Stop voting for fucking Tories

[_Os_]

Two points to pick up on:
1) ending the triple lock is bad politics but good government IMHO
2) The stuff around usage of 'we' is pretty dodgy stuff. You would absolutely not make the same comment about a commentator who had moved here from, say, India.

1. It looks like some Tories want to turn pensioners into their latest group to attack. Someone on a basic state pension is hardly rolling in it, and they've also put in 30+ years of work. Can't see the sunlit uplands being reached this way.
2. Is your hypothetical Indian guy British?

1) Good. They've had years enough of being winners that they can be not winners for a bit. Working age people should not be expected to subsidise pensions they will not receive themselves for people who are on average wealthier than them already.
2) If he refers to Britain as 'we' probably, same as the bloke in the video.

1. I agree with Mahoney's point. But for me it is about values too, it's not just utilitarian. It may not be nice for you (or me) now, but in any society worth living in the young do actually have a responsibility to care for the old. In the UK that has been outsourced to the state, you can undo that if you wish but the outcome will be younger people having to personally care for their parents and live with them. Libertarians don't get stuff like this, because they don't understand what a society is.

2. I think I probably know UK immigration law better than you, but I'll spare you the text wall. Neither are likely to British if they arrived not long ago (there is residency requirements to naturalise). Both could have a UK passport before they arrived in the UK (but your hypothetical Indian is much less likely to have an ancestry connection). All this is a bit besides the point though, anyone who rocks up (including your hypothetical Indian) and immediately pretends they're of the place they moved to, raises the spoofer alarm from anyone that has also gone through that process. Which was my entire point, he doesn't seem like a serious person. If I met your hypothetical Indian and he started telling me in a thick Indian accent "we" need to axe triple lock pensions, I definitely know what my go to ice breaker would be. It would be as hilarious to me as the Saffas I've met in the UK that want to end immigration. It would be even more hilarious if your hypothetical Indian had been a BJP activist.

[Tichtheid]

He's saying the problem with the UK is there's too much public spending and this is why there's no growth, because once the spending is cut taxes can be cut (and he doesn't say it but then the wealth presumably trickles down). This is nonsense of course, the Tories have tried to cut their way to growth for 12 years. Quality public infrastructure is crucial for economic growth, be it water/power/health. He particularly wants to cut pensions and wants to smash the triple lock, in other words he wants to abolish the link between state pensions and wage/price inflation at a time of high inflation. I'm not even sure about the economics of this, because like Universal Credit claimants, all this money gets used in the real economy and isn't horded, but no matter he wants to punish pensioners to grow the economy.

Quite, and it should be noted that prior to the pandemic our national debt continued to grow both in real terms and as a percentage of GDP (with a few fluctuations) from 2010 to 2020, that was despite huge cuts in services under the banner of “Austerity”.

That money went somewhere, it certainly didn’t go to the economy on the ground where it gets reinvested and spent locally, as opposed to being syphoned offshore when it goes to the wealthier individuals and corporations.

[Insane_Homer]

Petition calling for a GE has now had 120,000 more votes than Truss got.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/619781

[I like neeps]

1. It looks like some Tories want to turn pensioners into their latest group to attack. Someone on a basic state pension is hardly rolling in it, and they've also put in 30+ years of work. Can't see the sunlit uplands being reached this way.
2. Is your hypothetical Indian guy British?

1) Good. They've had years enough of being winners that they can be not winners for a bit. Working age people should not be expected to subsidise pensions they will not receive themselves for people who are on average wealthier than them already.
2) If he refers to Britain as 'we' probably, same as the bloke in the video.

1. I agree with Mahoney's point. But for me it is about values too, it's not just utilitarian. It may not be nice for you (or me) now, but in any society worth living in the young do actually have a responsibility to care for the old. In the UK that has been outsourced to the state, you can undo that if you wish but the outcome will be younger people having to personally care for their parents and live with them. Libertarians don't get stuff like this, because they don't understand what a society is.

2. I think I probably know UK immigration law better than you, but I'll spare you the text wall. Neither are likely to British if they arrived not long ago (there is residency requirements to naturalise). Both could have a UK passport before they arrived in the UK (but your hypothetical Indian is much less likely to have an ancestry connection). All this is a bit besides the point though, anyone who rocks up (including your hypothetical Indian) and immediately pretends they're of the place they moved to, raises the spoofer alarm from anyone that has also gone through that process. Which was my entire point, he doesn't seem like a serious person. If I met your hypothetical Indian and he started telling me in a thick Indian accent "we" need to axe triple lock pensions, I definitely know what my go to ice breaker would be. It would be as hilarious to me as the Saffas I've met in the UK that want to end immigration. It would be even more hilarious if your hypothetical Indian had been a BJP activist.

On 1 - pensions are a mess because they aren't changed in line with living expectancy. Pensions were never designed to pay for twenty year retirements. It's a real issue.

[PCPhil]

Np. The way they’re going with the NHS is sorting that pickle out.

[Paddington Bear]

1. It looks like some Tories want to turn pensioners into their latest group to attack. Someone on a basic state pension is hardly rolling in it, and they've also put in 30+ years of work. Can't see the sunlit uplands being reached this way.
2. Is your hypothetical Indian guy British?

1) Good. They've had years enough of being winners that they can be not winners for a bit. Working age people should not be expected to subsidise pensions they will not receive themselves for people who are on average wealthier than them already.
2) If he refers to Britain as 'we' probably, same as the bloke in the video.

1. I agree with Mahoney's point. But for me it is about values too, it's not just utilitarian. It may not be nice for you (or me) now, but in any society worth living in the young do actually have a responsibility to care for the old. In the UK that has been outsourced to the state, you can undo that if you wish but the outcome will be younger people having to personally care for their parents and live with them. Libertarians don't get stuff like this, because they don't understand what a society is.

2. I think I probably know UK immigration law better than you, but I'll spare you the text wall. Neither are likely to British if they arrived not long ago (there is residency requirements to naturalise). Both could have a UK passport before they arrived in the UK (but your hypothetical Indian is much less likely to have an ancestry connection). All this is a bit besides the point though, anyone who rocks up (including your hypothetical Indian) and immediately pretends they're of the place they moved to, raises the spoofer alarm from anyone that has also gone through that process. Which was my entire point, he doesn't seem like a serious person. If I met your hypothetical Indian and he started telling me in a thick Indian accent "we" need to axe triple lock pensions, I definitely know what my go to ice breaker would be. It would be as hilarious to me as the Saffas I've met in the UK that want to end immigration. It would be even more hilarious if your hypothetical Indian had been a BJP activist.

