Stop voting for fucking Tories

[_Os_]

That’s a bizarre reading of history.

How so? Anywhere that starts putting identity ahead of merit, opens the door to worse outcomes. It's not unknown in diverse countries (especially when that diversity is visible) for this to become the societal norm. If this bank were making leadership appointments based on identity and given some of the stuff floating around social media they were. Then it's one more straw on the camel's back in what went wrong in that bank.

It's relevant to the thread too, I've posted Braverman's career path before. From memory she was rejected for candidate nomination by two Tory branches and failed in another two public elections (one where she was parachuted in because it was a majority South Asian constituency, the other was a PR list place in London where she wasn't high enough up because she wasn't good enough). Then she magically gets parachuted into a Tory safe seat (the fourth Tory branch she had involvement with), then after not long at all she's a very powerful person and Home Secretary. I wouldn't say she's a total moron like Truss or someone that's horrible in her private dealings with people like Patel, she could be both those things but I've seen no real evidence, she's just completely incompetent. So why did the Tories boost a South Asian woman to the top of their party who isn't good enough, when they're a 97% white party? Could it be that they're feeling the pressure to represent the demographics of the country and someone that isn't white saying the things Braverman does is useful to them? If you think that's indeed likely, then what logic is there preventing that applying to other elite positions?

[Random1]

If anyone’s a fan of long form political interviews - here’s an hour long one with David Davis.

Talks immigration and throws in a bit of chat on Ukraine and brexit too.

Comes across as a very interesting guy. The Tory’s could use a few more like him.

[dpedin]

If anyone’s a fan of long form political interviews - here’s an hour long one with David Davis.

Talks immigration and throws in a bit of chat on Ukraine and brexit too.

Comes across as a very interesting guy. The Tory’s could use a few more like him.

He is a twat! He is the one who was supposed to lead the UK negotiations on Brexit, said it would be easy, turned up completely unprepared, resigned on some trumped up reason and then blamed the UK Civil Service for the crap deal we ended up with. Yeh we really need more like him!

[Random1]

If anyone’s a fan of long form political interviews - here’s an hour long one with David Davis.

Talks immigration and throws in a bit of chat on Ukraine and brexit too.

Comes across as a very interesting guy. The Tory’s could use a few more like him.

He is a twat! He is the one who was supposed to lead the UK negotiations on Brexit, said it would be easy, turned up completely unprepared, resigned on some trumped up reason and then blamed the UK Civil Service for the crap deal we ended up with. Yeh we really need more like him!

You watched the interview?

[dpedin]

If anyone’s a fan of long form political interviews - here’s an hour long one with David Davis.

Talks immigration and throws in a bit of chat on Ukraine and brexit too.

Comes across as a very interesting guy. The Tory’s could use a few more like him.

He is a twat! He is the one who was supposed to lead the UK negotiations on Brexit, said it would be easy, turned up completely unprepared, resigned on some trumped up reason and then blamed the UK Civil Service for the crap deal we ended up with. Yeh we really need more like him!

You watched the interview?

Cheltenham is on!

[Random1]

He is a twat! He is the one who was supposed to lead the UK negotiations on Brexit, said it would be easy, turned up completely unprepared, resigned on some trumped up reason and then blamed the UK Civil Service for the crap deal we ended up with. Yeh we really need more like him!

You watched the interview?

Cheltenham is on!

Good point, well made.

[C69]

So what can we expect from the Budget?
No very much by the look of it. Giving rich pensioners more of a maximum amount and increasing the annual yearly allowance.
And for those fortunate enough to have retired early and draw a pension and then continuing to pay into another pension increasing from £4k to £10k.

Tbh for the NHS this coupled with the new partial retirement plans with pension contributions continuing in the 2015 scheme may stop a lot of GPs and Hospital consultants retiring


Stuff their mouths with gold.


Ironically of all these scheme go through I will be retiring in April 2025 taking advantage of the new NHS partial retirement scheme.
I will have no break in service, take a full pension and lump sum and continue working at 90 percent of my previous hours.
And contribute to the newest NHS pension scheme at the same time.
Then steadily decrease my hours every year or so until state pension age.

[tabascoboy]

Regulatory body vacillating and obfuscating shocker

[SaintK]

Regulatory body vacillating and obfuscating shocker

Isn't she a Tory appointment?

[tabascoboy]

Regulatory body vacillating and obfuscating shocker

Isn't she a Tory appointment?

I don't know, but the Chair (MIchael Grade) was appointed by Dorries. Imagine that whoever the SoS is of whatever party would always appoint the Chair and Chief Exec though.

[tc27]

If anyone’s a fan of long form political interviews - here’s an hour long one with David Davis.

