The protesters are a tiny, yet noisy, number of 1950s women. Most of them didn't, and don't, really NEED to know when they get their state pension as the state pension will be nothing more than extra pocket money for them. In the meantime, they live off their often not insignificant, index-linked, occupational final salary pensions which many of them got early, off inheritances, or off the husbands they were happy to live off for most of their adult lives. Granted, there are also some 1950s women who are living in poverty but that's generally not caused by the state pension age increase, and it's not something that can only happen to women born in the 1950s. These unfortunate people will be entitled to working age benefits in just the same way as men their age, and people born after 1959, are.
Privately, in their closed Facebook forums and in face-to-face discussions, many of them admit that they did know about the 1995 law. They read about it in the papers, heard about it on the radio, at work, from Union reps, from HR, from friends, from IFAs. Some of them showed an interest in their own financial future and went as far as calling the DWP and/or getting state pension forecasts! Then, when one of them came up with the idea that they couldn't possibly have known because they didn't get any personal letters telling them, and that nobody could prove that they would have known, they jumped on the bandwagon and started demanding that the increases should not apply to them. Why the increases should apply to people born after 1959, who also got no letters about the changes, is a bit (!) unclear 4 years into the campaign.
The blog superbly summarises the situation. I do have to say that it is kinder to the WASPI than anyone needs to be, and I think it does reach the wrong conclusions: the WASPI weren't and won't be a decisive factor in General Elections. There is little if not no evidence that women voted differently because of the state pension age issue. Most of the activists have been union members and Labour voters all their lives, and will remain so.
Me? I am a woman whose state pension age is now almost 66. I am fit as a fiddle and I probably will draw my state pension for many more years than many of those who got theirs at the age of 60. We will see. The one thing I do know for certain is that I will always be way too proud to be a WASPI. One final thing: I am nether a Tory nor a Labour voter.
As an aside on WASPI if you haven't seen the latest Labour campaign video then do https://twitter.com/JennieGenSec/status/1056227855414239233?s=20 Ignore the fact it's sub Trumpian cobblers based on Class War and offers no solutions. It's great. Watch it with the sound off. It's really about how wretchedly shabby and dirty many of our small towns have become. As one Tory once observed " We must have something else the socialists will promise everything. "
Now Corbyn is promising everything and the Tories as the hegemonic governing party of the last 250 years can never match that ( which is why that Red Bus is ripping them apart ) so they must have something. And WASPI isn't something credible. There are bigger and better electoral fish to fry.
That’s a very effective video
Utterly tendentious balderdash of course, but will get shared on social media and convince a lot of people
Agreed - a very slick. I also agree that it's tendentious though with some grains of truth at it's heart.
Question is though, what have the Tories got that will counter this?
Will it make people vote because of the video.. Not sure about that. People are not completely stupid.. or are they?
The video has been made by Corbynistas and will largely be shared and watched amongst Labour voters anyway, the key swing voters for Corbyn to win a majority are 45-55 year olds living in market towns or suburbs, they are unlikely to be spending much time watching Corbynista social media
However good to see some Tories tweeting under the line pointing out to Jennie Formby Tories have taken the lowest earners out of tax etc
What happens if you were born on midnight March 31st 1953 though ?
As a woman
Genuine question. What would happen to a woman about to get their pension who decides to identify as a man? Or vice versa.
It goes by your NI contributions , therefore I expect no impact whatsoever other than you could lose the years credit you got when you were receiving child benefit.
I don't think you will. The HRP credit is available to men and women. Sadly too aware of this as I lost several years when I set up my business and didn't pay myself and didn't realise we could have transferred the HRP to me. As I was low on years as a consequence of University and not being paid in the early days of my business I lost useful credits that I could have claimed.
Tough on you, they really do try their best to stiff you. I had to fight to get my wife's years added , they were missing completely and only found out by luck when speaking to a colleague about how little my wife's pension projection was.
It worked out in the end ok, but thanks.
I guess this is the difference between those that can fight their cause and those that can't. In my case I can fight my corner or find ways around stuff. I lose some I win some. I have some humdinger Vat stories.
However in the case of those who are less articulate, they just get stuffed. So whereas I agree with Alistair in this case I agree with the point Nick is making.
The world was a much better place when people demonstrated out of idealism rather than to enrich themselves..... Vienam ...ANL....anti-apartheid ....Shelter...ban the bomb....righs for the Palestinians......
Now its students against student fees..women pensioners for women's pensions....Countryside Allance for fox hunting...poll tax etc.
One of the few notable exceptions is Corbyn and it's probably why he's capturing the imagination of the young
Last week's anti-Brexit march was about idealism rather than enriching themselves. And, much as I am against it as a cause, the fox hunting march was surely about an idea rather than personal gain?
I thought about Brexit but if it had been a pro Brexit march would we have thought it was idealistic?
Backed Ricciardo to DNF at 4. Given he's got a 39% DNF rate and the first corner can be a bit feisty, just looks too long.
Also, backed Ocon and Perez to be winner without the big 6, each way, at 6.5 and 13 respectively. If their tactical shenanigans pay off, they could end up doing well.
It's also quite special to want equality and moan about getting it.
Women don't have equality so they haven't got it. Quite apart from the massive structural prejudice that still exists they earn significantly less over their working lives. So reducing their pension entitlement increases inequality.
One reason why women earn less over their working lives is because they have children, stop working for a bit, go part-time or don’t take promotions because of their other responsibilities. It is not just down to discrimination. If we make choices we have to accept the consequences of those choices. That is what being an adult means.
Easy to say when you are loaded, not quite so easy when you have little to nothing. Always amazes me that on this site it is always the poor's own fault they are stupid and have nothing and thanks I am all right Jack, I am super smart and loaded.
This is not about attacking the poor. If you don’t earn much you you generally have to work all the time. It’s the well off who can afford to go part-time and the rest because they have high-earning partners. But the reality is that you will over a lifetime likely earn less than your peers if you take time out for a family. That applies to both men and women. For instance, you choose not to move overseas with your company you will be less likely to be put on the promotion track and therefore get more pay, as happened to me at one point, and so on.
Not all inequality of outcome is down to discrimination. Some of it is down to peoples’ choices. And the relatively well off who make such choices shouldn’t then complain about the results.
That may well be but the impact is on the poorest and given UK has the worst pension in any civilised country it does not help. The ones with high earning partners don't really need the extra. Penalising women for choosing to stay at home and raise their children is scandalous as well.
If you add private pensions to the state pension then average retirement for UK pensioners rises to just over 60% of former career earnings, just below the OECD average.
The new single-tier pension will also be worth 30% more than the current state pension
I'm looking for a website called Political Brexiting. I thought this was it but I can't find any sign of Political Brexiters here. Maybe they are all having an extra hour in bed. I'll check in later.
As an aside on WASPI if you haven't seen the latest Labour campaign video then do https://twitter.com/JennieGenSec/status/1056227855414239233?s=20 Ignore the fact it's sub Trumpian cobblers based on Class War and offers no solutions. It's great. Watch it with the sound off. It's really about how wretchedly shabby and dirty many of our small towns have become. As one Tory once observed " We must have something else the socialists will promise everything. "
Now Corbyn is promising everything and the Tories as the hegemonic governing party of the last 250 years can never match that ( which is why that Red Bus is ripping them apart ) so they must have something. And WASPI isn't something credible. There are bigger and better electoral fish to fry.
That’s a very effective video
Utterly tendentious balderdash of course, but will get shared on social media and convince a lot of people
Agreed - a very slick. I also agree that it's tendentious though with some grains of truth at it's heart.
Question is though, what have the Tories got that will counter this?
Will it make people vote because of the video.. Not sure about that. People are not completely stupid.. or are they?
Most people don’t think hard before they vote
This is about setting the frame
Perhaps Corbyn has taken to heart the lesson of Brexit that many people will vote for free unicorns and sunlit uplands without worrying about how, or even if, they can be ever be delivered. Once you win you simply blame others for the non-delivery. Who is to say it won't work just as well for Labour?
The world was a much better place when people demonstrated out of idealism rather than to enrich themselves..... Vienam ...ANL....anti-apartheid ....Shelter...ban the bomb....righs for the Palestinians......
Now its students against student fees..women pensioners for women's pensions....Countryside Allance for fox hunting...poll tax etc.
One of the few notable exceptions is Corbyn and it's probably why he's capturing the imagination of the young
Last week's anti-Brexit march was about idealism rather than enriching themselves. And, much as I am against it as a cause, the fox hunting march was surely about an idea rather than personal gain?
For some people, perhaps. But, there are many people who benefit hugely from the EU.
E.g., the last time I went to Brussels, I met on the business premier class (paid for by the EU) Eurostar, a woman who had founded a small company.
The sole function of the company was to help scientists and researchers prepare applications for funding from the European Union. She was charming & personable, and I liked her very much -- but the entire rationale for her company was driven by the complexity of the bureaucratic processes for grant applications.
She obviously had a strong financial interest in remaining in the EU.
Here in a small coastal english town in deepest Leaverstan the last few years have felt like the end of a game of kerplunk. Everything that was fraying but holding suddenly collapsed. Layer was one was so called austerity. State run or financed services suddenly stopped or went bust. Layer two was voluntary sector activity. A whole swathe of civil society activities suddenly ran out of volunteers as they died or retired and weren't replaced. Layer three was the continuing civil society orgs buckling under the stress. I know from a church perspective that we are suddenly having to offer the kind of ministries/social provision you'd normally associate with inner cities of old.
That's before we get to an epidemic of public drug addiction, untreated mental health problems and retail collapse. And from my travel and reading it's exactly the same in every small coastal town fir an hour north and south of here. I just glad I'm no longer in front line politics or service provision as it's ghastly, very complicated and there are no easy answers.
But in Brexit and Austerity the two main parties have their competing easy answers. What's interesting is the Corbyn/McDonnell project seems to be synthesising Brexit and Austerity. The Tories need to respond.
Why not ask the people who live in said small towns what they think? Thats all that my party have done which is why the video resonates regardless of party. And it links into the campaign from Tory council leaders pleading with the government not to bleed their town dry with cuts.
Previous generations bequeathed my town with lots. Large parks. Public buildings. Monuments. What is my generation bequeathing to the future? Metal Shutters...
People are often negative about things, when there is little or no need to be. Your generation is bequeathing many positive things, unless you're going down the UKIP line that things are much worse now and we should go back to the 1950s. These positives are a result of both Labour and Conservative policies that have moved the country forwards.
I don't want to sound complacent, and people in small (and large) towns are facing many problems. But they always have. And I'm afraid a nakedly partisan video from a party doesn't prove anything.
For the record, I do ask people what they think, frequently. I also listen to the replies. I posted something t'other day about the situation some people find themselves in. I also observe with my own eyes, and I'm fortunate that my walking and other hobbies get me to see places I wouldn't otherwise go (e.g. through an old mining area last Tuesday).
And Labour under Corbyn isn't interested in wanting to know what people think. They know what they want to do already, and it's an utter reverse that won't help the people t hey pretend to want to help.
AIUI (and would be welcome to be proved wrong), more 'poor' people are supporting the Conservatives, and more 'middle-class' people Labour.
As an aside on WASPI if you haven't seen the latest Labour campaign video then do https://twitter.com/JennieGenSec/status/1056227855414239233?s=20 Ignore the fact it's sub Trumpian cobblers based on Class War and offers no solutions. It's great. Watch it with the sound off. It's really about how wretchedly shabby and dirty many of our small towns have become. As one Tory once observed " We must have something else the socialists will promise everything. "
Now Corbyn is promising everything and the Tories as the hegemonic governing party of the last 250 years can never match that ( which is why that Red Bus is ripping them apart ) so they must have something. And WASPI isn't something credible. There are bigger and better electoral fish to fry.
That’s a very effective video
Utterly tendentious balderdash of course, but will get shared on social media and convince a lot of people
Like all political advertising it will only resonate with the convered and the very easily convertable which are a dissapointingly small number. It's entertaining though which means it'll get watched which is a good start. Political ads tend to work best when they hammer a single issue. 'Tory cuts' has been done to death but those who have felt them will enjoy watching.
