus on general practice, A&E, and operations, and a solid safety net, all free at the point of use, but also not overstrained.
Totally muddled thinking imo. What are the parts the NHS is not focusing on in your vision?
As we live longer - because our health "survivability" increases - we don't die, but we do live much longer with chronic conditions where we're no longer in peak 100% health.
Of course, that's a sign of success - probably better to be living to aged 90 with arthritis, survivable cancers and diabetes than dead at 65 of a heart attack - but it is very expensive.
I think the burden of some of that cost, should shift to the individual, who should start to help plan and save for it during their working lives.
So are you advocating compulsory insurance rather than increased taxation? Either way the costs will have to be met. The US approach based largely on private provision gives them the most expensive health care in the world per capita... oh an a lower life expectancy than the UK's - so I am not sure that's the way to go.
Jumping straight to "US approach" in response to any critique of our existing NHS model is a very tired old canard. It's exactly what stops any debate.
And, no, I'm not advocating that: if you read my posts again you'll see I advocated a more mixed funding approach including state, private and personal. It's about balancing risks, funding and cover more efficiently and effectively. And that has a strong role for a core NHS. It just can't, and shouldn't, try to do everything.
Still, it won't go anywhere. Because the second any politician ever opened their mouths on the subject they'd be shouted down with "US style privatisation!", and that'd be the end of their career, reputation and the conversation.
Cambridge Analytica's Nigel Oakes: "...once said he used “the same techniques as Aristotle and Hitler. … We appeal to people on an emotional level to get them to agree on a functional level."
Would you support 1p in the £ income tax rise to provide additional NHS funding ?
The long-term solution has to be to move to more flexible working for retirees with them able to take employment, pensions set at life-expectancy minus seven years, and a more mixed funding model of public, private and personal healthcare - just as we've done for pensions.
But, that's politically toxic at the moment.
What we need to do is buy some time to do a proper fix (if one is possible), so the 1p plan plus some longer term thinking.
I'd like to see almost everyone employed, and employers offering private healthcare insurance as standard, as they are now required to do for private pensions.
I'd then encourage individuals to invest in personal healthcare savings accounts (a bit like stocks and shares ISAs) to fund major healthcare costs in their later years, either directly or by purchasing extra cover.
The NHS can then focus on general practice, A&E, and operations, and a solid safety net, all free at the point of use, but also not overstrained.
Totally muddled thinking imo. What are the parts the NHS is not focusing on in your vision?
As we live longer - because our health "survivability" increases - we don't die, but we do live much longer with chronic conditions where we're no longer in peak 100% health.
Of course, that's a sign of success - probably better to be living to aged 90 with arthritis, survivable cancers and diabetes than dead at 65 of a heart attack - but it is very expensive.
I think the burden of some of that cost, should shift to the individual, who should start to help plan and save for it during their working lives.
And we need to rethink the world of work for older people - allow people to retire later subject to medical fitness plus allowing people to cut back their hours / move down career rungs without loss of earned pension rights. We could also make the basic state pension allowable to be taken earlier but be worth pennies, and have it get better for each year you delay taking it - and it could get great if you delay a lot (at the risk of dying before you retire as used to be the case).
Precisely. Retirement should be a process, not a cliff-edge.
I'm being dumb, how do those emails make the statement false?
It implies that when Shahmir sent the email on 10 March 2016, he had not met Stephen but Chris Wylie had already communicated Shahmir's existence and wishes to Stephen.
I think one issue is the meaning of the word "introduced". Young people use[1] the words "meet" or "talk to" to refer to interacting via Skype, WhatsApp or email, as well as physical meeting or speech. It may well be that Chris is correct oldschool - he may not have introduced them physically in the presence of them both - but Shahmir is correct newstyle - Chris mentioned Shahmir to Stephen online.
[1] And this usage annoys the fuck out of me. See also "reach out".
Just said on Sky paper review it has already been investigated by the Electoral Commission twice and no action proposed but that the electoral commission is now reviewing all campaigns included remain
It is completely crazy of linking health insurance to your job. It means people are scared of leaving their jobs because of the threat of worst coverage, making them much more subservient to their bosses. It particularly undermines entrepreneurship, as startups can not afford to cover people yet, especially for the self-employed.
Would you support 1p in the £ income tax rise to provide additional NHS funding ?
I'm not sure I would: it will buy us about 5 years, whereupon the NHS will be desperate for yet another 1p rise - just to stand still.
Healthcare is going to consume an ever greater % of national income on current trends as people live longer, and more conditions become treatable or containable, whilst also being chronic.
The long-term solution has to be to move to more flexible working for retirees with them able to take employment, pensions set at life-expectancy minus seven years, and a more mixed funding model of public, private and personal healthcare - just as we've done for pensions.
But, that's politically toxic at the moment.
Life expectancy minus 7? I think that’s a brave policy.
I always thought the voucher scheme from the 2005 Tory manifesto was a good idea.
It could be 8 years, or 9 years, or perhaps even 10. But it can't be 20.
The basic problem is that if you're only working for 40-45 years, you're always going to struggle to save/tax enough to go another 20+ years doing nothing at all.
The full pension/working ratio needs to be a solid 4/1 or 5/1, not 2/1.
I'm also not convinced it's good for your mental or physical health to fully retire 100% at 65, or even 70, and I think different choices will become easier in time as working patterns/employment culture becomes more flexible, and ageism diminishes.
I agree with you on this point Casino. It's a shame pension age wasnt linked to average life expectancy when the state pension was first introduced - it would have been entirely non-contraversial then. Much harder to introduce now but needs to be done.
The first state pensions in 1908 were means tested and the qualifying age was 70, when average life expectancy was 50. If we had kept that up you would start to get the state pension at 101.
The low life expectancy Centuries ago was substantially due to childhood mortality, maternal mortality and male mortality through violent acts in war. Average 3 people dying at 2 and two at 74 and you wind up with mean life expectancy of 50. Median is a better measure, or mean life expectancy at age 18.