Talks immigration and throws in a bit of chat on Ukraine and brexit too.

Comes across as a very interesting guy. The Tory’s could use a few more like him.

He is a twat! He is the one who was supposed to lead the UK negotiations on Brexit, said it would be easy, turned up completely unprepared, resigned on some trumped up reason and then blamed the UK Civil Service for the crap deal we ended up with. Yeh we really need more like him!

Agree with this.

He sounds vaguely credible but in the end he was advocating a huge constitutional and legal change without any idea about the detail.

[dpedin]

So what can we expect from the Budget?
No very much by the look of it. Giving rich pensioners more of a maximum amount and increasing the annual yearly allowance.
And for those fortunate enough to have retired early and draw a pension and then continuing to pay into another pension increasing from £4k to £10k.

Tbh for the NHS this coupled with the new partial retirement plans with pension contributions continuing in the 2015 scheme may stop a lot of GPs and Hospital consultants retiring


Stuff their mouths with gold.


Ironically of all these scheme go through I will be retiring in April 2025 taking advantage of the new NHS partial retirement scheme.
I will have no break in service, take a full pension and lump sum and continue working at 90 percent of my previous hours.
And contribute to the newest NHS pension scheme at the same time.
Then steadily decrease my hours every year or so until state pension age.

This is the least expensive option for keeping NHS medics in the NHS to be honest, thank feck they have seen the light, they could and should have done this some years back. Increasing the annual and lifetime allowance will stop the huge tax bills many Docs in their mid 50s onwards are getting just for working full time or extra hours. Lot cheaper than losing them to retirement and then having to pay private sector to do the work with the recently retired NHS medics now working privately! Most docs I know would rather work for NHS full time and for longer but it is difficult to do so once the big HMRC bills start dropping through the letter box - £150k was the biggest I know of. Should help address the huge backlog of elective waiting lists.

Your retirement plan seems sound and similar to what I did, however decided to give up part time working earlier than planned as golf and gym got in the way. Once you start reducing hours and get into different mind set it is difficult to keep motivated to work for an increasingly diminishing pay packet. Nice problem to have though!

[fishfoodie]

If anyone’s a fan of long form political interviews - here’s an hour long one with David Davis.

Talks immigration and throws in a bit of chat on Ukraine and brexit too.

Comes across as a very interesting guy. The Tory’s could use a few more like him.

He is a twat! He is the one who was supposed to lead the UK negotiations on Brexit, said it would be easy, turned up completely unprepared, resigned on some trumped up reason and then blamed the UK Civil Service for the crap deal we ended up with. Yeh we really need more like him!

Agree with this.

He sounds vaguely credible but in the end he was advocating a huge constitutional and legal change without any idea about the detail.

Scummings described him best.

The former director of the Vote Leave campaign has said Brexit Secretary David Davis is “thick as mince” and “lazy as a toad”.

Dominic Cummings, one of the masterminds behind the infamous slogan claiming the UK sends the EU £350m a week, launched a scathing attack on Mr Davis who had just returned from crucial Brexit talks in Brussels.

Mr Cummings also said on Monday that the Brexit Secretary was as “vain as Narcissus” – a mythological Greek God who fell in love with his own reflection.

[TheNatalShark]

Agree we should avoid all references to Nazis apart from contexts where it involves the variables of Germany, a party calling themselves national socialists (without being socialists), trains into Poland, a second world, a religious group with ethnic hereditary rules and a vegetarian leader called Adolf with only one testical.

Instead we cross reference current events to a historical context of which 99.5% of people have no fucking clue about, to properly demonstrate the nuance and complexity of situations.


Art in simplicity, we reach for Nazis as it doesn't come with required reading and is a demonstrative of a reasonable nth degree. It's no different a process from vast majority of arguments, it just has the moral baggage.

It's just dumb though as clearly 99.99% of people in this country aren't nazis and so it gives anyone accused of it an out and a way of turning the debate back on to you, and the vast majority of voters you're trying to reach know it isn't true. You can also compare just about any government to Nazi Germany if you want.

Take Alastair Campbell for example, given he's been front and centre on this:
- Communications guru at the cutting edge of a new brand of politics
- Part of a party that took control of the legislature with around 40% of the vote
- Fabricated evidence to facilitate the invasion of a country under false pretences
- Cunt

Oh look, he's literally Goebbells.

I don't know where I said 99.99% of us are Nazis, not sure what relevance this is?

You're welcome to say it's dumb and therefore all reductionist comparators are same level of dumb. I doubt most people would even mildly agree - nor yourself on eg Lineker language comparison vs above Campbell... power grab motive?

