Monday 4th January 2016

[Rebecca]

I cannot count how many stories the Guardian has told over the last few days re the shadow cabinet re-shuffle.
The political news seems to be a mixture of gossip,innuendo and speculation.This is not my idea of credible news.How about waiting until something happens then report it.Truthfully.
And as for the notion that Corbyn should not re-arrange his shadow cabinet,someone tell me,if they were the leader of a team,would they put up with three months of sniping,running to the media,whining and general bad bloody manners from their team members?
I sure as hell wouldn't.

[HindleA]

On each other.

[HindleA]

Without anaesthetic.

[HindleA]

Blindfolded.

[ephemerid]

Well I thought between the two previous retirement ages, 60 and 65, but yes it makes sense for it to be 60, not least because there are young people who also need work

That's the lump of labour fallacy. There isn't a fixed number of jobs, so people retiring don't necessarily create a space for someone else. It's the same fallacy that says immigrants reduce the jobs available to natives.

60 for everybody? That is unaffordable.

The "lump of labour fallacy"? I'm not sure it's a complete fallacy, actually. There are not that many new jobs on an increasing basis - most of the work in the UK is "churned" - yes, there are vacancies; but the number hasn't changed much for years now.

If people are staying on in work for another X years, those below them in the pecking order cannot be promoted. They have to wait.
There is a knock-on effect - from office juniors, assembly-line workers, junior whatever, through management to the top.

Example - there are nearly 450,000 Civil Servants in the UK; if a significant proportion (say half) are staying on another 5 years, not only do the people below them not get to move up, with knock-on effects on new recruitment, the salary/NI/pensions etc. costs remain.

I also don't think it's unaffordable to allow people to retire at 60. The state pension and pensioner benefits cost about £100 Billion PA.
Currently there are about 11 Million people of pension age - more than a million of them are still working.
Over-65's pay 11% of the total income tax take; and there are only 1.2 Million pensioners who have no income other than the state pension/pension credits.

3 Million of the total population now are between 60 and 65.
If people could retire at 60, it would cost - assuming the people actually claimed their pensions/other benefits at 60 - an additional £3 Billion or so - this is eminently affordable.
DWP and HMRC between them are responsible for £4.5 Billion in overpayments caused by official errors. Not all of those are recoverable; DWP alone loses more than £3 Billion a year due to fraud (1.2BN) and error (£2.8BN) and if they got on top of that a pension for all 60-65s in the UK could be paid.
If HMRC actually collected due tax, it could be better off by tens if not hundreds of billions - the tax gap due to evasion (not avoidance, which is, of course, legal) is estimated at anything between £35BN to £115BN.

Of course it's affordable, Tubby.

[HindleA]

Not a view on retirement age,but my point about judicious increased investment in benefits/allowances,rather than supposed impossible savings -eg.above -daughter carer viewed as unaffordable leading to increased expenditure and deleterious,effect-highly relevant IMHO.Trouble is myopic ideological obsession is increasingly leading to unaffordability in a misanthropic circulatory fashion,that needs to be reversed,perhaps it may be too late.

[ohsocynical]

If there's rot in the woodwork, you can't repair it. You don't leave it. You cut it out and burn it.

I could have put it better.

If there's rot in the woodwork that is threatening to bring the entire house down, you can't repair it, you can't leave it. You cut it out and burn it. Then disinfect what's left.

[citizenJA]

@ gilsey
Thank you for the pension information in your post.

[rebeccariots2]

Does anyone else find 'fripouille' irksome in the extreme?

Wasn't he the one who basically outed himself as a mod?

Yes. And don't know.

[refitman]

Does anyone else find 'fripouille' irksome in the extreme?

Wasn't he the one who basically outed himself as a mod?

Me too!

Them and Jarrovian, I think, spent a lot of time during Ed's reign going on about Labour not being Left enough and now it's all a marxist conspiracy (if I remember correctly).

[rebeccariots2]

Jamie Reed ‏@jreedmp 3m3 minutes ago
I didn't want to break this news this way, but I have no choice, it seems.
More to follow.

Oh what now ...

[rebeccariots2]

It's alright - it's him being humorous.

Jamie Reed ‏@jreedmp 1m1 minute ago
Kwik-fit tells me that this doesn't constitute an attempt on my life.

Jamie Reed ‏@jreedmp 2m2 minutes ago
Yes. I admit that I have a Volvo and have recently replaced the tyres.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Well I thought between the two previous retirement ages, 60 and 65, but yes it makes sense for it to be 60, not least because there are young people who also need work

That's the lump of labour fallacy. There isn't a fixed number of jobs, so people retiring don't necessarily create a space for someone else. It's the same fallacy that says immigrants reduce the jobs available to natives.

60 for everybody? That is unaffordable.

The "lump of labour fallacy"? I'm not sure it's a complete fallacy, actually. There are not that many new jobs on an increasing basis - most of the work in the UK is "churned" - yes, there are vacancies; but the number hasn't changed much for years now.

If people are staying on in work for another X years, those below them in the pecking order cannot be promoted. They have to wait.
There is a knock-on effect - from office juniors, assembly-line workers, junior whatever, through management to the top.

Example - there are nearly 450,000 Civil Servants in the UK; if a significant proportion (say half) are staying on another 5 years, not only do the people below them not get to move up, with knock-on effects on new recruitment, the salary/NI/pensions etc. costs remain.

I also don't think it's unaffordable to allow people to retire at 60. The state pension and pensioner benefits cost about £100 Billion PA.
Currently there are about 11 Million people of pension age - more than a million of them are still working.
Over-65's pay 11% of the total income tax take; and there are only 1.2 Million pensioners who have no income other than the state pension/pension credits.