Your identity is yours, of course, but it is not a universal opinion. Nor is national identity tied to your passport, place of birth or accent. I've met people like yourself who have lived here a long time and like you would not call themselves British. Equally I know plenty of people not born here who you would come to blows with if you said that they were not British (incidentally including people born in both India and SA). Within reason its a personal decision and not tied to whether I love a person's politics or not (I'm no fan of the IEA).
I also have cousins born to two British parents and raised overseas, not seeing England until their late teens. They still have an accent but are they less British than I am? They don't 'get' growing up in Britain in the timescale we were kids and miss some cultural references as a result, but for all material purposes they are as British as I am.

RE: Pensions there's a major, major difference between supporting scrapping the triple lock and taking a hatchet to the state pension.

[PCPhil]

This lot would like to cut out the middle man and take an axe straight to the pensioners.

[dpedin]

1) Good. They've had years enough of being winners that they can be not winners for a bit. Working age people should not be expected to subsidise pensions they will not receive themselves for people who are on average wealthier than them already.
2) If he refers to Britain as 'we' probably, same as the bloke in the video.

1. I agree with Mahoney's point. But for me it is about values too, it's not just utilitarian. It may not be nice for you (or me) now, but in any society worth living in the young do actually have a responsibility to care for the old. In the UK that has been outsourced to the state, you can undo that if you wish but the outcome will be younger people having to personally care for their parents and live with them. Libertarians don't get stuff like this, because they don't understand what a society is.

2. I think I probably know UK immigration law better than you, but I'll spare you the text wall. Neither are likely to British if they arrived not long ago (there is residency requirements to naturalise). Both could have a UK passport before they arrived in the UK (but your hypothetical Indian is much less likely to have an ancestry connection). All this is a bit besides the point though, anyone who rocks up (including your hypothetical Indian) and immediately pretends they're of the place they moved to, raises the spoofer alarm from anyone that has also gone through that process. Which was my entire point, he doesn't seem like a serious person. If I met your hypothetical Indian and he started telling me in a thick Indian accent "we" need to axe triple lock pensions, I definitely know what my go to ice breaker would be. It would be as hilarious to me as the Saffas I've met in the UK that want to end immigration. It would be even more hilarious if your hypothetical Indian had been a BJP activist.

On 1 - pensions are a mess because they aren't changed in line with living expectancy. Pensions were never designed to pay for twenty year retirements. It's a real issue.

We need to differentiate between state and private pension provision.

The UK state pension is one of the lowest in the EU. The basic pension for a single person is £185 per week, £9,620 pa. As a % of GDP the UK pension provision is in the lowest 25% when compared with OECD countries. Many countries have a lower retiral age than the UK. Although many pensioners will have other forms of pensions or savings, 1 in 3 pensioners rely on their state pension only and are now struggling to heat and eat.

Whilst I agree private pension provision needs to be reviewed to even imply the state pension means pensioners live in luxury is just nonsense, many can't survive on what they get and live in relative poverty. If the Tories think that not increasing state pensions in line with inflation, however you measure it, is ok to balance the books then they are soulless, heartless ghouls. However we knew that already.

This is standard Tory tactics of getting working class folk to fight amongst each other - the young v the old, the employed v the unemployed, the Brits v the immigrants, the north v the south, etc - whilst they continue to asset strip the UK. We need and can afford both decent state pensions and ensuring working folk have a decent take home living wage, its all about the decisions we make on redistribution of wealth. Don't fall for the Tory shite guys!

[SaintK]

She's going to carry on undaunted.

Liz Truss is preparing to push ahead with an unlimited number of “investment zones” despite a row within the government that it could hand an uncosted blank cheque of tax breaks to businesses.

The Treasury is believed to have raised concerns about “carpet bombing the entire country” with investment zones, with the government about to announce an appeal for areas to apply within days – as the Conservatives prepare for their annual conference in Birmingham.

However, Whitehall officials, including in the Treasury, are extremely concerned about the potential liability of not capping the number of areas allowed to get favourable tax and planning treatment. There is also concern that some of the tax breaks under consideration will last for 10 years.

[I like neeps]

1. I agree with Mahoney's point. But for me it is about values too, it's not just utilitarian. It may not be nice for you (or me) now, but in any society worth living in the young do actually have a responsibility to care for the old. In the UK that has been outsourced to the state, you can undo that if you wish but the outcome will be younger people having to personally care for their parents and live with them. Libertarians don't get stuff like this, because they don't understand what a society is.

2. I think I probably know UK immigration law better than you, but I'll spare you the text wall. Neither are likely to British if they arrived not long ago (there is residency requirements to naturalise). Both could have a UK passport before they arrived in the UK (but your hypothetical Indian is much less likely to have an ancestry connection). All this is a bit besides the point though, anyone who rocks up (including your hypothetical Indian) and immediately pretends they're of the place they moved to, raises the spoofer alarm from anyone that has also gone through that process. Which was my entire point, he doesn't seem like a serious person. If I met your hypothetical Indian and he started telling me in a thick Indian accent "we" need to axe triple lock pensions, I definitely know what my go to ice breaker would be. It would be as hilarious to me as the Saffas I've met in the UK that want to end immigration. It would be even more hilarious if your hypothetical Indian had been a BJP activist.

On 1 - pensions are a mess because they aren't changed in line with living expectancy. Pensions were never designed to pay for twenty year retirements. It's a real issue.

We need to differentiate between state and private pension provision.

The UK state pension is one of the lowest in the EU. The basic pension for a single person is £185 per week, £9,620 pa. As a % of GDP the UK pension provision is in the lowest 25% when compared with OECD countries. Many countries have a lower retiral age than the UK. Although many pensioners will have other forms of pensions or savings, 1 in 3 pensioners rely on their state pension only and are now struggling to heat and eat.

Whilst I agree private pension provision needs to be reviewed to even imply the state pension means pensioners live in luxury is just nonsense, many can't survive on what they get and live in relative poverty. If the Tories think that not increasing state pensions in line with inflation, however you measure it, is ok to balance the books then they are soulless, heartless ghouls. However we knew that already.

This is standard Tory tactics of getting working class folk to fight amongst each other - the young v the old, the employed v the unemployed, the Brits v the immigrants, the north v the south, etc - whilst they continue to asset strip the UK. We need and can afford both decent state pensions and ensuring working folk have a decent take home living wage, its all about the decisions we make on redistribution of wealth. Don't fall for the Tory shite guys!