On pensions, the WASPI women probably don't have a super-strong case.
Whatever, there are worse offenders. The ludicrous -- insanely generous -- tax relief on pensions for higher earners is a far greater injustice.
I suspect many on pb.com benefit from this. And, when it is finally removed, we will hear howls of shrieking rage from the very well-paid that will drown the yaps from the WASPI women.
Hard to argue with the final paragraph - there are probably a lot of issues where campaigners or opponents might be entirely misconceived about things, but they doesn't mean the votes won't be affected.
@Southamobserver If as I expect May signs the Deal on December 14th and uses the Christmas/New Year media blackout to forestall scrutiny we'll get more data. Chequers hit the Tory polling immeadiately as the wave function of the Unicorn collapsed it turned out the box had a dead rat in it. However have things moved on since then ? It really wouldn't surprise me if May got an initial bounce out of it as everyone is just desperate to move on. It's only in mid to late January when the deal becomes unpopular as it's neither Remain nor a unicorn that we'll get first glimpse of the future in my view.
I'm looking for a website called Political Brexiting. I thought this was it but I can't find any sign of Political Brexiters here. Maybe they are all having an extra hour in bed. I'll check in later.
Hi Stjohn. My 22/1 on Liverpool for the league and Salah top goalscorer doesn't look too bad!
Why not ask the people who live in said small towns what they think? Thats all that my party have done which is why the video resonates regardless of party. And it links into the campaign from Tory council leaders pleading with the government not to bleed their town dry with cuts.
Previous generations bequeathed my town with lots. Large parks. Public buildings. Monuments. What is my generation bequeathing to the future? Metal Shutters...
People are often negative about things, when there is little or no need to be. Your generation is bequeathing many positive things, unless you're going down the UKIP line that things are much worse now and we should go back to the 1950s. These positives are a result of both Labour and Conservative policies that have moved the country forwards.
I don't want to sound complacent, and people in small (and large) towns are facing many problems. But they always have. And I'm afraid a nakedly partisan video from a party doesn't prove anything.
As a small town resident (well, it is been getting increasingly large) it has been interesting over the past 20 years to observe that people in my area seem to have gotten a lot more negative about it, even as, from what I can tell, on balance things have broadly improved. Several large employers have sadly closed (including an old Brewery whose equipment was sold to the North Koreans of all people), and there's large new housing estates which naturally people dislike, but most of the long standing derelict sites in the town have been built on, not always with just housing. As it applies to local services I am not certain, since local government is under a lot of strain, which the government clearly recognises since it keeps finding ways to get councils past the 2% council tax referendum limit (rather than just get rid of it), and people do see that, but general people still seem like they would oppose any increase for local services on the grounds local government is not popular.
As far as I can make out it is only in the Netherlands that there is any plan to link the official retirement age to life expectancy, which seems sensible.
De facto we do (in that everyone expects it to go up gradually as life expectancy rises) - in fact I thought we'd legislated for it, but I seem to have imagined that. And of course it is no longer legal for employers to sack you just because you've reached age X. Where the system is still not ideal is in covering gradual retirement - a good deal of legislation assumes that you're either retired or not retired. It ought to be possible to claim a portion of your national pension, rising gradually in step with cutting back working hours.
As an aside on WASPI if you haven't seen the latest Labour campaign video then do https://twitter.com/JennieGenSec/status/1056227855414239233?s=20 Ignore the fact it's sub Trumpian cobblers based on Class War and offers no solutions. It's great. Watch it with the sound off. It's really about how wretchedly shabby and dirty many of our small towns have become. As one Tory once observed " We must have something else the socialists will promise everything. "
Now Corbyn is promising everything and the Tories as the hegemonic governing party of the last 250 years can never match that ( which is why that Red Bus is ripping them apart ) so they must have something. And WASPI isn't something credible. There are bigger and better electoral fish to fry.
That’s a very effective video
Utterly tendentious balderdash of course, but will get shared on social media and convince a lot of people
Agreed - a very slick. I also agree that it's tendentious though with some grains of truth at it's heart.
Question is though, what have the Tories got that will counter this?
Well it takes facts out of context and with no attempt at demonstrating correlation.
For example they imply that fire service budget cuts directly caused the increase in response times. I’ve no idea if that is true or not but it’s plausible and complicated to argue the counterposition.
Unfortunately “living in our means and investong in achieving the best possible outcomes” isn’t very sexy.
I'd buy that. But it sounds more like Labour's last manifesto than what I have heard reported about the Conservative one. (I have only read the former.)
On pensions, the WASPI women probably don't have a super-strong case.
Whatever, there are worse offenders. The ludicrous -- insanely generous -- tax relief on pensions for higher earners is a far greater injustice.
I suspect many on pb.com benefit from this. And, when it is finally removed, we will hear howls of shrieking rage from the very well-paid that will drown the yaps from the WASPI women.
Philip Hammond is still priced at 66/1 to be next prime minister. As previously stated, the case for Hammond is that as Brexit converges on what he has been saying all along, he will look increasingly like the only grown-up in the room, and a safe pair of hands to move the party on after the sturm and drang of Brexit -- a subject on which, it turns out, most MPs don't have a scooby and just hope will go away (including both the Cabinet and ERG).
The case against backing Hammond is that it is perhaps less easy to imagine a situation where May goes and Hammond stays, but he may be worth a second look once the runners and riders are declared.
On pensions, the WASPI women probably don't have a super-strong case.
Whatever, there are worse offenders. The ludicrous -- insanely generous -- tax relief on pensions for higher earners is a far greater injustice.
I suspect many on pb.com benefit from this. And, when it is finally removed, we will hear howls of shrieking rage from the very well-paid that will drown the yaps from the WASPI women.
Dylan Thomas couldn't have put it better!
It should definitely go. I am past the age when it would benefit me any more , so get rid if it
@Southamobserver If as I expect May signs the Deal on December 14th and uses the Christmas/New Year media blackout to forestall scrutiny we'll get more data. Chequers hit the Tory polling immeadiately as the wave function of the Unicorn collapsed it turned out the box had a dead rat in it. However have things moved on since then ? It really wouldn't surprise me if May got an initial bounce out of it as everyone is just desperate to move on. It's only in mid to late January when the deal becomes unpopular as it's neither Remain nor a unicorn that we'll get first glimpse of the future in my view.
It seems pretty clear that there is a solid 40% of voters who will vote Tory come what may - many of them to ensure Corbyn does not take power. I’d say a bad Brexit is now pretty much factored into polling. Only the truly deranged - or totally insulated - think it will deliver any significant benefits. The next gamechanger from where I sit looks to be who the Tories choose to succeed May. Someone like Johnson could open the door for Labour, otherwise I’d expect things to carry on pretty much as they are now, with slow Labour leakage and a pretty solid Tory vote.
What do we want? EQUALITY! When do we want it? NOW!*
*Well, apart from the very considerable and completely unjustified (given our longer life expectancy) benefits in respect of pensions of course, we'd like to keep them.
John McDonnell on Marr says Labour will not only end austerity but reverse it, spending more on welfare and on housing, introducing a £10 an hour living wage and collective bargaining at work. McDonnell also says Labour will start the process of reversing cuts to local government while helping them to find ways of ensuring they are not so reliant on central government with a securer financial basis
The world was a much better place when people demonstrated out of idealism rather than to enrich themselves..... Vienam ...ANL....anti-apartheid ....Shelter...ban the bomb....righs for the Palestinians......
Now its students against student fees..women pensioners for women's pensions....Countryside Allance for fox hunting...poll tax etc.
One of the few notable exceptions is Corbyn and it's probably why he's capturing the imagination of the young
Last week's anti-Brexit march was about idealism rather than enriching themselves. And, much as I am against it as a cause, the fox hunting march was surely about an idea rather than personal gain?
For some people, perhaps. But, there are many people who benefit hugely from the EU.
E.g., the last time I went to Brussels, I met on the business premier class (paid for by the EU) Eurostar, a woman who had founded a small company.
The sole function of the company was to help scientists and researchers prepare applications for funding from the European Union. She was charming & personable, and I liked her very much -- but the entire rationale for her company was driven by the complexity of the bureaucratic processes for grant applications.
She obviously had a strong financial interest in remaining in the EU.
The EU has been very effective at channelling our money to a few special interests - scientists, academics, artsy types, businesses reliant on grants, local government initiatives of dubious worth. They and their hangers-on like the lady on the train become vocal in arguing that x y or z wouldn't exist with the benevolence of the EU.
As an aside on WASPI if you haven't seen the latest Labour campaign video then do https://twitter.com/JennieGenSec/status/1056227855414239233?s=20 Ignore the fact it's sub Trumpian cobblers based on Class War and offers no solutions. It's great. Watch it with the sound off. It's really about how wretchedly shabby and dirty many of our small towns have become. As one Tory once observed " We must have something else the socialists will promise everything. "
Now Corbyn is promising everything and the Tories as the hegemonic governing party of the last 250 years can never match that ( which is why that Red Bus is ripping them apart ) so they must have something. And WASPI isn't something credible. There are bigger and better electoral fish to fry.
That’s a very effective video
Utterly tendentious balderdash of course, but will get shared on social media and convince a lot of people
Agreed - a very slick. I also agree that it's tendentious though with some grains of truth at it's heart.
Question is though, what have the Tories got that will counter this?
Well it takes facts out of context and with no attempt at demonstrating correlation.
For example they imply that fire service budget cuts directly caused the increase in response times. I’ve no idea if that is true or not but it’s plausible and complicated to argue the counterposition.
Unfortunately “living in our means and investong in achieving the best possible outcomes” isn’t very sexy.
I'd buy that. But it sounds more like Labour's last manifesto than what I have heard reported about the Conservative one. (I have only read the former.)
Claiming to have a fully-funded manifesto is easy as pie when you assume that hiking taxes on high earners and businesses will straightforwardly increase revenue and your Shadow Chancellor believes that nationalising utility companies won't involve borrowing money.
Anyone interested in gathering a sense of the strength of feeling on this subject should look at the views of one follower on my Twitter timeline.
Jesus!
A taste, for others.
8. YOU/your financial buddies have 'financial brains' you see. Most people do NOT. Most with financial brains CANNOT comprehend that ALL of us think DIFFERENTLY and whilst YOU were busy reading FinancialNewspapers, most of us were NOT. THAT is what is NOT being understood here!
7. And, pardon me 4 saying, but your blog reeks of utter contempt for women who've been treated BEYOND APPALLINGLY,who are, every day, abused by this govt, have been by EVERY govt of EVERY Party since 1995. Women are DYING out here because of this GROSS NEGLIGENCE MANSLAUGHTER!
As an aside on WASPI if you haven't seen the latest Labour campaign video then do https://twitter.com/JennieGenSec/status/1056227855414239233?s=20 Ignore the fact it's sub Trumpian cobblers based on Class War and offers no solutions. It's great. Watch it with the sound off. It's really about how wretchedly shabby and dirty many of our small towns have become. As one Tory once observed " We must have something else the socialists will promise everything. "
Now Corbyn is promising everything and the Tories as the hegemonic governing party of the last 250 years can never match that ( which is why that Red Bus is ripping them apart ) so they must have something. And WASPI isn't something credible. There are bigger and better electoral fish to fry.
That’s a very effective video
Utterly tendentious balderdash of course, but will get shared on social media and convince a lot of people
Agreed - a very slick. I also agree that it's tendentious though with some grains of truth at it's heart.
Question is though, what have the Tories got that will counter this?
Well it takes facts out of context and with no attempt at demonstrating correlation.
For example they imply that fire service budget cuts directly caused the increase in response times. I’ve no idea if that is true or not but it’s plausible and complicated to argue the counterposition.
Unfortunately “living in our means and investong in achieving the best possible outcomes” isn’t very sexy.
I'd buy that. But it sounds more like Labour's last manifesto than what I have heard reported about the Conservative one. (I have only read the former.)
Claiming to have a fully-funded manifesto is easy as pie when you assume that hiking taxes on high earners and businesses will straightforwardly increase revenue and your Shadow Chancellor believes that nationalising utility companies won't involve borrowing money.
