When will indyref2 happen?

[strichener]

9 minutes ago, Pato said:

Sure. There's a constant tension between advocates of universal benefits and advocates of means tested benefits.

The advocates of universal benefits (correctly, imo) stress that the damage done by a relatively small number of people who don't need it receiving it are far outweighed by the good done by making sure receiving said benefit is normal, routine, easy, free of stigma.

Advocates of means testing say that finite resources could be better used to help the people that need them by assessing everyone against some criteria like income/wealth and only giving it to the people really in need.

The tension only really exists because the political and media class in this counry is disproportionately wealthy, so to them it's entirely reasonable to say either 'why should I receive this payment? I don't need it. We should get more money to those in real need' or 'Why should I pay tax for this waste of money, if we only gave it to people that needed it I'd pay less tax', depending on their outlook. They both lead to the same thing: implementation of a bureacracy to administer who does and doesn't get the benefit, which subtracts all of the savings that have been notionally made by switching to means testing. The most incredible example I can think of in the recent era was the Access 4 Everyone scheme which was supposed to get long term unemployed people back to work and off the benefits register. In a study looking at Northern Irish involvement in this scheme, they worked out they could have given more than £100,000 cash to each participant and still have spent less money on a system that had a success rate of about 4%.

Short version: Universalism always better than means testing. Any time someone suggests means testing be very suspicious of why they're saying it.

Means testing is fine as long as the barrier is set just above where you sit.

[BFTD]

9 minutes ago, Pato said:

Advocates of means testing say that finite resources could be better used to help the people that need them by assessing everyone against some criteria like income/wealth and only giving it to the people really in need.

Folk who use this argument generally have no interest in giving more to the people in the most need, but in saving themselves money in some way.

[gaz5]

Sure. There's a constant tension between advocates of universal benefits and advocates of means tested benefits.
The advocates of universal benefits (correctly, imo) stress that the damage done by a relatively small number of people who don't need it receiving it are far outweighed by the good done by making sure receiving said benefit is normal, routine, easy, free of stigma.
Advocates of means testing say that finite resources could be better used to help the people that need them by assessing everyone against some criteria like income/wealth and only giving it to the people really in need.
The tension only really exists because the political and media class in this counry is disproportionately wealthy, so to them it's entirely reasonable to say either 'why should I receive this payment? I don't need it. We should get more money to those in real need' or 'Why should I pay tax for this waste of money, if we only gave it to people that needed it I'd pay less tax', depending on their outlook. They both lead to the same thing: implementation of a bureacracy to administer who does and doesn't get the benefit, which subtracts all of the savings that have been notionally made by switching to means testing. The most incredible example I can think of in the recent era was the Access 4 Everyone scheme which was supposed to get long term unemployed people back to work and off the benefits register. In a study looking at Northern Irish involvement in this scheme, they worked out they could have given more than £100,000 cash to each participant and still have spent less money on a system that had a success rate of about 4%.
Short version: Universalism always better than means testing. Any time someone suggests means testing be very suspicious of why they're saying it.

Thanks for that.

I have nowhere near enough knowledge to debate politics at that level. [emoji846]

I do though find it quite a depressing thought that our only options may be either:

a. Continue to give everyone the same, meaning some get a benefit they don't need and others who need it dont get anywhere near enough.

b. Give everyone nothing (which I guess is still "the same"), not impacting those who don't need it and giving those who do need it even less.

I get the means testing argument and the potential that exists to create a cottage industry that wipes out the benefit, though that is surely just an indictment of the public sectors ability to create cottage industry. [emoji846]

[Granny Danger]

53 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

Yep, I agree.

Those are the people I think the state should have pension funding to help.

I know it won't be a popular opinion and I'm certainly no "buckled lefty", far from it, my financial stance would generally be a little right of centre, but if it were to to me I wouldn't pursue a flat rate state pension like we have now.

Obviously I still have a ways to go before retirement, but I was fortunate enough to end up in an industry where I got good advice early enough that I have a chance of building a decent pot (even though I missed out on the final salary pension by 3 weeks, not that it still annoys me after 20 years!).