3 Million of the total population now are between 60 and 65.
If people could retire at 60, it would cost - assuming the people actually claimed their pensions/other benefits at 60 - an additional £3 Billion or so - this is eminently affordable.
DWP and HMRC between them are responsible for £4.5 Billion in overpayments caused by official errors. Not all of those are recoverable; DWP alone loses more than £3 Billion a year due to fraud (1.2BN) and error (£2.8BN) and if they got on top of that a pension for all 60-65s in the UK could be paid.
If HMRC actually collected due tax, it could be better off by tens if not hundreds of billions - the tax gap due to evasion (not avoidance, which is, of course, legal) is estimated at anything between £35BN to £115BN.

Of course it's affordable, Tubby.

First on the last bit. Richard Murphy is the originator of the last figure, and to his credit says that it's not realistic to collect more than about a sixth of it. His figure does include avoidance, which makes it fairly arbitrary because it basically means "I don't think this should be legal". But anyway, his figure is actually less than the official HMRC tax gap of about £30bn. If HMRC manages to collect much more of that (and it didn't, even before the manpower cuts) and if it becomes the first ever organisation to make no mistakes, then I still think there are better thinks to spend it on. Mostly investment, but I'd also poverty relief for pensioners.

People don't necessarily move up when someone leaves, even in the civil service. A head of department probably needs replacing, but what about further down? Do they go and get a new caseworker when one retires? Just as likely that the existing caseworkers are told to take on more work.

It isn't just the cost of pensions. It's the lost GDP in people being lost to the workforce. Smaller working base paying for more pensioners is bad.

Dropping the pension age for everyone is a very blunt instrument. That doesn't mean that I support raising it in the way it's been done though- 67 year old firemen is a complete absurdity, so something needs to be done there. And it's very unfair on in particular women.

[Tubby Isaacs]

John McDonnell has been good drawing attention to the shortfall in public investment. He used to oppose any raising of the pension age from the 2010 position. I wonder if he'll row back on the latter because it makes it harder to fund the investment.

[howsillyofme1]

Happy Belated New Year to everyone

Was in the Forest of Dean for a week...had one day without rain but the weather was in general appalling...not that I need to mention that to anyone

As to the reshuffle....I tend to agree with Livingstone that there is no need for it to be too deep....in general the Shadow Cabinet has been quite well behaved. There are notable exceptions though...

Dugher has to go....he is far to keen on the sound of his own voice and seems to think that he has some sort of base from which to criticise the leader. An inflated sense of his own importance methinks and he has to go and continue his bleating from the backbenchers

Benn has to go as well...moved, not sacked. His position has been untenable since the Syria vote and I said this at the time. You cannot have the Foreign spokesman and the leader being so far apart on a key policy in his own area. I personally think he should have seen this himself and stepped down. If he refuses to move then he should be sacked. I think his rather ridiculous speech has been shown up for what it was... a lot of hot air and jingoism seeing the impact of UK forces in Syria....we are hardly the bringers of doom for ISIS are we?

Maria Eagle could stay....I think she is wrong on Trident but all that she needs to be is open-minded about changing her mind. She also needs to be careful about how she manages her media appearances to prevent her being used as another weapon for the fascist press but that could go for a lot of people on all wings of the party (are you listening Abbot?)

And anyway - is this really the most important political story on the day that doctors have decided to go on strike....I cannot remember that happening before in my memory and yet it is being virtually ignored by the press due to a rather less important bit of housekeeping by the opposition

[citizenJA]

"The latest annual fare rise, which took effect over the weekend, increased regulated fares by 1.1%.
Although the government has pledged to freeze fares in real terms, ticket prices have been pegged
to the Retail Prices Index. That means they have now been increased well above the more usual
measure of inflation, CPI, which is currently zero."

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/j ... -95-berlin" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Low & high wage-earning people have to pay a larger percentage of their income for rail
fares compared to those working and commuting by rail in another European countries.

Current Tory government leadership is inadequate for people and country. Their policies
are junk one after the other, when they bother legislating at all. I'm grieved. It doesn't
have to be this way.

The best thing any government can do is provide affordable, safe, easy-to-use, frequent,
reliable and comprehensive public transportation in order for people to realistically give
up their or not use their motor vehicle. Less pollution, fewer automotive related fatalities,
and less individual stress.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Okay. So what would you suggest. That he carry on with a bunch of discontents, who are more interested in stirring up trouble within the party, than tackling the Tories? They're bloody spoilt for choice. There's absolutely no excuse for what they're doing and the sooner they realise it, the better off we'll all be.

I'd be quite happy for them to stay where they are, but some have put themselves beyond the pale. And it's certainly not fair to the new intake of MPs.

If there's rot in the woodwork, you can't repair it. You don't leave it. You cut it out and burn it.

I'm OK with swapping Benn with another senior role. Health, Home Secretary, DWP would all be OK, and the shadows in all of those are closer to Corbyn on foreign policy.

Concentrate on stuff the existing team can agree on. Flood defences is exactly the sort of thing. Nukes is a complete non-starter.

And realise that there are lots of good Labour people who don't appreciate the constant "red Tory" stuff. And don't do fundraisers for people who abuse members of your allies as "warmongers".

I'm getting sick to the back teeth of 'Labour supporters' who Tweet rumours, and generally play into the media's hands.
They're either too ignorant to see how they're being manipulated, or too thick to care about the damage they're doing.

And yes they're going to be called Red Tories, because what else do you call someone who's aiding and abetting the Tories. Call it whatever name you want. In my book it's aiding and abetting.

We shouldn't be giving the Tories any chances. They're the enemy. Not Corbyn or his supporters.

Corbyn didn't play into the hands of opponents before? That was always going to be a problem, same as IDS had when he tried to control his Tory critics.

I'm not talking about vacuously tweeting rumours. I'm talking about those who have given sterling service in the very recent past and are now feeling very alienated with Labour. Two very good, number crunching, bloggers come into that category off the top of my head- Jolyon Maugham (a very good tax reformer) and Kevin Hague (the go to man on SNP lies about the economy).