As it is, engaging in the argument in legacy terms how is the government in your above sexied negatives viewed by most British voters? Blair is utterly toxic to swathes of people, despite favourable domestic results. Yet we actively choose not to deal the negatives... that's not a sign of a healthy society... in much the same way it wasn't healthy that Germans chose not to deal with governance flaws in 1930-1932 lead to Nazis

Well, plenty of people would agree about Alastair Campbell!

[C69]

So what can we expect from the Budget?
No very much by the look of it. Giving rich pensioners more of a maximum amount and increasing the annual yearly allowance.
And for those fortunate enough to have retired early and draw a pension and then continuing to pay into another pension increasing from £4k to £10k.

Tbh for the NHS this coupled with the new partial retirement plans with pension contributions continuing in the 2015 scheme may stop a lot of GPs and Hospital consultants retiring


Stuff their mouths with gold.


Ironically of all these scheme go through I will be retiring in April 2025 taking advantage of the new NHS partial retirement scheme.
I will have no break in service, take a full pension and lump sum and continue working at 90 percent of my previous hours.
And contribute to the newest NHS pension scheme at the same time.
Then steadily decrease my hours every year or so until state pension age.

This is the least expensive option for keeping NHS medics in the NHS to be honest, thank feck they have seen the light, they could and should have done this some years back. Increasing the annual and lifetime allowance will stop the huge tax bills many Docs in their mid 50s onwards are getting just for working full time or extra hours. Lot cheaper than losing them to retirement and then having to pay private sector to do the work with the recently retired NHS medics now working privately! Most docs I know would rather work for NHS full time and for longer but it is difficult to do so once the big HMRC bills start dropping through the letter box - £150k was the biggest I know of. Should help address the huge backlog of elective waiting lists.

Your retirement plan seems sound and similar to what I did, however decided to give up part time working earlier than planned as golf and gym got in the way. Once you start reducing hours and get into different mind set it is difficult to keep motivated to work for an increasingly diminishing pay packet. Nice problem to have though!

I am not a medic btw and with my 1995 pension and initially dropping down a day I will be much better off financially and still pay into a pension for a few years.
It's going to be a win win. If I leave before training someone else up then my unit has to fold as it is too fragile to continue.
Tbh it only affects a small amount of people but if it stops clinicians from retiring early then it's a good thing.
In all honestly it's fecking fantastic for me, well if I am reading the situation right it is.

[Blackmac]

So what can we expect from the Budget?
No very much by the look of it. Giving rich pensioners more of a maximum amount and increasing the annual yearly allowance.
And for those fortunate enough to have retired early and draw a pension and then continuing to pay into another pension increasing from £4k to £10k.

Tbh for the NHS this coupled with the new partial retirement plans with pension contributions continuing in the 2015 scheme may stop a lot of GPs and Hospital consultants retiring


Stuff their mouths with gold.


Ironically of all these scheme go through I will be retiring in April 2025 taking advantage of the new NHS partial retirement scheme.
I will have no break in service, take a full pension and lump sum and continue working at 90 percent of my previous hours.
And contribute to the newest NHS pension scheme at the same time.
Then steadily decrease my hours every year or so until state pension age.

This is the least expensive option for keeping NHS medics in the NHS to be honest, thank feck they have seen the light, they could and should have done this some years back. Increasing the annual and lifetime allowance will stop the huge tax bills many Docs in their mid 50s onwards are getting just for working full time or extra hours. Lot cheaper than losing them to retirement and then having to pay private sector to do the work with the recently retired NHS medics now working privately! Most docs I know would rather work for NHS full time and for longer but it is difficult to do so once the big HMRC bills start dropping through the letter box - £150k was the biggest I know of. Should help address the huge backlog of elective waiting lists.

Your retirement plan seems sound and similar to what I did, however decided to give up part time working earlier than planned as golf and gym got in the way. Once you start reducing hours and get into different mind set it is difficult to keep motivated to work for an increasingly diminishing pay packet. Nice problem to have though!

Can I ask a bit of advice. My wife, a staff nurse, will retire next March at 55 and take her reduced pension. She will immediately return to the same job and same 20 hours (assuming the initial 16 hour restriction is removed in April). I hadn't been aware of the option to rejoin the pension and wonder how that would work as she only intends to work until 58.
Do either of you know how those 3 years additional pension would be worked out. At the moment each year's contribution to CARES adds roughy £500 to her pension but I don't understand how that additional 3 years of contributions would be worked out,

Edit. I think I have worked it out. The pension reduction is obviously calculated at age of retirement, regardless of how long you have contributed. I don't have the exact figures, but if I recall correctly, at 55 her pension is reduced by 44% so presumably the approx £1500 additional CARES pension she builds up in retirement will be reduced by a smaller amount, roughly 34%.

