Stop voting for fucking Tories

[Sandstorm]

The state pension increase would probably fund a nuclear power station

Rather install 10k new wind turbines.

[Hal Jordan]

The state pension increase would probably fund a nuclear power station

You'll be drawing on whatever is left of the State Pension before a plant gets built, even if they got SPADES IN THE GROUND tomorrow.

[Hal Jordan]

Meanwhile, the Government has, by Statutory Instrument so as to avoid any of that tedious debate or voting, nigh on doubled the amount that can be spent on election campaigns.

I wonder who that would benefit? Onwards with the corruption of the process!

[salanya]

Wooo! from Jan, I will be £62.83 per month better off. I'm definitely voting for the cunts now

Just showing off your salary there!

To be fair, it's a clear and measurable change. And with the growth in wages the government will still get their income.

But nothing mentioned to support the NHS, how the higher power costs are supported for the worst off, and totally ignored that the forecast for the economy has gone down.
I'm sure there's loads more that hasn't been mentioned, just a few 'highlights' there.

[Hal Jordan]

Bungs, sorry, Financial Incentives and tax reliefs for freeports and "investment zones" casually extended for 10 years from the original 5. All above board, I'm sure.

[tabascoboy]

[Tichtheid]

From the FT

The ‘new’ state pension will increase from £203.85 per week to £221.20 per week (£11,502.40 per year).

The ‘old’ state pension (paid to those who reached state pension age before 6 April 2016) will increase from £156.20 per week to £169.50 per week (£8,814 per year).

I didn't realise there was such a discrepancy.

[C69]

Tbh it's a shit hole, however true it is it's not really on for the HS to say this in the HOC.

[fishfoodie]

Tbh it's a shit hole, however true it is it's not really on for the HS to say this in the HOC.

I wonder how many wealthier Constituencies, with Tory MPS, got more money for Leveling Up ?

I'm going to take a wild punt & say lots, seeing as the Head boy boasted about how he robbed from the poor to give to the rich.

[Biffer]

Tbh it's a shit hole, however true it is it's not really on for the HS to say this in the HOC.

Particularly because it (and many other places) being a shit hole is substantially their fault

[C69]

Tbh it's a shit hole, however true it is it's not really on for the HS to say this in the HOC.

Particularly because it (and many other places) being a shit hole is substantially their fault

Really?
That's certainly not my take at all it's usually because of decades or being ignored and under investment.
I grew up in the South Wales Valleys and the village and surrounding areas really are a shit hole for the reasons mentioned.
Specifically I grew up in the area of the UK with the lowest family income.

[SaintK]

Spoiler

Show

Tbh it's a shit hole, however true it is it's not really on for the HS to say this in the HOC.

Particularly because it (and many other places) being a shit hole is substantially their fault

What a crass generalisation.

[robmatic]

Tbh it's a shit hole, however true it is it's not really on for the HS to say this in the HOC.

Particularly because it (and many other places) being a shit hole is substantially their fault

Stockton has been a shithole for decades.

[Paddington Bear]

Net migration hit nearly 700,000 last year, seems sustainable

[C69]

Net migration hit nearly 700,000 last year, seems sustainable

Gotta love the Tories

[dpedin]

The state pension increase would probably fund a nuclear power station

Rather install 10k new wind turbines.

Pensions in the UK are some of the worst in comparable countries as a % of average earnings. An 8.5% increase of a pittance doesnt make the UK pension enough for anyone to live in luxury! 1 in 3 of all single pensioners in UK rely solely on their state pension of £203 per week. Once again attacking the pension increase is just what the Tories want you to do, get the poor to fight amongst themselves for the scraps we throw off our table. However this week they turned their attention on the disabled and those on disability benefits threatening them they will lose their benefits if they don't get back to work. All this whilst happily writing off many billions of PPE/covid fraud stolen by their Tory mates.

Rather than attacking state pension rates tax the rich pensioners income properly such as unearned income ie dividends and rental income, increase CGT, stop offshoring, review the various types of trust funds designed to avoid taxation, etc.