Nobody is implying that. But everyone gets the state pension and many of them do live in luxury. 1/4 of pensioners are millionaires when you factor in asset wealth. More are millionaires than live in poverty in fact. 3 million millionaires Vs 2 million in poverty in fact.

So yes, the state pension is too low to survive on without a private pension and house. But the deal has always been you work, buy a house, invest, retire comfortably. A significant number did that and it's caused a litany of bad.

[_Os_]

Your identity is yours, of course, but it is not a universal opinion. Nor is national identity tied to your passport, place of birth or accent. I've met people like yourself who have lived here a long time and like you would not call themselves British. Equally I know plenty of people not born here who you would come to blows with if you said that they were not British (incidentally including people born in both India and SA). Within reason its a personal decision and not tied to whether I love a person's politics or not (I'm no fan of the IEA).
I also have cousins born to two British parents and raised overseas, not seeing England until their late teens. They still have an accent but are they less British than I am? They don't 'get' growing up in Britain in the timescale we were kids and miss some cultural references as a result, but for all material purposes they are as British as I am.

Come to blows? I seriously doubt it. But that is the point of mockery, it's a dickhead sorting device. If someone from SA wants to say they're British (I know the type exactly) that's fine, if they've got no response other than a fist, then they're a psycho.

What your hypothetical Indian and this reply is about, is about trying to strip this man's actual identity from him. Instead of dealing with the case at hand we now have deracinated hypothetical Indians and Saffas etc. Yes he can self identity as he wishes etc, but he's still rocking up somewhere he's not from and saying pensioners should be made poorer, it's not normal behaviour. I would feel bad just going to a region of SA I have no connection to and doing that. Just like rocking up at a uni you didn't attend, demanding entry into a gathering which doesn't hold your political views, then claiming it's racism when you're turned away, then trying to shut down those opposing political views on free speech grounds, also isn't normal behaviour. This guy profoundly isn't normal. Stick him on Sky News and treat him like an expert then I guess.

[Torquemada 1420]

The Tories here explaining how their budget will help a first time buyer on 30k buying a terraced house in London. I mean, maybe they shouldn't actually communicate more.

Amazing. To achieve that saving, the typical first time buyer on £30k is buying a house at £625,000.

I had to play around to get to that. Buried in the rules is the immediate loss of the 1st time buyer advantage at anything at £1 over the £625k.

[dpedin]

On 1 - pensions are a mess because they aren't changed in line with living expectancy. Pensions were never designed to pay for twenty year retirements. It's a real issue.

We need to differentiate between state and private pension provision.

The UK state pension is one of the lowest in the EU. The basic pension for a single person is £185 per week, £9,620 pa. As a % of GDP the UK pension provision is in the lowest 25% when compared with OECD countries. Many countries have a lower retiral age than the UK. Although many pensioners will have other forms of pensions or savings, 1 in 3 pensioners rely on their state pension only and are now struggling to heat and eat.

Whilst I agree private pension provision needs to be reviewed to even imply the state pension means pensioners live in luxury is just nonsense, many can't survive on what they get and live in relative poverty. If the Tories think that not increasing state pensions in line with inflation, however you measure it, is ok to balance the books then they are soulless, heartless ghouls. However we knew that already.

This is standard Tory tactics of getting working class folk to fight amongst each other - the young v the old, the employed v the unemployed, the Brits v the immigrants, the north v the south, etc - whilst they continue to asset strip the UK. We need and can afford both decent state pensions and ensuring working folk have a decent take home living wage, its all about the decisions we make on redistribution of wealth. Don't fall for the Tory shite guys!

Nobody is implying that. But everyone gets the state pension and many of them do live in luxury. 1/4 of pensioners are millionaires when you factor in asset wealth. More are millionaires than live in poverty in fact. 3 million millionaires Vs 2 million in poverty in fact.

So yes, the state pension is too low to survive on without a private pension and house. But the deal has always been you work, buy a house, invest, retire comfortably. A significant number did that and it's caused a litany of bad.

The state pension is a universal benefit earned by everyone who has contributed to the system. If you have a problem with pensioners with private pensions and big houses and other incomes living in luxury then the solution rests elsewhere ie taxation. Suggesting the state pension is the issue is wrong - if pensioners are living in luxury and that is a problem then we need to think about taxation of unearned incomes ie dividends, property taxes, etc. This really isn't anything to do with pensions per se.

[_Os_]

On 1 - pensions are a mess because they aren't changed in line with living expectancy. Pensions were never designed to pay for twenty year retirements. It's a real issue.

We need to differentiate between state and private pension provision.

The UK state pension is one of the lowest in the EU. The basic pension for a single person is £185 per week, £9,620 pa. As a % of GDP the UK pension provision is in the lowest 25% when compared with OECD countries. Many countries have a lower retiral age than the UK. Although many pensioners will have other forms of pensions or savings, 1 in 3 pensioners rely on their state pension only and are now struggling to heat and eat.

Whilst I agree private pension provision needs to be reviewed to even imply the state pension means pensioners live in luxury is just nonsense, many can't survive on what they get and live in relative poverty. If the Tories think that not increasing state pensions in line with inflation, however you measure it, is ok to balance the books then they are soulless, heartless ghouls. However we knew that already.

This is standard Tory tactics of getting working class folk to fight amongst each other - the young v the old, the employed v the unemployed, the Brits v the immigrants, the north v the south, etc - whilst they continue to asset strip the UK. We need and can afford both decent state pensions and ensuring working folk have a decent take home living wage, its all about the decisions we make on redistribution of wealth. Don't fall for the Tory shite guys!

Nobody is implying that. But everyone gets the state pension and many of them do live in luxury. 1/4 of pensioners are millionaires when you factor in asset wealth. More are millionaires than live in poverty in fact. 3 million millionaires Vs 2 million in poverty in fact.

So yes, the state pension is too low to survive on without a private pension and house. But the deal has always been you work, buy a house, invest, retire comfortably. A significant number did that and it's caused a litany of bad.

This is purely about the state pension and the triple lock on it.

Mahoney called it correctly when he said the 2.5% minimum increase was the only potentially unfair lock. The other two locks are inflation linked, wages or prices. As inflation is above 2.5%, breaking that lock will not reduce any spending (again as Mahoney posted). So the point is to break the inflation based locks, and reduce in real terms what pensioners get, making them poorer in real terms to reduce spending. As dpedin has posted many pensioners are basically in poverty already, if you start bringing asset wealth into the equation many pensioners you classify as wealthy will have to liquate assets and consume that wealth until they're poor enough to qualify for the state pension again, they will then have the privilege of living on the non-triple lock state pension in a shit box.

