Keir's first day....

[CurlewKate]

Looks pretty good to me! What are people's thoughts?

Keeping it going would only keep costing us more though. It's a sunk cost fallacy, thinking that because we've spent millions on something we should keep chucking money at it until it works.

£310m apparently

According to BBC news

@Pudmyboy good question. I have just checked my own (public) pension fund in an attempt to follow a paper trail, but it seems difficult to find anything specific. Nevertheless, it is made clear that money is invested in property and property development in order to ensure returns.

Either way, whether public or private, there is nothing more certain than investment in property to see a return. It’s generally accepted that pensions favour commercial property investments and on that basis alone there are investments taking place that by extension increase the value of homes (by increasing the demand/value of the land).

Thanks for checking,
It would seem that property prices and pensions have been joined in a sort of 'cursed duet', each feeding/fuelling the other and not solving the issue they 'ought' to, namely that people should have a decent, safe roof over their heads and enough money to live to a reasonable standard (ie pay bills and eat well)

@Pudmyboy Agree, exactly that. We’re in a real pickle, particularly in England where there’s been far less restriction on the financialisation of property.

I’m 46. The pension scheme changed over 10 years ago and it’s not a final salary scheme anymore and ties to state pension age so ill be teaching til I’m 68!

😩😩😩😩

Yes. This. I am so impressed, particularly compared to the last few years of incompetents.

https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/money/pensions-and-retirement/means-testing-state-pensions-nuclear-option-experts-2958903

Not policy but discussed by a labour party advisor - very unlikely to happen for all the reasons in the areicle above. More tory scaremongering

It will be interesting to see what hare the Tories will set running next.

Well, whoever first mentioned the pensions, was it the Labour adviser, we don't know, needs to be careful because it could lead to many withdrawing their pension pots early if there was a sniff of this, not sure if this was mentioned in the article above as it asked for a subscription when I was halfway down the page.

If the story his the news because it was discussed by a Labour adviser, how is it 'Tory scaremongering?'

Starmer's first day - I'm disgusted by the appointment of Jacqui Smith. Sleaze is inevitable in a government; it is beyond idiotic to bake it in at the very start. So much for better politics! I see she's done a pathetic interview with the Radio Times saying her expenses were only scrutinised because she's a woman, she certainly knows what a woman is when it suits her.

@Alltheprettyseahorses All sorts of things are discussed by advisers-that's their job. To consider all options. Even ones which will be rejected out of hand. Not sure why this one is gaining traction if it's not "knocking copy"

Jacqui Smith resigned immediately when the 2 bits of "sleaze", one perpetrated by her ex husband and one an obvious error emerged. She is a woman with broad and invaluable experience who will, I think be an asset to the government.

So....he gives a peerage and a ministerial post to Jacqui Smith who I remember being in the midst of an expenses scandal. Claiming for various things that included her H watching porn. She had to resign.

Same old Labour.

She didn't. she hung on till she HAD to go. It went on for weeks.

And even now she's claiming it was 'gender bias'.

Fool.

What does this say about K's judgement?

That he can't read the room.

If he wants to take the high moral ground then he shouldn't be appointing people like her.

If government advisers brief the press about options the government are considering, the press is right to report those options even if it makes your team look bad.

As already posted, Smith did not resign. She hung on until she was forced to resign. She is mired in sleaze - she chose to put the expenses claim in that included porn and was found out. Her current attempt to play the wounded party is contemptible. Would you defend a Tory for dodgy expenses claims that included porn? I certainly wouldn't. It's yay team over integrity, ethica and morality. Smith is a massive mistake and sets the tone for Starmer's term.

Starmer has also appointed Douglas Alexander, another MP mired in the expenses scandal. What a wonderful start!

What do you mean by this ? My understanding is that this refers to the state pension, which none of us have any choice about paying into or have the ability to draw down early. I think what is most likely is abandoning the expensive tripe lock and allow the value of the basic state pension to reduce, then add means tested benefits on top. So in 20 years it will not be possible to live on a state pension.

I think he will do a good job.

He is a serious, decent, hardworking person (as the Tories acknowledge) with experience of leading and running things. He is clearly determined to improve things and I hope he manages it.

What is unbelievable (or maybe not) is that he has over 400 MPs to choose from and he appoints 2 duds with 'previous'.

What does this say about his judgement?

JS hung on like a limpet- I remember it- and even now she has the brass neck to claim she wasn't to blame.

DA was useless.

But it's all good in my eyes as it means the scales will fall from voters' eyes sooner rather than later.

That people will take out their private pensions at age 55 plus, very easy with defined contribution, which will lessen their pot so will still get full state pension and a lesser private pension. If they left their pension in, it may mean less or no state pension.

I don't think it will happen more likely what you say will happen with triple lock.

@Alltheprettyseahorses "If government advisers brief the press about options the government are considering, the press is right to report those options even if it makes your team look bad."

I don't think we know where the idea emerged from, do we? In any case, I don't think any transparency makes a "team" look bad. I want them to consider all options.

The key word there is 'I'm'

I accept there will be changes I don't particularly like, but if that goes in some way to help resolve the issues with the NHS, immigration, and the general paucity of public services then I will accept it.

We waited 36 hours in A&E with our adult son who had Sepsis recently. I thought he was going to die. We could not find any private hospital to take him and he was an emergency case, the NHS left him 18 hours without upping his antibiotics which his home nurse ( previously seen and discharged home with a daily nurse visit) had insisted upon. That delay almost killed him. He is 39 and a teacher. I would never wish that kind of terror on anyone.

We are too selfish, can we not see that others need help? Are we all thinking of ourselves too much?

I suspect we are, until an incident affects your life you just meander on each day and push to the back of your mind that the public services are broken and need to be fixed. I am prepared to pay more tax to fund that, are you?

Labour will not 'means test' the SP, nor have they suggested it. That is ill-informed gossip and is damaging.

We paid (UK) the lowest retirement pension in Europe.

You called it 'Tory scaremongering' which gives the opposite impression. Honestly, I don't want government teams to consider all options. I want a government where horrendous, inhumane options - replacing PIP with vouchers is a recent example under the Tory government - would not even be thought of never mind discussed. I expect better from every politician.