Snap General Election called

[Banquo]

Genuine question. Was there ever a time when pensions were paid from the profits of just the company you worked for?

I believe that was the case some time ago. Larger companies would have had in-house pension schemes based on a final salary package. Many of these were scrapped as they became unaffordable.

The situation in this country now for many is that the employee pays a percentage of their salary and the company pays a percentage, often double. The administration and investment of that is managed by a third party. Benefit here is that all companies can now provide a pension rather than just the big players.

yep, a lot of companies, like BT, have a massively unaffordable final salary scheme (with a massive black hole in it- they have to pump a lot of profit into that just to keep it just about alive) for millions and a parallel money purchase schemes with employer putting roughly double what the employer contributes.

[canta_brian]

I figured it must have been this sort of thing. I guess the issue now is that a lot of pension funds piggyback on the profits of a small number of very big companies. This in turn makes those companies too big to fail, which can’t really be good for competition and innovation. And when it’s the oil industry, it acts against environmental concerns.

A bit of a sticky wicket

[Banquo]

I figured it must have been this sort of thing. I guess the issue now is that a lot of pension funds piggyback on the profits of a small number of very big companies. This in turn makes those companies too big to fail, which can’t really be good for competition and innovation. And when it’s the oil industry, it acts against environmental concerns.

A bit of a sticky wicket

There are many variations of pension funds though and you can switch between ethical, growth etc etc. But most funds must have a solid core of return on them by default- which fund you choose depends on your own attitude to risk- there will also be gilts in there.

[Banquo]

I figured it must have been this sort of thing. I guess the issue now is that a lot of pension funds piggyback on the profits of a small number of very big companies. This in turn makes those companies too big to fail, which can’t really be good for competition and innovation. And when it’s the oil industry, it acts against environmental concerns.

A bit of a sticky wicket

There are many variations of pension funds though and you can switch between ethical, growth etc etc. But most funds must have a solid core of return on them by default- which fund you choose depends on your own attitude to risk- there will also be gilts in there.

[Sandydragon]

I figured it must have been this sort of thing. I guess the issue now is that a lot of pension funds piggyback on the profits of a small number of very big companies. This in turn makes those companies too big to fail, which can’t really be good for competition and innovation. And when it’s the oil industry, it acts against environmental concerns.

A bit of a sticky wicket

It really depends. Most invest in a variety of markets and sectors to spread the risk. No doubt there are big companies in there but I think there are a variety of options. With Coop you could choose to be ethical for example and not invest in certain areas. Not sure most people are that bothered and just take an option based on the level of risk they wish to take.

[Which Tyler]

Sadly, truth just doesn't matter any more


Politicians have always misled, and told half-truths, but this barefaced lying is new

ETA: FTR, she's also lying about the IMF forecast: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO ... tober-2022
Japan 1.7
Canada 1.5
Spain 1.2
USA 1.0
France 0.7
UK 0.3
Italy -0.2
Germany -0.3

[Son of Mathonwy]

Sadly, truth just doesn't matter any more


Politicians have always misled, and told half-truths, but this barefaced lying is new

ETA: FTR, she's also lying about the IMF forecast: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO ... tober-2022
Japan 1.7
Canada 1.5
Spain 1.2
USA 1.0
France 0.7
UK 0.3
Italy -0.2
Germany -0.3

There's always something to change the focus to. Past growth, projected growth. Every time GDP falls it means they can look forward to a big projected growth when the economy recovers again (even if the recovery is poor it will look big if the dip was deep enough). Johnson never got tired of saying how quickly our economy grew after covid but that was because it had contracted further than everyone else's (and still it has not completely recovered). What we need to look at are longer term charts with comparatives (just like in the video).

[Puja]

This is excellent. A Tory MP asks Suella Bravermann a direct and simple question about our asylum system and doesn't allow her to deflect, bullshit, or obfuscate, and she flounders badly. Not even competent enough to defend the current system and yet she claims that she can "fix" it by making it more onerous. There's absolutely nothing to her - she's a Daily Mail headline incarnated into the body of a woman.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

[Sandydragon]

This is excellent. A Tory MP asks Suella Bravermann a direct and simple question about our asylum system and doesn't allow her to deflect, bullshit, or obfuscate, and she flounders badly. Not even competent enough to defend the current system and yet she claims that she can "fix" it by making it more onerous. There's absolutely nothing to her - she's a Daily Mail headline incarnated into the body of a woman.