But I'll be eligible for the same state pension as someone who has nothing saved.

And there are people far wealthier than I'll ever be who will get the same as me.

For some, that's a self inflicted positions through a lifetime of uneducated financial choices (and that's not a criticism, I'd have been exactly the same had I not fallen into a career that forced me to learn about it, which is why I'm big on promoting education. If an idiot like me can figure enough out to have a chance, anyone can!).

But for others, as you are absolutely correct to point out, for various reasons, they never had a chance to build a pot in line with the calculations in my last post.

It's it right that someone with a personal pot of close to the maximum allowed is eligible for the same state pension as someone with nothing, because they never had that opportunity?

I'd say no.

I'm into thinking out loud territory here, but in an iScot I think I'd like to see a state pension that operates on a sliding scale based on an individual's average lifetime earnings, or something of that nature.

Until we have a pot the size of Norway that is, when everyone will be golden.

Not sure I agree.  We all pay into the system and should all get something out but there should be enhancements for those who need them.

We’re miles* behind comparable countries in Europe when it come to pension entitlements and retirement age.

* maybe should be kilometres.

[gaz5]

Not sure I agree.  We all pay into the system and should all get something out but there should be enhancements for those who need them.
We’re miles* behind comparable countries in Europe when it come to pension entitlements and retirement age.
* maybe should be kilometres.

Wouldn't have an issue with that approach either.

I guess my general feeling is that no one should ever be in a position that they have no option but to work until they die.

Everyone should be able to retire around 65 (at a time of their choosing, some may want to go on) and be able to live in retirement.

How that is achieved will likely be a mixture of personal responsibility and state support. I have a decent handle on the first bit, but no clue on the second. [emoji846]

[yoda]

The "maybe we should better educate people about personal finances" is mostly patronising bullshit. IMO Yeah, it's a good idea, and financial literacy needs to be improved, but it misses the general point that a not insignificant chunk of the population don't have the resources to give themselves a private pension.

I cant recall any recent evidence of the top of my head (although I'm sure it exists somewhere) but before the financial crisis, around about 1/3 of UK households don't have any spare cash. It'll be worse now (in before the "covid savings glut" - the evidence shows that the bottom 40% of households still aren't saving over the past year).

Edited March 9, 2021 by yoda

[Gordon EF]

4 minutes ago, yoda said:

The "maybe we should better educate people about personal finances" is mostly patronising bullshit. IMO Yeah, it's a good idea, and financial literacy needs to be improved, but it misses the general point that a not insignificant chunk of the population don't have the resources to give themselves a private pension.

I cant recall any recent evidence of the top of my head (although I'm sure it exists somewhere) but before the financial crisis, around about 1/3 of UK households don't have any spare cash. It'll be worse now (in before the "covid savings glut" - the evidence shows that the bottom 20% of households still aren't saving over the past year).

Yep. What the pandemic will have done is increase the savings of a lot of people who already have savings. Not increased anything for people who had nothing to begin with and then wiped some people out.

[BFTD]

5 minutes ago, yoda said:

The "maybe we should better educate people about personal finances" is mostly patronising bullshit. IMO Yeah, it's a good idea, and financial literacy needs to be improved, but it misses the general point that a not insignificant chunk of the population don't have the resources to give themselves a private pension.

I cant recall any recent evidence of the top of my head (although I'm sure it exists somewhere) but before the financial crisis, around about 1/3 of UK households don't have any spare cash. It'll be worse now (in before the "covid savings glut" - the evidence shows that the bottom 20% of households still aren't saving over the past year).

I'm not after sympathy from anyone, but I'm currently £100 a month in the hole, and I don't have a lot of frivolous expenses. My mortgage is about half of what it would cost if I was renting too, so I really feel for the poor b*****ds who have less money than me...and there are a lot. Galling to see articles on the BBC website about how everyone's been saving so much in the past year that there's going to be a retail bonanza after Covid. Everyone, aye?