Full disclosure, I really dislike Stephen Parkinson, for two reasons
... 2) Like Nick Timothy he refused to go campaigning for the Tories in the Rochester & Strood by election, so Grant Shapps blackballed both of them for standing as Tory candidates at the 2015 general election.
Did you see that as a sign of disloyalty to the party / laziness / refusal to get "stuck in"?
At the time I was really disappointed by the way they were treated. It seemed to me they had been put under a huge amount of party-political pressure but had a legitimate case about impartiality - I've long had concerns about politicisation of the civil service and the trend towards spadocracy in particular (though not only that). So spads sticking up, at very significant personal cost, for things to be done the "right way" genuinely impressed me.
However, you do seem to have the hump with them for it. Do you think that their "can't campaign I'm supposed to be impartial" position was legally speaking a whole load of balls? And that my understanding of their proper role in such circumstances might be a misapprehension?
I'm being dumb, how do those emails make the statement false?
It implies that when Shahmir sent the email on 10 March 2016, he had not met Stephen but Chris Wylie had already communicated Shahmir's existence and wishes to Stephen.
I think one issue is the meaning of the word "introduced". Young people use[1] the words "meet" or "talk to" to refer to interacting via Skype, WhatsApp or email, as well as physical meeting or speech. It may well be that Chris is correct oldschool - he may not have introduced them physically in the presence of them both - but Shahmir is correct newstyle - Chris mentioned Shahmir to Stephen online.
[1] And this usage annoys the fuck out of me. See also "reach out".
Plus Mrs May has a habit of ditching her staff to save her own skin.
This could be the awkward bit: twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/977647864615710720
I'm being dumb, how do those emails make the statement false?
It implies that when Shahmir sent the email on 10 March 2016, he had not met Stephen but Chris Wylie had already communicated Shahmir's existence and wishes to Stephen.
I think one issue is the meaning of the word "introduced". Young people use[1] the words "meet" or "talk to" to refer to interacting via Skype, WhatsApp or email, as well as physical meeting or speech. It may well be that Chris is correct oldschool - he may not have introduced them physically in the presence of them both - but Shahmir is correct newstyle - Chris mentioned Shahmir to Stephen online.
[1] And this usage annoys the fuck out of me. See also "reach out".
But I don't see Wylie's name in the email, so how is that implied? Again, I'm probably being dumb.
Shahmir opens with 'As Chris has already mentioned', so presumably Wylie mentioned Shahmir to Stephen, but IDK, I think I'd need more (which may well exist) before I'd call the earlier denial a lie exactly. 'Hey Steve, I know a dude called Shahmir, he'll be in touch' is not exactly an introduction, if that is what happened. Frankly from those emails I am not clear what happened. Is it the first time Shahmir and Stephen communicated? If so he opens the email rather casually.
The crux of this claim depends on whether there was coordination between the two groups, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that yet. Certainly nothing greater than the coordination between Remain leaders and the civil service, against the rules on civil service impartiality.
Shahmir opens with 'As Chris has already mentioned', so presumably Wylie mentioned Shahmir to Stephen, but IDK, I think I'd need more (which may well exist) before I'd call the earlier denial a lie exactly. 'Hey Steve, I know a dude called Shahmir, he'll be in touch' is not exactly an introduction, if that is what happened. Frankly from those emails I am not clear what happened. Is it the first time Shahmir and Stephen communicated? If so he opens the email rather casually.
Just said on Sky paper review it has already been investigated by the Electoral Commission twice and no action proposed but that the electoral commission is now reviewing all campaigns included remain
Yeah, not sure what new they are going to find after two investigations. Perhaps they are going to keep demanding investigations until they get the result they want?
Shahmir opens with 'As Chris has already mentioned', so presumably Wylie mentioned Shahmir to Stephen, but IDK, I think I'd need more (which may well exist) before I'd call the earlier denial a lie exactly. 'Hey Steve, I know a dude called Shahmir, he'll be in touch' is not exactly an introduction, if that is what happened. Frankly from those emails I am not clear what happened. Is it the first time Shahmir and Stephen communicated? If so he opens the email rather casually.
Told you I was being dumb. LOL.
Not really, I was too embarrassed to initially come out with I wasn't entirely sure that the emails proved what was said, but I knew I could rely on you, with your habit of reading my mind.
It is completely crazy of linking health insurance to your job. It means people are scared of leaving their jobs because of the threat of worst coverage, making them much more subservient to their bosses. It particularly undermines entrepreneurship, as startups can not afford to cover people yet, especially for the self-employed.
Was about to post this so glad you got in before me. Now of course there's nothing wrong with employers giving health insurance as a perk, provided it's accounted for properly in the tax system this doesn't seem any worse an idea than chucking in a car for example, but I don't like the idea of it being heavily incentivised by the tax system so that it becomes a government-encouraged norm.
Obviously lack of universal coverage is the part of the problem with the US system that us Brits find the hardest to swallow from afar, but I think if we emulated their (in my view, mistaken) policy of making health insurance through work the norm, we might also find ourselves rather jolted by the realisation that our exact coverage and protection depended on who we were working for at the time, that certain jobs became increasingly high/low status as a result and that leaving or changing jobs or starting work for yourself became a rather more life-changing moment.
What we need to do is buy some time to do a proper fix (if one is possible), so the 1p plan plus some longer term thinking.
I'd like to see almost everyone employed, and employers offering private healthcare insurance as standard, as they are now required to do for private pensions.
I'd then encourage individuals to invest in personal healthcare savings accounts (a bit like stocks and shares ISAs) to fund major healthcare costs in their later years, either directly or by purchasing extra cover.
The NHS can then focus on general practice, A&E, and operations, and a solid safety net, all free at the point of use, but also not overstrained.
Totally muddled thinking imo. What are the parts the NHS is not focusing on in your vision?
As we live longer - because our health "survivability" increases - we don't die, but we do live much longer with chronic conditions where we're no longer in peak 100% health.
Of course, that's a sign of success - probably better to be living to aged 90 with arthritis, survivable cancers and diabetes than dead at 65 of a heart attack - but it is very expensive.