There are doubtless lots more. I've seen people in other places- not here- who know a lot about rail get the treatment from people who know nothing about it, even when like me they aren't ruling out renationalization.

[ohsocynical]

Just in the middle of an argument with a journalist. At least she says she is, although I didn't know it at first.

She was posting snide remarks about revenge sackings.

I was dead polite. I simply said it was sad to see unfounded rumours being repeated.

She said as a journalist, it was in her considered opinion.

I said, I could give a lot of things my considered opinion, but that didn't make them right or correct.

She said: what gave me the right to judge.

I said: what gave her the right?

She's probably blocking me about now.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Happy Belated New Year to everyone

Was in the Forest of Dean for a week...had one day without rain but the weather was in general appalling...not that I need to mention that to anyone

As to the reshuffle....I tend to agree with Livingstone that there is no need for it to be too deep....in general the Shadow Cabinet has been quite well behaved. There are notable exceptions though...

Dugher has to go....he is far to keen on the sound of his own voice and seems to think that he has some sort of base from which to criticise the leader. An inflated sense of his own importance methinks and he has to go and continue his bleating from the backbenchers

Benn has to go as well...moved, not sacked. His position has been untenable since the Syria vote and I said this at the time. You cannot have the Foreign spokesman and the leader being so far apart on a key policy in his own area. I personally think he should have seen this himself and stepped down. If he refuses to move then he should be sacked. I think his rather ridiculous speech has been shown up for what it was... a lot of hot air and jingoism seeing the impact of UK forces in Syria....we are hardly the bringers of doom for ISIS are we?

Maria Eagle could stay....I think she is wrong on Trident but all that she needs to be is open-minded about changing her mind. She also needs to be careful about how she manages her media appearances to prevent her being used as another weapon for the fascist press but that could go for a lot of people on all wings of the party (are you listening Abbot?)

And anyway - is this really the most important political story on the day that doctors have decided to go on strike....I cannot remember that happening before in my memory and yet it is being virtually ignored by the press due to a rather less important bit of housekeeping by the opposition

With you on most of that.

Benn to be moved to a new senior post. Eagle not to be moved- she's co-chairing the Trident review at the moment. Don't like Dugher- he made a fool of himself at shadow Transport- but not really important enough to move, unless he's been briefing anonymously.

[citizenJA]

John McDonnell has been good drawing attention to the shortfall in public investment. He used to oppose any raising of the pension age from the 2010 position. I wonder if he'll row back on the latter because it makes it harder to fund the investment.

Why would he row back? You're mistaken regarding funding difficulties.

[Tubby Isaacs]

American education- remind you of anywhere?



As far as I can tell, that top lot have 5 schools.

http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2015/12/p ... arter.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Vordy]

Defensive Architecture: Designing the Homeless out of Our Cities.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1930132 ... xt-article" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Tubby Isaacs]

John McDonnell has been good drawing attention to the shortfall in public investment. He used to oppose any raising of the pension age from the 2010 position. I wonder if he'll row back on the latter because it makes it harder to fund the investment.

Why would he row back? You're mistaken regarding funding difficulties.

Because it's a large amount of money. I wouldn't rule out supporting some improvements/extra spending though.

There's so much else that needs more money, and large amounts of it. Maybe one of the Green Party-style big new taxes (financial transactions, land value) will do the job but we don't know that yet.

[howsillyofme1]

I'm OK with swapping Benn with another senior role. Health, Home Secretary, DWP would all be OK, and the shadows in all of those are closer to Corbyn on foreign policy.

Concentrate on stuff the existing team can agree on. Flood defences is exactly the sort of thing. Nukes is a complete non-starter.

And realise that there are lots of good Labour people who don't appreciate the constant "red Tory" stuff. And don't do fundraisers for people who abuse members of your allies as "warmongers".

I'm getting sick to the back teeth of 'Labour supporters' who Tweet rumours, and generally play into the media's hands.
They're either too ignorant to see how they're being manipulated, or too thick to care about the damage they're doing.

And yes they're going to be called Red Tories, because what else do you call someone who's aiding and abetting the Tories. Call it whatever name you want. In my book it's aiding and abetting.

We shouldn't be giving the Tories any chances. They're the enemy. Not Corbyn or his supporters.

Corbyn didn't play into the hands of opponents before? That was always going to be a problem, same as IDS had when he tried to control his Tory critics.

I'm not talking about vacuously tweeting rumours. I'm talking about those who have given sterling service in the very recent past and are now feeling very alienated with Labour. Two very good, number crunching, bloggers come into that category off the top of my head- Jolyon Maugham (a very good tax reformer) and Kevin Hague (the go to man on SNP lies about the economy).

There are doubtless lots more. I've seen people in other places- not here- who know a lot about rail get the treatment from people who know nothing about it, even when like me they aren't ruling out renationalization.

Out of interest I don't know much about the economies of the railway but why is it that France, Germany and Switzerland can manage to have a publicly owned rail system in the main...whilst the UK can't. In fact they also own some of our railways

In my simplistic reading of it there is no reason why the Government cannot manage the railways more effectively than private monopolies who have a profit motive........

[Tubby Isaacs]

Just a thought on the rail announcement.

Commuter fares are very high by international standards. But the main commuter area, by absolutely miles, is London. The effect of cutting them would be a "subsidy" to London. Is that a problem?

[ephemerid]

@ cja, ephie and others affected.

This is a serious question and I don't mean to be critical.

Did you really think you were getting your state pension at 60 until you got the recent letter?

The first change was in 1995 when my retirement date changed to just over 64. I knew about it, wasn't pleased about it, not least because I have older sisters who weren't affected, but it was an obvious move towards gender equality and I would have thought it very odd if it hadn't happened.