The world was a much better place when people demonstrated out of idealism rather than to enrich themselves..... Vienam ...ANL....anti-apartheid ....Shelter...ban the bomb....righs for the Palestinians......
Now its students against student fees..women pensioners for women's pensions....Countryside Allance for fox hunting...poll tax etc.
One of the few notable exceptions is Corbyn and it's probably why he's capturing the imagination of the young
Last week's anti-Brexit march was about idealism rather than enriching themselves. And, much as I am against it as a cause, the fox hunting march was surely about an idea rather than personal gain?
For some people, perhaps. But, there are many people who benefit hugely from the EU.
E.g., the last time I went to Brussels, I met on the business premier class (paid for by the EU) Eurostar, a woman who had founded a small company.
The sole function of the company was to help scientists and researchers prepare applications for funding from the European Union. She was charming & personable, and I liked her very much -- but the entire rationale for her company was driven by the complexity of the bureaucratic processes for grant applications.
She obviously had a strong financial interest in remaining in the EU.
The EU has been very effective at channelling our money to a few special interests - scientists, academics, artsy types, businesses reliant on grants, local government initiatives of dubious worth. They and their hangers-on like the lady on the train become vocal in arguing that x y or z wouldn't exist with the benevolence of the EU.
Actually, I'm in favour of the EU channelling money to scientists and artists !!!!
Suppose we decide to run a scheme to support scientific research or artistic endeavour and it has a budget of XXX millions.
My problem with the EU is that ~ 30 per cent of XXX ends up being used to administer the damn scheme.
The lady on the train of course bills the grant proposers. They pay her normally from public monies (from the EU grant itself if successful). So the whole merry scheme is funded by the taxpayer.
I want the taxpayer to fund science and the arts. I don't want it to fund an insanely complicated merry-go-around for administrators, reviewers, bureaucrats and lawyers.
Though, I agree with your essential point that there are many people on the Remain side who benefit financially from the EU, so it is wrong to ascribe reasons of altruism to Remainers.
Anyone interested in gathering a sense of the strength of feeling on this subject should look at the views of one follower on my Twitter timeline.
Jesus!
A taste, for others.
8. YOU/your financial buddies have 'financial brains' you see. Most people do NOT. Most with financial brains CANNOT comprehend that ALL of us think DIFFERENTLY and whilst YOU were busy reading FinancialNewspapers, most of us were NOT. THAT is what is NOT being understood here!
7. And, pardon me 4 saying, but your blog reeks of utter contempt for women who've been treated BEYOND APPALLINGLY,who are, every day, abused by this govt, have been by EVERY govt of EVERY Party since 1995. Women are DYING out here because of this GROSS NEGLIGENCE MANSLAUGHTER!
Perhaps a course in mindfulness might improve her prospects of making her pension age.
John McDonnell says 'No Deal' would be the 'worst of all options' and Labour would negotiate a deal 'to protect jobs and the economy' if the government cannot
Anyone interested in gathering a sense of the strength of feeling on this subject should look at the views of one follower on my Twitter timeline.
Jesus!
A taste, for others.
8. YOU/your financial buddies have 'financial brains' you see. Most people do NOT. Most with financial brains CANNOT comprehend that ALL of us think DIFFERENTLY and whilst YOU were busy reading FinancialNewspapers, most of us were NOT. THAT is what is NOT being understood here!
7. And, pardon me 4 saying, but your blog reeks of utter contempt for women who've been treated BEYOND APPALLINGLY,who are, every day, abused by this govt, have been by EVERY govt of EVERY Party since 1995. Women are DYING out here because of this GROSS NEGLIGENCE MANSLAUGHTER!
She's got an awesome twitter bio.
RolfHarrisNOpaedophile! NOT GUILTYofALLcharges=Trials2&3. Appeal4Trial1OVERTURNED1case. ONWARD! WhereFECKisMyStatePension?! RagingAtHumansRuiningMotherEarth
@Southamobserver If as I expect May signs the Deal on December 14th and uses the Christmas/New Year media blackout to forestall scrutiny we'll get more data. Chequers hit the Tory polling immeadiately as the wave function of the Unicorn collapsed it turned out the box had a dead rat in it. However have things moved on since then ? It really wouldn't surprise me if May got an initial bounce out of it as everyone is just desperate to move on. It's only in mid to late January when the deal becomes unpopular as it's neither Remain nor a unicorn that we'll get first glimpse of the future in my view.
It seems pretty clear that there is a solid 40% of voters who will vote Tory come what may - many of them to ensure Corbyn does not take power. I’d say a bad Brexit is now pretty much factored into polling. Only the truly deranged - or totally insulated - think it will deliver any significant benefits. The next gamechanger from where I sit looks to be who the Tories choose to succeed May. Someone like Johnson could open the door for Labour, otherwise I’d expect things to carry on pretty much as they are now, with slow Labour leakage and a pretty solid Tory vote.
I take the opposite view, I think May provided she gets a deal will keep the Tories ticking along but Boris may be the only Tory with the charisma and ability to build a broad enough Tory tent to win a majority against Labour in 2022
The world was a much better place when people demonstrated out of idealism rather than to enrich themselves..... Vienam ...ANL....anti-apartheid ....Shelter...ban the bomb....righs for the Palestinians......
Now its students against student fees..women pensioners for women's pensions....Countryside Allance for fox hunting...poll tax etc.
One of the few notable exceptions is Corbyn and it's probably why he's capturing the imagination of the young
Last week's anti-Brexit march was about idealism rather than enriching themselves. And, much as I am against it as a cause, the fox hunting march was surely about an idea rather than personal gain?
For some people, perhaps. But, there are many people who benefit hugely from the EU.
E.g., the last time I went to Brussels, I met on the business premier class (paid for by the EU) Eurostar, a woman who had founded a small company.
The sole function of the company was to help scientists and researchers prepare applications for funding from the European Union. She was charming & personable, and I liked her very much -- but the entire rationale for her company was driven by the complexity of the bureaucratic processes for grant applications.
She obviously had a strong financial interest in remaining in the EU.
The EU has been very effective at channelling our money to a few special interests - scientists, academics, artsy types, businesses reliant on grants, local government initiatives of dubious worth. They and their hangers-on like the lady on the train become vocal in arguing that x y or z wouldn't exist with the benevolence of the EU.
Well, we'll soon find out. However, I'd be surprised if there were that many businesses in the UK that are dependent on the EU's munificence. There are certainly parts of the UK that have done well out of EU grants and it is absolutely true that science and academia has done well out of things such as freedom of movement. A challenge for the government will be to ensure that in both areas - which are hugely important to the UK and its standing in the world, of course - there is no Brexit bruise. The early signs are not good.
Anyone interested in gathering a sense of the strength of feeling on this subject should look at the views of one follower on my Twitter timeline.
Jesus!
A taste, for others.
8. YOU/your financial buddies have 'financial brains' you see. Most people do NOT. Most with financial brains CANNOT comprehend that ALL of us think DIFFERENTLY and whilst YOU were busy reading FinancialNewspapers, most of us were NOT. THAT is what is NOT being understood here!
7. And, pardon me 4 saying, but your blog reeks of utter contempt for women who've been treated BEYOND APPALLINGLY,who are, every day, abused by this govt, have been by EVERY govt of EVERY Party since 1995. Women are DYING out here because of this GROSS NEGLIGENCE MANSLAUGHTER!
She's got an awesome twitter bio.
RolfHarrisNOpaedophile! NOT GUILTYofALLcharges=Trials2&3. Appeal4Trial1OVERTURNED1case. ONWARD! WhereFECKisMyStatePension?! RagingAtHumansRuiningMotherEarth
John McDonnell says 'No Deal' would be the 'worst of all options' and Labour would negotiate a deal 'to protect jobs and the economy' if the government cannot
Well of course he would say that. Though if no deal is the worse of all options, and parliament does not vote for a GE so that Labour can negotiate a deal such as McDonnell wants, then surely it follows Labour should reluctantly vote for the deal May comes up with, no matter how crappy? After all, while he wants a Labour government to do better, if that cannot happen, then no deal must be avoided, right?
Unless of course he, like a lot of other people on left and right, does not actually believe no deal is the worst of all options but is just saying so for political advantage, since he, and they, will be more than happy to take actions which may well lead to no deal.
As far as I can make out it is only in the Netherlands that there is any plan to link the official retirement age to life expectancy, which seems sensible.
De facto we do (in that everyone expects it to go up gradually as life expectancy rises) - in fact I thought we'd legislated for it, but I seem to have imagined that. And of course it is no longer legal for employers to sack you just because you've reached age X. Where the system is still not ideal is in covering gradual retirement - a good deal of legislation assumes that you're either retired or not retired. It ought to be possible to claim a portion of your national pension, rising gradually in step with cutting back working hours.
Yes, de facto after a fashion, but the point is that the Netherlands seems to be intending to apply a formula of some kind. About gradual retirement, to some extent your point is met by our progressive income tax since pension income is taxable along with earned income from work.
It's also quite special to want equality and moan about getting it.
Women don't have equality so they haven't got it. Quite apart from the massive structural prejudice that still exists they earn significantly less over their working lives. So reducing their pension entitlement increases inequality.
One reason why women earn less over their working lives is because they have children, stop working for a bit, go part-time or don’t take promotions because of their other responsibilities. It is not just down to discrimination. If we make choices we have to accept the consequences of those choices. That is what being an adult means.
Easy to say when you are loaded, not quite so easy when you have little to nothing. Always amazes me that on this site it is always the poor's own fault they are stupid and have nothing and thanks I am all right Jack, I am super smart and loaded.
This is not about attacking the poor. If you don’t earn much you you generally have to work all the time. It’s the well off who can afford to go part-time and the rest because they have high-earning partners. But the reality is that you will over a lifetime likely earn less than your peers if you take time out for a family. That applies to both men and women. For instance, you choose not to move overseas with your company you will be less likely to be put on the promotion track and therefore get more pay, as happened to me at one point, and so on.
Not all inequality of outcome is down to discrimination. Some of it is down to peoples’ choices. And the relatively well off who make such choices shouldn’t then complain about the results.
That may well be but the impact is on the poorest and given UK has the worst pension in any civilised country it does not help. The ones with high earning partners don't really need the extra. Penalising women for choosing to stay at home and raise their children is scandalous as well.
From Gov website:
You’re a parent registered for Child Benefit for a child under 12 (even if you don’t receive it)
Anyone interested in gathering a sense of the strength of feeling on this subject should look at the views of one follower on my Twitter timeline.
Jesus!
A taste, for others.
8. YOU/your financial buddies have 'financial brains' you see. Most people do NOT. Most with financial brains CANNOT comprehend that ALL of us think DIFFERENTLY and whilst YOU were busy reading FinancialNewspapers, most of us were NOT. THAT is what is NOT being understood here!
7. And, pardon me 4 saying, but your blog reeks of utter contempt for women who've been treated BEYOND APPALLINGLY,who are, every day, abused by this govt, have been by EVERY govt of EVERY Party since 1995. Women are DYING out here because of this GROSS NEGLIGENCE MANSLAUGHTER!
She's got an awesome twitter bio.
RolfHarrisNOpaedophile! NOT GUILTYofALLcharges=Trials2&3. Appeal4Trial1OVERTURNED1case. ONWARD! WhereFECKisMyStatePension?! RagingAtHumansRuiningMotherEarth
Is random capitalization the online equivalent of writing in green ink (John Lewis management excepted)?
Anyone interested in gathering a sense of the strength of feeling on this subject should look at the views of one follower on my Twitter timeline.
Jesus!
A taste, for others.
8. YOU/your financial buddies have 'financial brains' you see. Most people do NOT. Most with financial brains CANNOT comprehend that ALL of us think DIFFERENTLY and whilst YOU were busy reading FinancialNewspapers, most of us were NOT. THAT is what is NOT being understood here!
7. And, pardon me 4 saying, but your blog reeks of utter contempt for women who've been treated BEYOND APPALLINGLY,who are, every day, abused by this govt, have been by EVERY govt of EVERY Party since 1995. Women are DYING out here because of this GROSS NEGLIGENCE MANSLAUGHTER!
She's got an awesome twitter bio.