Getting reliable up to date comparisons is difficult but HoC report in 2022 showed that the UK spends a smaller % of GDP on state pensions than the average OECD level and most comparisons show the UK state pension is one of the lowest amongst comparable EU countries when expressed as a % of average earnings of each country. We also have to work longer than many other European countries before we can access the state pension. The UK also has a growing rate of pensioner poverty (less than 40% of median incomes) and 1 in 20 pensioners are now living in poverty.

[inactionman]

Spoiler

Show

Tbh it's a shit hole, however true it is it's not really on for the HS to say this in the HOC.

Particularly because it (and many other places) being a shit hole is substantially their fault

What a crass generalisation.

I think Biffer meant it was the Tory's fault that some places are not exactly Monte Carlo, not the fault of the residents or local councillors.

(apols if I've misinterpreted either of your comments)

[Margin__Walker]

Net migration hit nearly 700,000 last year, seems sustainable

Brief thread breaking down the headline figure. Driven largely by work Visa (largely in Health and Care). Number that struck me though was the huge increase in student visas compared to 2019.

[Raggs]

Student visas tend to be the most abused if I recall correctly?

[SaintK]

Spoiler

Show

Particularly because it (and many other places) being a shit hole is substantially their fault

What a crass generalisation.

I think Biffer meant it was the Tory's fault that some places are not exactly Monte Carlo, not the fault of the residents or local councillors.

(apols if I've misinterpreted either of your comments)

Ahh. I may have read it as "their" meaning "their own fault"

[dpedin]

Net migration hit nearly 700,000 last year, seems sustainable

Brief thread breaking down the headline figure. Driven largely by work Visa (largely in Health and Care). Number that struck me though was the huge increase in student visas compared to 2019.

Get used to it folks - UK birth rate is dropping like a stone, about 1.6 births per woman whereas we need the proverbial 2.1 births to maintain pop levels plus demographic of UK population post baby boomers means size of working population with immigration is at best stagnant and more likely falling. In order to just maintain economy let alone grow we need increasing migration numbers. Post Brexit this means that the balance of our immigration has shifted with less from EU and the majority coming from outside the EU. We know that many businesses are really struggling for staff post Brexit and post covid.

The problem for our current Tory Gov is having used the 'stop the boats' and 'immigration' as a problem to appeal to the 'slightly' racist right wing of their party and their populist approach they are cornered - either reduce immigration and strangle business growth, let it continue at these levels and piss off their gammon base with broken promises or rethink their whole stance on Freedom of Movement (Brexit) and allow greater immigration of the slightly more acceptable workers to their voters (ie more white but still foreigners) into the country. I am not sure I see a solution for them.

The attempt to target the ill, disabled and unwell, many of whom are on the 7.5m NHS waiting list for treatment, in order to increase the pool of workers is not really going to tackle the underlying issues but will give them an opportunity to attack another minority and stir up some more right wing rhetoric. It buys them time until the next election but the core issue remains - we need to expand the current workforce in order to maintain current economic performance and generate growth. Having babies isn't a financially feasible option for many families - low wages and the need for two incomes, childcare costs, housing costs, etc mean many are either not having kids, postpone it till later or only have one. Immigration is probably an easier solution that trying to boost wage growth, sort the housing problem and subsidies childcare costs to be honest.

[inactionman]

What a crass generalisation.

I think Biffer meant it was the Tory's fault that some places are not exactly Monte Carlo, not the fault of the residents or local councillors.

(apols if I've misinterpreted either of your comments)

Ahh. I may have read it as "their" meaning "their own fault"

Aye, good ol' dangling modifiers - grammatically, it can be read a few different ways.

[Uncle fester]

Net migration hit nearly 700,000 last year, seems sustainable

Brief thread breaking down the headline figure. Driven largely by work Visa (largely in Health and Care). Number that struck me though was the huge increase in student visas compared to 2019.