I was furious as anyone about the second change, but they didn't entirely ignore the protests, it was modified.

No, I didn't really think I'd get my state pension at 60.

I assumed men and women would be equalised at some point - but I also assumed that the change would be more gradual than it is and I certainly didn't think (and don't now) that anyone should be made to work after 65. If they want to, fine. But not as standard.

There will always be winners and losers in a big change like this. I just happen to be one of those affected, with 6 more years before I can get my pension. My older sister, born 3 years before me, got her pension at 60 as expected. Yes, I'm a bit resentful.......

As I posted earlier - it is affordable for people to retire at 60 should they choose to. Only people with a good occupational or personal pension or other monies can do so now. I think, as people are only likely to live to 80 if the ONS statistics are right, that they have just 13 years to enjoy their older years without the necessity to work if the retirement age rises from 66 in 2020, which is what the government is planning.

[citizenJA]

That's the lump of labour fallacy. There isn't a fixed number of jobs, so people retiring don't necessarily create a space for someone else. It's the same fallacy that says immigrants reduce the jobs available to natives.

60 for everybody? That is unaffordable.

The "lump of labour fallacy"? I'm not sure it's a complete fallacy, actually. There are not that many new jobs on an increasing basis - most of the work in the UK is "churned" - yes, there are vacancies; but the number hasn't changed much for years now.

If people are staying on in work for another X years, those below them in the pecking order cannot be promoted. They have to wait.
There is a knock-on effect - from office juniors, assembly-line workers, junior whatever, through management to the top.

Example - there are nearly 450,000 Civil Servants in the UK; if a significant proportion (say half) are staying on another 5 years, not only do the people below them not get to move up, with knock-on effects on new recruitment, the salary/NI/pensions etc. costs remain.

I also don't think it's unaffordable to allow people to retire at 60. The state pension and pensioner benefits cost about £100 Billion PA.
Currently there are about 11 Million people of pension age - more than a million of them are still working.
Over-65's pay 11% of the total income tax take; and there are only 1.2 Million pensioners who have no income other than the state pension/pension credits.

3 Million of the total population now are between 60 and 65.
If people could retire at 60, it would cost - assuming the people actually claimed their pensions/other benefits at 60 - an additional £3 Billion or so - this is eminently affordable.
DWP and HMRC between them are responsible for £4.5 Billion in overpayments caused by official errors. Not all of those are recoverable; DWP alone loses more than £3 Billion a year due to fraud (1.2BN) and error (£2.8BN) and if they got on top of that a pension for all 60-65s in the UK could be paid.
If HMRC actually collected due tax, it could be better off by tens if not hundreds of billions - the tax gap due to evasion (not avoidance, which is, of course, legal) is estimated at anything between £35BN to £115BN.

Of course it's affordable, Tubby.

First on the last bit. Richard Murphy is the originator of the last figure, and to his credit says that it's not realistic to collect more than about a sixth of it. His figure does include avoidance, which makes it fairly arbitrary because it basically means "I don't think this should be legal". But anyway, his figure is actually less than the official HMRC tax gap of about £30bn. If HMRC manages to collect much more of that (and it didn't, even before the manpower cuts) and if it becomes the first ever organisation to make no mistakes, then I still think there are better thinks to spend it on. Mostly investment, but I'd also poverty relief for pensioners.

People don't necessarily move up when someone leaves, even in the civil service. A head of department probably needs replacing, but what about further down? Do they go and get a new caseworker when one retires? Just as likely that the existing caseworkers are told to take on more work.

It isn't just the cost of pensions. It's the lost GDP in people being lost to the workforce. Smaller working base paying for more pensioners is bad.

Dropping the pension age for everyone is a very blunt instrument. That doesn't mean that I support raising it in the way it's been done though- 67 year old firemen is a complete absurdity, so something needs to be done there. And it's very unfair on in particular women.

The spending of retired people contributes to GDP. Retired people not in employment continue to spend their pensions into the economy. "Lost GDP"? Why? Because only employed people pay taxes or contribute to an economy? No. Have I misunderstood you?

[ohsocynical]

That's the lump of labour fallacy. There isn't a fixed number of jobs, so people retiring don't necessarily create a space for someone else. It's the same fallacy that says immigrants reduce the jobs available to natives.

60 for everybody? That is unaffordable.

The "lump of labour fallacy"? I'm not sure it's a complete fallacy, actually. There are not that many new jobs on an increasing basis - most of the work in the UK is "churned" - yes, there are vacancies; but the number hasn't changed much for years now.

If people are staying on in work for another X years, those below them in the pecking order cannot be promoted. They have to wait.
There is a knock-on effect - from office juniors, assembly-line workers, junior whatever, through management to the top.

Example - there are nearly 450,000 Civil Servants in the UK; if a significant proportion (say half) are staying on another 5 years, not only do the people below them not get to move up, with knock-on effects on new recruitment, the salary/NI/pensions etc. costs remain.

I also don't think it's unaffordable to allow people to retire at 60. The state pension and pensioner benefits cost about £100 Billion PA.
Currently there are about 11 Million people of pension age - more than a million of them are still working.
Over-65's pay 11% of the total income tax take; and there are only 1.2 Million pensioners who have no income other than the state pension/pension credits.

3 Million of the total population now are between 60 and 65.
If people could retire at 60, it would cost - assuming the people actually claimed their pensions/other benefits at 60 - an additional £3 Billion or so - this is eminently affordable.
DWP and HMRC between them are responsible for £4.5 Billion in overpayments caused by official errors. Not all of those are recoverable; DWP alone loses more than £3 Billion a year due to fraud (1.2BN) and error (£2.8BN) and if they got on top of that a pension for all 60-65s in the UK could be paid.
If HMRC actually collected due tax, it could be better off by tens if not hundreds of billions - the tax gap due to evasion (not avoidance, which is, of course, legal) is estimated at anything between £35BN to £115BN.