[Random1]

He is a twat! He is the one who was supposed to lead the UK negotiations on Brexit, said it would be easy, turned up completely unprepared, resigned on some trumped up reason and then blamed the UK Civil Service for the crap deal we ended up with. Yeh we really need more like him!

Agree with this.

He sounds vaguely credible but in the end he was advocating a huge constitutional and legal change without any idea about the detail.

Scummings described him best.

The former director of the Vote Leave campaign has said Brexit Secretary David Davis is “thick as mince” and “lazy as a toad”.

Dominic Cummings, one of the masterminds behind the infamous slogan claiming the UK sends the EU £350m a week, launched a scathing attack on Mr Davis who had just returned from crucial Brexit talks in Brussels.

Mr Cummings also said on Monday that the Brexit Secretary was as “vain as Narcissus” – a mythological Greek God who fell in love with his own reflection.

I found him to be fairly articulate and considered in that interview. And he does have a BSc in molecular science and computer science and an MBA, so he’s not going to be thick.

Ah well, I found it an interesting interview, so thought I’d share.

[dpedin]

So what can we expect from the Budget?
No very much by the look of it. Giving rich pensioners more of a maximum amount and increasing the annual yearly allowance.
And for those fortunate enough to have retired early and draw a pension and then continuing to pay into another pension increasing from £4k to £10k.

Tbh for the NHS this coupled with the new partial retirement plans with pension contributions continuing in the 2015 scheme may stop a lot of GPs and Hospital consultants retiring


Stuff their mouths with gold.


Ironically of all these scheme go through I will be retiring in April 2025 taking advantage of the new NHS partial retirement scheme.
I will have no break in service, take a full pension and lump sum and continue working at 90 percent of my previous hours.
And contribute to the newest NHS pension scheme at the same time.
Then steadily decrease my hours every year or so until state pension age.

This is the least expensive option for keeping NHS medics in the NHS to be honest, thank feck they have seen the light, they could and should have done this some years back. Increasing the annual and lifetime allowance will stop the huge tax bills many Docs in their mid 50s onwards are getting just for working full time or extra hours. Lot cheaper than losing them to retirement and then having to pay private sector to do the work with the recently retired NHS medics now working privately! Most docs I know would rather work for NHS full time and for longer but it is difficult to do so once the big HMRC bills start dropping through the letter box - £150k was the biggest I know of. Should help address the huge backlog of elective waiting lists.

Your retirement plan seems sound and similar to what I did, however decided to give up part time working earlier than planned as golf and gym got in the way. Once you start reducing hours and get into different mind set it is difficult to keep motivated to work for an increasingly diminishing pay packet. Nice problem to have though!

Can I ask a bit of advice. My wife, a staff nurse, will retire next March at 55 and take her reduced pension. She will immediately return to the same job and same 20 hours (assuming the initial 16 hour restriction is removed in April). I hadn't been aware of the option to rejoin the pension and wonder how that would work as she only intends to work until 58.
Do either of you know how those 3 years additional pension would be worked out. At the moment each year's contribution to CARES adds roughy £500 to her pension but I don't understand how that additional 3 years of contributions would be worked out,

Edit. I think I have worked it out. The pension reduction is obviously calculated at age of retirement, regardless of how long you have contributed. I don't have the exact figures, but if I recall correctly, at 55 her pension is reduced by 44% so presumably the approx £1500 additional CARES pension she builds up in retirement will be reduced by a smaller amount, roughly 34%.

My advice is always to remain in the NHS job as long as possible in order to accrue as big a pension as possible - it really is a good scheme and difficult to find a better deal anywhere, particularly with index linking in these times of high inflation. NHS pension are increasing by 10.1% in April. Retiring early does mean a big hit on pension received and that will be for life of the pension. If she is going back to same job etc then not sure what the benefit is other than getting lump sum, and that will depreciate quickly in current inflation levels, and reduced pension earlier. However I appreciate there might be other non pension issues that are more important. In purely financial terms keep working rather than retiring early!

[Biffer]

So nuclear power is now classified as environmentally sustainable. Right.

[tc27]

So nuclear power is now classified as environmentally sustainable. Right.

Whatever it takes - we need to get on with building nuclear - no other form of energy will provide the baseload requirement. Modern reactor designs are basically 100% failsafe and produce tiny amounts of waste per KWH.

[Hal Jordan]

So nuclear power is now classified as environmentally sustainable. Right.

More carbon capture boondoggling bollocks to stop the fossil fuel giants from actually having to do anything about their products, too. Twenty. Billion. Fucking. Pounds.

[Tichtheid]

Can anyone remember a technology that re-used spent fuel rods and kept re-using them until they were down to dozens of years half life? When I was reading about it a good few years ago it was estimated that we already had enough fuel in supposedly spent rods to keep the planet going for hundreds of years.