Get used to it folks - UK birth rate is dropping like a stone, about 1.6 births per woman whereas we need the proverbial 2.1 births to maintain pop levels plus demographic of UK population post baby boomers means size of working population with immigration is at best stagnant and more likely falling. In order to just maintain economy let alone grow we need increasing migration numbers. Post Brexit this means that the balance of our immigration has shifted with less from EU and the majority coming from outside the EU. We know that many businesses are really struggling for staff post Brexit and post covid.

The problem for our current Tory Gov is having used the 'stop the boats' and 'immigration' as a problem to appeal to the 'slightly' racist right wing of their party and their populist approach they are cornered - either reduce immigration and strangle business growth, let it continue at these levels and piss off their gammon base with broken promises or rethink their whole stance on Freedom of Movement (Brexit) and allow greater immigration of the slightly more acceptable workers to their voters (ie more white but still foreigners) into the country. I am not sure I see a solution for them.

The attempt to target the ill, disabled and unwell, many of whom are on the 7.5m NHS waiting list for treatment, in order to increase the pool of workers is not really going to tackle the underlying issues but will give them an opportunity to attack another minority and stir up some more right wing rhetoric. It buys them time until the next election but the core issue remains - we need to expand the current workforce in order to maintain current economic performance and generate growth. Having babies isn't a financially feasible option for many families - low wages and the need for two incomes, childcare costs, housing costs, etc mean many are either not having kids, postpone it till later or only have one. Immigration is probably an easier solution that trying to boost wage growth, sort the housing problem and subsidies childcare costs to be honest.

Maybe a question for a separate thread but is everlasting population growth sustainable or a good thing?

Perhaps we need to figure out how to do equilibrium.

[Paddington Bear]

Student visas tend to be the most abused if I recall correctly?

Yep. Probably over half the unis in this country are a complete pisstake and their model is based on selling a visa, rather than an education. Cheating is rife and the actual education exceptionally poor.

[Paddington Bear]

Net migration hit nearly 700,000 last year, seems sustainable

Brief thread breaking down the headline figure. Driven largely by work Visa (largely in Health and Care). Number that struck me though was the huge increase in student visas compared to 2019.

Get used to it folks - UK birth rate is dropping like a stone, about 1.6 births per woman whereas we need the proverbial 2.1 births to maintain pop levels plus demographic of UK population post baby boomers means size of working population with immigration is at best stagnant and more likely falling. In order to just maintain economy let alone grow we need increasing migration numbers. Post Brexit this means that the balance of our immigration has shifted with less from EU and the majority coming from outside the EU. We know that many businesses are really struggling for staff post Brexit and post covid.

The problem for our current Tory Gov is having used the 'stop the boats' and 'immigration' as a problem to appeal to the 'slightly' racist right wing of their party and their populist approach they are cornered - either reduce immigration and strangle business growth, let it continue at these levels and piss off their gammon base with broken promises or rethink their whole stance on Freedom of Movement (Brexit) and allow greater immigration of the slightly more acceptable workers to their voters (ie more white but still foreigners) into the country. I am not sure I see a solution for them.

The attempt to target the ill, disabled and unwell, many of whom are on the 7.5m NHS waiting list for treatment, in order to increase the pool of workers is not really going to tackle the underlying issues but will give them an opportunity to attack another minority and stir up some more right wing rhetoric. It buys them time until the next election but the core issue remains - we need to expand the current workforce in order to maintain current economic performance and generate growth. Having babies isn't a financially feasible option for many families - low wages and the need for two incomes, childcare costs, housing costs, etc mean many are either not having kids, postpone it till later or only have one. Immigration is probably an easier solution that trying to boost wage growth, sort the housing problem and subsidies childcare costs to be honest.

How does expanding the workforce lead to growth in an economy where wages are stagnant?

[Uncle fester]

Brief thread breaking down the headline figure. Driven largely by work Visa (largely in Health and Care). Number that struck me though was the huge increase in student visas compared to 2019.