Not sure how any of this magically produces any sustainable growth, it's unlikely pensioners are going to go on a consumption binge. Long term it's not going to incentivise saving (which is directly linked to investment and therefore growth), because people will be punished for doing that.

[fishfoodie]

Thanks Susie

Always good to expand my vocabulary beyond just calling them cunts.

[Ovals]

We need to differentiate between state and private pension provision.

The UK state pension is one of the lowest in the EU. The basic pension for a single person is £185 per week, £9,620 pa. As a % of GDP the UK pension provision is in the lowest 25% when compared with OECD countries. Many countries have a lower retiral age than the UK. Although many pensioners will have other forms of pensions or savings, 1 in 3 pensioners rely on their state pension only and are now struggling to heat and eat.

Whilst I agree private pension provision needs to be reviewed to even imply the state pension means pensioners live in luxury is just nonsense, many can't survive on what they get and live in relative poverty. If the Tories think that not increasing state pensions in line with inflation, however you measure it, is ok to balance the books then they are soulless, heartless ghouls. However we knew that already.

This is standard Tory tactics of getting working class folk to fight amongst each other - the young v the old, the employed v the unemployed, the Brits v the immigrants, the north v the south, etc - whilst they continue to asset strip the UK. We need and can afford both decent state pensions and ensuring working folk have a decent take home living wage, its all about the decisions we make on redistribution of wealth. Don't fall for the Tory shite guys!

Nobody is implying that. But everyone gets the state pension and many of them do live in luxury. 1/4 of pensioners are millionaires when you factor in asset wealth. More are millionaires than live in poverty in fact. 3 million millionaires Vs 2 million in poverty in fact.

So yes, the state pension is too low to survive on without a private pension and house. But the deal has always been you work, buy a house, invest, retire comfortably. A significant number did that and it's caused a litany of bad.

This is purely about the state pension and the triple lock on it.

Mahoney called it correctly when he said the 2.5% minimum increase was the only potentially unfair lock. The other two locks are inflation linked, wages or prices. As inflation is above 2.5%, breaking that lock will not reduce any spending (again as Mahoney posted). So the point is to break the inflation based locks, and reduce in real terms what pensioners get, making them poorer in real terms to reduce spending. As dpedin has posted many pensioners are basically in poverty already, if you start bringing asset wealth into the equation many pensioners you classify as wealthy will have to liquate assets and consume that wealth until they're poor enough to qualify for the state pension again, they will then have the privilege of living on the non-triple lock state pension in a shit box.

Not sure how any of this magically produces any sustainable growth, it's unlikely pensioners are going to go on a consumption binge. Long term it's not going to incentivise saving (which is directly linked to investment and therefore growth), because people will be punished for doing that.

I'm retired and I now spend far more money than I did whilst working - largely because I saved while working, whereas I now don't need to. Us pensioners tend to spend what money we get because you can't take it with you. We've also got more time to fill and that costs money !!

[Torquemada 1420]

1. I agree with Mahoney's point. But for me it is about values too, it's not just utilitarian. It may not be nice for you (or me) now, but in any society worth living in the young do actually have a responsibility to care for the old. In the UK that has been outsourced to the state, you can undo that if you wish but the outcome will be younger people having to personally care for their parents and live with them. Libertarians don't get stuff like this, because they don't understand what a society is.

2. I think I probably know UK immigration law better than you, but I'll spare you the text wall. Neither are likely to British if they arrived not long ago (there is residency requirements to naturalise). Both could have a UK passport before they arrived in the UK (but your hypothetical Indian is much less likely to have an ancestry connection). All this is a bit besides the point though, anyone who rocks up (including your hypothetical Indian) and immediately pretends they're of the place they moved to, raises the spoofer alarm from anyone that has also gone through that process. Which was my entire point, he doesn't seem like a serious person. If I met your hypothetical Indian and he started telling me in a thick Indian accent "we" need to axe triple lock pensions, I definitely know what my go to ice breaker would be. It would be as hilarious to me as the Saffas I've met in the UK that want to end immigration. It would be even more hilarious if your hypothetical Indian had been a BJP activist.

On 1 - pensions are a mess because they aren't changed in line with living expectancy. Pensions were never designed to pay for twenty year retirements. It's a real issue.

We need to differentiate between state and private pension provision.

The UK state pension is one of the lowest in the EU. The basic pension for a single person is £185 per week, £9,620 pa. As a % of GDP the UK pension provision is in the lowest 25% when compared with OECD countries. Many countries have a lower retiral age than the UK. Although many pensioners will have other forms of pensions or savings, 1 in 3 pensioners rely on their state pension only and are now struggling to heat and eat.

Whilst I agree private pension provision needs to be reviewed to even imply the state pension means pensioners live in luxury is just nonsense, many can't survive on what they get and live in relative poverty. If the Tories think that not increasing state pensions in line with inflation, however you measure it, is ok to balance the books then they are soulless, heartless ghouls. However we knew that already.

This is standard Tory tactics of getting working class folk to fight amongst each other - the young v the old, the employed v the unemployed, the Brits v the immigrants, the north v the south, etc - whilst they continue to asset strip the UK. We need and can afford both decent state pensions and ensuring working folk have a decent take home living wage, its all about the decisions we make on redistribution of wealth. Don't fall for the Tory shite guys!

This misses FS schemes. The public sector ones are over £2 trillion (yes, that is TRILLION) in deficit. Greater than the entire national debt. They are the elephant in the room. No Govt has the stomach to tell 6m + public workers that their pensions are effectively bust. And with the margin calls this week, they were almost forced into that declaration which is why the BofE shat its pants and intervened.

The reason the UK State Pension is sh*t is that generations of Governments (both sides of the divide) have simply p*ssed the NI contributions up the wall rather than investing them and so State Pensions are immediate debts. There is no State fund unlike, say, Norway.

This is a complex area. Not all of it is the fault of Government. The Brits' propensity to spaff all their income rather than save a penny is a huge factor in the problem too.

[Tichtheid]

Thanks Susie

Always good to expand my vocabulary beyond just calling them cunts.

Susie is fab

[fishfoodie]

[_Os_]

I'm retired and I now spend far more money than I did whilst working - largely because I saved while working, whereas I now don't need to. Us pensioners tend to spend what money we get because you can't take it with you. We've also got more time to fill and that costs money !!

There seems to be two categories.

The first one the IEA guy and some Tory MPs target, that the triple lock should end to reduce government spending. It's a lot like universal credit though, as you say the money gets put back into the real economy, so reducing this is making people poorer and taking money out of the economy. The poorer the pensioner is the more they're spending, someone relying on a state pension isn't wealthy. The recipient of the tax cut, probably isn't spending as much. And there's the societal cost of making people poorer too, it may not be the tax cut it seems.