Of course it's affordable, Tubby.

First on the last bit. Richard Murphy is the originator of the last figure, and to his credit says that it's not realistic to collect more than about a sixth of it. His figure does include avoidance, which makes it fairly arbitrary because it basically means "I don't think this should be legal". But anyway, his figure is actually less than the official HMRC tax gap of about £30bn. If HMRC manages to collect much more of that (and it didn't, even before the manpower cuts) and if it becomes the first ever organisation to make no mistakes, then I still think there are better thinks to spend it on. Mostly investment, but I'd also poverty relief for pensioners.

People don't necessarily move up when someone leaves, even in the civil service. A head of department probably needs replacing, but what about further down? Do they go and get a new caseworker when one retires? Just as likely that the existing caseworkers are told to take on more work.

It isn't just the cost of pensions. It's the lost GDP in people being lost to the workforce. Smaller working base paying for more pensioners is bad.

Dropping the pension age for everyone is a very blunt instrument. That doesn't mean that I support raising it in the way it's been done though- 67 year old firemen is a complete absurdity, so something needs to be done there. And it's very unfair on in particular women.

My son is a hands on Estate manager. The firm he works for depends on him for a very well paying contract. If he screws up and loses them the contract, the firm will fold. Despite the Tories saying times are good, they aren't and he's keeping three directors in the style to which they've become accustomed.

At present he's working with a trapped nerve in his shoulder. Has been for the last four months. Somedays it hurts so bad he's nearly in tears but the pressure to not take time off is unrelenting, consequently he's not seen the doctor about it.

What scares me is if the physical side of his job doesn't kill him the stress of it will.

There is no way he'll be fit to work until he's 67.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Out of interest I don't know much about the economies of the railway but why is it that France, Germany and Switzerland can manage to have a publicly owned rail system in the main...whilst the UK can't. In fact they also own some of our railways

In my simplistic reading of it there is no reason why the Government cannot manage the railways more effectively than private monopolies who have a profit motive........

Much bigger taxpayer funding over a long period in France, and I'd guess Germany. They have problems- in less populated areas, French services can be extremely patchy, whereas in Britain you might get an hourly service. Germany has closed lines fairly recently to save costs, whereas Britain hasn't done that. See Bavaria for instance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... aria#2000s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The UK now has a small "operating subsidy" (about £100m, I think) and the rest is for investment. The operating subsidy is low basically because private train companies charge commuters and businessmen lots more than other country's national rail systems would.

Britain is genuinely investing a lot in rail, with many good schemes. The downside is that this comes at the cost of (some) high fares.

[howsillyofme1]

Just a thought on the rail announcement.

Commuter fares are very high by international standards. But the main commuter area, by absolutely miles, is London. The effect of cutting them would be a "subsidy" to London. Is that a problem?

In theory it would be something to moan about but it just shows the shambles of the British economy at the moment.

All the growth is essentially in London...house prices are massively high so most commuters are forced to the suburbs or further away where they pay ridiculously high transport fares

Every is bloody expensive where most countries would try to keep commuter fares down if the house prices are too expensive for most people.

I don't think that London itself is the problem...London's public transport system is what you would expect from a big city. It is just the rest of the country has much weaker transport systems which compound the issue...attempts to do better elsewhere are a bit half-arsed from my experience

The bus system is crap and lack of integration is also a blocker

So, yes you are right but it begs a question:

Infrastructure in our European partners are often much better than ours...where does all the UK money go?

There must be a black hole that sucks out lots of money....is it the outsourcing of many services that allows a massive transfer of public money to corporations that then siphon it outside the country and do not invest?

[citizenJA]

Just a thought on the rail announcement.

Commuter fares are very high by international standards. But the main commuter area, by absolutely miles, is London. The effect of cutting them would be a "subsidy" to London. Is that a problem?

It wouldn't be a subsidy to London, it'd be a subsidy to commuters - semantics, though, isn't it? The point is making rail fares more affordable to the people paying them. Everyone benefits from subsidising rail users. Less congestion on the motorways, less pollution and fewer deaths by motor vehicle. Also, nothing is stopping greater rail investment in other places in the UK but lack of political will to do it. Enlarge the 'commuter area' beyond that main one.

[Tubby Isaacs]

The "lump of labour fallacy"? I'm not sure it's a complete fallacy, actually. There are not that many new jobs on an increasing basis - most of the work in the UK is "churned" - yes, there are vacancies; but the number hasn't changed much for years now.

If people are staying on in work for another X years, those below them in the pecking order cannot be promoted. They have to wait.
There is a knock-on effect - from office juniors, assembly-line workers, junior whatever, through management to the top.

Example - there are nearly 450,000 Civil Servants in the UK; if a significant proportion (say half) are staying on another 5 years, not only do the people below them not get to move up, with knock-on effects on new recruitment, the salary/NI/pensions etc. costs remain.

I also don't think it's unaffordable to allow people to retire at 60. The state pension and pensioner benefits cost about £100 Billion PA.
Currently there are about 11 Million people of pension age - more than a million of them are still working.
Over-65's pay 11% of the total income tax take; and there are only 1.2 Million pensioners who have no income other than the state pension/pension credits.

3 Million of the total population now are between 60 and 65.
If people could retire at 60, it would cost - assuming the people actually claimed their pensions/other benefits at 60 - an additional £3 Billion or so - this is eminently affordable.
DWP and HMRC between them are responsible for £4.5 Billion in overpayments caused by official errors. Not all of those are recoverable; DWP alone loses more than £3 Billion a year due to fraud (1.2BN) and error (£2.8BN) and if they got on top of that a pension for all 60-65s in the UK could be paid.
If HMRC actually collected due tax, it could be better off by tens if not hundreds of billions - the tax gap due to evasion (not avoidance, which is, of course, legal) is estimated at anything between £35BN to £115BN.