Get used to it folks - UK birth rate is dropping like a stone, about 1.6 births per woman whereas we need the proverbial 2.1 births to maintain pop levels plus demographic of UK population post baby boomers means size of working population with immigration is at best stagnant and more likely falling. In order to just maintain economy let alone grow we need increasing migration numbers. Post Brexit this means that the balance of our immigration has shifted with less from EU and the majority coming from outside the EU. We know that many businesses are really struggling for staff post Brexit and post covid.

The problem for our current Tory Gov is having used the 'stop the boats' and 'immigration' as a problem to appeal to the 'slightly' racist right wing of their party and their populist approach they are cornered - either reduce immigration and strangle business growth, let it continue at these levels and piss off their gammon base with broken promises or rethink their whole stance on Freedom of Movement (Brexit) and allow greater immigration of the slightly more acceptable workers to their voters (ie more white but still foreigners) into the country. I am not sure I see a solution for them.

The attempt to target the ill, disabled and unwell, many of whom are on the 7.5m NHS waiting list for treatment, in order to increase the pool of workers is not really going to tackle the underlying issues but will give them an opportunity to attack another minority and stir up some more right wing rhetoric. It buys them time until the next election but the core issue remains - we need to expand the current workforce in order to maintain current economic performance and generate growth. Having babies isn't a financially feasible option for many families - low wages and the need for two incomes, childcare costs, housing costs, etc mean many are either not having kids, postpone it till later or only have one. Immigration is probably an easier solution that trying to boost wage growth, sort the housing problem and subsidies childcare costs to be honest.

How does expanding the workforce lead to growth in an economy where wages are stagnant?

It adds consumers and keeps inflation down?
Seems a bit pyramid schemey to me.

[_Os_]

Lets see what the London liberal metropolitan elite have to say. Nothing new, Sun/Mail/Telegraph/Times continue to morph into the same loony publication.

[Paddington Bear]

Get used to it folks - UK birth rate is dropping like a stone, about 1.6 births per woman whereas we need the proverbial 2.1 births to maintain pop levels plus demographic of UK population post baby boomers means size of working population with immigration is at best stagnant and more likely falling. In order to just maintain economy let alone grow we need increasing migration numbers. Post Brexit this means that the balance of our immigration has shifted with less from EU and the majority coming from outside the EU. We know that many businesses are really struggling for staff post Brexit and post covid.

The problem for our current Tory Gov is having used the 'stop the boats' and 'immigration' as a problem to appeal to the 'slightly' racist right wing of their party and their populist approach they are cornered - either reduce immigration and strangle business growth, let it continue at these levels and piss off their gammon base with broken promises or rethink their whole stance on Freedom of Movement (Brexit) and allow greater immigration of the slightly more acceptable workers to their voters (ie more white but still foreigners) into the country. I am not sure I see a solution for them.

The attempt to target the ill, disabled and unwell, many of whom are on the 7.5m NHS waiting list for treatment, in order to increase the pool of workers is not really going to tackle the underlying issues but will give them an opportunity to attack another minority and stir up some more right wing rhetoric. It buys them time until the next election but the core issue remains - we need to expand the current workforce in order to maintain current economic performance and generate growth. Having babies isn't a financially feasible option for many families - low wages and the need for two incomes, childcare costs, housing costs, etc mean many are either not having kids, postpone it till later or only have one. Immigration is probably an easier solution that trying to boost wage growth, sort the housing problem and subsidies childcare costs to be honest.

How does expanding the workforce lead to growth in an economy where wages are stagnant?

It adds consumers and keeps inflation down?
Seems a bit pyramid schemey to me.