RolfHarrisNOpaedophile! NOT GUILTYofALLcharges=Trials2&3. Appeal4Trial1OVERTURNED1case. ONWARD! WhereFECKisMyStatePension?! RagingAtHumansRuiningMotherEarth
Curious prioritization on those issues, but each to their own.
It's also quite special to want equality and moan about getting it.
Women don't have equality so they haven't got it. Quite apart from the massive structural prejudice that still exists they earn significantly less over their working lives. So reducing their pension entitlement increases inequality.
One reason why women earn less over their working lives is because they have children, stop working for a bit, go part-time or don’t take promotions because of their other responsibilities. It is not just down to discrimination. If we make choices we have to accept the consequences of those choices. That is what being an adult means.
Easy to say when you are loaded, not quite so easy when you have little to nothing. Always amazes me that on this site it is always the poor's own fault they are stupid and have nothing and thanks I am all right Jack, I am super smart and loaded.
This is not about attacking the poor. If you don’t earn much you you generally have to work all the time. It’s the well off who can afford to go part-time and the rest because they have high-earning partners. But the reality is that you will over a lifetime likely earn less than your peers if you take time out for a family. That applies to both men and women. For instance, you choose not to move overseas with your company you will be less likely to be put on the promotion track and therefore get more pay, as happened to me at one point, and so on.
Not all inequality of outcome is down to discrimination. Some of it is down to peoples’ choices. And the relatively well off who make such choices shouldn’t then complain about the results.
That may well be but the impact is on the poorest and given UK has the worst pension in any civilised country it does not help. The ones with high earning partners don't really need the extra. Penalising women for choosing to stay at home and raise their children is scandalous as well.
If you add private pensions to the state pension then average retirement for UK pensioners rises to just over 60% of former career earnings, just below the OECD average.
The new single-tier pension will also be worth 30% more than the current state pension
Why would you possibly count private pension to try and justify the crap UK pension. The point is our pension is among the worst in the civilised world.
Hammond on Marr says he is committed to a balanced approach of reducing the deficit, keeping taxes low and protecting public services and investing in skills
My personal experience is that every woman who the age change applied to has known since the 1990s.
I also note that the people complaining about not being informed do tend to look rather middle class and educated ie people who would certainly have known about the change.
@Southamobserver If as I expect May signs the Deal on December 14th and uses the Christmas/New Year media blackout to forestall scrutiny we'll get more data. Chequers hit the Tory polling immeadiately as the wave function of the Unicorn collapsed it turned out the box had a dead rat in it. However have things moved on since then ? It really wouldn't surprise me if May got an initial bounce out of it as everyone is just desperate to move on. It's only in mid to late January when the deal becomes unpopular as it's neither Remain nor a unicorn that we'll get first glimpse of the future in my view.
It seems pretty clear that there is a solid 40% of voters who will vote Tory come what may - many of them to ensure Corbyn does not take power. I’d say a bad Brexit is now pretty much factored into polling. Only the truly deranged - or totally insulated - think it will deliver any significant benefits. The next gamechanger from where I sit looks to be who the Tories choose to succeed May. Someone like Johnson could open the door for Labour, otherwise I’d expect things to carry on pretty much as they are now, with slow Labour leakage and a pretty solid Tory vote.
I take the opposite view, I think May provided she gets a deal will keep the Tories ticking along but Boris may be the only Tory with the charisma and ability to build a broad enough Tory tent to win a majority against Labour in 2022
Johnson keeps the 2017 Labour coalition alive, while splitting the Tories. Heck, even I might consider voting Labour to stop him becoming PM.
Anyone interested in gathering a sense of the strength of feeling on this subject should look at the views of one follower on my Twitter timeline.
Jesus!
A taste, for others.
8. YOU/your financial buddies have 'financial brains' you see. Most people do NOT. Most with financial brains CANNOT comprehend that ALL of us think DIFFERENTLY and whilst YOU were busy reading FinancialNewspapers, most of us were NOT. THAT is what is NOT being understood here!
7. And, pardon me 4 saying, but your blog reeks of utter contempt for women who've been treated BEYOND APPALLINGLY,who are, every day, abused by this govt, have been by EVERY govt of EVERY Party since 1995. Women are DYING out here because of this GROSS NEGLIGENCE MANSLAUGHTER!
Perhaps a course in mindfulness might improve her prospects of making her pension age.
I'm probably as guilty of anyone of not paying enough attention to pensions issues, or indeed many other important issues, and I don't think many would say that those of us who do not pay enough attention should be entirely left to our devices, but it does rather strike me a bit like the sort of person (we all know one like it) who is constantly no paying attention to their emails and missing things as a result, but insists on registering their complaints about missing things as 'I was not informed/invited', even after it is pointed out that they were, rather than accept some level of personal responsibility in paying attention.
John McDonnell says 'No Deal' would be the 'worst of all options' and Labour would negotiate a deal 'to protect jobs and the economy' if the government cannot
Well of course he would say that. Though if no deal is the worse of all options, and parliament does not vote for a GE so that Labour can negotiate a deal such as McDonnell wants, then surely it follows Labour should reluctantly vote for the deal May comes up with, no matter how crappy? After all, while he wants a Labour government to do better, if that cannot happen, then no deal must be avoided, right?
Unless of course he, like a lot of other people on left and right, does not actually believe no deal is the worst of all options but is just saying so for political advantage, since he, and they, will be more than happy to take actions which may well lead to no deal.
Or of course they would vote down the deal saying they will do a better deal but enough Labour MPs will back the deal for it to pass, then Labour will hope to defeat the government on a no confidence vote with DUP and some ERG support so it can negotiate its own deal with the EU
It's also quite special to want equality and moan about getting it.
Women don't have equality so they haven't got it. Quite apart from the massive structural prejudice that still exists they earn significantly less over their working lives. So reducing their pension entitlement increases inequality.
One reason why women earn less over their working lives is because they have children, stop working for a bit, go part-time or don’t take promotions because of their other responsibilities. It is not just down to discrimination. If we make choices we have to accept the consequences of those choices. That is what being an adult means.
Easy to say when you are loaded, not quite so easy when you have little to nothing. Always amazes me that on this site it is always the poor's own fault they are stupid and have nothing and thanks I am all right Jack, I am super smart and loaded.
This is not about attacking the poor. If you don’t earn much you you generally have to work all the time. It’s the well off who can afford to go part-time and the rest because they have high-earning partners. But the reality is that you will over a lifetime likely earn less than your peers if you take time out for a family. That applies to both men and women. For instance, you choose not to move overseas with your company you will be less likely to be put on the promotion track and therefore get more pay, as happened to me at one point, and so on.
Not all inequality of outcome is down to discrimination. Some of it is down to peoples’ choices. And the relatively well off who make such choices shouldn’t then complain about the results.
Thatell.
If you add private pensions to the state pension then average retirement for UK pensioners rises to just over 60% of former career earnings, just below the OECD average.
The new single-tier pension will also be worth 30% more than the current state pension
Why would you possibly count private pension to try and justify the crap UK pension. The point is our pension is among the worst in the civilised world.
As with automatic workplace enrollment most workers will now have private pensions going forward.
@Southamobserver If as I expect May signs the Deal on December 14th and uses the Christmas/New Year media blackout to forestall scrutiny we'll get more data. Chequers hit the Tory polling immeadiately as the wave function of the Unicorn collapsed it turned out the box had a dead rat in it. However have things moved on since then ? It really wouldn't surprise me if May got an initial bounce out of it as everyone is just desperate to move on. It's only in mid to late January when the deal becomes unpopular as it's neither Remain nor a unicorn that we'll get first glimpse of the future in my view.
It seems pretty clear that there is a solid 40% of voters who will vote Tory come what may - many of them to ensure Corbyn does not take power. I’d say a bad Brexit is now pretty much factored into polling. Only the truly deranged - or totally insulated - think it will deliver any significant benefits. The next gamechanger from where I sit looks to be who the Tories choose to succeed May. Someone like Johnson could open the door for Labour, otherwise I’d expect things to carry on pretty much as they are now, with slow Labour leakage and a pretty solid Tory vote.
I take the opposite view, I think May provided she gets a deal will keep the Tories ticking along but Boris may be the only Tory with the charisma and ability to build a broad enough Tory tent to win a majority against Labour in 2022
Johnson keeps the 2017 Labour coalition alive, while splitting the Tories. Heck, even I might consider voting Labour to stop him becoming PM.
Johnson does not split the Tory vote that is the point, even though some Tory MPs dislike him. He is the only Tory potential leader who has got a higher Tory voteshare against Corbyn Labour than May in the polls as he brings Leavers behind the Tories without being as extreme as Mogg for swing voters.
As far as I am aware you are not a Tory voter anyway but you are a staunch Remainer
As an aside on WASPI if you haven't seen the latest Labour campaign video then do https://twitter.com/JennieGenSec/status/1056227855414239233?s=20 Ignore the fact it's sub Trumpian cobblers based on Class War and offers no solutions. It's great. Watch it with the sound off. It's really about how wretchedly shabby and dirty many of our small towns have become. As one Tory once observed " We must have something else the socialists will promise everything. "
Now Corbyn is promising everything and the Tories as the hegemonic governing party of the last 250 years can never match that ( which is why that Red Bus is ripping them apart ) so they must have something. And WASPI isn't something credible. There are bigger and better electoral fish to fry.
I agree it is a well done video but frankly these lies really piss me off. Since Labour's apocalypse I have had all of my personal allowance taken away, my CB taken away, got to pay extra tax for being a Scot and have paid 40% on a higher share of my income. The net cost to me is at least £10k a year in addition to the tax I was paying under Brown.
I'm not complaining, the deficit had to fall, but it really annoys me when people refuse to recognise that the well paid are paying far more tax than ever before and those on lower incomes are paying less.
I agree with your essential point that there are many people on the Remain side who benefit financially from the EU, so it is wrongnot necessarily right to ascribe reasons of altruism to Remainers.
John McDonnell says 'No Deal' would be the 'worst of all options' and Labour would negotiate a deal 'to protect jobs and the economy' if the government cannot
Well of course he would say that. Though if no deal is the worse of all options, and parliament does not vote for a GE so that Labour can negotiate a deal such as McDonnell wants, then surely it follows Labour should reluctantly vote for the deal May comes up with, no matter how crappy? After all, while he wants a Labour government to do better, if that cannot happen, then no deal must be avoided, right?
Unless of course he, like a lot of other people on left and right, does not actually believe no deal is the worst of all options but is just saying so for political advantage, since he, and they, will be more than happy to take actions which may well lead to no deal.
Or of course they would vote down the deal saying they will do a better deal but enough Labour MPs will back the deal for it to pass, then Labour will hope to defeat the government on a no confidence vote with DUP and some ERG support so it can negotiate its own deal with the EU
Yes I am sure that is what they will do (though I am far less confident than you that enough Labour MPs will back it for it to pass), but I think the fundamental point remains that if all those who say No deal is apocalyptic and cannot be countenanced actually meant what they said, then they would not behave as they are.
He clearly doesn't think no deal is the worst of all options. He thinks risking no deal is worth it if, by opposing the deal, Labour has the chance, and a chance only not a certainty, of getting into power. I'm not going to entirely begrudge a partisan putting partisan interests above all else, and many may well agree on the basis that a bad deal is worse than no deal, but I am finding those who try making a virtue of how much they think a no deal would be terrible but are content to risk it (rightly or wrongly) to be rather irritating, much like the ERG's constant moanings. At least some of the ERG actually would be happy with no deal.
It's also quite special to want equality and moan about getting it.
Women don't have equality so they haven't got it. Quite apart from the massive structural prejudice that still exists they earn significantly less over their working lives. So reducing their pension entitlement increases inequality.
One reason why women earn less over their working lives is because they have children, stop working for a bit, go part-time or don’t take promotions because of their other responsibilities. It is not just down to discrimination. If we make choices we have to accept the consequences of those choices. That is what being an adult means.
Easy to say when you are loaded, not quite so easy when you have little to nothing. Always amazes me that on this site it is always the poor's own fault they are stupid and have nothing and thanks I am all right Jack, I am super smart and loaded.