The tech was shut down by the Clinton administration iirc.

I can't find the story now, I just wondered if that rang any bells, it was in research stage when it was shut down, as far as I remember it wasn't in the same category as "just a few more years and we'll have a working fusion alternative"

[Raggs]

Nuclear really is pretty damn clean. Even the waste is massively over treated in terms of how it's looked after. It's not turning random passing by wildlife into mutant freaks etc.

[Biffer]

All this science superpower stuff he mentioned as well, on the day the government research council labs are on strike.

[Blackmac]

This is the least expensive option for keeping NHS medics in the NHS to be honest, thank feck they have seen the light, they could and should have done this some years back. Increasing the annual and lifetime allowance will stop the huge tax bills many Docs in their mid 50s onwards are getting just for working full time or extra hours. Lot cheaper than losing them to retirement and then having to pay private sector to do the work with the recently retired NHS medics now working privately! Most docs I know would rather work for NHS full time and for longer but it is difficult to do so once the big HMRC bills start dropping through the letter box - £150k was the biggest I know of. Should help address the huge backlog of elective waiting lists.

Your retirement plan seems sound and similar to what I did, however decided to give up part time working earlier than planned as golf and gym got in the way. Once you start reducing hours and get into different mind set it is difficult to keep motivated to work for an increasingly diminishing pay packet. Nice problem to have though!

Can I ask a bit of advice. My wife, a staff nurse, will retire next March at 55 and take her reduced pension. She will immediately return to the same job and same 20 hours (assuming the initial 16 hour restriction is removed in April). I hadn't been aware of the option to rejoin the pension and wonder how that would work as she only intends to work until 58.
Do either of you know how those 3 years additional pension would be worked out. At the moment each year's contribution to CARES adds roughy £500 to her pension but I don't understand how that additional 3 years of contributions would be worked out,

Edit. I think I have worked it out. The pension reduction is obviously calculated at age of retirement, regardless of how long you have contributed. I don't have the exact figures, but if I recall correctly, at 55 her pension is reduced by 44% so presumably the approx £1500 additional CARES pension she builds up in retirement will be reduced by a smaller amount, roughly 34%.

My advice is always to remain in the NHS job as long as possible in order to accrue as big a pension as possible - it really is a good scheme and difficult to find a better deal anywhere, particularly with index linking in these times of high inflation. NHS pension are increasing by 10.1% in April. Retiring early does mean a big hit on pension received and that will be for life of the pension. If she is going back to same job etc then not sure what the benefit is other than getting lump sum, and that will depreciate quickly in current inflation levels, and reduced pension earlier. However I appreciate there might be other non pension issues that are more important. In purely financial terms keep working rather than retiring early!

Not sure that is that case with my wife. She has only ever worked part time so does not have a great pension, it will be about £7000 a year, so by retiring at 55 she will get £21000 over 3 years. Working on till 58 and not taking her pension will only increase her pension by roughly £900 a year, so I'm not sure that would be the best option. She also has a SIPP which will essentially make up her wages from 58 until state pension age so I still think it's a decent decision. I've spent the evening looking into her rejoining the CARES pension which certainly seems a decent option.

[Biffer]

Only tax cuts for the very wealthy, no investment in science and technology from government, just a reliance on the private sector to make that investment for him. Nothing substantial on skills to support industry and build careers and wealth and opportunity across the workforce. No additional NHS spending.

Typically Tory shite, fuck the poor and let the rich find more ways to avoid paying anything.

[tabascoboy]

Only tax cuts for the very wealthy, no investment in science and technology from government, just a reliance on the private sector to make that investment for him. Nothing substantial on skills to support industry and build careers and wealth and opportunity across the workforce. No additional NHS spending.

Typically Tory shite, fuck the poor and let the rich find more ways to avoid paying anything.

With the elephant in the room being from last year when Income tax thresholds were frozen until April 2028, a real knee in the groin to the lowest income groups.

“If not feasible to increase the thresholds immediately after the mini-Budget, we are calling for plans to be announced to do so from April 2023.

“The threshold for paying basic rate income tax is currently £12,570. If this were increased by 10%, approximately the current rate of inflation, from next April, anyone earning above £13,827 would save £251* in the coming year in income tax. For anyone earning under £37,670, this would offer a greater income tax saving than cutting the rate of income tax from 20% to 19%**.

“Put another way, if the threshold was increased alongside inflation by 10% next year and by the predicted lower rate of inflation of say 5% for the following two years, individuals could save £1,176 in income tax compared to if the threshold remained frozen.”