Puja

That is painful. She is utterly unable to openly state that, a small number of specific countries aside, there is no legal way to claim asylum in this country if you are fleeing persecution. Yet 75% of those who land in the UK via small boats are granted asylum on the basis that they are fleeing persecution.

I've said this before, the best way to prevent the dangerous trade in human cargo across the English Channel is to ensure that applications can be made outside of the UK that are then processed without delay. That would mean making an agreement with other European countries on how many asylum seekers we can take given the numbers who reach Europe as a whole. Our current system is forcing legitimate refugees into breaking the law.

[Puja]

This is excellent. A Tory MP asks Suella Bravermann a direct and simple question about our asylum system and doesn't allow her to deflect, bullshit, or obfuscate, and she flounders badly. Not even competent enough to defend the current system and yet she claims that she can "fix" it by making it more onerous. There's absolutely nothing to her - she's a Daily Mail headline incarnated into the body of a woman.

Puja

That is painful. She is utterly unable to openly state that, a small number of specific countries aside, there is no legal way to claim asylum in this country if you are fleeing persecution. Yet 75% of those who land in the UK via small boats are granted asylum on the basis that they are fleeing persecution.

I've said this before, the best way to prevent the dangerous trade in human cargo across the English Channel is to ensure that applications can be made outside of the UK that are then processed without delay. That would mean making an agreement with other European countries on how many asylum seekers we can take given the numbers who reach Europe as a whole. Our current system is forcing legitimate refugees into breaking the law.

The worst bit for me is when she confidently states the correct answer of "You would come to the UK and file an asylum claim as soon as you arrived," and then visibly has a moment of horrified revelation as she belatedly realises the trap that she's fallen into -that she's in danger of admitting that it's not actually illegal for an asylum seeker to enter the country and that she's persecuting them for her own political advantage. How could she be so stupid as to set herself up like that?

You are absolutely right about the solution. It also needs to be done as part of a grown-up intra-European conversation about who is taking asylum seekers and how best to cope with them, rather than letting them be political footballs to be demonised as an "invasion" whenever you need a boost in the polls. The current "system" of east/southward countries taking in their fill and then shuffling the excess on westwards is cruel and incompetent and rife with abuses and corruption, not to mention vulnerable to collapse whenever a country politically decides they're "full" or there's an event causing a larger flow of people.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

There is also the issue of economic migration and how that is managed across Europe since it's clearly a big draw from Africa and Asia to come to Europe. Again that needs to be sensible and something people can apply for before they get into an unsafe boat and try to cross the Med in the first place. Not every application for economic migration is going to be successful, but if there is a fair and transparent process for applying without leaving your own country, then the criminal gangs will be out of business.

[Son of Mathonwy]

This is excellent. A Tory MP asks Suella Bravermann a direct and simple question about our asylum system and doesn't allow her to deflect, bullshit, or obfuscate, and she flounders badly. Not even competent enough to defend the current system and yet she claims that she can "fix" it by making it more onerous. There's absolutely nothing to her - she's a Daily Mail headline incarnated into the body of a woman.

Puja

That is painful. She is utterly unable to openly state that, a small number of specific countries aside, there is no legal way to claim asylum in this country if you are fleeing persecution. Yet 75% of those who land in the UK via small boats are granted asylum on the basis that they are fleeing persecution.

I've said this before, the best way to prevent the dangerous trade in human cargo across the English Channel is to ensure that applications can be made outside of the UK that are then processed without delay. That would mean making an agreement with other European countries on how many asylum seekers we can take given the numbers who reach Europe as a whole. Our current system is forcing legitimate refugees into breaking the law.

The worst bit for me is when she confidently states the correct answer of "You would come to the UK and file an asylum claim as soon as you arrived," and then visibly has a moment of horrified revelation as she belatedly realises the trap that she's fallen into -that she's in danger of admitting that it's not actually illegal for an asylum seeker to enter the country and that she's persecuting them for her own political advantage. How could she be so stupid as to set herself up like that?

You are absolutely right about the solution. It also needs to be done as part of a grown-up intra-European conversation about who is taking asylum seekers and how best to cope with them, rather than letting them be political footballs to be demonised as an "invasion" whenever you need a boost in the polls. The current "system" of east/southward countries taking in their fill and then shuffling the excess on westwards is cruel and incompetent and rife with abuses and corruption, not to mention vulnerable to collapse whenever a country politically decides they're "full" or there's an event causing a larger flow of people.

Puja

What a joy. On realising that her preferred policy of sending the hypothetical sixteen year old to Rwanda is an unacceptable answer to the question she asks if her flunkies have anything to add = could you answer the question for me, I'm incapable.