I think the burden of some of that cost, should shift to the individual, who should start to help plan and save for it during their working lives.
And we need to rethink the world of work for older people - allow people to retire later subject to medical fitness plus allowing people to cut back their hours / move down career rungs without loss of earned pension rights. We could also make the basic state pension allowable to be taken earlier but be worth pennies, and have it get better for each year you delay taking it - and it could get great if you delay a lot (at the risk of dying before you retire as used to be the case).
Precisely. Retirement should be a process, not a cliff-edge.
Yes. For example, my wife is a primary school teacher. She doesn't see herself working beyond 60 as she will be knackered. However, she could mentor young staff, act as a TA or provide supply support 2-3 days a week at lower intensity up to a later age. It could be a win-win for everyone: she keeps earning so doesn't draw her pension as early, and the eventual pension she draws could be a bit better.
Would you support 1p in the £ income tax rise to provide additional NHS funding ?
I'm not sure I would: it will buy us about 5 years, whereupon the NHS will be desperate for yet another 1p rise - just to stand still.
Snip
But, that's politically toxic at the moment.
Life expectancy minus 7? I think that’s a brave policy.
I always thought the voucher scheme from the 2005 Tory manifesto was a good idea.
It could be 8 years, or 9 years, or perhaps even 10. But it can't be 20.
The basic problem is that if you're only working for 40-45 years, you're always going to struggle to save/tax enough to go another 20+ years doing nothing at all.
The full pension/working ratio needs to be a solid 4/1 or 5/1, not 2/1.
I'm also not convinced it's good for your mental or physical health to fully retire 100% at 65, or even 70, and I think different choices will become easier in time as working patterns/employment culture becomes more flexible, and ageism diminishes.
I think a better solution than forcing people to work into sick old age is to force them to save more. Auto-enrolment is a necessary first step, but opting out should be banned and the contributions from employers and employees stepped up significantly.
Retired people with free time are the mainstay of great institutions like the National Trust and the Conservative Party. They can’t volunteer if they’re still working!
Not interesting in forcing anyone. But I think many old people get lonely, and 2 x 4-hour shifts a week at a till behind Waitrose, say, or in a coffee shop would do them the world of good. Volunteering is fine too.
I agree on some sort of auto-enrolment.
This is where you and I part company. Mrs Thatcher thought deregulation and privatisation would lead to a nation of swashbuckling capitalists, whereas in reality, many people sold their shares in privatised companies for a quick profit and consumer debt skyrocketed.
Many people struggle to plan for the next month, let alone retirement. Forced pension saving will ensure that those people will have something to draw on, and will boost capital formation more generally. We need to get away from borrowing on a unsecured basis to fund the yawning trade deficit, and higher pension savings would be a step in the right direction.
Full disclosure, I really dislike Stephen Parkinson, for two reasons
... 2) Like Nick Timothy he refused to go campaigning for the Tories in the Rochester & Strood by election, so Grant Shapps blackballed both of them for standing as Tory candidates at the 2015 general election.
Did you see that as a sign of disloyalty to the party / laziness / refusal to get "stuck in"?
At the time I was really disappointed by the way they were treated. It seemed to me they had been put under a huge amount of party-political pressure but had a legitimate case about impartiality - I've long had concerns about politicisation of the civil service and the trend towards spadocracy in particular (though not only that). So spads sticking up, at very significant personal cost, for things to be done the "right way" genuinely impressed me.
However, you do seem to have the hump with them for it. Do you think that their "can't campaign I'm supposed to be impartial" position was legally speaking a whole load of balls? And that my understanding of their proper role in such circumstances might be a misapprehension?
I saw it as a mixture of all three.
In October 2014 it became quite clear to the Tory party, both from their private polling, and doorstep conversations that they were going to lose the by election but they had a chance of taking back the seat at the general election but only if they put the hard work in during the by election campaign by building an effective canvassing list.
I travelled from Sheffield/Manchester on two occasions to campaign in Rochester & Strood, if I can could do that, then all good Tories should be able to put a shift in.
In other situations I know SPADs have taken a leave of absence to campaign in elections.
Lest we forget Nick Timothy and Stephen Parkinson were key people in the Tory campaign to stop Nigel Farage winning South Thanet during GE2015.
It is completely crazy of linking health insurance to your job. It means people are scared of leaving their jobs because of the threat of worst coverage, making them much more subservient to their bosses. It particularly undermines entrepreneurship, as startups can not afford to cover people yet, especially for the self-employed.
Was about to post this so glad you got in before me. Now of course there's nothing wrong with employers giving health insurance as a perk, provided it's accounted for properly in the tax system this doesn't seem any worse an idea than chucking in a car for example, but I don't like the idea of it being heavily incentivised by the tax system so that it becomes a government-encouraged norm.
Obviously lack of universal coverage is the part of the problem with the US system that us Brits find the hardest to swallow from afar, but I think if we emulated their (in my view, mistaken) policy of making health insurance through work the norm, we might also find ourselves rather jolted by the realisation that our exact coverage and protection depended on who we were working for at the time, that certain jobs became increasingly high/low status as a result and that leaving or changing jobs or starting work for yourself became a rather more life-changing moment.
No-one is talking about adopting the US system.
No-one is talking about adopting the US system.
No-one is talking about adopting the US system.
Why does any debate on healthcare in the UK instantly jump to this?
Why does no-one ever mention Switzerland, Germany, France, or Singapore? There are many other excellent mixed healthcare systems around the world that we can and should learn from.
Ignore the US. It doesn't work, and we all know that, so to continually grasp for it is a dead-cat strategy that makes defenders of the NHS look very defensive.
Shahmir opens with 'As Chris has already mentioned', so presumably Wylie mentioned Shahmir to Stephen, but IDK, I think I'd need more (which may well exist) before I'd call the earlier denial a lie exactly. 'Hey Steve, I know a dude called Shahmir, he'll be in touch' is not exactly an introduction, if that is what happened. Frankly from those emails I am not clear what happened. Is it the first time Shahmir and Stephen communicated? If so he opens the email rather casually.