[_Os_]

The huge pension tax break is about the Tories trying to rebuild their base, getting people who have retired back to work is secondary at best. Their polling has been in the 19%-32% range since Sunak took over, a very wide range with drastically different general election outcomes. The trend is slightly upwards, but a poll can come out with them on 20% then another comes out shortly after with them on 28%.

Their plan seems to be "shovel goodies at the 50+ age bracket and rant about immigrants". A plan that has worked for them before. Stable polling above 30% would give them a fighting chance. If that gets them another term very few people under 50 are going to be forgiving, especially as the rejected alternative would be Starmer who has moved as far to the right as any Labour leader possibly can. Emigration would become more attractive, because the other side of the coin in the current plan is "if you're under 45 pay all the tax, have little disposable income, struggle to afford a home, and never have children".

[inactionman]

Only tax cuts for the very wealthy, no investment in science and technology from government, just a reliance on the private sector to make that investment for him. Nothing substantial on skills to support industry and build careers and wealth and opportunity across the workforce. No additional NHS spending.

Typically Tory shite, fuck the poor and let the rich find more ways to avoid paying anything.

Just be glad we're not in South Korea

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... h-backlash

Christ. I struggle doing the standard 38.

[Biffer]

Only tax cuts for the very wealthy, no investment in science and technology from government, just a reliance on the private sector to make that investment for him. Nothing substantial on skills to support industry and build careers and wealth and opportunity across the workforce. No additional NHS spending.

Typically Tory shite, fuck the poor and let the rich find more ways to avoid paying anything.

Just be glad we're not in South Korea

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... h-backlash

Christ. I struggle doing the standard 38.

The craziest bit about that was they thought that making people work longer hours would increase the birth rate.

[GogLais]

The huge pension tax break is about the Tories trying to rebuild their base, getting people who have retired back to work is secondary at best. Their polling has been in the 19%-32% range since Sunak took over, a very wide range with drastically different general election outcomes. The trend is slightly upwards, but a poll can come out with them on 20% then another comes out shortly after with them on 28%.

Their plan seems to be "shovel goodies at the 50+ age bracket and rant about immigrants". A plan that has worked for them before. Stable polling above 30% would give them a fighting chance. If that gets them another term very few people under 50 are going to be forgiving, especially as the rejected alternative would be Starmer who has moved as far to the right as any Labour leader possibly can. Emigration would become more attractive, because the other side of the coin in the current plan is "if you're under 45 pay all the tax, have little disposable income, struggle to afford a home, and never have children".

I’m no expert on pensions and taxation but I’d guess that most of the people affected would vote Tory anyway.

[Tichtheid]

Only tax cuts for the very wealthy, no investment in science and technology from government, just a reliance on the private sector to make that investment for him. Nothing substantial on skills to support industry and build careers and wealth and opportunity across the workforce. No additional NHS spending.

Typically Tory shite, fuck the poor and let the rich find more ways to avoid paying anything.

Just be glad we're not in South Korea

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... h-backlash

Christ. I struggle doing the standard 38.

The craziest bit about that was they thought that making people work longer hours would increase the birth rate.

Well, they'd certainly be shagged by the end of the week.

[Biffer]

The huge pension tax break is about the Tories trying to rebuild their base, getting people who have retired back to work is secondary at best. Their polling has been in the 19%-32% range since Sunak took over, a very wide range with drastically different general election outcomes. The trend is slightly upwards, but a poll can come out with them on 20% then another comes out shortly after with them on 28%.

Their plan seems to be "shovel goodies at the 50+ age bracket and rant about immigrants". A plan that has worked for them before. Stable polling above 30% would give them a fighting chance. If that gets them another term very few people under 50 are going to be forgiving, especially as the rejected alternative would be Starmer who has moved as far to the right as any Labour leader possibly can. Emigration would become more attractive, because the other side of the coin in the current plan is "if you're under 45 pay all the tax, have little disposable income, struggle to afford a home, and never have children".

I’m no expert on pensions and taxation but I’d guess that most of the people affected would vote Tory anyway.

Yeah, what number of people who don't vote Tory have a pension pot of over £1million?

[_Os_]

The huge pension tax break is about the Tories trying to rebuild their base, getting people who have retired back to work is secondary at best. Their polling has been in the 19%-32% range since Sunak took over, a very wide range with drastically different general election outcomes. The trend is slightly upwards, but a poll can come out with them on 20% then another comes out shortly after with them on 28%.

Their plan seems to be "shovel goodies at the 50+ age bracket and rant about immigrants". A plan that has worked for them before. Stable polling above 30% would give them a fighting chance. If that gets them another term very few people under 50 are going to be forgiving, especially as the rejected alternative would be Starmer who has moved as far to the right as any Labour leader possibly can. Emigration would become more attractive, because the other side of the coin in the current plan is "if you're under 45 pay all the tax, have little disposable income, struggle to afford a home, and never have children".