The second is about accumulated lifetime wealth (which you seem to be in!). Which for most people is a private pension and their house. Some particularly on the left want to tax this asset wealth, it's something Labour under Starmer are avoiding talking about. Problem there is, why then spend your life saving at all if it's just going to be taken away? This is particularly an issue when people have a lot of wealth locked up in their house on paper, but are actually living poorly (more category one than this category). It's surely morally wrong to punish someone forgoing things when they were younger so they could live more as they wish when they are old.

Growth from forcing pensioners to either not spend (category one) or spend everything earlier (category two), looks illusionary. It seems more like the early stages of creating a new bogeyman to blame for everything, there's the usual bogeyman contradiction too a "the immigrants are taking all the benefits and taking all the jobs" gambit.

It's a fact the young in the UK have been fucked, can't see how fucking the old will change that. It'll really just mean those young people are eventually fucked twice.

[fishfoodie]

The poorer the pensioner is the more they're spending, someone relying on a state pension isn't wealthy. The recipient of the tax cut, probably isn't spending as much. And there's the societal cost of making people poorer too, it may not be the tax cut it seems.

The complete failure to acknowledge this is a sign that you're dealing with Economics based on pig headed dogma; rather than any sensible, or rational desire to use tax payers money efficiently; or God forbid, any basic human decency.

Any impartial analysis will show that it's better to have pensioners, who depend upon their State pension, spending their money on making sure they have adequate heat, & food over the winter; because if even a couple of percent of them end up in hospital, multiples of the; "savings", are pissed away in costs in the NHS, & Social Services etc, etc, etc.

It's just like providing a few pence a day for food for young children, in primary schools; the benefits to society as a whole are life long, but Conservatives prefer to behave like fucking monsters.

[dpedin]

I'm retired and I now spend far more money than I did whilst working - largely because I saved while working, whereas I now don't need to. Us pensioners tend to spend what money we get because you can't take it with you. We've also got more time to fill and that costs money !!

There seems to be two categories.

The first one the IEA guy and some Tory MPs target, that the triple lock should end to reduce government spending. It's a lot like universal credit though, as you say the money gets put back into the real economy, so reducing this is making people poorer and taking money out of the economy. The poorer the pensioner is the more they're spending, someone relying on a state pension isn't wealthy. The recipient of the tax cut, probably isn't spending as much. And there's the societal cost of making people poorer too, it may not be the tax cut it seems.

The second is about accumulated lifetime wealth (which you seem to be in!). Which for most people is a private pension and their house. Some particularly on the left want to tax this asset wealth, it's something Labour under Starmer are avoiding talking about. Problem there is, why then spend your life saving at all if it's just going to be taken away? This is particularly an issue when people have a lot of wealth locked up in their house on paper, but are actually living poorly (more category one than this category). It's surely morally wrong to punish someone forgoing things when they were younger so they could live more as they wish when they are old.

Growth from forcing pensioners to either not spend (category one) or spend everything earlier (category two), looks illusionary. It seems more like the early stages of creating a new bogeyman to blame for everything, there's the usual bogeyman contradiction too a "the immigrants are taking all the benefits and taking all the jobs" gambit.

It's a fact the young in the UK have been fucked, can't see how fucking the old will change that. It'll really just mean those young people are eventually fucked twice.

This

[_Os_]

This misses FS schemes. The public sector ones are over £2 trillion (yes, that is TRILLION) in deficit. Greater than the entire national debt. They are the elephant in the room. No Govt has the stomach to tell 6m + public workers that their pensions are effectively bust. And with the margin calls this week, they were almost forced into that declaration which is why the BofE shat its pants and intervened.

The reason the UK State Pension is sh*t is that generations of Governments (both sides of the divide) have simply p*ssed the NI contributions up the wall rather than investing them and so State Pensions are immediate debts. There is no State fund unlike, say, Norway.

This is a complex area. Not all of it is the fault of Government. The Brits' propensity to spaff all their income rather than save a penny is a huge factor in the problem too.

I think Torq has hit the nail on the head about what the UK needs to do if it actually wants real growth. Saving is linked to investment, which is how growth comes about. If the UK wants growth it needs some variation of the Norway sovereign wealth fund idea, and to stop wasting everything on consumption. Torq is also correct, many people in the UK think National Insurance is that type of fund, but it isn't really.

I know why SA doesn't have this (despite calls for it), everyone knows the thing would be robbed. I do wonder if secretly that's also why the UK doesn't have it.

[dpedin]

On 1 - pensions are a mess because they aren't changed in line with living expectancy. Pensions were never designed to pay for twenty year retirements. It's a real issue.

We need to differentiate between state and private pension provision.

The UK state pension is one of the lowest in the EU. The basic pension for a single person is £185 per week, £9,620 pa. As a % of GDP the UK pension provision is in the lowest 25% when compared with OECD countries. Many countries have a lower retiral age than the UK. Although many pensioners will have other forms of pensions or savings, 1 in 3 pensioners rely on their state pension only and are now struggling to heat and eat.

Whilst I agree private pension provision needs to be reviewed to even imply the state pension means pensioners live in luxury is just nonsense, many can't survive on what they get and live in relative poverty. If the Tories think that not increasing state pensions in line with inflation, however you measure it, is ok to balance the books then they are soulless, heartless ghouls. However we knew that already.

This is standard Tory tactics of getting working class folk to fight amongst each other - the young v the old, the employed v the unemployed, the Brits v the immigrants, the north v the south, etc - whilst they continue to asset strip the UK. We need and can afford both decent state pensions and ensuring working folk have a decent take home living wage, its all about the decisions we make on redistribution of wealth. Don't fall for the Tory shite guys!

This misses FS schemes. The public sector ones are over £2 trillion (yes, that is TRILLION) in deficit. Greater than the entire national debt. They are the elephant in the room. No Govt has the stomach to tell 6m + public workers that their pensions are effectively bust. And with the margin calls this week, they were almost forced into that declaration which is why the BofE shat its pants and intervened.

The reason the UK State Pension is sh*t is that generations of Governments (both sides of the divide) have simply p*ssed the NI contributions up the wall rather than investing them and so State Pensions are immediate debts. There is no State fund unlike, say, Norway.

This is a complex area. Not all of it is the fault of Government. The Brits' propensity to spaff all their income rather than save a penny is a huge factor in the problem too.