Told you I was being dumb. LOL.
Not really, I was too embarrassed to initially come out with I wasn't entirely sure that the emails proved what was said, but I knew I could rely on you, with your habit of reading my mind.
So you are the reason I keep thinking about pineapple pizza. Damn you, sir!
Would you support 1p in the £ income tax rise to provide additional NHS funding ?
I'm not sure I would: it will buy us about 5 years, whereupon the NHS will be desperate for yet another 1p rise - just to stand still.
Snip
But, that's politically toxic at the moment.
Life expectancy minus 7? I think that’s a brave policy.
I always thought the voucher scheme from the 2005 Tory manifesto was a good idea.
It could be 8 years, or 9 years, or perhaps even 10. But it can't be 20.
The basic problem is that if you're only working for 40-45 years, you're always going to struggle to save/tax enough to go another 20+ years doing nothing at all.
The full pension/working ratio needs to be a solid 4/1 or 5/1, not 2/1.
I'm also not convinced it's good for your mental or physical health to fully retire 100% at 65, or even 70, and I think different choices will become easier in time as working patterns/employment culture becomes more flexible, and ageism diminishes.
Not interesting in forcing anyone. But I think many old people get lonely, and 2 x 4-hour shifts a week at a till behind Waitrose, say, or in a coffee shop would do them the world of good. Volunteering is fine too.
I agree on some sort of auto-enrolment.
This is where you and I part company. Mrs Thatcher thought deregulation and privatisation would lead to a nation of swashbuckling capitalists, whereas in reality, many people sold their shares in privatised companies for a quick profit and consumer debt skyrocketed.
Many people struggle to plan for the next month, let alone retirement. Forced pension saving will ensure that those people will have something to draw on, and will boost capital formation more generally. We need to get away from borrowing on a unsecured basis to fund the yawning trade deficit, and higher pension savings would be a step in the right direction.
On the other hand, most people now have an interest in the performance of the stock-market via their invested private pensions.
I'm not sure where you think we're disagreeing here.
Shahmir opens with 'As Chris has already mentioned', so presumably Wylie mentioned Shahmir to Stephen, but IDK, I think I'd need more (which may well exist) before I'd call the earlier denial a lie exactly. 'Hey Steve, I know a dude called Shahmir, he'll be in touch' is not exactly an introduction, if that is what happened. Frankly from those emails I am not clear what happened. Is it the first time Shahmir and Stephen communicated? If so he opens the email rather casually.
Told you I was being dumb. LOL.
Not really, I was too embarrassed to initially come out with I wasn't entirely sure that the emails proved what was said, but I knew I could rely on you, with your habit of reading my mind.
So you are the reason I keep thinking about pineapple pizza. Damn you, sir!
I hate pineapple pizza - I'm just trying to reach out to the other side!
Would you support 1p in the £ income tax rise to provide additional NHS funding ?
I'm not sure I would: it will buy us about 5 years, whereupon the NHS will be desperate for yet another 1p rise - just to stand still.
Snip
But, that's politically toxic at the moment.
Life expectancy minus 7? I think that’s a brave policy.
I always thought the voucher scheme from the 2005 Tory manifesto was a good idea.
It could be 8 years, or 9 years, or perhaps even 10. But it can't be 20.
The basic problem is that if you're only working for 40-45 years, you're always going to struggle to save/tax enough to go another 20+ years doing nothing at all.
The full pension/working ratio needs to be a solid 4/1 or 5/1, not 2/1.
I'm also not convinced it's good for your mental or physical health to fully retire 100% at 65, or even 70, and I think different choices will become easier in time as working patterns/employment culture becomes more flexible, and ageism diminishes.
Not interesting in forcing anyone. But I think many old people get lonely, and 2 x 4-hour shifts a week at a till behind Waitrose, say, or in a coffee shop would do them the world of good. Volunteering is fine too.
I agree on some sort of auto-enrolment.
This is where you and I part company. Mrs Thatcher thought deregulation and privatisation would lead to a nation of swashbuckling capitalists, whereas in reality, many people sold their shares in privatised companies for a quick profit and consumer debt skyrocketed.
Many people struggle to plan for the next month, let alone retirement. Forced pension saving will ensure that those people will have something to draw on, and will boost capital formation more generally. We need to get away from borrowing on a unsecured basis to fund the yawning trade deficit, and higher pension savings would be a step in the right direction.
On the other hand, most people now have an interest in the performance of the stock-market via their invested private pensions.
I'm not sure where you think we're disagreeing here.
I think compulsion is required, you don’t.
I wonder what % of people with DC pensions understand or are even aware of the link to the stock market.
Shahmir opens with 'As Chris has already mentioned', so presumably Wylie mentioned Shahmir to Stephen, but IDK, I think I'd need more (which may well exist) before I'd call the earlier denial a lie exactly. 'Hey Steve, I know a dude called Shahmir, he'll be in touch' is not exactly an introduction, if that is what happened. Frankly from those emails I am not clear what happened. Is it the first time Shahmir and Stephen communicated? If so he opens the email rather casually.
Told you I was being dumb. LOL.
Not really, I was too embarrassed to initially come out with I wasn't entirely sure that the emails proved what was said, but I knew I could rely on you, with your habit of reading my mind.
So you are the reason I keep thinking about pineapple pizza. Damn you, sir!
I hate pineapple pizza - I'm just trying to reach out to the other side!
As I approached retirement I was offered the chance to defer my state pension but when you think of your annual income from the pension then cost in the enhancement it would have taken some years to catch up on the missed income
Also at 65 and my wife 69 we decided to opt for maximum income and enjoy ourselves. You cannot count on x number of years post retirement though I have been retired for 9 years
It seems Stephen Parkinson has a habit of outing people he crosses swords with. I never thought I would feel sympathy for Grant Shapps but he seems to have played a straight ball on this one:
Shahmir opens with 'As Chris has already mentioned', so presumably Wylie mentioned Shahmir to Stephen, but IDK, I think I'd need more (which may well exist) before I'd call the earlier denial a lie exactly. 'Hey Steve, I know a dude called Shahmir, he'll be in touch' is not exactly an introduction, if that is what happened. Frankly from those emails I am not clear what happened. Is it the first time Shahmir and Stephen communicated? If so he opens the email rather casually.