I’m no expert on pensions and taxation but I’d guess that most of the people affected would vote Tory anyway.

Yeah, what number of people who don't vote Tory have a pension pot of over £1million?

It's possible for people employed by the state to build up a large pot and not be too keen on the Tories.

But the point of shovelling more goodies to their base, isn't to get new voters, it's to get their vote out. They've been struggling to get their vote out in by-elections. If their base becomes energised by even more free shit they're getting, they're more likely to vote.

Looking more closely at their childcare plans, there's little detail, and it's phased with the bulk planned to come in around the time of the next general election. Looks like a possible wrecking policy for a new Labour administration. Also doesn't really deal with the issue (because no child care plan really can), which is one salary has to support an entire family in a home appropriate for a family for most of the first year after a child is born (a baby cannot be sent to childcare), so for 2 or 3 children that's 2 or 3 years on a single salary. The median annual salary for full time employment is £33k.

[inactionman]

I’m no expert on pensions and taxation but I’d guess that most of the people affected would vote Tory anyway.

Yeah, what number of people who don't vote Tory have a pension pot of over £1million?

It's possible for people employed by the state to build up a large pot and not be too keen on the Tories.

But the point of shovelling more goodies to their base, isn't to get new voters, it's to get their vote out. They've been struggling to get their vote out in by-elections. If their base becomes energised by even more free shit they're getting, they're more likely to vote.

Looking more closely at their childcare plans, there's little detail, and it's phased with the bulk planned to come in around the time of the next general election. Looks like a possible wrecking policy for a new Labour administration. Also doesn't really deal with the issue (because no child care plan really can), which is one salary has to support an entire family in a home appropriate for a family for most of the first year after a child is born (a baby cannot be sent to childcare), so for for 2 or 3 children that's 2 or 3 years on a single salary. The median annual salary for full time employment is £33k.

I was pretty chuffed by the childcare bit, as a good friend over in Fife has just had his second, hot on the heels of his first, and having free childcare would really help over the coming years. They're not earning huge amounts so this could really make a difference.

The problem is that his wife doesn't yet work (they've moved over from Spain, and she had to decline her first job offer when she discovered she was pregnant with number 2), and cannot easily find work whilst looking after infants - it's not clear to me if the free childcare is for working parents or for parents where one or both are actively looking for work.

[Biffer]

Yeah, what number of people who don't vote Tory have a pension pot of over £1million?

It's possible for people employed by the state to build up a large pot and not be too keen on the Tories.

But the point of shovelling more goodies to their base, isn't to get new voters, it's to get their vote out. They've been struggling to get their vote out in by-elections. If their base becomes energised by even more free shit they're getting, they're more likely to vote.

Looking more closely at their childcare plans, there's little detail, and it's phased with the bulk planned to come in around the time of the next general election. Looks like a possible wrecking policy for a new Labour administration. Also doesn't really deal with the issue (because no child care plan really can), which is one salary has to support an entire family in a home appropriate for a family for most of the first year after a child is born (a baby cannot be sent to childcare), so for for 2 or 3 children that's 2 or 3 years on a single salary. The median annual salary for full time employment is £33k.

I was pretty chuffed by the childcare bit, as a good friend over in Fife has just had his second, hot on the heels of his first, and having free childcare would really help over the coming years. They're not earning huge amounts so this could really make a difference.

The problem is that his wife doesn't yet work (they've moved over from Spain, and she had to decline her first job offer when she discovered she was pregnant with number 2), and cannot easily find work whilst looking after infants - it's not clear to me if the free childcare is for working parents or for parents where one or both are actively looking for work.

Change is for England only - in Scotland you already get this.

[_Os_]

Yeah, what number of people who don't vote Tory have a pension pot of over £1million?

It's possible for people employed by the state to build up a large pot and not be too keen on the Tories.

But the point of shovelling more goodies to their base, isn't to get new voters, it's to get their vote out. They've been struggling to get their vote out in by-elections. If their base becomes energised by even more free shit they're getting, they're more likely to vote.

Looking more closely at their childcare plans, there's little detail, and it's phased with the bulk planned to come in around the time of the next general election. Looks like a possible wrecking policy for a new Labour administration. Also doesn't really deal with the issue (because no child care plan really can), which is one salary has to support an entire family in a home appropriate for a family for most of the first year after a child is born (a baby cannot be sent to childcare), so for for 2 or 3 children that's 2 or 3 years on a single salary. The median annual salary for full time employment is £33k.

I was pretty chuffed by the childcare bit, as a good friend over in Fife has just had his second, hot on the heels of his first, and having free childcare would really help over the coming years. They're not earning huge amounts so this could really make a difference.