[Sandydragon]

That is painful. She is utterly unable to openly state that, a small number of specific countries aside, there is no legal way to claim asylum in this country if you are fleeing persecution. Yet 75% of those who land in the UK via small boats are granted asylum on the basis that they are fleeing persecution.

I've said this before, the best way to prevent the dangerous trade in human cargo across the English Channel is to ensure that applications can be made outside of the UK that are then processed without delay. That would mean making an agreement with other European countries on how many asylum seekers we can take given the numbers who reach Europe as a whole. Our current system is forcing legitimate refugees into breaking the law.

The worst bit for me is when she confidently states the correct answer of "You would come to the UK and file an asylum claim as soon as you arrived," and then visibly has a moment of horrified revelation as she belatedly realises the trap that she's fallen into -that she's in danger of admitting that it's not actually illegal for an asylum seeker to enter the country and that she's persecuting them for her own political advantage. How could she be so stupid as to set herself up like that?

You are absolutely right about the solution. It also needs to be done as part of a grown-up intra-European conversation about who is taking asylum seekers and how best to cope with them, rather than letting them be political footballs to be demonised as an "invasion" whenever you need a boost in the polls. The current "system" of east/southward countries taking in their fill and then shuffling the excess on westwards is cruel and incompetent and rife with abuses and corruption, not to mention vulnerable to collapse whenever a country politically decides they're "full" or there's an event causing a larger flow of people.

Puja

What a joy. On realising that her preferred policy of sending the hypothetical sixteen year old to Rwanda is an unacceptable answer to the question she asks if her flunkies have anything to add = could you answer the question for me, I'm incapable.

And then Matthew Rycroft does his best Sir Humphrey impression to avoid admitting that there is no legal entry mechanism for such an individual.

The joy of being a civil servant and having to support something that's just bollocks.

[Puja]

The worst bit for me is when she confidently states the correct answer of "You would come to the UK and file an asylum claim as soon as you arrived," and then visibly has a moment of horrified revelation as she belatedly realises the trap that she's fallen into -that she's in danger of admitting that it's not actually illegal for an asylum seeker to enter the country and that she's persecuting them for her own political advantage. How could she be so stupid as to set herself up like that?

You are absolutely right about the solution. It also needs to be done as part of a grown-up intra-European conversation about who is taking asylum seekers and how best to cope with them, rather than letting them be political footballs to be demonised as an "invasion" whenever you need a boost in the polls. The current "system" of east/southward countries taking in their fill and then shuffling the excess on westwards is cruel and incompetent and rife with abuses and corruption, not to mention vulnerable to collapse whenever a country politically decides they're "full" or there's an event causing a larger flow of people.

Puja

What a joy. On realising that her preferred policy of sending the hypothetical sixteen year old to Rwanda is an unacceptable answer to the question she asks if her flunkies have anything to add = could you answer the question for me, I'm incapable.

And then Matthew Rycroft does his best Sir Humphrey impression to avoid admitting that there is no legal entry mechanism for such an individual.

The joy of being a civil servant and having to support something that's just bollocks.

I will take a moment to note that is it perfectly legal to get on a small boat or otherwise enter the UK without permission or documents, if you then claim for asylum when you arrive here. There is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker, despite Bravermann and the press trying to cloud the issue. There *should* be better ways of making an asylum claim, but that method is not illegal.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

That’s a fair point Puja.

[Which Tyler]

[Zhivago]

Sunak doesn't believe in putting things on his lapel - he says. Regarding not wearing AIDS ribbon.

Why did he decide on such a pathetic and transparent lie. If he doesn't want to show support to AIDS sufferers then he should be honest about his lack of empathy. At least it wouldn't be compounded by his deceitfulness.

[Banquo]

Sunak doesn't believe in putting things on his lapel - he says. Regarding not wearing AIDS ribbon.

Why did he decide on such a pathetic and transparent lie. If he want to show support to AIDS sufferers then he should be honest about his lack of empathy. At least it wouldn't be compounded by his deceitfulness.

Silly really as World Aids day is today, not yesterday when the question was asked. I'd go for incompent aides, as it were.

[Puja]

Sunak doesn't believe in putting things on his lapel - he says. Regarding not wearing AIDS ribbon.

Why did he decide on such a pathetic and transparent lie. If he want to show support to AIDS sufferers then he should be honest about his lack of empathy. At least it wouldn't be compounded by his deceitfulness.

Silly really as World Aids day is today, not yesterday when the question was asked. I'd go for incompent aides, as it were.