This is not about attacking the poor. If you don’t earn much you you generally have to work all the time. It’s the well off who can afford to go part-time and the rest because they have high-earning partners. But the reality is that you will over a lifetime likely earn less than your peers if you take time out for a family. That applies to both men and women. For instance, you choose not to move overseas with your company you will be less likely to be put on the promotion track and therefore get more pay, as happened to me at one point, and so on.
Not all inequality of outcome is down to discrimination. Some of it is down to peoples’ choices. And the relatively well off who make such choices shouldn’t then complain about the results.
That may well be but the impact is on the poorest and given UK has the worst pension in any civilised country it does not help. The ones with high earning partners don't really need the extra. Penalising women for choosing to stay at home and raise their children is scandalous as well.
From Gov website:
You’re a parent registered for Child Benefit for a child under 12 (even if you don’t receive it)
You get Class 3 credits automatically
Well my wife's was never credited automatically. I have just recently managed to get it added, the child benefit was from the 70's/80's
Hammond says he is creating his Budget based on the OBR forecast of a Deal, if No Deal a different approach would be required. He is retaining fiscal reserves if the economy needs support if what he calls 'an unexpected turn of events'
For some people, perhaps. But, there are many people who benefit hugely from the EU.
E.g., the last time I went to Brussels, I met on the business premier class (paid for by the EU) Eurostar, a woman who had founded a small company.
The sole function of the company was to help scientists and researchers prepare applications for funding from the European Union. She was charming & personable, and I liked her very much -- but the entire rationale for her company was driven by the complexity of the bureaucratic processes for grant applications.
She obviously had a strong financial interest in remaining in the EU.
The EU has been very effective at channelling our money to a few special interests - scientists, academics, artsy types, businesses reliant on grants, local government initiatives of dubious worth. They and their hangers-on like the lady on the train become vocal in arguing that x y or z wouldn't exist with the benevolence of the EU.
Actually, I'm in favour of the EU channelling money to scientists and artists !!!!
Suppose we decide to run a scheme to support scientific research or artistic endeavour and it has a budget of XXX millions.
My problem with the EU is that ~ 30 per cent of XXX ends up being used to administer the damn scheme.
The lady on the train of course bills the grant proposers. They pay her normally from public monies (from the EU grant itself if successful). So the whole merry scheme is funded by the taxpayer.
I want the taxpayer to fund science and the arts. I don't want it to fund an insanely complicated merry-go-around for administrators, reviewers, bureaucrats and lawyers.
Though, I agree with your essential point that there are many people on the Remain side who benefit financially from the EU, so it is wrong to ascribe reasons of altruism to Remainers.
I'm in favour of public funding for science, and maybe the arts in some cases. I'd question whether or not it's appropriate to administer that funding at a supranational level though. It certainly isn't efficient and I suspect the EU's motives are at least as much about creating loyal clients to argue for The Project as they are about funding worthwhile things.
It's also quite special to want equality and moan about getting it.
One reason why women earn less over their working lives is because they have children, stop working for a bit, go part-time or don’t take promotions because of their other responsibilities. It is not just down to discrimination. If we make choices we have to accept the consequences of those choices. That is what being an adult means.
Easy to say when you are loaded, not quite so easy when you have little to nothing. Always amazes me that on this site it is always the poor's own fault they are stupid and have nothing and thanks I am all right Jack, I am super smart and loaded.
This is not about attacking the poor. If you don’t earn much you you generally have to work all the time. It’s the well off who can afford to go part-time and the rest because they have high-earning partners. But the reality is that you will over a lifetime likely earn less than your peers if you take time out for a family. That applies to both men and women. For instance, you choose not to move overseas with your company you will be less likely to be put on the promotion track and therefore get more pay, as happened to me at one point, and so on.
Not all inequality of outcome is down to discrimination. Some of it is down to peoples’ choices. And the relatively well off who make such choices shouldn’t then complain about the results.
Thatell.
If you add private pensions to the state pension then average retirement for UK pensioners rises to just over 60% of former career earnings, just below the OECD average.
The new single-tier pension will also be worth 30% more than the current state pension
Why would you possibly count private pension to try and justify the crap UK pension. The point is our pension is among the worst in the civilised world.
As with automatic workplace enrollment most workers will now have private pensions going forward.
Most will have a pittance and are paying for it , still no connection to state pension comparison with other similar countries. UK is the worst by a mile. What part of that do you fail to understand.
It's notable that one of the biggest protests against Putin in Russia has been by people protesting against his decision to increase the state pension age.
John McDonnell says 'No Deal' would be the 'worst of all options' and Labour would negotiate a deal 'to protect jobs and the economy' if the government cannot
Well of course he would say that. Though if no deal is the worse of all options, and parliament does not vote for a GE so that Labour can negotiate a deal such as McDonnell wants, then surely it follows Labour shotions which may well lead to no deal.
Or of course they would vote down the deal sa support so it can negotiate its own deal with the EU
Yes I am sure that is what they will do (though I am far less confident than you that enough Labour MPs will back it for it to pass), but I think the fundamental point remains that if all those who say No deal is apocalyptic and cannot be countenanced actually meant what they said, then they would not behave as they are.
He clearly doesn't think no deal is the worst of all options. He thinks risking no deal is worth it if, by opposing the deal, Labour has the chance, and a chance only not a certainty, of getting into power. I'm not going to entirely begrudge a partisan putting partisan interests above all else, and many may well agree on the basis that a bad deal is worse than no deal, but I am finding those who try making a virtue of how much they think a no deal would be terrible but are content to risk it (rightly or wrongly) to be rather irritating, much like the ERG's constant moanings. At least some of the ERG actually would be happy with no deal.
We don't absolutely know for certain Labour would oppose what May agrees anyway, we know Labour oppose a Chequers Deal but that is in terms of the future trading relationship to be negotiated in a transition period, that does not necessarily mean Labour will oppose the Withdrawal Agreement and transition period as Labour does not oppose a backstop for NI.
It is not impossible Labour will vote for the Withdrawal Agreement and the backstop (bar a handful of Labour Leavers like Field, Hoey and Stringer) while 100 odd Tory MPs and the DUP vote against, then Corbyn and McDonnell will table a no confidence vote hoping the DUP will vote against the Government and a handful of ERG Tory MPs will not back the government either
It's also quite special to want equality and moan about getting it.
One reason why women earn less over their working lives is because they have children, stop working for a bit, go part-time or don’t take promotions because of their other responsibilities. It is not just down to discrimination. If we make choices we have to accept the consequences of those choices. That is what being an adult means.
Easy to say when you are loaded, not quite so easy when you have little to nothing. Always amazes me that on this site it is always the poor's own fault they are stupid and have nothing and thanks I am all right Jack, I am super smart and loaded.
This is not about attacking the poor. If you don’t earn much you you generally have to work all the time. It’s the well off who can afford to go part-time and the rest because they have high-earning partners. But the reality is that you will over a lifetime likely earn less than your peers if you take time out for a family. That applies to both men and women. For instance, you choose not to move overseas with your company you will be less likely to be put on the promotion track and therefore get more pay, as happened to me at one point, and so on.
Not all inequality of outcome is down to discrimination. Some of it is down to peoples’ choices. And the relatively well off who make such choices shouldn’t then complain about the results.
Thatell.
If you add private pensions to the state pension then average retirement for UK pensioners rises to just over 60% of former career earnings, just below the OECD average.
The new single-tier pension will also be worth 30% more than the current state pension
Why would you possibly count private pension to try and justify the crap UK pension. The point is our pension is among the worst in the civilised world.
As with automatic workplace enrollment most workers will now have private pensions going forward.
Most will have a pittance and are paying for it , still no connection to state pension comparison with other similar countries. UK is the worst by a mile. What part of that do you fail to understand.
Most countries have better insurance systems for state pensions than we do. That is a case for higher National Insurance if anything
@Southamobserver If as I expect May signs the Deal on December 14th and uses the Christmas/New Year media blackout to forestall scrutiny we'll get more data. Chequers hit the Tory polling immeadiately as the wave function of the Unicorn collapsed it turned out the box had a dead rat in it. However have things moved on since then ? It really wouldn't surprise me if May got an initial bounce out of it as everyone is just desperate to move on. It's only in mid to late January when the deal becomes unpopular as it's neither Remain nor a unicorn that we'll get first glimpse of the future in my view.
It seems pretty clear that there is a solid 40% of voters who will vote Tory come what may - many of them to ensure Corbyn does not take power. I’d say a bad Brexit is now pretty much factored into polling. Only the truly deranged - or totally insulated - think it will deliver any significant benefits. The next gamechanger from where I sit looks to be who the Tories choose to succeed May. Someone like Johnson could open the door for Labour, otherwise I’d expect things to carry on pretty much as they are now, with slow Labour leakage and a pretty solid Tory vote.
I take the opposite view, I think May provided she gets a deal will keep the Tories ticking along but Boris may be the only Tory with the charisma and ability to build a broad enough Tory tent to win a majority against Labour in 2022
Johnson keeps the 2017 Labour coalition alive, while splitting the Tories. Heck, even I might consider voting Labour to stop him becoming PM.
Johnson does not split the Tory vote that is the point, even though some Tory MPs dislike him. He is the only Tory potential leader who has got a higher Tory voteshare against Corbyn Labour than May in the polls as he brings Leavers behind the Tories without being as extreme as Mogg for swing voters.
As far as I am aware you are not a Tory voter anyway but you are a staunch Remainer
Hodges reports rumour that Boris and Rudd are planning a Dream Ticket.
I agree with your essential point that there are many people on the Remain side who benefit financially from the EU, so it is wrongnot necessarily right to ascribe reasons of altruism to Remainers.
Fixed that for you.
Great.
And if this were a big EU grant, you could have billed me for that fix as consultancy work.
@Southamobserver If as I expect May signs the Deal on December 14th and uses the Christmas/New Year media blackout to forestall scrutiny we'll get more data. Chequers hit the Tory polling immeadiately as the wave function of the Unicorn collapsed it turned out the box had a dead rat in it. However have things moved on since then ? It really wouldn't surprise me if May got an initial bounce out of it as everyone is just desperate to move on. It's only in mid to late January when the deal becomes unpopular as it's neither Remain nor a unicorn that we'll get first glimpse of the future in my view.
It seems pretty clear that there is a solid 40% of voters who will vote Tory come what may - many of them to ensure Corbyn does not take power. I’d say a bad Brexit is now pretty much factored into polling. Only the truly deranged - or totally insulated - think it will deliver any significant benefits. The next gamechanger from where I sit looks to be who the Tories choose to succeed May. Someone like Johnson could open the door for Labour, otherwise I’d expect things to carry on pretty much as they are now, with slow Labour leakage and a pretty solid Tory vote.
I take the opposite view, I think May provided she gets a deal will keep the Tories ticking along but Boris may be the only Tory with the charisma and ability to build a broad enough Tory tent to win a majority against Labour in 2022
Johnson keeps the 2017 Labour coalition alive, while splitting the Tories. Heck, even I might consider voting Labour to stop him becoming PM.
Johnson does not split the Tory vote that is the point, even though some Tory MPs dislike him. He is the only Tory potential leader who has got a higher Tory voteshare against Corbyn Labour than May in the polls as he brings Leavers behind the Tories without being as extreme as Mogg for swing voters.
As far as I am aware you are not a Tory voter anyway but you are a staunch Remainer
Hodges reports rumour that Boris and Rudd are planning a Dream Ticket.
Sounds as plausible as Clarke Redwood in 1997 but we shall see, I expect May will survive for now
@Southamobserver If as I expect May signs the Deal on December 14th and uses the Christmas/New Year media blackout to forestall scrutiny we'll get more data. Chequers hit the Tory polling immeadiately as the wave function of the Unicorn collapsed it turned out the box had a dead rat in it. However have things moved on since then ? It really wouldn't surprise me if May got an initial bounce out of it as everyone is just desperate to move on. It's only in mid to late January when the deal becomes unpopular as it's neither Remain nor a unicorn that we'll get first glimpse of the future in my view.