Pretty much. Expanding population = growth but not per capita, quite the opposite. Plus when you have a housing crisis and strained public services it reduces quality of life. Oh, and not unreasonably these people then tend to want to stay in the country and not fuck off, so they need pensions and care etc etc. The whole thing is madness and if we stopped to look at it sensibly rather than as a political prop we’d change course dramatically

[_Os_]

Pretty much. Expanding population = growth but not per capita, quite the opposite. Plus when you have a housing crisis and strained public services it reduces quality of life. Oh, and not unreasonably these people then tend to want to stay in the country and not fuck off, so they need pensions and care etc etc. The whole thing is madness and if we stopped to look at it sensibly rather than as a political prop we’d change course dramatically

The only person with a chance of winning that has offered serious economic change post-Thatcher was Corbyn, and look what happened to him. Brown and Miliband both offered some change but nothing like as much, and again look what happened to them. It's why Labour has reverted to the New Labour project of doing their best to pilot the UK economy without changing much (before they get into power that's what it looks like they're offering). Brexit was sold with the lie of deep positive economic change, but is just the same economy operating under worse conditions.

The problem with change is it means people losing out. Some of those who will lose out are the same people who have outsized control over the media, they fund the Tory party and Tufton think tanks, etc. They don't want change other than the destructive type they can profit from (like Brexit), they're happy with how things are. The point of their lives is for their bank balance to keep growing. Not to improve education levels generally and dilute the value of private education along with that, not to undertake any efforts to tax their outsized extreme wealth the scale of which only happens with state support in some form, not to bring anything into state ownership, not to make housing affordable and thereby decrease the value of housing generally. They seem to always oppose anything good.

Anyone going up against all that and telling a complex message about what they would change, has no hope. On top of that, my experience is ordinary people are exhausted and disappointed by politics, they're not going to bother listening to anyone talking about sweeping change.

Mass migration is part of the structure of the UK economy since Thatcherism, there's nothing challenging that structure on the horizon for at least a decade. Net immigration at 300k+ per year into the 2030s it is then.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

How does expanding the workforce lead to growth in an economy where wages are stagnant?

It adds consumers and keeps inflation down?
Seems a bit pyramid schemey to me.

Pretty much. Expanding population = growth but not per capita, quite the opposite. Plus when you have a housing crisis and strained public services it reduces quality of life. Oh, and not unreasonably these people then tend to want to stay in the country and not fuck off, so they need pensions and care etc etc. The whole thing is madness and if we stopped to look at it sensibly rather than as a political prop we’d change course dramatically

There's precious little data to support that. Per capita earnings are what they are, so you simply have more or less bodies generating more or less GDP.

There are plenty of claims from populist racists that immigration is to blame for poor productivity and/or inequality, unsurprisingly the populist racists are full of shit

[Hal Jordan]

Net migration hit nearly 700,000 last year, seems sustainable

Given that Wiff Waff Syed was recently touting Replacement Theory bullshit in an opinion piece lately, and I've seen a couple of identikit Tara Trust Fund-Poshingley types bemoaning girls of their age not having kids, I for one welcome our new rape gang unemployed benefits budging mansion dwelling job stealing immigrant overlords to look after me in the old folks home in a few years' time.

[dpedin]

Pretty much. Expanding population = growth but not per capita, quite the opposite. Plus when you have a housing crisis and strained public services it reduces quality of life. Oh, and not unreasonably these people then tend to want to stay in the country and not fuck off, so they need pensions and care etc etc. The whole thing is madness and if we stopped to look at it sensibly rather than as a political prop we’d change course dramatically

The only person with a chance of winning that has offered serious economic change post-Thatcher was Corbyn, and look what happened to him. Brown and Miliband both offered some change but nothing like as much, and again look what happened to them. It's why Labour has reverted to the New Labour project of doing their best to pilot the UK economy without changing much (before they get into power that's what it looks like they're offering). Brexit was sold with the lie of deep positive economic change, but is just the same economy operating under worse conditions.

The problem with change is it means people losing out. Some of those who will lose out are the same people who have outsized control over the media, they fund the Tory party and Tufton think tanks, etc. They don't want change other than the destructive type they can profit from (like Brexit), they're happy with how things are. The point of their lives is for their bank balance to keep growing. Not to improve education levels generally and dilute the value of private education along with that, not to undertake any efforts to tax their outsized extreme wealth the scale of which only happens with state support in some form, not to bring anything into state ownership, not to make housing affordable and thereby decrease the value of housing generally. They seem to always oppose anything good.

