Today's discussion about the news
Comments
-
We/I discussed the length of British sub deployments as an example of the crumbling and weak trident threat.
0 -
Don't confuse being outside territorial waters with being at sea.
Anyway, they are more effective when at sea. I'd be more worried if they were all at home.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
-
-
We've established that nobody listens to "experts". 😉
I listen to some of the people onboard.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Mostly a faint tapping noise?
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Nah, mostly loving' it.
Was a different story a few years ago but they wouldn't/couldn't elaborate. Could tell it was serious shit though.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Oof. Yesterday. Might not be going to close to the edge on the path at the top of those cliffs at Sidmouth, though it's not far off the Peak Hill road that I was on today.
0 -
Ya know, I'm not sure that Sherelle Jacobs is doing a full risk analysis here of Trump nuking the US economy in the way that Truss tried here. "Of course there are questions..." might, arguably, be a bit of an understatement.
Trump, meanwhile, is gearing up for total war with the economic establishment. He is determined to avoid hiking taxes. On the contrary, he wants a drastic reduction – a move that he would ultimately prioritise over balancing the books. To this end, populist Trump is readying to do battle with the Fed. He has already made it clear that should he return to office he would sack its current chief Jerome Powell. This makes sense if the master strategy is to replace him with a loyalist, so that Trump can more effectively pressurise the Fed to keep interest rates as low as possible should his government need to fund tax cuts. Of course there are questions about whether the goals of the American populists are realistic. But the viability of “sensible” alternative plans are equally – if not more – subject to doubt.
0 -
-
made me lol…
0 -
Man U want Southgate? 🤣....😉
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
Eh, you what? "Damaged"? Pollarding is what you do to cherry trees once in a while.
0 -
Even by Banksy standards that is shit.
0 -
I don’t understand why these WASPI people are saying they weren’t aware the pension age was changing. It was a big deal at the time and even as a 20 something male I was aware that women were being moved to 65 so really struggling that the people it was affecting didn’t know. I’ve got some sympathy with the argument they didn’t get time to change their plans although it was still around 15 years.
0 -
Rhe only plan they might have had to change was delaying their retirement from 60 to 65. It's not as if they had their pension reduced, just delayed.
So what? Loads of folk have had to change their retirement plans for all sorts of reasons.
0 -
Short notice and not incremental.
Hth.
0 -
Ha I've never seen my twitter feed so single issue and so unified on the WASPI topic. Remarkable.
Endless stuff like this:
0 -
It’s one of the few issues I can think of where equality has been achieved by making something worse for women (mainly as most things were always to the benefit of men). It turns out that equality in that situation isn’t welcomed.
0 -
I don' think it' anything to do with equality or otherwise, and everything to do with jaw dropping entitlement.
0 -
They just annoyed because all of the Boomers are better off after the same sort of career. You must sympathise, surely?
0 -
I wouldn't have the chutzpah to take my jealousy to court and argue it's not my responsibility to plan for my own future, i have to say. I mean, the headteacher on a DB pension which was so generous she retired at 55 - the brass neck to argue that she was short changed because she can't google the retirement age.
The feeling people get about this lot - that's a window into what I feel more broadly.
0 -
Sure, but even I have some sympathy that it was changed in one step. The "marketing" of this as a gender equality issue is terrible though, I must say.
0 -
15 years prior? Give over. Most of the stories are not of destitution but they want to pay for an extra high-end cruise a year.
0 -
I don't think they are getting much traction. But the comparison is other retirement age increases, which are 1 year at a time with that much notice, rather than 5.
But yes, point taken.
0 -
If they wanted a 'poster girl' to show how unfair it all was, they haven't picked a good one. Though, to be fair, it's probably because she's had plenty of time on her hands for the campaign, being retired at 55 and all that.
0 -
I for one and delighted she can now afford to lease a high end Maserati for the next 5 years with her new found benefit.
0 -
Hmm, not sure I noticed the takeover of Booker by Tesco at the time. Chickens coming home to roost now, it seems.
0 -
I'm finding the difference between the how the newspapers are reporting the WASPI news and how everyone seems to think about it very interesting. I wonder if a political party will read the room.
0 -
For once the Telegraph seems to be in tune with general comments here:
"Given all the other pressures on the public purse, £3.5bn to £10.5bn is just a non-starter. How can the Government – weeks after a tight Budget – justify spending this, especially when most of the 3.5 million proposed recipients knew full-well their state pension age was increasing? Doing so would just be handing them all an unfair windfall.
"Without question, it was right to increase the state pension age for women, in line with men, as set out in the 1995 Pensions Act, passed by a Conservative government.
"And the increase wasn’t an overnight thing. It didn’t start until 2010, 15 years after legislation was passed, nor was it a cliff edge – there were transitional arrangements from 2010 to 2018, so the increase was less for older women born earlier in the 1950s."
0