It seems pretty clear that there is a solid 40% of voters who will vote Tory come what may - many of them to ensure Corbyn does not take power. I’d say a bad Brexit is now pretty much factored into polling. Only the truly deranged - or totally insulated - think it will deliver any significant benefits. The next gamechanger from where I sit looks to be who the Tories choose to succeed May. Someone like Johnson could open the door for Labour, otherwise I’d expect things to carry on pretty much as they are now, with slow Labour leakage and a pretty solid Tory vote.
I take the opposite view, I think May provided she gets a deal will keep the Tories ticking along but Boris may be the only Tory with the charisma and ability to build a broad enough Tory tent to win a majority against Labour in 2022
Johnson keeps the 2017 Labour coalition alive, while splitting the Tories. Heck, even I might consider voting Labour to stop him becoming PM.
Johnson does not split the Tory vote that is the point, even though some Tory MPs dislike him. He is the only Tory potential leader who has got a higher Tory voteshare against Corbyn Labour than May in the polls as he brings Leavers behind the Tories without being as extreme as Mogg for swing voters.
As far as I am aware you are not a Tory voter anyway but you are a staunch Remainer
Hodges reports rumour that Boris and Rudd are planning a Dream Ticket.
The word Dream together with the word Ticket always indicates a pervasive uneasiness about the perversity of the two characters.
The world was a much better place when people demonstrated out of idealism rather than to enrich themselves..... Vienam ...ANL....anti-apartheid ....Shelter...ban the bomb....righs for the Palestinian
Snip
Last week's anti-Brexit march was about idealism rather than enriching themselves. And, much as I am against it as a cause, the fox hunting march was surely about an idea rather than personal gain?
For some people, perhaps. But, there are many people who benefit hugely from the EU.
E.g., the last time I went to Brussels, I met on the business premier class (paid for by the EU) Eurostar, a woman who had founded a small company.
The sole function of the company was to help scientists and researchers prepare applications for funding from the European Union. She was charming & personable, and I liked her very much -- but the entire rationale for her company was driven by the complexity of the bureaucratic processes for grant applications.
She obviously had a strong financial interest in remaining in the EU.
The EU has been very effective at channelling our money to a few special interests - scientists, academics, artsy types, businesses reliant on grants, local government initiatives of dubious worth. They and their hangers-on like the lady on the train become vocal in arguing that x y or z wouldn't exist with the benevolence of the EU.
Actually, I'm in favour of the EU channelling money to scientists and artists !!!!
Suppose we decide to run a scheme to support scientific research or artistic endeavour and it has a budget of XXX millions.
My problem with the EU is that ~ 30 per cent of XXX ends up being used to administer the damn scheme.
The lady on the train of course bills the grant proposers. They pay her normally from public monies (from the EU grant itself if successful). So the whole merry scheme is funded by the taxpayer.
I want the taxpayer to fund science and the arts. I don't want it to fund an insanely complicated merry-go-around for administrators, reviewers, bureaucrats and lawyers.
Though, I agree with your essential point that there are many people on the Remain side who benefit financially from the EU, so it is wrong to ascribe reasons of altruism to Remainers.
I work as a scientist consulting to industry so my funding is entirely from the private sector. I still have to fill out forms and do admin. I did once get a couple of grand sent me for an unspecified project. I've still got it in fact - if they ever tell me what they want me to do I'll be happy to do it. But on the whole, handing over money for non tangible goods is not a simple transaction. I don't think there is any special EU related complexity involved.
I work as a scientist consulting to industry so my funding is entirely from the private sector. I still have to fill out forms and do admin. I did once get a couple of grand sent me for an unspecified project. I've still got it in fact - if they ever tell me what they want me to do I'll be happy to do it. But on the whole, handing over money for non tangible goods is not a simple transaction. I don't think there is any special EU related complexity involved.
We could start by asking this question.
We are running a scheme for administering grants.
The scheme has a fixed budget X, out of which we must fund the administration of the grants.
What fraction of the budget should be spent on administration?
Some people remain extremely bitter at being denied the State Pension - and other age-related benefits such as Winter Fuel Payments & free Bus Passes- at the age of 65. I am aware of one of my own contemporaries born in mid-1954 who is absolutely fuming that he will not receive his pension until a couple of months short of being 66. To get his revenge on George Osborne - who he blames for having brought forward the increase in retirement age - he has resolved to 'go sick' for three months upon reaching 65 - so giving himself full pay for that period. He has calculated that that income will offset his loss of circa 10 months State Pension! It seems to particularly rankle with him that people from his own school year born a mere six months or so earlier - ie Autumn 1953 - are totally unaffected by the changes. I suppose he has a point.
I work as a scientist consulting to industry so my funding is entirely from the private sector. I still have to fill out forms and do admin. I did once get a couple of grand sent me for an unspecified project. I've still got it in fact - if they ever tell me what they want me to do I'll be happy to do it. But on the whole, handing over money for non tangible goods is not a simple transaction. I don't think there is any special EU related complexity involved.
We could start by asking this question.
We are running a scheme for administering grants.
The scheme has a fixed budget X, out of which we must fund the administration of the grants.
What fraction of the budget should be spent on administration?
I get a small but worth having bit of my income from work that could be done by my clients very easily in-house but which can be shipped onto another part of the budget if it can be invoiced. Any system involving a set of rules, money, and people with brains and self interest will have some money flowing to people who don't objectively deserve it.
@Southamobserver If as I expect May signs the Deal on December 14th and uses the Christmas/New Year media blackout to forestall scrutiny we'll get more data. Chequers hit the Tory polling immeadiately as the wave function of the Unicorn collapsed it turned out the box had a dead rat in it. However have things moved on since then ? It really wouldn't surprise me if May got an initial bounce out of it as everyone is just desperate to move on. It's only in mid to late January when the deal becomes unpopular as it's neither Remain nor a unicorn that we'll get first glimpse of the future in my view.
It seems pretty clear that there is a solid 40% of voters who will vote Tory come what may - many of them to ensure Corbyn does not take power. I’d say a bad Brexit is now pretty much factored into polling. Only the truly deranged - or totally insulated - think it will deliver any significant benefits. The next gamechanger from where I sit looks to be who the Tories choose to succeed May. Someone like Johnson could open the door for Labour, otherwise I’d expect things to carry on pretty much as they are now, with slow Labour leakage and a pretty solid Tory vote.
I take the opposite view, I think May provided she gets a deal will keep the Tories ticking along but Boris may be the only Tory with the charisma and ability to build a broad enough Tory tent to win a majority against Labour in 2022
Johnson keeps the 2017 Labour coalition alive, while splitting the Tories. Heck, even I might consider voting Labour to stop him becoming PM.
Johnson does not split the Tory vote that is the point, even though some Tory MPs dislike him. He is the only Tory potential leader who has got a higher Tory voteshare against Corbyn Labour than May in the polls as he brings Leavers behind the Tories without being as extreme as Mogg for swing voters.
As far as I am aware you are not a Tory voter anyway but you are a staunch Remainer
Hodges reports rumour that Boris and Rudd are planning a Dream Ticket.
Lol - Will they come to No 10 in the back of a taxi together?
@Southamobserver If as I expect May signs the Deal on December 14th and uses the Christmas/New Year media blackout to forestall scrutiny we'll get more data. Chequers hit the Tory polling immeadiately as the wave function of the Unicorn collapsed it turned out the box had a dead rat in it. However have things moved on since then ? It really wouldn't surprise me if May got an initial bounce out of it as everyone is just desperate to move on. It's only in mid to late January when the deal becomes unpopular as it's neither Remain nor a unicorn that we'll get first glimpse of the future in my view.
It seems pretty clear that there is a solid 40% of voters who will vote Tory come what may - many of them to ensure Corbyn does not take power. I’d say a bad Brexit is now pretty much factored into polling. Only the truly deranged - or totally insulated - think it will deliver any significant benefits. The next gamechanger from where I sit looks to be who the Tories choose to succeed May. Someone like Johnson could open the door for Labour, otherwise I’d expect things to carry on pretty much as they are now, with slow Labour leakage and a pretty solid Tory vote.
I take the opposite view, I think May provided she gets a deal will keep the Tories ticking along but Boris may be the only Tory with the charisma and ability to build a broad enough Tory tent to win a majority against Labour in 2022
Johnson keeps the 2017 Labour coalition alive, while splitting the Tories. Heck, even I might consider voting Labour to stop him becoming PM.
Johnson does not split the Tory vote that is the point, even though some Tory MPs dislike him. He is the only Tory potential leader who has got a higher Tory voteshare against Corbyn Labour than May in the polls as he brings Leavers behind the Tories without being as extreme as Mogg for swing voters.
As far as I am aware you are not a Tory voter anyway but you are a staunch Remainer
Hodges reports rumour that Boris and Rudd are planning a Dream Ticket.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop model. That worked out well.
The world was a much better place when people demonstrated out of idealism rather than to enrich themselves..... Vienam ...ANL....anti-apartheid ....Shelter...ban the bomb....righs for the Palestinians......
Now its students against student fees..women pensioners for women's pensions....Countryside Allance for fox hunting...poll tax etc.
One of the few notable exceptions is Corbyn and it's probably why he's capturing the imagination of the young
Last week's anti-Brexit march was about idealism rather than enriching themselves. And, much as I am against it as a cause, the fox hunting march was surely about an idea rather than personal gain?
For some people, perhaps. But, there are many people who benefit hugely from the EU.
E.g., the last time I went to Brussels, I met on the business premier class (paid for by the EU) Eurostar, a woman who had founded a small company.
The sole function of the company was to help scientists and researchers prepare applications for funding from the European Union. She was charming & personable, and I liked her very much -- but the entire rationale for her company was driven by the complexity of the bureaucratic processes for grant applications.
She obviously had a strong financial interest in remaining in the EU.
The EU has been very effective at channelling our money to a few special interests - scientists, academics, artsy types, businesses reliant on grants, local government initiatives of dubious worth. They and their hangers-on like the lady on the train become vocal in arguing that x y or z wouldn't exist with the benevolence of the EU.
Well, we'll soon find out. However, I'd be surprised if there were that many businesses in the UK that are dependent on the EU's munificence. There are certainly parts of the UK that have done well out of EU grants and it is absolutely true that science and academia has done well out of things such as freedom of movement. A challenge for the government will be to ensure that in both areas - which are hugely important to the UK and its standing in the world, of course - there is no Brexit bruise. The early signs are not good.
It won’t stop science being done in the UK, but it will slowly push us down the international leagues without very determined government intervention. Of which there is little sign so far.
As an aside on WASPI if you haven't seen the latest Labour campaign video then do https://twitter.com/JennieGenSec/status/1056227855414239233?s=20 Ignore the fact it's sub Trumpian cobblers based on Class War and offers no solutions. It's great. Watch it with the sound off. It's really about how wretchedly shabby and dirty many of our small towns have become. As one Tory once observed " We must have something else the socialists will promise everything. "
Now Corbyn is promising everything and the Tories as the hegemonic governing party of the last 250 years can never match that ( which is why that Red Bus is ripping them apart ) so they must have something. And WASPI isn't something credible. There are bigger and better electoral fish to fry.
The Tories are on course to win the next election. Labour needs to be substantially ahead before anyone even has to consider whether they will get an overall majority. In small and medium sized towns across the country - and especially in the Midland, the East and the North east of the Pennines - Jeremy Corbyn is the gift that keeps on giving. The only thing the Tories need to do right now is keep praying that Labour members continue to put his leadership above their party being electorally successful. Of course, that saddles all of us with a tired, incompetent, clueless government for many years to come, but for most people the current alternative looks a whole lot worse.
Were you not in denial for some time after the release of the Exit Poll on June 8th 2017?
John McDonnell says 'No Deal' would be the 'worst of all options' and Labour would negotiate a deal 'to protect jobs and the economy' if the government cannot
Well of course he would say that. Though if no deal is the worse of all options, and parliament does not vote for a GE so that Labour can negotiate a deal such as McDonnell wants, then surely it follows Labour shotions which may well lead to no deal.
Or of course they would vote down the deal sa support so it can negotiate its own deal with the EU
Yes I am sure that is what they will do (though I am far less confident than you that enough Labour MPs will back it for it to pass), but I think the fundamental point remains that if all those who say No deal is apocalyptic and cannot be countenanced actually meant what they said, then they would not behave as they are.