FS schemes are disappearing in public sector, however these were part of the overall remuneration package for public servants and many accepted lower salaries on basis of a good FS pension. Public sector employees also forgo a range of other benefits like tax efficient share options, share saving schemes etc that private employers will offer. I have worked in both sectors and know the balance between the various rewards and the type of decision making you have to make in moving between the two. Also the employee contribution to the FS schemes is not insignificant, up to 17-18% of salary in some higher earning cases. Public sector pa net deficit is c0.1 to 0.2% of GDP. It was private sector pension funds that were bailed out by the BoE last week.

Again I would argue that pitting public sector final salary recipients v private sector pension and share options scheme etc recipients is exactly what this Tory gov want to engender - getting them to fight amongst themselves whilst they continue to plunder the UK.

I am not sure it is a 'British' characteristic to spend and not save! I would argue that Gov has a key role in determining spending and saving patterns within the economy through fiscal controls etc over consumption, savings, investments, etc. However I would agree that various UK Govs but particularly this last 12 years we have seen the pursuit of growth through spending rather than slower but safer growth through savings and investments.

[Tichtheid]

Again I would argue that pitting public sector final salary recipients v private sector pension and share options scheme etc recipients is exactly what this Tory gov want to engender - getting them to fight amongst themselves whilst they continue to plunder the UK.

I don't want to repeat the same little analogy that I used before, but at some point, people are going to have to realise that they are being pitted against each other for the benefit of those who are, in effect, thieving from them. From them and from the people they are being told is their enemy, ie other normal working people.

[_Os_]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/-li ... ite-author

This was good from Cohen.

tldr: Liz Truss’s favourite historian is Rick Perlstein, who wrote about the new right and the rise of the Reaganites. Cohen contacted him to ask him what he thought of this, and Truss copying Reagan with his book/s being a big influence. He thinks she's crazy and didn't understand the book/s, because they explain that cutting taxes doesn't produce growth and that it's a lie "all the actually half-way qualified experts on the right knew was nothing but a fairy tale on par with Jack in the Beanstalk. (Do Britty kiddies read that?)", it only boosts national debt and places a new tax on the population in the form of inflation. He cannot believe Truss could read what he wrote and then decide to try it out.

[Torquemada 1420]

FS schemes are disappearing in public sector, however these were part of the overall remuneration package for public servants and many accepted lower salaries on basis of a good FS pension. Public sector employees also forgo a range of other benefits like tax efficient share options, share saving schemes etc that private employers will offer. I have worked in both sectors and know the balance between the various rewards and the type of decision making you have to make in moving between the two. Also the employee contribution to the FS schemes is not insignificant, up to 17-18% of salary in some higher earning cases. Public sector pa net deficit is c0.1 to 0.2% of GDP. It was private sector pension funds that were bailed out by the BoE last week.

Again I would argue that pitting public sector final salary recipients v private sector pension and share options scheme etc recipients is exactly what this Tory gov want to engender - getting them to fight amongst themselves whilst they continue to plunder the UK.

I am not sure it is a 'British' characteristic to spend and not save! I would argue that Gov has a key role in determining spending and saving patterns within the economy through fiscal controls etc over consumption, savings, investments, etc. However I would agree that various UK Govs but particularly this last 12 years we have seen the pursuit of growth through spending rather than slower but safer growth through savings and investments.

1) They aren't disappearing. Not at any rate that is meaningful in the context of a £2trillion deficit. It will take at least half a century for the deaths of existing members ( retired and active) to clear the drain......... IF they don't fold before then. That's approaching £200k per employee.

2) The options you mention are a sideshow. Only a small % of private sector employees benefited from those in any £ meaningful sense i.e. it was another preserve of high earners. Anyway, the key difference is that the private sector is a meritocracy (within the strictures of a capitalist system) and so employees are paid what they are worth. The public sector is the reverse and productivity is an embarrassment in a nation where productivity is an embarrassment.

3) High earners are not paying what you claim.
- Even the latest variant of the NHS pension has Tier 7 capped at 14.5%
- Really high earners cannot pay those levels without breaching the Annual Allowance
And, frankly, it's an irrelevancy. There was no contract to say the rest of us get to bail out the public sector's "gold plated" schemes. BTW, after 2008, the average earnings in the public sector overtook those in the private.

4) It ABSOLUTELY is a British characteristic not to save. At least at generations below mine. I haven't looked in some time (and it's going to have worsened) but the UK is outside the first 100 countries in the world i.e. 3rd world ranking. I don't see how distinguishing the blame between Govt and populace has any meaning in this context. It's rather like obesity: EVERYONE knows it's bad for you and blaming anyone else for being a lard arse is simply shirking responsibility. If you want to die a horrible death from diabetes/cancer/heart disease, be my guest. Just don't ask me to pay for it.The Brits' obsession with houses is a key component in the problem.

5) Yes. I agree with you last sentiment. The whole UK economy has been built upon a debt escalator underpinned by house prices since the 1990s. And I have repeatedly written and warned of the perils of that approach. Printing money like a Banana Republic for 13 years simply compounded the problem.

[C69]

Again I would argue that pitting public sector final salary recipients v private sector pension and share options scheme etc recipients is exactly what this Tory gov want to engender - getting them to fight amongst themselves whilst they continue to plunder the UK.

I don't want to repeat the same little analogy that I used before, but at some point, people are going to have to realise that they are being pitted against each other for the benefit of those who are, in effect, thieving from them. From them and from the people they are being told is their enemy, ie other normal working people.

Indeed. Divide and conquer, twas ever thus.
Out of interest I thought that all the final salary public pensions had now changed to average career salary.
In the NHS there a still a very small amount of staff that can retire at 55 on a final salary pension.
This perk has been phased out but I know in the next couple of years a lot of senior staff who are retiring.

[Raggs]

4) It ABSOLUTELY is a British characteristic not to save. At least at generations below mine. I haven't looked in some time (and it's going to have worsened) but the UK is outside the first 100 countries in the world i.e. 3rd world ranking. I don't see how distinguishing the blame between Govt and populace has any meaning in this context. It's rather like obesity: EVERYONE knows it's bad for you and blaming anyone else for being a lard arse is simply shirking responsibility. If you want to die a horrible death from diabetes/cancer/heart disease, be my guest. Just don't ask me to pay for it.The Brits' obsession with houses is a key component in the problem.

Just on this one, especially more recently, it's because the main reason to save significant sums, was in order to get a deposit for a house. Now that's simply out of reach, there's a big feeling about what's the point in scrimping and saving, when instead life could be a bit more comfortable in the now. It's not as though that saving will achieve anything in the future. Especially with inflation beating a lot of typical interest rates.