Anyone going up against all that and telling a complex message about what they would change, has no hope. On top of that, my experience is ordinary people are exhausted and disappointed by politics, they're not going to bother listening to anyone talking about sweeping change.

Mass migration is part of the structure of the UK economy since Thatcherism, there's nothing challenging that structure on the horizon for at least a decade. Net immigration at 300k+ per year into the 2030s it is then.

Perhaps the way I phrased it was poor but I wasn't saying we need to expand population nor expand the total workforce ad infinitum but rather our current workforce is insufficient to meet current demand and we need to expand it from its current base because we are losing more people from the workforce than are joining it ie falling birth rates over last 20 years, barriers to entering the workforce, etc plus more are not participating due to ill health etc post covid and due to NHS waiting lists. The reduction in the available workforce trend is continuing for next few years due to birth rates, illness, demographics, etc and the only way to maintain economic output and support growth rates is going to be increasing immigration to supplement the workforce. The Gov have tried ways of increasing participation in the workforce ie pushing retiral age to 67, increasing sanctions on unemployed and reducing out of work benefits to below subsistence levels, etc but at the end of the day these have not been anywhere sufficient enough to bridge the gap.

The demographics will determine what we need to do - without increased immigration to support the workforce we need then all sorts of services will become stretched and collapse. H&SC is a classic example, as our population gets older due to the baby boomer bulge demand for health and social care will grow beyond current capacity which in turn is determined by the available workforce. We cannot recruit to roles in these sectors from within the UK - hence the increase in immigration in these jobs as seen in latest figures - this used to be from within EU and now from outside the EU. As the percentage of older people in our population gets bigger we can either use immigration to bolster our workforce capacity or else we can just limit the services we offer. This means NHS waiting lists getting longer (already happening and wouldn't be solved by changing NHS funding model) and care not being delivered to older folk or disabled. Of course everyone cries out increased productivity via different ways of working or IT/AI is the answer but this would only deliver marginal gains - you still need someone to get you out of bed, wipe your arse, feed you, etc. The UK already has the lowest number of beds, doctors and nurses compared with comparable EU countries and we already have the highest, and probably dangerous, levels of bed occupancy in Europe.

The baby boomer bulge will move through the system but it will take longer than many think due to increased in life expectancy. By 2030 all baby boomers will be 65+ so it might be another 20 years beyond that before the bulge flattens out. Although covid and let the bodies pile high may have an impact, we see more folk living longer and as a result we have more folk with dementia, alzheimers, multiple episodes of cancer, joint replacements, heart valves, etc all of which pushes up H&SC demand.

The lack of housing and poor social services are not necessarily a function of growing population demand, that is part of it, but are also a function of political decisions about how we fund, run and value these sectors. Housing stock in England has grown over 2000-2020 by 15%, population growth in England was roughly the same so it is more about what housing we have, where it is, how affordable are they, what type they are, what condition they are in, impact of private rental market, AirB&B, etc etc. To try and link increased immigration to problems in the housing market is easy and attractive to some but it ain't the real driver of the housing issues we have.

The politics are one thing but the demographics of the UK population are pretty much baked in and to ignore the consequences of them is blinkered at best. The politicians will need to get real about the consequences of the UK demographics and there will be choices that will need to be made. Wanting immigration to come down in the hope it helps the housing market might mean you are also consigning your granny and grandad to a years of pain if they cant get their operation to replace their hip joint for 2-3 years and they might need to sit in their own pee and shit for longer if there is no-one to work in their care home or to do their home visit 4 times a day? Its all about choices!