He clearly doesn't think no deal is the worst of all options. He thinks risking no deal is worth it if, by opposing the deal, Labour has the chance, and a chance only not a certainty, of getting into power. I'm not going to entirely begrudge a partisan putting partisan interests above all else, and many may well agree on the basis that a bad deal is worse than no deal, but I am finding those who try making a virtue of how much they think a no deal would be terrible but are content to risk it (rightly or wrongly) to be rather irritating, much like the ERG's constant moanings. At least some of the ERG actually would be happy with no deal.
We don't absolutely know for certain Labour would oppose what May agrees anyway, we know Labour oppose a Chequers Deal but that is in terms of the future trading relationship to be negotiated in a transition period, that does not necessarily mean Labour will oppose the Withdrawal Agreement and transition period as Labour does not oppose a backstop for NI.
I am pretty confident they would oppose the withdrawal agreement and transition period, even if it doesn't make sense when we finally see it (it might make sense, it might not). We've seen plenty of otherwise sensible people claim very seriously that the most important thing is defeating and bringing down the government whenever there is an opportunity. Sure they could try it after a withdrawal agreement is approved, but if the agreement is not approved it looks even better.
I work as a scientist consulting to industry so my funding is entirely from the private sector. I still have to fill out forms and do admin. I did once get a couple of grand sent me for an unspecified project. I've still got it in fact - if they ever tell me what they want me to do I'll be happy to do it. But on the whole, handing over money for non tangible goods is not a simple transaction. I don't think there is any special EU related complexity involved.
We could start by asking this question.
We are running a scheme for administering grants.
The scheme has a fixed budget X, out of which we must fund the administration of the grants.
What fraction of the budget should be spent on administration?
I get a small but worth having bit of my income from work that could be done by my clients very easily in-house but which can be shipped onto another part of the budget if it can be invoiced. Any system involving a set of rules, money, and people with brains and self interest will have some money flowing to people who don't objectively deserve it.
I was hoping you would answer the question.
What fraction do you think is reasonable?
Clearly, the number lies between 0 per cent (scheme wide open to fraud) and 50 per cent (scheme now run mainly for the benefit of administrators).
As an aside on WASPI if you haven't seen the latest Labour campaign video then do https://twitter.com/JennieGenSec/status/1056227855414239233?s=20 Ignore the fact it's sub Trumpian cobblers based on Class War and offers no solutions. It's great. Watch it with the sound off. It's really about how wretchedly shabby and dirty many of our small towns have become. As one Tory once observed " We must have something else the socialists will promise everything. "
Now Corbyn is promising everything and the Tories as the hegemonic governing party of the last 250 years can never match that ( which is why that Red Bus is ripping them apart ) so they must have something. And WASPI isn't something credible. There are bigger and better electoral fish to fry.
The Tories are on course to win the next election. Labour needs to be substantially ahead before anyone even has to consider whether they will get an overall majority. In small and medium sized towns across the country - and especially in the Midland, the East and the North east of the Pennines - Jeremy Corbyn is the gift that keeps on giving. The only thing the Tories need to do right now is keep praying that Labour members continue to put his leadership above their party being electorally successful. Of course, that saddles all of us with a tired, incompetent, clueless government for many years to come, but for most people the current alternative looks a whole lot worse.
Were you not in denial for some time after the release of the Exit Poll on June 8th 2017?
I think a few people felt the early results from Sunderland et al did not indicate the exit poll numbers would be proven right. But it didn't take that long to see that it was I think.
It won’t stop science being done in the UK, but it will slowly push us down the international leagues without very determined government intervention. Of which there is little sign so far.
That is not evidence. That is a report of a poll (with no details or attribution).
Actual evidence might be e.g., difficulty in filling scientific posts as Brexit approaches.
I have sympathy with the WASPI campaign, and I can well believe that many didn't realise their pension would be coming later, particularly those who are affected by the acceleration under the coalition government.
It is true also that the women affected have been working and earning under a very unequal playing field for most of their lives. They've had limited chance or potential to adapt. The optics of male ministers ignoring them aren't great either.
Some people remain extremely bitter at being denied the State Pension - and other age-related benefits such as Winter Fuel Payments & free Bus Passes- at the age of 65. I am aware of one of my own contemporaries born in mid-1954 who is absolutely fuming that he will not receive his pension until a couple of months short of being 66. To get his revenge on George Osborne - who he blames for having brought forward the increase in retirement age - he has resolved to 'go sick' for three months upon reaching 65 - so giving himself full pay for that period. He has calculated that that income will offset his loss of circa 10 months State Pension! It seems to particularly rankle with him that people from his own school year born a mere six months or so earlier - ie Autumn 1953 - are totally unaffected by the changes. I suppose he has a point.
Worked the other way round when I was about 18, as far as National Service was concerned. 'It was decided that those born on or after 1 October 1939 would not be required, but conscription continued for those born earlier whose call-up had been delayed for any reason. In November 1960 the last men entered service, as call-ups formally ended on 31 December 1960.’ So someone born 1st Oct 39 could go to work and earn a reasonable (for the time) wage, whereas someone born a day earlier would spend two years earning a pittance and quite possibly in a life-threatening situation. Cut-offs happen.
Great thread @AlastairMeeks - a refreshingly surgical deconstruction of this ‘me me me’ movement.
I’m saddened by Mr Palmer’s overall response to the thread, but the worst part of it is where he hails the constituency surgery’s role in changes like this. I think we would have better governance in this country if MPs concentrated on being legislators and scrutinising the government, rather than acting as a very expensive form of the Citizens’ Advice Bureau.
I work as a scientist consulting to industry so my funding is entirely from the private sector. I still have to fill out forms and do admin. I did once get a couple of grand sent me for an unspecified project. I've still got it in fact - if they ever tell me what they want me to do I'll be happy to do it. But on the whole, handing over money for non tangible goods is not a simple transaction. I don't think there is any special EU related complexity involved.
We could start by asking this question.
We are running a scheme for administering grants.
The scheme has a fixed budget X, out of which we must fund the administration of the grants.
What fraction of the budget should be spent on administration?
I get a small but worth having bit of my income from work that could be done by my clients very easily in-house but which can be shipped onto another part of the budget if it can be invoiced. Any system involving a set of rules, money, and people with brains and self interest will have some money flowing to people who don't objectively deserve it.
I was hoping you would answer the question.
What fraction do you think is reasonable?
Clearly, the number lies between 0 per cent (scheme wide open to fraud) and 50 per cent (scheme now run mainly for the benefit of administrators).
What do you think the number should be?
All funding systems require administration, evaluation and audit, so these are essential overheads.
This applies not only to science and arts, but also to government. My own job involves considerable budgetry negotiations with various stakeholders and funders. Quite what is an appropriate percentage for these things, I do not have an opinion on, but I suspect that 30% would be fairly similar between national and international bodies.
I do think that government support for these are vital to Britains economic and cultural life, not least as science and the arts are a large part of our exports. Will this be better post Brexit, or will taking back control actually mean less cross fertilisation and co-operation with our partners?
Great thread @AlastairMeeks - a refreshingly surgical deconstruction of this ‘me me me’ movement.
I’m saddened by Mr Palmer’s overall response to the thread, but the worst part of it is where he hails the constituency surgery’s role in changes like this. I think we would have better governance in this country if MPs concentrated on being legislators and scrutinising the government, rather than acting as a very expensive form of the Citizens’ Advice Bureau.
PS apparently now it’s just ‘Citizens Advice’.
Yes; has been for a while. And it’s being steadily underfunded.
Great thread @AlastairMeeks - a refreshingly surgical deconstruction of this ‘me me me’ movement.
I’m saddened by Mr Palmer’s overall response to the thread, but the worst part of it is where he hails the constituency surgery’s role in changes like this. I think we would have better governance in this country if MPs concentrated on being legislators and scrutinising the government, rather than acting as a very expensive form of the Citizens’ Advice Bureau.
PS apparently now it’s just ‘Citizens Advice’.
Up to a point. On the one hand being a glorified social worker is a distraction from scrutinising policy, but it is also a very nessecary direct contact with those on the sharp end.
On the whole the latter outweighs the former, though safe seat donkeys can often be quite neglectful of these, as can those who prefer to swan around in ministerial cars.
I get letters from MPs concerning patients on a fairly regular basis, and the contrasting attitudes taken is quite instructive. It is why I could not vote for some such as Duncan or Vaz, but quite impressed by others such as Morgan or Kendall.
Some people remain extremely bitter at being denied the State Pension - and other age-related benefits such as Winter Fuel Payments & free Bus Passes- at the age of 65. I am aware of one of my own contemporaries born in mid-1954 who is absolutely fuming that he will not receive his pension until a couple of months short of being 66. To get his revenge on George Osborne - who he blames for having brought forward the increase in retirement age - he has resolved to 'go sick' for three months upon reaching 65 - so giving himself full pay for that period. He has calculated that that income will offset his loss of circa 10 months State Pension! It seems to particularly rankle with him that people from his own school year born a mere six months or so earlier - ie Autumn 1953 - are totally unaffected by the changes. I suppose he has a point.
Worked the other way round when I was about 18, as far as National Service was concerned. 'It was decided that those born on or after 1 October 1939 would not be required, but conscription continued for those born earlier whose call-up had been delayed for any reason. In November 1960 the last men entered service, as call-ups formally ended on 31 December 1960.’ So someone born 1st Oct 39 could go to work and earn a reasonable (for the time) wage, whereas someone born a day earlier would spend two years earning a pittance and quite possibly in a life-threatening situation. Cut-offs happen.
I don't disagree at all - though I can also understand the bitterness and resentment of those who find themselves at the wrong end of the 'cut off'! Reverting to the example I have cited, to some extent I am surprised we have not heard more about people 'going sick' for a few months upon reaching their mid-60s with a view to getting income to offset the delayed pension. Few people of that age are likely to be in perfect health - most will have some ailment to justify not turning up for work - stress etc.
Great thread @AlastairMeeks - a refreshingly surgical deconstruction of this ‘me me me’ movement.
I’m saddened by Mr Palmer’s overall response to the thread, but the worst part of it is where he hails the constituency surgery’s role in changes like this. I think we would have better governance in this country if MPs concentrated on being legislators and scrutinising the government, rather than acting as a very expensive form of the Citizens’ Advice Bureau.
PS apparently now it’s just ‘Citizens Advice’.
Yes; has been for a while. And it’s being steadily underfunded.
Perhaps we could put the money saved from reducing the number of MPs right into their budget.
As an aside on WASPI if you haven't seen the latest Labour campaign video then do https://twitter.com/JennieGenSec/status/1056227855414239233?s=20 Ignore the fact it's sub Trumpian cobblers based on Class War and offers no solutions. It's great. Watch it with the sound off. It's really about how wretchedly shabby and dirty many of our small towns have become. As one Tory once observed " We must have something else the socialists will promise everything. "
Now Corbyn is promising everything and the Tories as the hegemonic governing party of the last 250 years can never match that ( which is why that Red Bus is ripping them apart ) so they must have something. And WASPI isn't something credible. There are bigger and better electoral fish to fry.
That’s a very effective video Utterly tendentious balderdash of course, but will get shared on social media and convince a lot of people
Agreed - a very slick. I also agree that it's tendentious though with some grains of truth at it's heart.
Question is though, what have the Tories got that will counter this?
Will it make people vote because of the video.. Not sure about that. People are not completely stupid.. or are they?
The video has been made by Corbynistas and will largely be shared and watched amongst Labour voters anyway, the key swing voters for Corbyn to win a majority are 45-55 year olds living in market towns or suburbs, they are unlikely to be spending much time watching Corbynista social media
However good to see some Tories tweeting under the line pointing out to Jennie Formby Tories have taken the lowest earners out of tax etc
You mean the Liberal Democrats took the lowest earners out of tax, Mr HY. The Tories were strongly opposed to this at the time. Then, when finally they realised it was not only a good thing, but also a popular one, the Tory spin machine went into overdrive and claimed all the credit for themselves.
Why do you keep posting on here, and proving the Tories to be liars?