Of course it's affordable, Tubby.

First on the last bit. Richard Murphy is the originator of the last figure, and to his credit says that it's not realistic to collect more than about a sixth of it. His figure does include avoidance, which makes it fairly arbitrary because it basically means "I don't think this should be legal". But anyway, his figure is actually less than the official HMRC tax gap of about £30bn. If HMRC manages to collect much more of that (and it didn't, even before the manpower cuts) and if it becomes the first ever organisation to make no mistakes, then I still think there are better thinks to spend it on. Mostly investment, but I'd also poverty relief for pensioners.

People don't necessarily move up when someone leaves, even in the civil service. A head of department probably needs replacing, but what about further down? Do they go and get a new caseworker when one retires? Just as likely that the existing caseworkers are told to take on more work.

It isn't just the cost of pensions. It's the lost GDP in people being lost to the workforce. Smaller working base paying for more pensioners is bad.

Dropping the pension age for everyone is a very blunt instrument. That doesn't mean that I support raising it in the way it's been done though- 67 year old firemen is a complete absurdity, so something needs to be done there. And it's very unfair on in particular women.

My son is a hands on Estate manager. The firm he works for depends on him for a very well paying contract. If he screws up and loses them the contract, the firm will fold. Despite the Tories saying times are good, they aren't and he's keeping three directors in the style to which they've become accustomed.

At present he's working with a trapped nerve in his shoulder. Has been for the last four months. Somedays it hurts so bad he's nearly in tears but the pressure to not take time off is unrelenting, consequently he's not seen the doctor about it.

What scares me is if the physical side of his job doesn't kill him the stress of it will.

There is no way he'll be fit to work until he's 67.

That's an awful situation. Lots of it though is the very unpleasant culture of contracting out, not to mention IDS trying to avoid paying him sick pay.

[citizenJA]

Out of interest I don't know much about the economies of the railway but why is it that France, Germany and Switzerland can manage to have a publicly owned rail system in the main...whilst the UK can't. In fact they also own some of our railways

In my simplistic reading of it there is no reason why the Government cannot manage the railways more effectively than private monopolies who have a profit motive........

Much bigger taxpayer funding over a long period in France, and I'd guess Germany. They have problems- in less populated areas, French services can be extremely patchy, whereas in Britain you might get an hourly service. Germany has closed lines fairly recently to save costs, whereas Britain hasn't done that. See Bavaria for instance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... aria#2000s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The UK now has a small "operating subsidy" (about £100m, I think) and the rest is for investment. The operating subsidy is low basically because private train companies charge commuters and businessmen lots more than other country's national rail systems would.

Britain is genuinely investing a lot in rail, with many good schemes. The downside is that this comes at the cost of (some) high fares.

The only downside is the political decision to offer far less financial support to commuters using rail.

[ephemerid]

I am shocked, I tell you, shocked!

John Harris has an article on council housing over at the G.

In 1979, 42% of people in Britain lived in a council house.

Today? 8%

[ohsocynical]

The "lump of labour fallacy"? I'm not sure it's a complete fallacy, actually. There are not that many new jobs on an increasing basis - most of the work in the UK is "churned" - yes, there are vacancies; but the number hasn't changed much for years now.

If people are staying on in work for another X years, those below them in the pecking order cannot be promoted. They have to wait.
There is a knock-on effect - from office juniors, assembly-line workers, junior whatever, through management to the top.

Example - there are nearly 450,000 Civil Servants in the UK; if a significant proportion (say half) are staying on another 5 years, not only do the people below them not get to move up, with knock-on effects on new recruitment, the salary/NI/pensions etc. costs remain.

I also don't think it's unaffordable to allow people to retire at 60. The state pension and pensioner benefits cost about £100 Billion PA.
Currently there are about 11 Million people of pension age - more than a million of them are still working.
Over-65's pay 11% of the total income tax take; and there are only 1.2 Million pensioners who have no income other than the state pension/pension credits.

3 Million of the total population now are between 60 and 65.
If people could retire at 60, it would cost - assuming the people actually claimed their pensions/other benefits at 60 - an additional £3 Billion or so - this is eminently affordable.
DWP and HMRC between them are responsible for £4.5 Billion in overpayments caused by official errors. Not all of those are recoverable; DWP alone loses more than £3 Billion a year due to fraud (1.2BN) and error (£2.8BN) and if they got on top of that a pension for all 60-65s in the UK could be paid.
If HMRC actually collected due tax, it could be better off by tens if not hundreds of billions - the tax gap due to evasion (not avoidance, which is, of course, legal) is estimated at anything between £35BN to £115BN.

Of course it's affordable, Tubby.

First on the last bit. Richard Murphy is the originator of the last figure, and to his credit says that it's not realistic to collect more than about a sixth of it. His figure does include avoidance, which makes it fairly arbitrary because it basically means "I don't think this should be legal". But anyway, his figure is actually less than the official HMRC tax gap of about £30bn. If HMRC manages to collect much more of that (and it didn't, even before the manpower cuts) and if it becomes the first ever organisation to make no mistakes, then I still think there are better thinks to spend it on. Mostly investment, but I'd also poverty relief for pensioners.

People don't necessarily move up when someone leaves, even in the civil service. A head of department probably needs replacing, but what about further down? Do they go and get a new caseworker when one retires? Just as likely that the existing caseworkers are told to take on more work.

It isn't just the cost of pensions. It's the lost GDP in people being lost to the workforce. Smaller working base paying for more pensioners is bad.

Dropping the pension age for everyone is a very blunt instrument. That doesn't mean that I support raising it in the way it's been done though- 67 year old firemen is a complete absurdity, so something needs to be done there. And it's very unfair on in particular women.