The problem is that his wife doesn't yet work (they've moved over from Spain, and she had to decline her first job offer when she discovered she was pregnant with number 2), and cannot easily find work whilst looking after infants - it's not clear to me if the free childcare is for working parents or for parents where one or both are actively looking for work.

My reading of it is: England only, one parent must be in work, 30 hours per week childcare, only for 9 months old to school age. Only fully comes in September 2025
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/chan ... for-growth.

Once that is put into real world scenarios it starts looking not so good as it sounds. Because the problem is really about stagnant wage growth and increasing costs (especially in housing).

[inactionman]

It's possible for people employed by the state to build up a large pot and not be too keen on the Tories.

But the point of shovelling more goodies to their base, isn't to get new voters, it's to get their vote out. They've been struggling to get their vote out in by-elections. If their base becomes energised by even more free shit they're getting, they're more likely to vote.

Looking more closely at their childcare plans, there's little detail, and it's phased with the bulk planned to come in around the time of the next general election. Looks like a possible wrecking policy for a new Labour administration. Also doesn't really deal with the issue (because no child care plan really can), which is one salary has to support an entire family in a home appropriate for a family for most of the first year after a child is born (a baby cannot be sent to childcare), so for for 2 or 3 children that's 2 or 3 years on a single salary. The median annual salary for full time employment is £33k.

I was pretty chuffed by the childcare bit, as a good friend over in Fife has just had his second, hot on the heels of his first, and having free childcare would really help over the coming years. They're not earning huge amounts so this could really make a difference.

The problem is that his wife doesn't yet work (they've moved over from Spain, and she had to decline her first job offer when she discovered she was pregnant with number 2), and cannot easily find work whilst looking after infants - it's not clear to me if the free childcare is for working parents or for parents where one or both are actively looking for work.

Change is for England only - in Scotland you already get this.

Do they? They had to line up some childcare funds for when she was about to accept her job for the eldest, prior to falling pregnant again. Am I missing something? Scots gov website says it's 30hrs free from 3 years of age, with some 2 year olds being eligible. The new budget is setting it at 9 months, I thought, which is only 5 months away for my mate and his wife.

[Biffer]

I was pretty chuffed by the childcare bit, as a good friend over in Fife has just had his second, hot on the heels of his first, and having free childcare would really help over the coming years. They're not earning huge amounts so this could really make a difference.

The problem is that his wife doesn't yet work (they've moved over from Spain, and she had to decline her first job offer when she discovered she was pregnant with number 2), and cannot easily find work whilst looking after infants - it's not clear to me if the free childcare is for working parents or for parents where one or both are actively looking for work.

Change is for England only - in Scotland you already get this.

Do they? They had to line up some childcare funds for when she was about to accept her job for the eldest, prior to falling pregnant again. Am I missing something? Scots gov website says it's 30hrs free from 3 years of age, with some 2 year olds being eligible. The new budget is setting it at 9 months, I thought, which is only 5 months away for my mate and his wife.

Dunno, thought he said it was being brought in line with devolved nations.

[inactionman]

It's possible for people employed by the state to build up a large pot and not be too keen on the Tories.

But the point of shovelling more goodies to their base, isn't to get new voters, it's to get their vote out. They've been struggling to get their vote out in by-elections. If their base becomes energised by even more free shit they're getting, they're more likely to vote.

Looking more closely at their childcare plans, there's little detail, and it's phased with the bulk planned to come in around the time of the next general election. Looks like a possible wrecking policy for a new Labour administration. Also doesn't really deal with the issue (because no child care plan really can), which is one salary has to support an entire family in a home appropriate for a family for most of the first year after a child is born (a baby cannot be sent to childcare), so for for 2 or 3 children that's 2 or 3 years on a single salary. The median annual salary for full time employment is £33k.

I was pretty chuffed by the childcare bit, as a good friend over in Fife has just had his second, hot on the heels of his first, and having free childcare would really help over the coming years. They're not earning huge amounts so this could really make a difference.

The problem is that his wife doesn't yet work (they've moved over from Spain, and she had to decline her first job offer when she discovered she was pregnant with number 2), and cannot easily find work whilst looking after infants - it's not clear to me if the free childcare is for working parents or for parents where one or both are actively looking for work.

My reading of it is: England only, one parent must be in work, 30 hours per week childcare, only for 9 months old to school age. Only fully comes in September 2025
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/chan ... for-growth.

Once that is put into real world scenarios it starts looking not so good as it sounds. Because the problem is really about stagnant wage growth and increasing costs (especially in housing).

The little'un will be not far off three by then anyway. Ah well, not so useful in my/my mate's own personal circumstance