[Paddington Bear]

Net migration hit nearly 700,000 last year, seems sustainable

Given that Wiff Waff Syed was recently touting Replacement Theory bullshit in an opinion piece lately, and I've seen a couple of identikit Tara Trust Fund-Poshingley types bemoaning girls of their age not having kids, I for one welcome our new rape gang unemployed benefits budging mansion dwelling job stealing immigrant overlords to look after me in the old folks home in a few years' time.

All fun and games, but correct me if I’m wrong, immigrants get old too? So we end up back at square one. This doesn’t work

[weegie01]

Getting reliable up to date comparisons is difficult but HoC report in 2022 showed that the UK spends a smaller % of GDP on state pensions than the average OECD level and most comparisons show the UK state pension is one of the lowest amongst comparable EU countries when expressed as a % of average earnings of each country. We also have to work longer than many other European countries before we can access the state pension. The UK also has a growing rate of pensioner poverty (less than 40% of median incomes) and 1 in 20 pensioners are now living in poverty.

But as the same report pointed out, direct comparisons are difficult.

Looking at retirement income provided by the state gives an inaccurate comparison of income in retirement. The World Bank 'three pillar' model looking at all sources of retirement income is more accurate. It is quite startling the degree to which in some countries pensioners are dependant on state provision and almost nothing else, whereas in others, such as the UK, there is a relatively high degree of income from other sources such as occupational pensions, personal pensions etc.

Taking everything into account, the UK comes out OK with a median income in retirement of 58% of in work income which is just under the OECD average. Being just under the OECD average is not a great place to be, but it is a far better position than the impression given by just looking at state provision only when we are very poor both in absolute and relative to GDP terms.

As for working longer, whilst it is true that once known plans are complete the UK retirement age of 68 will be the highest, there is a whole host on 67. And for some of those more years of work are required.

None of this matters of course for those for whom the state pension is their only source of income.

I don't have a problem with a system that in effect says that those who can afford it should at least part fund their own retirement. The issue is the safety net for those who can't is set too low.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://researchbriefings.files.parliam ... N00290.pdf

[dpedin]

Net migration hit nearly 700,000 last year, seems sustainable

Given that Wiff Waff Syed was recently touting Replacement Theory bullshit in an opinion piece lately, and I've seen a couple of identikit Tara Trust Fund-Poshingley types bemoaning girls of their age not having kids, I for one welcome our new rape gang unemployed benefits budging mansion dwelling job stealing immigrant overlords to look after me in the old folks home in a few years' time.

All fun and games, but correct me if I’m wrong, immigrants get old too? So we end up back at square one. This doesn’t work

It is about the composition of the population as a whole and the balance between the young, the working age and the old. Currently the UK is seeing those born in the post war and early 60's baby booms coming to retirement age. Couple this with the birth rate in UK has been at historically low rates since 2000 it means we have high retiral rates and low rates of school leavers entering the workforce. We need to ensure we have the ratio of those in workforce age v young/old in the range where the UK is economically viable. One way of looking at it is the number of working age people v number of retired people - the closer that ratio gets to 1:1 then the more shit we are all in! Others use the Dependency ratio which is number of people less than 14 and greater than 65 v those between 15 and 64 (numbers can vary depending on assumptions about school leaving age and retiral age).

At times economies may decide to supplement or actively reduce their working age populations ie immigration, to ensure they have a ratio that is sustainable. My argument would be the UK needs immigration, or preferably FoM, in order to have a sustainable ratio.

[dpedin]

Getting reliable up to date comparisons is difficult but HoC report in 2022 showed that the UK spends a smaller % of GDP on state pensions than the average OECD level and most comparisons show the UK state pension is one of the lowest amongst comparable EU countries when expressed as a % of average earnings of each country. We also have to work longer than many other European countries before we can access the state pension. The UK also has a growing rate of pensioner poverty (less than 40% of median incomes) and 1 in 20 pensioners are now living in poverty.

But as the same report pointed out, direct comparisons are difficult.