[I like neeps]

We need to differentiate between state and private pension provision.

The UK state pension is one of the lowest in the EU. The basic pension for a single person is £185 per week, £9,620 pa. As a % of GDP the UK pension provision is in the lowest 25% when compared with OECD countries. Many countries have a lower retiral age than the UK. Although many pensioners will have other forms of pensions or savings, 1 in 3 pensioners rely on their state pension only and are now struggling to heat and eat.

Whilst I agree private pension provision needs to be reviewed to even imply the state pension means pensioners live in luxury is just nonsense, many can't survive on what they get and live in relative poverty. If the Tories think that not increasing state pensions in line with inflation, however you measure it, is ok to balance the books then they are soulless, heartless ghouls. However we knew that already.

This is standard Tory tactics of getting working class folk to fight amongst each other - the young v the old, the employed v the unemployed, the Brits v the immigrants, the north v the south, etc - whilst they continue to asset strip the UK. We need and can afford both decent state pensions and ensuring working folk have a decent take home living wage, its all about the decisions we make on redistribution of wealth. Don't fall for the Tory shite guys!

Nobody is implying that. But everyone gets the state pension and many of them do live in luxury. 1/4 of pensioners are millionaires when you factor in asset wealth. More are millionaires than live in poverty in fact. 3 million millionaires Vs 2 million in poverty in fact.

So yes, the state pension is too low to survive on without a private pension and house. But the deal has always been you work, buy a house, invest, retire comfortably. A significant number did that and it's caused a litany of bad.

The state pension is a universal benefit earned by everyone who has contributed to the system. If you have a problem with pensioners with private pensions and big houses and other incomes living in luxury then the solution rests elsewhere ie taxation. Suggesting the state pension is the issue is wrong - if pensioners are living in luxury and that is a problem then we need to think about taxation of unearned incomes ie dividends, property taxes, etc. This really isn't anything to do with pensions per se.

Or having thresholds for the state pension of course to bring them in line with social security e.g. benefits.

And the issue is pensions and the care you need to pay for because as said on average people are living far longer and need far higher pension and healthcare spending than was ever envisaged when the state pensions, NHS etc was created. It's only going to get more expensive needing higher tax. It does need a solution sooner rather than later.

[C69]

When the interest rates rocket and mortgagaes and rwnts go throigh the roof.
People may realise that their energy bill increase is a drop in the Ocean
Not to mention a double digit inflation a crumbling Health and Social care system and s country paralysed by strikes.
But at least millionnaires and will be better off and Energy giants have more money than the BOE can print.

Whilst Brish industry collapses

[weegie01]

We need to stop thinking about private and state pensions.

The object should that everyone gets a decent pension. How it is funded depends on a number of factors. There should be legislation to ensure that those who can afford to fund their own pensions do so, either directly or through their employers. Those who cannot are funded by the state, and for many there will be a mixture.

[fishfoodie]

We need to stop thinking about private and state pensions.

The object should that everyone gets a decent pension. How it is funded depends on a number of factors. There should be legislation to ensure that those who can afford to fund their own pensions do so, either directly or through their employers. Those who cannot are funded by the state, and for many there will be a mixture.

This is another one of those political hot potatos that is as bad as it is, because it isn't solveable without multi-party support, & won't be resolved in one Administration.

You need a commission of respected experts to come up with a few proposals, & then have a Referendum, so that people get a choice, however unpalletable, & the Politicians get a mandate to do something unpopular.

[weegie01]

We need to stop thinking about private and state pensions.

The object should that everyone gets a decent pension. How it is funded depends on a number of factors. There should be legislation to ensure that those who can afford to fund their own pensions do so, either directly or through their employers. Those who cannot are funded by the state, and for many there will be a mixture.

This is another one of those political hot potatos that is as bad as it is, because it isn't solveable without multi-party support, & won't be resolved in one Administration.

You need a commission of respected experts to come up with a few proposals, & then have a Referendum, so that people get a choice, however unpalletable, & the Politicians get a mandate to do something unpopular.

I believe politicians underestimate the electorate. Clearly, many people will only do what they see as in their own interests, but most can understand and accept an exposition of a problem, that the answers may cause some pain, and will accept that if they have the confidence the solutions will resolve the issue.

Sadly, I don't think the public have enough faith in politicians to accept they are acting the general public interest.

[SaintK]

Tufton St and the right wing think tanks may want it, I wonder how Tory backbencchers will react?

Simon Clarke, the levelling up minister and a key Liz Truss ally, has told the Times that the market chaos that followed the government’s tax cutting mini-budget would pass and warned that Britain should prepare for a new age of austerity.

Despite the turmoil in financial markets, Clarke said that Truss was “astonishingly resilient” and urged the government to channel the spirit of Margaret Thatcher to push ahead with their vision.

[dpedin]

Tufton St and the right wing think tanks may want it, I wonder how Tory backbencchers will react?

Simon Clarke, the levelling up minister and a key Liz Truss ally, has told the Times that the market chaos that followed the government’s tax cutting mini-budget would pass and warned that Britain should prepare for a new age of austerity.

Despite the turmoil in financial markets, Clarke said that Truss was “astonishingly resilient” and urged the government to channel the spirit of Margaret Thatcher to push ahead with their vision.

Even the Times is questioning the Tufton Street influence - interesting article!

[_Os_]

Tufton St and the right wing think tanks may want it, I wonder how Tory backbencchers will react?

Simon Clarke, the levelling up minister and a key Liz Truss ally, has told the Times that the market chaos that followed the government’s tax cutting mini-budget would pass and warned that Britain should prepare for a new age of austerity.

Despite the turmoil in financial markets, Clarke said that Truss was “astonishingly resilient” and urged the government to channel the spirit of Margaret Thatcher to push ahead with their vision.

Orwellian levels of Tory alternate reality, the Levelling Up minister is now advocating for Austerity MK2 so a tax cutting programme weighted towards the wealthy can (maybe) be accepted by the markets.

Off the charts levels of betrayal. If this goes ahead it's going to become mythical in the minds of many ordinary people in the UK.

[dpedin]

FS schemes are disappearing in public sector, however these were part of the overall remuneration package for public servants and many accepted lower salaries on basis of a good FS pension. Public sector employees also forgo a range of other benefits like tax efficient share options, share saving schemes etc that private employers will offer. I have worked in both sectors and know the balance between the various rewards and the type of decision making you have to make in moving between the two. Also the employee contribution to the FS schemes is not insignificant, up to 17-18% of salary in some higher earning cases. Public sector pa net deficit is c0.1 to 0.2% of GDP. It was private sector pension funds that were bailed out by the BoE last week.