Told you I was being dumb. LOL.
Not really, I was too embarrassed to initially come out with I wasn't entirely sure that the emails proved what was said, but I knew I could rely on you, with your habit of reading my mind.
So you are the reason I keep thinking about pineapple pizza. Damn you, sir!
I hate pineapple pizza - I'm just trying to reach out to the other side!
Your hatred is consuming you....
The great thing about pineapple pizza is that you can consume your hatred instead of the other way round.
I'd then encourage individuals to invest in personal healthcare savings accounts (a bit like stocks and shares ISAs) to fund major healthcare costs in their later years, either directly or by purchasing extra cover.
Very good idea, but slightly wrong approach. The Blair government had an absolute mare with "personal learning accounts" - they were brutally easy to game and defraud - and I think the same problems will occur with "personal healthcare savings accounts" in a May administration. If you really want to do it properly, then avenues like not taxing healthcare insurance as a benefit, or simply taxing insurance companies less, are far easier and less subject to abuse.
On topic, no Leaver is going to say, I was robbed, let's cancel Brexit. The shenanigans will just make Remainers more bitter and sharpen the national divide a notch.
...In October 2014 it became quite clear to the Tory party, both from their private polling, and doorstep conversations that they were going to lose the by election but they had a chance of taking back the seat at the general election but only if they put the hard work in during the by election campaign by building an effective canvassing list.
I travelled from Sheffield/Manchester on two occasions to campaign in Rochester & Strood, if I can could do that, then all good Tories should be able to put a shift in.
In other situations I know SPADs have taken a leave of absence to campaign in elections.
Lest we forget Nick Timothy and Stephen Parkinson were key people in the Tory campaign to stop Nigel Farage winning South Thanet during GE2015.
I did admire the effort you put in to that one - the level of commitment is really admirable and I can understand why that gives you a higher expectation of others, particularly people in senior positions and who understood the urgency of the situation.
But for me that doesn't seem to override impartiality rules and I wondered whether, with your lawyer's head on rather than with your wet-blue-bleeding heart, you might see their concerns as valid. I have to say, the way it was put in the press at the time suggested the problem wasn't that they being told to take "leave of absence" and refusing to do so, but that they felt they were being ordered to take part in campaigning despite their role - but perhaps that's just the way it was being spun to us mere mortals. I am not a political campaigner myself and wouldn't be aware of the ins and outs of the norms, though someone taking a couple of days of leave to campaign before hopping straight back into the job again does seem like a serious stretch of the impartiality rules.
Obviously if they stuck to their guns in one election and were happy to go-a-campaigning in another, then that opens them up to allegations of hypocrisy or that their "impartiality" claims were just a poor excuse. But that argument would strike me as far stronger if their tender consciences had only been developed later at a time of convenience for the lazy. If their moral objection happened first, followed by them getting punished for it, human nature renders it unsurprising that they might be more compliant second time round.
Is the phrase/term 'Labour's Jewish Problem' too inflammatory for the morning thread?
IMHO it would be better rephrased, as the phrase "Jewish Problem" has obvious historical resonances that will at the very least distract from the article.
Is the phrase/term 'Labour's Jewish Problem' too inflammatory for the morning thread?
IMHO it would be better rephrased, as the phrase "Jewish Problem" has obvious historical resonances that will at the very least distract from the article.
Cheers, it was a phrase I added without realising, I only noticed it when I was re-reading it, I shall remove it.
And we need to rethink the world of work for older people - allow people to retire later subject to medical fitness plus allowing people to cut back their hours / move down career rungs without loss of earned pension rights. We could also make the basic state pension allowable to be taken earlier but be worth pennies, and have it get better for each year you delay taking it - and it could get great if you delay a lot (at the risk of dying before you retire as used to be the case).
We also need a re-think of how later retirement will affect the care of older relatives. Like many, I was obliged to take early retirement because my father needed more care than working allowed. Home visits 3 times a day just weren't enough. And by the time he died, I was no good for work any more.
Good evening, everyone - and congratulations to OGH, I gather I missed a birthday issue.
Why does any debate on healthcare in the UK instantly jump to this?
Why does no-one ever mention Switzerland, Germany, France, or Singapore? There are many other excellent mixed healthcare systems around the world that we can and should learn from.
Ignore the US. It doesn't work, and we all know that, so to continually grasp for it is a dead-cat strategy that makes defenders of the NHS look very defensive.
This is a very fair point and I've been known to make exactly the same criticism of other people in the past, so fair play for calling me out on it.
However, I do believe that tying most working age people's health coverage to their jobs, and that of their dependants, is a policy that has some serious disadvantages. Though I can see that getting people to shop around for their own coverage comes with its own problems, not least people's tendency to under-insure.
I'd then encourage individuals to invest in personal healthcare savings accounts (a bit like stocks and shares ISAs) to fund major healthcare costs in their later years, either directly or by purchasing extra cover.
Very good idea, but slightly wrong approach. The Blair government had an absolute mare with "personal learning accounts" - they were brutally easy to game and defraud - and I think the same problems will occur with "personal healthcare savings accounts" in a May administration. If you really want to do it properly, then avenues like not taxing healthcare insurance as a benefit, or simply taxing insurance companies less, are far easier and less subject to abuse.
More simply. If you want people to save for their retirement 3 things need to happen:
1) They need to see a reason why the should. 2) They need the financial reserves to be able to do so. 3) There needs to be suitable guaranteed return on investment above inflation.
At the moment the majority of people fall at all three of these hurdles: Means testing penalisers the savers and rewards the profligate, real wages are still less than they were a decade ago, but with the addition of student and consumer debt, particularly mortgage and rent. A lot of newer jobs are freelance or ZHC. Finally, interest rates are below inflation, so return on savings is likely to be negative.