Looking at retirement income provided by the state gives an inaccurate comparison of income in retirement. The World Bank 'three pillar' model looking at all sources of retirement income is more accurate. It is quite startling the degree to which in some countries pensioners are dependant on state provision and almost nothing else, whereas in others, such as the UK, there is a relatively high degree of income from other sources such as occupational pensions, personal pensions etc.

Taking everything into account, the UK comes out OK with a median income in retirement of 58% of in work income which is just under the OECD average. Being just under the OECD average is not a great place to be, but it is a far better position than the impression given by just looking at state provision only when we are very poor both in absolute and relative to GDP terms.

As for working longer, whilst it is true that once known plans are complete the UK retirement age of 68 will be the highest, there is a whole host on 67. And for some of those more years of work are required.

None of this matters of course for those for whom the state pension is their only source of income.

I don't have a problem with a system that in effect says that those who can afford it should at least part fund their own retirement. The issue is the safety net for those who can't is set too low.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://researchbriefings.files.parliam ... N00290.pdf

Dont disagree which I why I try and be careful when I use the term 'state pension'. As you suggest the 'safety net', the state pension, has to be at a level that is sufficient for folk to survive on, it currently isn't. If the 'richer' pensioners benefit from this then use other tools such as the taxation system to claw money back to ensure greater equity across the retired population. Keeping pensions low because working folk are fed up of seeing well off pensioners going off on cruises and driving new cars is not the best approach in my mind.

[TheNatalShark]

If the UK has enough housing stock in time, we will see a baby boom when Taylor Swift has sprogs, affordability be damned.

[Biffer]

Tbh it's a shit hole, however true it is it's not really on for the HS to say this in the HOC.

Particularly because it (and many other places) being a shit hole is substantially their fault

Really?
That's certainly not my take at all it's usually because of decades or being ignored and under investment.
I grew up in the South Wales Valleys and the village and surrounding areas really are a shit hole for the reasons mentioned.
Specifically I grew up in the area of the UK with the lowest family income.

My post wasn't clear. The they I'm meaning is the tories, because of decades of under investment.

[Paddington Bear]

Given that Wiff Waff Syed was recently touting Replacement Theory bullshit in an opinion piece lately, and I've seen a couple of identikit Tara Trust Fund-Poshingley types bemoaning girls of their age not having kids, I for one welcome our new rape gang unemployed benefits budging mansion dwelling job stealing immigrant overlords to look after me in the old folks home in a few years' time.

All fun and games, but correct me if I’m wrong, immigrants get old too? So we end up back at square one. This doesn’t work

It is about the composition of the population as a whole and the balance between the young, the working age and the old. Currently the UK is seeing those born in the post war and early 60's baby booms coming to retirement age. Couple this with the birth rate in UK has been at historically low rates since 2000 it means we have high retiral rates and low rates of school leavers entering the workforce. We need to ensure we have the ratio of those in workforce age v young/old in the range where the UK is economically viable. One way of looking at it is the number of working age people v number of retired people - the closer that ratio gets to 1:1 then the more shit we are all in! Others use the Dependency ratio which is number of people less than 14 and greater than 65 v those between 15 and 64 (numbers can vary depending on assumptions about school leaving age and retiral age).

At times economies may decide to supplement or actively reduce their working age populations ie immigration, to ensure they have a ratio that is sustainable. My argument would be the UK needs immigration, or preferably FoM, in order to have a sustainable ratio.

How does a massive increase in student visas and dependents of students being given visas help our dependency ratios?

I’m not arguing against immigration, at manageable levels and with some discerning in the process of issuing visas it is a massive boon. The scale we are seeing is going to collapse large parts of our society in on itself if it carries on much longer

[C69]

Particularly because it (and many other places) being a shit hole is substantially their fault

Really?
That's certainly not my take at all it's usually because of decades or being ignored and under investment.
I grew up in the South Wales Valleys and the village and surrounding areas really are a shit hole for the reasons mentioned.
Specifically I grew up in the area of the UK with the lowest family income.

My post wasn't clear. The they I'm meaning is the tories, because of decades of under investment.