It just shows the instinct in this government - lie first, spin second, move on third. Even on such a small thing, the first thought is to gaslight.

Today, regular leadership candidate and "Big Beast" of the party, Sajid Javid has decided that he's not standing in the next election, a decision which I'm sure is completely unrelated to the fact that his seat is almost certain to be lost given current polling. Rats making sure they're not associated with the sinking ship, should they choose to make a comeback in 5 years' time: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63835091

Puja

[Banquo]

Sunak doesn't believe in putting things on his lapel - he says. Regarding not wearing AIDS ribbon.

Why did he decide on such a pathetic and transparent lie. If he want to show support to AIDS sufferers then he should be honest about his lack of empathy. At least it wouldn't be compounded by his deceitfulness.

Silly really as World Aids day is today, not yesterday when the question was asked. I'd go for incompent aides, as it were.

It just shows the instinct in this government - lie first, spin second, move on third. Even on such a small thing, the first thought is to gaslight.

Today, regular leadership candidate and "Big Beast" of the party, Sajid Javid has decided that he's not standing in the next election, a decision which I'm sure is completely unrelated to the fact that his seat is almost certain to be lost given current polling. Rats making sure they're not associated with the sinking ship, should they choose to make a comeback in 5 years' time: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63835091

Puja

Could be, more likely junior spokesperson made something up. Downing st machine made from mecchano and string.

I agree about the rats. Bit premature I’d say, can all turn on a sixpence; currently the public seem supportive of a wave of strikes. We shall see if that lasts- how Labour manage that in PR terms will be interesting; I’d say nothing at all if I were them.

[Sandydragon]

Sunak doesn't believe in putting things on his lapel - he says. Regarding not wearing AIDS ribbon.

Why did he decide on such a pathetic and transparent lie. If he want to show support to AIDS sufferers then he should be honest about his lack of empathy. At least it wouldn't be compounded by his deceitfulness.

Silly really as World Aids day is today, not yesterday when the question was asked. I'd go for incompent aides, as it were.

It just shows the instinct in this government - lie first, spin second, move on third. Even on such a small thing, the first thought is to gaslight.

Today, regular leadership candidate and "Big Beast" of the party, Sajid Javid has decided that he's not standing in the next election, a decision which I'm sure is completely unrelated to the fact that his seat is almost certain to be lost given current polling. Rats making sure they're not associated with the sinking ship, should they choose to make a comeback in 5 years' time: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63835091

Puja

That’s every government for the past 25 years.

[Sandydragon]

Silly really as World Aids day is today, not yesterday when the question was asked. I'd go for incompent aides, as it were.

It just shows the instinct in this government - lie first, spin second, move on third. Even on such a small thing, the first thought is to gaslight.

Today, regular leadership candidate and "Big Beast" of the party, Sajid Javid has decided that he's not standing in the next election, a decision which I'm sure is completely unrelated to the fact that his seat is almost certain to be lost given current polling. Rats making sure they're not associated with the sinking ship, should they choose to make a comeback in 5 years' time: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63835091

Puja

Could be, more likely junior spokesperson made something up. Downing st machine made from mecchano and string.

I agree about the rats. Bit premature I’d say, can all turn on a sixpence; currently the public seem supportive of a wave of strikes. We shall see if that lasts- how Labour manage that in PR terms will be interesting; I’d say nothing at all if I were them.

Starmer excels in saying nothing

[Puja]

Silly really as World Aids day is today, not yesterday when the question was asked. I'd go for incompent aides, as it were.

It just shows the instinct in this government - lie first, spin second, move on third. Even on such a small thing, the first thought is to gaslight.

Today, regular leadership candidate and "Big Beast" of the party, Sajid Javid has decided that he's not standing in the next election, a decision which I'm sure is completely unrelated to the fact that his seat is almost certain to be lost given current polling. Rats making sure they're not associated with the sinking ship, should they choose to make a comeback in 5 years' time: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63835091

Puja

That’s every government for the past 25 years.

Not that I'm claiming Blair and Brown were bastions of honesty at all times (more than a few dead Iraqis can testify to that), but they absolutely didn't have this level of casual relationship with the truth.

Puja

[Stom]

Right wing politician lies and cheats.

Normal human being: this government are a disgrace.

Supporter of basically neo-fascism: all politicians are the same.

Sandy, take a look at yourself. No, no they're not all the same. This is a repetition of the same rhetoric they've fed you to make their actions seem normal. It's not normal, it's disgusting and should be called out as such.