Is it interesting? I'm not even sure what it is trying to say, other than it looks like some epic twisting in knots to try to cobble together some sort of fudged solution no matter if there is any logic involved, and in that sense little different than any government attempt
Bet they liked this story for headline potential - PM, Sex, Toxic, Cash, Plot, Brexit all in the same sentence, no matter one's party position you wouldn't want to miss that opportunity as a headline writer I imagine.
At least there are no drugs and bondage gear involved.
Is the phrase/term 'Labour's Jewish Problem' too inflammatory for the morning thread?
No, but it shows to be a member of the Tory elite establishment or whatever.
Not quite because the Conservative Party is the dog that has not yet barked in the nighttime. The running is being made by Labour MPs and Tory hacks like Guido.
It is completely crazy of linking health insurance to your job. It means people are scared of leaving their jobs because of the threat of worst coverage, making them much more subservient to their bosses. It particularly undermines entrepreneurship, as startups can not afford to cover people yet, especially for the self-employed.
Was about to post this so glad you got in before me. Now of course there's nothing wrong with employers giving health insurance as a perk, provided it's accounted for properly in the tax system this doesn't seem any worse an idea than chucking in a car for example, but I don't like the idea of it being heavily incentivised by the tax system so that it becomes a government-encouraged norm.
Obviously lack of universal coverage is the part of the problem with the US system that us Brits find the hardest to swallow from afar, but I think if we emulated their (in my view, mistaken) policy of making health insurance through work the norm, we might also find ourselves rather jolted by the realisation that our exact coverage and protection depended on who we were working for at the time, that certain jobs became increasingly high/low status as a result and that leaving or changing jobs or starting work for yourself became a rather more life-changing moment.
No-one is talking about adopting the US system.
No-one is talking about adopting the US system.
No-one is talking about adopting the US system.
Why does any debate on healthcare in the UK instantly jump to this?
Why does no-one ever mention Switzerland, Germany, France, or Singapore? There are many other excellent mixed healthcare systems around the world that we can and should learn from.
Ignore the US. It doesn't work, and we all know that, so to continually grasp for it is a dead-cat strategy that makes defenders of the NHS look very defensive.
The NHS is cheap. The other systems you mention all involve more, not less, spending on health.
Off topic, the Tomb Raider movie is, surprisingly, fairly decent. Compared to that dreadful Assassin's Creed movie it looks good, it makes sense, the actor's actually have things to do. As far as video game adaptions I don't know that a great one has ever been made, but it is one of the better ones.
I'd then encourage individuals to invest in personal healthcare savings accounts (a bit like stocks and shares ISAs) to fund major healthcare costs in their later years, either directly or by purchasing extra cover.
Very good idea, but slightly wrong approach. The Blair government had an absolute mare with "personal learning accounts" - they were brutally easy to game and defraud - and I think the same problems will occur with "personal healthcare savings accounts" in a May administration. If you really want to do it properly, then avenues like not taxing healthcare insurance as a benefit, or simply taxing insurance companies less, are far easier and less subject to abuse.
More simply. If you want people to save for their retirement 3 things need to happen:
1) They need to see a reason why the should. 2) They need the financial reserves to be able to do so. 3) There needs to be suitable guaranteed return on investment above inflation.
At the moment the majority of people fall at all three of these hurdles: Means testing penalisers the savers and rewards the profligate, real wages are still less than they were a decade ago, but with the addition of student and consumer debt, particularly mortgage and rent. A lot of newer jobs are freelance or ZHC. Finally, interest rates are below inflation, so return on savings is likely to be negative.
This is mostly a very sensible post but "interest rates are below inflation, so return on savings is likely to be negative" doesn't make much sense in terms of investing for retirement? You don't invest for retirement decades hence by putting money into a high street building account.
But I like a lot of what you wrote. There's something to be said for a national scheme for saving for retirement, with a degree of compulsory saving and some sort of top-up or tax benefit by government. The superannuation schem in Australia is an interesting model. I believe the Singaporean version allows you to pay for certain medical expenses from your retirement fund, which is an interesting way of retaining "no cheques or credit cards at your time of need" without maintaining "completely free at the point of delivery". (I like the principle of the latter myself, and many Brits are attached to it - though some battles, e.g. over dentistry and optician services, seem permanently to be lost - but there's no denying that making things "free" distorts incentives economically.)
I did admire the effort you put in to that one - the level of commitment is really admirable and I can understand why that gives you a higher expectation of others, particularly people in senior positions and who understood the urgency of the situation.
But for me that doesn't seem to override impartiality rules and I wondered whether, with your lawyer's head on rather than with your wet-blue-bleeding heart, you might see their concerns as valid. I have to say, the way it was put in the press at the time suggested the problem wasn't that they being told to take "leave of absence" and refusing to do so, but that they felt they were being ordered to take part in campaigning despite their role - but perhaps that's just the way it was being spun to us mere mortals. I am not a political campaigner myself and wouldn't be aware of the ins and outs of the norms, though someone taking a couple of days of leave to campaign before hopping straight back into the job again does seem like a serious stretch of the impartiality rules.
Obviously if they stuck to their guns in one election and were happy to go-a-campaigning in another, then that opens them up to allegations of hypocrisy or that their "impartiality" claims were just a poor excuse. But that argument would strike me as far stronger if their tender consciences had only been developed later at a time of convenience for the lazy. If their moral objection happened first, followed by them getting punished for it, human nature renders it unsurprising that they might be more compliant second time round.
There's something visceral about the animus many Tories, myself included, hold towards Mark Reckless and his defection. It's not a Leave/Remain thing, as I know many Leavers who despise him too because of the timing of his defection and his attempt to derail the Tory conference in 2014.
I think we went full George W Bush towards those that didn't campaign to defeat him, you're either with us or against us.