Again I would argue that pitting public sector final salary recipients v private sector pension and share options scheme etc recipients is exactly what this Tory gov want to engender - getting them to fight amongst themselves whilst they continue to plunder the UK.

I am not sure it is a 'British' characteristic to spend and not save! I would argue that Gov has a key role in determining spending and saving patterns within the economy through fiscal controls etc over consumption, savings, investments, etc. However I would agree that various UK Govs but particularly this last 12 years we have seen the pursuit of growth through spending rather than slower but safer growth through savings and investments.

1) They aren't disappearing. Not at any rate that is meaningful in the context of a £2trillion deficit. It will take at least half a century for the deaths of existing members ( retired and active) to clear the drain......... IF they don't fold before then. That's approaching £200k per employee.

2) The options you mention are a sideshow. Only a small % of private sector employees benefited from those in any £ meaningful sense i.e. it was another preserve of high earners. Anyway, the key difference is that the private sector is a meritocracy (within the strictures of a capitalist system) and so employees are paid what they are worth. The public sector is the reverse and productivity is an embarrassment in a nation where productivity is an embarrassment.

3) High earners are not paying what you claim.
- Even the latest variant of the NHS pension has Tier 7 capped at 14.5%
- Really high earners cannot pay those levels without breaching the Annual Allowance
And, frankly, it's an irrelevancy. There was no contract to say the rest of us get to bail out the public sector's "gold plated" schemes. BTW, after 2008, the average earnings in the public sector overtook those in the private.

4) It ABSOLUTELY is a British characteristic not to save. At least at generations below mine. I haven't looked in some time (and it's going to have worsened) but the UK is outside the first 100 countries in the world i.e. 3rd world ranking. I don't see how distinguishing the blame between Govt and populace has any meaning in this context. It's rather like obesity: EVERYONE knows it's bad for you and blaming anyone else for being a lard arse is simply shirking responsibility. If you want to die a horrible death from diabetes/cancer/heart disease, be my guest. Just don't ask me to pay for it.The Brits' obsession with houses is a key component in the problem.

5) Yes. I agree with you last sentiment. The whole UK economy has been built upon a debt escalator underpinned by house prices since the 1990s. And I have repeatedly written and warned of the perils of that approach. Printing money like a Banana Republic for 13 years simply compounded the problem.

I see you ignored my correction about your statement that the BoE was bailing out FS pensions?

1. It will take time but most sectors have now moved from FS schemes, the NHS is now based on average salary scheme, revised accrual rates and an increased retiral age = to state pension age. I suspect when you say FS schemes you really mean DP schemes? There is no pension fund for these schemes - they are paid out of contributions received from current employees. (Note: Local Gov schemes are funded) They are not designed to balance - the Treasury makes up any deficit but also receives any surplus. OBR have said the public sector pension costs relative to the size of the UK economy will drop from 2.1% of GDP to 1.5% of GDP over the next 30+ years due to the pension reforms above.

2. In the same way only a small % of those on public sector pension get a large pension - the average nurse pension is £14,500 given they will have taken time off for children, worked part time etc. The average pension paid across the four main sectors - NHS, teachers, Armed Forces and Civil Service was £10,008 pa. The fallacy of large gold plated private pensions is a myth for the vast majority of public sector workers. To suggest their pensions are a major problem is just nonsense. However how the Gov have managed them is another issue ...

3. Senior Firemen high earners pay 17% of their salary towards their pension. You are right in that NHS consultants pay 14.5%. Many senior staff in the NHS and other public sector services do breach their annual and/or lifetime allowance. My golfing buddy, an NHS consultant, got a bill from HMRC for £15,000 last month for 2020-21 financial year for breaching their allowances. There was a concept of a 'Psychological Contract' in public sector employment - look it up. OK it was not written down but it played a big part in people deciding to work and stay in public service based on contributing to the public good and the receipt of a rock solid pension.

4. Again I would argue that the Gov set the environment in which we live and have the fiscal powers to set the conditions in which people decide to save or spend. You then conflate the discussion into obesity and housing somehow, I won't bother talking about Public Health, public sector housing provision, etc.

5. I agree about the obsession about housing however if we had a solid and reliable source of good quality social housing owned and rented by councils or suchlike and rental was protected then I would imagine we might return to the days when living in a council house was normal and not anything to be ashamed of? However our current rental stock is dominated by private renters where stock is generally very poor and rental is a precarious situation at best and is often more expensive than owning your own house. I grew up in council houses.

However we digress ....

[_Os_]

Even the Times is questioning the Tufton Street influence - interesting article!

This is the bit I find most incredible about the Tory alternate reality:

"Julian Jessop
Jessop has been advising Truss on economic policy and is an economics fellow of the IEA. He told Bloomberg that Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng “are challenging the orthodoxy and that’s bound to wind up a lot of people”."

All this stuff about challenging the orthodoxy and being revolutionaries without saying it. Reaganism and Thatcherism had their day, their failings have become more obvious over time. The Tories want to reimpose an old failed orthodoxy, in conditions which are completely different. It's also not thought out, Truss and Kamikhazi had a decade to come up with something substantial and what they have is slogans without substance leaving them struggling to pack their parachute and get it on after they've jumped out of the plane. If they were as impressive as they think, they would've understood the failings of past iterations of their ideology and come up with solutions to form something new, instead they're zealots that see no failings and simply repeat slogans. Something odd happens because of this unserious approach, austerity/tax cuts for some/increased debt, is more or less the Tory programme for the last 12 years. It starts looking more like turbocharging the orthodoxy they say they oppose.

It's also self protecting. The more people say "you are morons" the more they think they are right, because they define themselves against the orthodoxy, being the outsider is their validation. This is incidentally exactly how conspiracy theories work.

[SaintK]

Old Etonian politician acting like an entitled twat shock, horror

In recent years, Bill Gates held a roundtable discussion to which Kwasi Kwarteng was invited as a senior minister.
The billionaire was hosting the meeting, surrounded by high-profile guests. But according to observers, when Kwarteng turned up, he began to act as if he was the one in charge of the meeting “offering his opinion on everything” and “lecturing” Gates about the businessman’s own expert subject. It was “bizarre and embarrassing” to watch, according to one person with knowledge of the episode.
One former cabinet minister who worked with Kwarteng as business secretary described him as having “the concentration span of a gnat” and an inability to sit through anything other than very short meetings. “He was never remotely interested in other people’s point of view,” the former minister said.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ ... 4622188