My son is a hands on Estate manager. The firm he works for depends on him for a very well paying contract. If he screws up and loses them the contract, the firm will fold. Despite the Tories saying times are good, they aren't and he's keeping three directors in the style to which they've become accustomed.

At present he's working with a trapped nerve in his shoulder. Has been for the last four months. Somedays it hurts so bad he's nearly in tears but the pressure to not take time off is unrelenting, consequently he's not seen the doctor about it.

What scares me is if the physical side of his job doesn't kill him the stress of it will.

There is no way he'll be fit to work until he's 67.

By the time he reaches 67, he will have been paying NI contributions for 51 years.
Win win for the government if he doesn't make it that far....And there will be many who won't.

[HindleA]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016 ... um=twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The end of council housing
In 1979, 42% of Britons lived in council homes. Today that figure is just under 8%. Now, by scrapping secure tenancies and bringing in a pay-to-stay scheme, the government’s new housing bill could mark the end of a century-old dream

[howsillyofme1]

Out of interest I don't know much about the economies of the railway but why is it that France, Germany and Switzerland can manage to have a publicly owned rail system in the main...whilst the UK can't. In fact they also own some of our railways

In my simplistic reading of it there is no reason why the Government cannot manage the railways more effectively than private monopolies who have a profit motive........

Much bigger taxpayer funding over a long period in France, and I'd guess Germany. They have problems- in less populated areas, French services can be extremely patchy, whereas in Britain you might get an hourly service. Germany has closed lines fairly recently to save costs, whereas Britain hasn't done that. See Bavaria for instance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... aria#2000s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The UK now has a small "operating subsidy" (about £100m, I think) and the rest is for investment. The operating subsidy is low basically because private train companies charge commuters and businessmen lots more than other country's national rail systems would.

Britain is genuinely investing a lot in rail, with many good schemes. The downside is that this comes at the cost of (some) high fares.

so it is basically, a taxpayer versus user argument I guess

The problem with this, and with university tuition fees where again we are much, much higher than our sister countries is that there is then the claim that it is a 'middle-class subsidy' - usually made by Tories or people who dislike the idea of the state doing anything.

Perhaps a publicly owned system with reduced fares and increased public investment rather than the current approach. This applies to tuition fees as well

I think we have the balance all wrong....

I personally think that the state can do this as well if not better than private companies along as there is good management and a more mature approach to politics. Does our confrontational FPTP system prevent the long-term strategic approach we need?

[HindleA]

Sorry didn't see Eph's previous post.

[HindleA]

http://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2016- ... ervention/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Redcar steelworkers to be paid following MP's intervention

[Tubby Isaacs]

Just a thought on the rail announcement.

Commuter fares are very high by international standards. But the main commuter area, by absolutely miles, is London. The effect of cutting them would be a "subsidy" to London. Is that a problem?

It wouldn't be a subsidy to London, it'd be a subsidy to commuters - semantics, though, isn't it? The point is making rail fares more affordable to the people paying them. Everyone benefits from subsidising rail users. Less congestion on the motorways, less pollution and fewer deaths by motor vehicle. Also, nothing is stopping greater rail investment in other places in the UK but lack of political will to do it. Enlarge the 'commuter area' beyond that main one.

Cheaper travel to a city is a benefit to the city, no way of getting away from that. I think, once the trains arrive, cheaper commuting to other cities is a way of boosting them. But if you boost London as well, by in effect more, then that to some extent undermines other cities. I wouldn't do it (for London) with taxpayer money either. If it happens for London, the money to pay for it should be raised in London.

[rebeccariots2]

Latest bit on Sparrow's blog ... dear lordy.

One Labour MP certainly doesn’t appear to be featuring in the reshuffle is Simon Danczuk, who is facing a police investigation after a rape allegation was made against him.

The Guardian’s Josh Halliday has filed a piece (read it in full here) on that development from earlier today.

A Lancashire police spokeswoman said on Monday: “We can confirm that we have today received a report of a rape against a 49-year-old man. Inquiries are ongoing.”

It is understood that the allegation is against Danczuk, who has been under mounting pressure after a series of revelations about his private life.

[rebeccariots2]

Well done Anna Turley MP.

Anna Turley MPVerified account
‏@annaturley
Redcar steelworkers to be paid following MP's intervention http://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2016- ... ervention/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

[howsillyofme1]

Just a thought on the rail announcement.

Commuter fares are very high by international standards. But the main commuter area, by absolutely miles, is London. The effect of cutting them would be a "subsidy" to London. Is that a problem?

It wouldn't be a subsidy to London, it'd be a subsidy to commuters - semantics, though, isn't it? The point is making rail fares more affordable to the people paying them. Everyone benefits from subsidising rail users. Less congestion on the motorways, less pollution and fewer deaths by motor vehicle. Also, nothing is stopping greater rail investment in other places in the UK but lack of political will to do it. Enlarge the 'commuter area' beyond that main one.

Cheaper travel to a city is a benefit to the city, no way of getting away from that. I think, once the trains arrive, cheaper commuting to other cities is a way of boosting them. But if you boost London as well, by in effect more, then that to some extent undermines other cities. I wouldn't do it (for London) with taxpayer money either. If it happens for London, the money to pay for it should be raised in London.

If some of the companies that operate in the UK paid any bloody taxes then perhaps we could all have cheaper transport!

The only way to get round this is building up the other cities in the UK as competitors to London but that is not a policy anyone wants to promote.

Parliament out of London would be a brave, radical and possibly correct decision....the building is falling down so an opportunity is there!

We are paying the price for centralisation of power in one city to the detriment of the rest of the country...only something radical will change that

[citizenJA]

John McDonnell has been good drawing attention to the shortfall in public investment. He used to oppose any raising of the pension age from the 2010 position. I wonder if he'll row back on the latter because it makes it harder to fund the investment.

Why would he row back? You're mistaken regarding funding difficulties.