I maintained a friendship from 2013 onwards from someone who worked on Labour's general election campaign in 2015, afterwards they said to me
'We really liked your objectivity in your threads and in general, but fuck me, did you lose it over Mark Reckless'
The Daily Star breaking massive news tonight which will doubtless knock every political story well into the background .............
Ant & Dec to be "axed" from I'm a Celebrity.
Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark? ITV are hugely dependent on Ant and Dec, who present three flagship shows -- I'm a Celebrity, Britain's Got Talent and Saturday Night Takeover. I would not be surprised to learn they are paid more than the Prime Minister.
I hope he had a licence. They shed like crazy, and it's a pain to get all the feathers off the carpet and they clog up the Hoover something rotten. Finches are far easier.
There's something visceral about the animus many Tories, myself included, hold towards Mark Reckless and his defection. It's not a Leave/Remain thing, as I know many Leavers who despise him too because of the timing of his defection and his attempt to derail the Tory conference in 2014.
I think we went full George W Bush towards those that didn't campaign to defeat him, you're either with us or against us.
I maintained a friendship from 2013 onwards from someone who worked on Labour's general election campaign in 2015, afterwards they said to me
'We really liked your objectivity in your threads and in general, but fuck me, did you lose it over Mark Reckless'
Cheers for the considered response, Mr Eagles. Some of us did indeed notice said animus But it was quite understandable given his objective of inflicting maximal damage - a strategy of "leave no bridge unburned, but make sure you pee on the people on the folk whose side of the bridge you spent many years standing on first".
@FF43did post something that made me feel the unfeelable - sympathy for Grant "Get Rich Quick" Shapps. I might be readjusting my sympathy levels for the spads involved - though in terms of impartiality I think it would take a lot to sway me to believe that spads campaigning is a Good Thing.
The Daily Star breaking massive news tonight which will doubtless knock every political story well into the background .............
Ant & Dec to be "axed" from I'm a Celebrity.
Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark? ITV are hugely dependent on Ant and Dec, who present three flagship shows -- I'm a Celebrity, Britain's Got Talent and Saturday Night Takeover. I would not be surprised to learn they are paid more than the Prime Minister.
And we need to rethink the world of work for older people - allow people to retire later subject to medical fitness plus allowing people to cut back their hours / move down career rungs without loss of earned pension rights. We could also make the basic state pension allowable to be taken earlier but be worth pennies, and have it get better for each year you delay taking it - and it could get great if you delay a lot (at the risk of dying before you retire as used to be the case).
We also need a re-think of how later retirement will affect the care of older relatives. Like many, I was obliged to take early retirement because my father needed more care than working allowed. Home visits 3 times a day just weren't enough. And by the time he died, I was no good for work any more.
Good evening, everyone - and congratulations to OGH, I gather I missed a birthday issue.
That is a very good point. Thank you. We rely heavily on the work that the retired do to support family and wider society. We need to find mechanisms to recognise and support people doing that too. Allowing carers to earn increments on state pension rights maybe.
Comments
NPV of a pension may be X today but might be X minus tomorrow. Do I get a credit then? What’s my house worth? You think X I think Y . Who decides? What’s the appeal process?
What is the value of a private business. Christ knows!
I suspect if taxes such as this were introduced gold coins in deposit boxes would proliferate too. It’ll all get messy and harder to define pdq.
Nigelb said:
» show previous quotes
I'm always happy to apologise for unintended offence; intended not so much.
You are a gentleman Nigel
The basic problem is that if you're only working for 40-45 years, you're always going to struggle to save/tax enough to go another 20+ years doing nothing at all.
The full pension/working ratio needs to be a solid 4/1 or 5/1, not 2/1.
I'm also not convinced it's good for your mental or physical health to fully retire 100% at 65, or even 70, and I think different choices will become easier in time as working patterns/employment culture becomes more flexible, and ageism diminishes.
Of course, the UK isn't Scandinavia: which has a very different cultural and economic make-up, with tightly-knit far smaller populations. I suspect if we tried it here, we'd get the taxation without the results, and with economic stagnation on top.
Of course, that's a sign of success - probably better to be living to aged 90 with arthritis, survivable cancers and diabetes than dead at 65 of a heart attack - but it is very expensive.
I think the burden of some of that cost, should shift to the individual, who should start to help plan and save for it during their working lives.
You are a doctor who complains a lot about the financial pressures NHS under
But if extra money comes from the tories you complain about it
Whilst over looking each and every fault of Corbyn.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-43520301
Good luck with that national air carrier, Plaid.
Retired people with free time are the mainstay of great institutions like the National Trust and the Conservative Party. They can’t volunteer if they’re still working!
Ultimately the problem is demographic, from the money point of view we just need to pick the point on the XYZ axes we want to be, where X is availability of care, Y is money spent and Z is whether the money is private or public. There will always be the issue that the payers are mostly wealthier and the recipients mostly older and poorer.
The biggest problem is staff, both less skilled HSC workers and highly skilled professionals. This is an internationally mobile workforce and an international problem, and retention rates are appalling.
https://twitter.com/adamhollioake/status/977635517574496256
I agree on some sort of auto-enrolment.
I think one issue is the meaning of the word "introduced". Young people use[1] the words "meet" or "talk to" to refer to interacting via Skype, WhatsApp or email, as well as physical meeting or speech. It may well be that Chris is correct oldschool - he may not have introduced them physically in the presence of them both - but Shahmir is correct newstyle - Chris mentioned Shahmir to Stephen online.
[1] And this usage annoys the fuck out of me. See also "reach out".
And, no, I'm not advocating that: if you read my posts again you'll see I advocated a more mixed funding approach including state, private and personal. It's about balancing risks, funding and cover more efficiently and effectively. And that has a strong role for a core NHS. It just can't, and shouldn't, try to do everything.