All funding systems require administration, evaluation and audit, so these are essential overheads.
This applies not only to science and arts, but also to government. My own job involves considerable budgetry negotiations with various stakeholders and funders. Quite what is an appropriate percentage for these things, I do not have an opinion on, but I suspect that 30% would be fairly similar between national and international bodies.
I do think that government support for these are vital to Britains economic and cultural life, not least as science and the arts are a large part of our exports. Will this be better post Brexit, or will taking back control actually mean less cross fertilisation and co-operation with our partners?
(i) 30 per cent is very high, actually, in comparison with UK-run schemes known to me.
Does the MRC really spend 30 per cent of its 800 million pound research budget on administering its research activities?
I am not talking about the fraction of every grant that goes on administration, which is in addition and is also substantial.
I am talking about the cost of running and monitoring the scheme. If running the scheme costs 30 per cent, then the further costs of administration at the host must mean that the MRC is already paying more to administrators than doctors and researchers.
(ii) all the European scientific research bodies (ERC, ESA, CERN) include many non EU members (Switzerland, Israel, Norway, etc).
Indeed, the top research university in continental Europe is not even in the EU.
Comments
Privately, in their closed Facebook forums and in face-to-face discussions, many of them admit that they did know about the 1995 law. They read about it in the papers, heard about it on the radio, at work, from Union reps, from HR, from friends, from IFAs. Some of them showed an interest in their own financial future and went as far as calling the DWP and/or getting state pension forecasts! Then, when one of them came up with the idea that they couldn't possibly have known because they didn't get any personal letters telling them, and that nobody could prove that they would have known, they jumped on the bandwagon and started demanding that the increases should not apply to them. Why the increases should apply to people born after 1959, who also got no letters about the changes, is a bit (!) unclear 4 years into the campaign.
The blog superbly summarises the situation. I do have to say that it is kinder to the WASPI than anyone needs to be, and I think it does reach the wrong conclusions: the WASPI weren't and won't be a decisive factor in General Elections. There is little if not no evidence that women voted differently because of the state pension age issue. Most of the activists have been union members and Labour voters all their lives, and will remain so.
Me? I am a woman whose state pension age is now almost 66. I am fit as a fiddle and I probably will draw my state pension for many more years than many of those who got theirs at the age of 60. We will see. The one thing I do know for certain is that I will always be way too proud to be a WASPI. One final thing: I am nether a Tory nor a Labour voter.
I guess this is the difference between those that can fight their cause and those that can't. In my case I can fight my corner or find ways around stuff. I lose some I win some. I have some humdinger Vat stories.
However in the case of those who are less articulate, they just get stuffed. So whereas I agree with Alistair in this case I agree with the point Nick is making.
Betting PostF1: Pre-race ramble: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2018/10/mexico-pre-race-2018.html
Backed Ricciardo to DNF at 4. Given he's got a 39% DNF rate and the first corner can be a bit feisty, just looks too long.
Also, backed Ocon and Perez to be winner without the big 6, each way, at 6.5 and 13 respectively. If their tactical shenanigans pay off, they could end up doing well.
Race start is just after 7pm.
The new single-tier pension will also be worth 30% more than the current state pension
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/dec/05/oecd-uk-has-lowest-state-pension-of-any-developed-country
E.g., the last time I went to Brussels, I met on the business premier class (paid for by the EU) Eurostar, a woman who had founded a small company.
The sole function of the company was to help scientists and researchers prepare applications for funding from the European Union. She was charming & personable, and I liked her very much -- but the entire rationale for her company was driven by the complexity of the bureaucratic processes for grant applications.
She obviously had a strong financial interest in remaining in the EU.
That's before we get to an epidemic of public drug addiction, untreated mental health problems and retail collapse. And from my travel and reading it's exactly the same in every small coastal town fir an hour north and south of here. I just glad I'm no longer in front line politics or service provision as it's ghastly, very complicated and there are no easy answers.
But in Brexit and Austerity the two main parties have their competing easy answers. What's interesting is the Corbyn/McDonnell project seems to be synthesising Brexit and Austerity. The Tories need to respond.
I disagree about Corbyn/McDonnell, though. Socialists wanting to tax more, nationalise more, and spend more is just par for the course.
Welcome to PB, Mrs/Miss 1954.
I don't want to sound complacent, and people in small (and large) towns are facing many problems. But they always have. And I'm afraid a nakedly partisan video from a party doesn't prove anything.
For the record, I do ask people what they think, frequently. I also listen to the replies. I posted something t'other day about the situation some people find themselves in. I also observe with my own eyes, and I'm fortunate that my walking and other hobbies get me to see places I wouldn't otherwise go (e.g. through an old mining area last Tuesday).
And Labour under Corbyn isn't interested in wanting to know what people think. They know what they want to do already, and it's an utter reverse that won't help the people t hey pretend to want to help.
AIUI (and would be welcome to be proved wrong), more 'poor' people are supporting the Conservatives, and more 'middle-class' people Labour.
Whatever, there are worse offenders. The ludicrous -- insanely generous -- tax relief on pensions for higher earners is a far greater injustice.
I suspect many on pb.com benefit from this. And, when it is finally removed, we will hear howls of shrieking rage from the very well-paid that will drown the yaps from the WASPI women.
The case against backing Hammond is that it is perhaps less easy to imagine a situation where May goes and Hammond stays, but he may be worth a second look once the runners and riders are declared.
*Well, apart from the very considerable and completely unjustified (given our longer life expectancy) benefits in respect of pensions of course, we'd like to keep them.
A taste, for others.
8. YOU/your financial buddies have 'financial brains' you see. Most people do NOT. Most with financial brains CANNOT comprehend that ALL of us think DIFFERENTLY and whilst YOU were busy reading FinancialNewspapers, most of us were NOT. THAT is what is NOT being understood here!
7. And, pardon me 4 saying, but your blog reeks of utter contempt for women who've been treated BEYOND APPALLINGLY,who are, every day, abused by this govt, have been by EVERY govt of EVERY Party since 1995. Women are DYING out here because of this GROSS NEGLIGENCE MANSLAUGHTER!
Suppose we decide to run a scheme to support scientific research or artistic endeavour and it has a budget of XXX millions.
My problem with the EU is that ~ 30 per cent of XXX ends up being used to administer the damn scheme.
The lady on the train of course bills the grant proposers. They pay her normally from public monies (from the EU grant itself if successful). So the whole merry scheme is funded by the taxpayer.
I want the taxpayer to fund science and the arts. I don't want it to fund an insanely complicated merry-go-around for administrators, reviewers, bureaucrats and lawyers.
Though, I agree with your essential point that there are many people on the Remain side who benefit financially from the EU, so it is wrong to ascribe reasons of altruism to Remainers.
It would actually be interesting to hear from a user about what effect they think its 'atmosphere' had on recent events.
RolfHarrisNOpaedophile! NOT GUILTYofALLcharges=Trials2&3. Appeal4Trial1OVERTURNED1case. ONWARD! WhereFECKisMyStatePension?! RagingAtHumansRuiningMotherEarth
Unless of course he, like a lot of other people on left and right, does not actually believe no deal is the worst of all options but is just saying so for political advantage, since he, and they, will be more than happy to take actions which may well lead to no deal.
About gradual retirement, to some extent your point is met by our progressive income tax since pension income is taxable along with earned income from work.
You’re a parent registered for Child Benefit for a child under 12 (even if you don’t receive it)
You get Class 3 credits automatically
My personal experience is that every woman who the age change applied to has known since the 1990s.
I also note that the people complaining about not being informed do tend to look rather middle class and educated ie people who would certainly have known about the change.
As with automatic workplace enrollment most workers will now have private pensions going forward.
As far as I am aware you are not a Tory voter anyway but you are a staunch Remainer
I'm not complaining, the deficit had to fall, but it really annoys me when people refuse to recognise that the well paid are paying far more tax than ever before and those on lower incomes are paying less.
He clearly doesn't think no deal is the worst of all options. He thinks risking no deal is worth it if, by opposing the deal, Labour has the chance, and a chance only not a certainty, of getting into power. I'm not going to entirely begrudge a partisan putting partisan interests above all else, and many may well agree on the basis that a bad deal is worse than no deal, but I am finding those who try making a virtue of how much they think a no deal would be terrible but are content to risk it (rightly or wrongly) to be rather irritating, much like the ERG's constant moanings. At least some of the ERG actually would be happy with no deal.
It is not impossible Labour will vote for the Withdrawal Agreement and the backstop (bar a handful of Labour Leavers like Field, Hoey and Stringer) while 100 odd Tory MPs and the DUP vote against, then Corbyn and McDonnell will table a no confidence vote hoping the DUP will vote against the Government and a handful of ERG Tory MPs will not back the government either
And if this were a big EU grant, you could have billed me for that fix as consultancy work.
We are running a scheme for administering grants.
The scheme has a fixed budget X, out of which we must fund the administration of the grants.
What fraction of the budget should be spent on administration?
That's a very broad definition they've got.
For example:
https://www.crick.ac.uk/news/2018-10-22_hard-brexit-could-cripple-uk-science
It won’t stop science being done in the UK, but it will slowly push us down the international leagues without very determined government intervention. Of which there is little sign so far.
What fraction do you think is reasonable?
Clearly, the number lies between 0 per cent (scheme wide open to fraud) and 50 per cent (scheme now run mainly for the benefit of administrators).
What do you think the number should be?
https://twitter.com/AustralianJA/status/1056418509419233280
Actual evidence might be e.g., difficulty in filling scientific posts as Brexit approaches.
It is true also that the women affected have been working and earning under a very unequal playing field for most of their lives. They've had limited chance or potential to adapt. The optics of male ministers ignoring them aren't great either.
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/as-pensions-minster-i-was-told-to-ignore-women-facing-hardship-from-state-pension-age-changes/
But on the overall change Alistair mentions, it does seem that the govt made reasonable efforts and there was widespread reporting on the issue.
I'd be okay with some kind of transitional assistance for those affected worst by the changes.
So someone born 1st Oct 39 could go to work and earn a reasonable (for the time) wage, whereas someone born a day earlier would spend two years earning a pittance and quite possibly in a life-threatening situation.
Cut-offs happen.
I’m saddened by Mr Palmer’s overall response to the thread, but the worst part of it is where he hails the constituency surgery’s role in changes like this. I think we would have better governance in this country if MPs concentrated on being legislators and scrutinising the government, rather than acting as a very expensive form of the Citizens’ Advice Bureau.
PS apparently now it’s just ‘Citizens Advice’.
This applies not only to science and arts, but also to government. My own job involves considerable budgetry negotiations with various stakeholders and funders. Quite what is an appropriate percentage for these things, I do not have an opinion on, but I suspect that 30% would be fairly similar between national and international bodies.
I do think that government support for these are vital to Britains economic and cultural life, not least as science and the arts are a large part of our exports. Will this be better post Brexit, or will taking back control actually mean less cross fertilisation and co-operation with our partners?
On the whole the latter outweighs the former, though safe seat donkeys can often be quite neglectful of these, as can those who prefer to swan around in ministerial cars.
I get letters from MPs concerning patients on a fairly regular basis, and the contrasting attitudes taken is quite instructive. It is why I could not vote for some such as Duncan or Vaz, but quite impressed by others such as Morgan or Kendall.
Reverting to the example I have cited, to some extent I am surprised we have not heard more about people 'going sick' for a few months upon reaching their mid-60s with a view to getting income to offset the delayed pension. Few people of that age are likely to be in perfect health - most will have some ailment to justify not turning up for work - stress etc.
Why do you keep posting on here, and proving the Tories to be liars?
Does the MRC really spend 30 per cent of its 800 million pound research budget on administering its research activities?
I am not talking about the fraction of every grant that goes on administration, which is in addition and is also substantial.
I am talking about the cost of running and monitoring the scheme. If running the scheme costs 30 per cent, then the further costs of administration at the host must mean that the MRC is already paying more to administrators than doctors and researchers.
(ii) all the European scientific research bodies (ERC, ESA, CERN) include many non EU members (Switzerland, Israel, Norway, etc).
Indeed, the top research university in continental Europe is not even in the EU.