Because it's a large amount of money. I wouldn't rule out supporting some improvements/extra spending though.

There's so much else that needs more money, and large amounts of it. Maybe one of the Green Party-style big new taxes (financial transactions, land value) will do the job but we don't know that yet.

(my bold)

"The total current level of support provided to banks [by] our most recent estimate of the outstanding support is set out in the C&AG’s Report on HM Treasury’s 2014-15 Annual Report and Accounts.
Total outstanding support as at 31 March 2015
Guarantee commitments
£22bn
Cash outlay
£93bn
Total support
£115bn

Furthermore, the Treasury retains the unquantifiable ultimate risk of supporting banks should they threaten the stability of the overall financial system again."

https://www.nao.org.uk/highlights/taxpa ... anks-faqs/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Any UK government can f***ing find it.

[ohsocynical]

American education- remind you of anywhere?



As far as I can tell, that top lot have 5 schools.

http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2015/12/p ... arter.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That reminds me of one of the gripes from some of Mr Ohso's American family with school age children.

They have to buy everything a child might use at school, including if I remember rightly, one school wanted yoga type mats for the kids to sit on ... Naturally there are children from poor families who come into school with really cheap stuff. Rather like school uniform supposedly levelling the playing field between rich and poor some schools now put all the bits the kids have brought in, into a big box and then re-distribute it, so that everyone gets a bit of decent and a bit of shoddy.

And boy doesn't that get the mothers steaming mad.

Just think. We have all that to look forward to.

[HindleA]

http://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-n ... rease-2016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Happy New Year? The pressures on the NHS will only increase in 2016
Kailash Chand
If the health service is to survive, it needs to be properly funded, adequately staffed, and with patients and clinicians in charge

[citizenJA]

Out of interest I don't know much about the economies of the railway but why is it that France, Germany and Switzerland can manage to have a publicly owned rail system in the main...whilst the UK can't. In fact they also own some of our railways

In my simplistic reading of it there is no reason why the Government cannot manage the railways more effectively than private monopolies who have a profit motive........

Much bigger taxpayer funding over a long period in France, and I'd guess Germany. They have problems- in less populated areas, French services can be extremely patchy, whereas in Britain you might get an hourly service. Germany has closed lines fairly recently to save costs, whereas Britain hasn't done that. See Bavaria for instance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... aria#2000s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The UK now has a small "operating subsidy" (about £100m, I think) and the rest is for investment. The operating subsidy is low basically because private train companies charge commuters and businessmen lots more than other country's national rail systems would.

Britain is genuinely investing a lot in rail, with many good schemes. The downside is that this comes at the cost of (some) high fares.

so it is basically, a taxpayer versus user argument I guess

The problem with this, and with university tuition fees where again we are much, much higher than our sister countries is that there is then the claim that it is a 'middle-class subsidy' - usually made by Tories or people who dislike the idea of the state doing anything.

Perhaps a publicly owned system with reduced fares and increased public investment rather than the current approach. This applies to tuition fees as well

I think we have the balance all wrong....

I personally think that the state can do this as well if not better than private companies along as there is good management and a more mature approach to politics. Does our confrontational FPTP system prevent the long-term strategic approach we need?

Yes, the FPTP system and the blatant inequity evident in the number of voters and Parliamentary seats parties secured is evidence of adversarial and antiquated voting system. I'm of your opinion regarding government directly in charge of a country's infrastructure in general. Taxpayers are users and users are the taxpayer - private companies in rail, education and health are pimps adding to the cost of whatever it is service they've got a hold of and creaming a layer off from the UK taxpayer making it cost more and not benefiting the service delivery at all.

[Tubby Isaacs]

so it is basically, a taxpayer versus user argument I guess

The problem with this, and with university tuition fees where again we are much, much higher than our sister countries is that there is then the claim that it is a 'middle-class subsidy' - usually made by Tories or people who dislike the idea of the state doing anything.

Perhaps a publicly owned system with reduced fares and increased public investment rather than the current approach. This applies to tuition fees as well

I think we have the balance all wrong....

I personally think that the state can do this as well if not better than private companies along as there is good management and a more mature approach to politics. Does our confrontational FPTP system prevent the long-term strategic approach we need?

I think the Infrastructure Commission is trying to escape from short term politics, and there's already the Comprehensive Spending Review whereby funding is supposed to be assured either side of elections. Network Rail does that too, with "Control Periods" which are 5 years, this once from 2014-19.

It's a very complicated system our rail, with lots of "interfaces" between organizations. I think the most maligned bit- train companies actually do what they're supposed to- raise income so the government has more to spend on investment rather than running trains now. It could certainly be done old BR style though, and I'm open to it but would cost the taxpayer more. If it were up to me, it would get that.

I was impressed Corbyn mentioned nationalizing Roscos early on (who are private owners of rolling stock who lease it to train companies). Can't see any reason why that couldn't be straight into Network Rail and be more efficient.

[RogerOThornhill]

Struggling to find academy sponsors? Have a meaningless target to meet by 2020?

Money no problem...

Another £5m up for grabs in northern schools ‘hub revolution’ – but only academy trusts can apply

http://schoolsweek.co.uk/another-5m-up- ... can-apply/

Academy sponsors are being invited to bid for a slice of the remaining £5 million cash pot to improve northern schools – with more hubs in the pipeline.

Nicky Morgan announced in November the five academy sponsors given half of a £10 million war chest to drive up standards, including setting up seven new academy hubs in five targeted northern areas.

Now the remaining £5 million pounds has gone up for grabs to academy sponsors with a “strong track record” of improving schools.

Applicants are wanted to support and develop another set of academy hubs, with the potential for at least six hubs in another five areas.

Meanwhile we have a new primary test announced in the usual way - the Sunday press - and not a whisper of it from the DfE.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Put me down as a Parliament in Birmingham man.