Still, it won't go anywhere. Because the second any politician ever opened their mouths on the subject they'd be shouted down with "US style privatisation!", and that'd be the end of their career, reputation and the conversation.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kendalltaggart/company-tied-to-trump-campaign-once-pushed-voter-suppression?utm_term=.qgZPdmwR#.wfnZb1X7
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/nigel-oakes-the-low-profile-link-to-cambridge-analytica-copied-aristotle-and-hitler/articleshow/63440255.cms
At the time I was really disappointed by the way they were treated. It seemed to me they had been put under a huge amount of party-political pressure but had a legitimate case about impartiality - I've long had concerns about politicisation of the civil service and the trend towards spadocracy in particular (though not only that). So spads sticking up, at very significant personal cost, for things to be done the "right way" genuinely impressed me.
However, you do seem to have the hump with them for it. Do you think that their "can't campaign I'm supposed to be impartial" position was legally speaking a whole load of balls? And that my understanding of their proper role in such circumstances might be a misapprehension?
Obviously lack of universal coverage is the part of the problem with the US system that us Brits find the hardest to swallow from afar, but I think if we emulated their (in my view, mistaken) policy of making health insurance through work the norm, we might also find ourselves rather jolted by the realisation that our exact coverage and protection depended on who we were working for at the time, that certain jobs became increasingly high/low status as a result and that leaving or changing jobs or starting work for yourself became a rather more life-changing moment.
Many people struggle to plan for the next month, let alone retirement. Forced pension saving will ensure that those people will have something to draw on, and will boost capital formation more generally. We need to get away from borrowing on a unsecured basis to fund the yawning trade deficit, and higher pension savings would be a step in the right direction.
In October 2014 it became quite clear to the Tory party, both from their private polling, and doorstep conversations that they were going to lose the by election but they had a chance of taking back the seat at the general election but only if they put the hard work in during the by election campaign by building an effective canvassing list.
I travelled from Sheffield/Manchester on two occasions to campaign in Rochester & Strood, if I can could do that, then all good Tories should be able to put a shift in.
In other situations I know SPADs have taken a leave of absence to campaign in elections.
Lest we forget Nick Timothy and Stephen Parkinson were key people in the Tory campaign to stop Nigel Farage winning South Thanet during GE2015.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/mar/23/conservative-election-scandal-victory-2015-expenses
No-one is talking about adopting the US system.
No-one is talking about adopting the US system.
Why does any debate on healthcare in the UK instantly jump to this?
Why does no-one ever mention Switzerland, Germany, France, or Singapore? There are many other excellent mixed healthcare systems around the world that we can and should learn from.
Ignore the US. It doesn't work, and we all know that, so to continually grasp for it is a dead-cat strategy that makes defenders of the NHS look very defensive.
I'm not sure where you think we're disagreeing here.
I wonder what % of people with DC pensions understand or are even aware of the link to the stock market.
Is the phrase/term 'Labour's Jewish Problem' too inflammatory for the morning thread?
Also at 65 and my wife 69 we decided to opt for maximum income and enjoy ourselves. You cannot count on x number of years post retirement though I have been retired for 9 years
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3977187/top-tory-grant-shapps-targeted-in-vicious-smear-campaign-after-stopping-two-of-theresa-mays-closest-aides-becoming-mps/
vimeo.com/38219653
But for me that doesn't seem to override impartiality rules and I wondered whether, with your lawyer's head on rather than with your wet-blue-bleeding heart, you might see their concerns as valid. I have to say, the way it was put in the press at the time suggested the problem wasn't that they being told to take "leave of absence" and refusing to do so, but that they felt they were being ordered to take part in campaigning despite their role - but perhaps that's just the way it was being spun to us mere mortals. I am not a political campaigner myself and wouldn't be aware of the ins and outs of the norms, though someone taking a couple of days of leave to campaign before hopping straight back into the job again does seem like a serious stretch of the impartiality rules.
Obviously if they stuck to their guns in one election and were happy to go-a-campaigning in another, then that opens them up to allegations of hypocrisy or that their "impartiality" claims were just a poor excuse. But that argument would strike me as far stronger if their tender consciences had only been developed later at a time of convenience for the lazy. If their moral objection happened first, followed by them getting punished for it, human nature renders it unsurprising that they might be more compliant second time round.
(Thanks also to @Kle4 and @TheUnionDivvie)
Good evening, everyone - and congratulations to OGH, I gather I missed a birthday issue.
However, I do believe that tying most working age people's health coverage to their jobs, and that of their dependants, is a policy that has some serious disadvantages. Though I can see that getting people to shop around for their own coverage comes with its own problems, not least people's tendency to under-insure.
1) They need to see a reason why the should.
2) They need the financial reserves to be able to do so.
3) There needs to be suitable guaranteed return on investment above inflation.
At the moment the majority of people fall at all three of these hurdles: Means testing penalisers the savers and rewards the profligate, real wages are still less than they were a decade ago, but with the addition of student and consumer debt, particularly mortgage and rent. A lot of newer jobs are freelance or ZHC. Finally, interest rates are below inflation, so return on savings is likely to be negative.
Ant & Dec to be "axed" from I'm a Celebrity.
But I like a lot of what you wrote. There's something to be said for a national scheme for saving for retirement, with a degree of compulsory saving and some sort of top-up or tax benefit by government. The superannuation schem in Australia is an interesting model. I believe the Singaporean version allows you to pay for certain medical expenses from your retirement fund, which is an interesting way of retaining "no cheques or credit cards at your time of need" without maintaining "completely free at the point of delivery". (I like the principle of the latter myself, and many Brits are attached to it - though some battles, e.g. over dentistry and optician services, seem permanently to be lost - but there's no denying that making things "free" distorts incentives economically.)
I think we went full George W Bush towards those that didn't campaign to defeat him, you're either with us or against us.
I maintained a friendship from 2013 onwards from someone who worked on Labour's general election campaign in 2015, afterwards they said to me
'We really liked your objectivity in your threads and in general, but fuck me, did you lose it over Mark Reckless'
@FF43 did post something that made me feel the unfeelable - sympathy for Grant "Get Rich Quick" Shapps. I might be readjusting my sympathy levels for the spads involved - though in terms of impartiality I think it would take a lot to sway me to believe that spads campaigning is a Good Thing.