Never mind; if decades of Tory rule have taught me anything, it's that it's my own fault for not getting a better job and climbing the greasy pole.

[gaz5]

The "maybe we should better educate people about personal finances" is mostly patronising bullshit. IMO Yeah, it's a good idea, and financial literacy needs to be improved, but it misses the general point that a not insignificant chunk of the population don't have the resources to give themselves a private pension.
I cant recall any recent evidence of the top of my head (although I'm sure it exists somewhere) but before the financial crisis, around about 1/3 of UK households don't have any spare cash. It'll be worse now (in before the "covid savings glut" - the evidence shows that the bottom 40% of households still aren't saving over the past year).

I agree and said as much, so did Granny, with regards those who don't have the means. No one is suggesting everyone is in the same situation.

But of the not insignificant proportion of the population who DO have the means to improve their own retirement prospects, there are more that dont know, or care, how to do that than there are that do, in my experience. I was one of them.

Saying thats an issue that can be addressed isn't patronising, it's a perfectly legitimate observation.

If people think it is patronising, then I'm glad someone patronised me when I was young enough that it made a difference.

At the end of the day, no one is ever worse off by gaining more knowledge about any subject.

[strichener]

15 minutes ago, BFTD said:

I'm not after sympathy from anyone, but I'm currently £100 a month in the hole, and I don't have a lot of frivolous expenses. My mortgage is about half of what it would cost if I was renting too, so I really feel for the poor b*****ds who have less money than me...and there are a lot. Galling to see articles on the BBC website about how everyone's been saving so much in the past year that there's going to be a retail bonanza after Covid. Everyone, aye?

Never mind; if decades of Tory rule have taught me anything, it's that it's my own fault for not getting a better job and climbing the greasy pole.

Not meaning to pry but is the £100 partially a result of furlough or is that with a full wage?

I think furlough is one of those things that the relatively well off can easily cope with but those at the lower income side might find that the 20% can be the difference between eating properly or not.  Especially for those that also tell outside of the WTC system.

[BFTD]

10 minutes ago, strichener said:

Not meaning to pry but is the £100 partially a result of furlough or is that with a full wage?

I think furlough is one of those things that the relatively well off can easily cope with but those at the lower income side might find that the 20% can be the difference between eating properly or not.  Especially for those that also tell outside of the WTC system.

Furlough.

Thankfully, I've had a small amount of savings that I've been able to burn through in the past year.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Not meaning to pry but is the £100 partially a result of furlough or is that with a full wage?
I think furlough is one of those things that the relatively well off can easily cope with but those at the lower income side might find that the 20% can be the difference between eating properly or not.  Especially for those that also tell outside of the WTC system.

The ones who have been caught out the most are those who lost what they thought were secure jobs/businesses and discover the joys of Universal Credit - and has insufficient savings/insurance in place.

My wife has lost her job but we were well organised - Mortgage Protection Cover, her redundancy, savings and my earnings mean we'll be okay - if we had not then she would get 6 months JSA and nothing thereafter from UC because of my income.

[strichener]

28 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

The ones who have been caught out the most are those who lost what they thought were secure jobs/businesses and discover the joys of Universal Credit - and has insufficient savings/insurance in place.

My wife has lost her job but we were well organised - Mortgage Protection Cover, her redundancy, savings and my earnings mean we'll be okay - if we had not then she would get 6 months JSA and nothing thereafter from UC because of my income.

I had an accident, sickness and redundancy policy in place for about 5 years.  Policy went up from £51 to £78 to £135 per month for cover of £2000 per month in the space of 5 months.  Hopefully my employment is secure because there is no way that I can justify that level of premium.

I think there are a great many people that have been caught out.  As you say those that would have thought they were in secure employment, those that were living week to week and see their income fall below the "minimum wage".  It makes a mockery of the increased savings claims that are going around.  Yes there will be increased savings for those that are possibly not seeing any difference at work but there are many others like yourself and BFTD that are eating into their savings just to get by.  I think I saw you posting that your wife has been unwell recently but hopefully she gets back to work and you can start building the savings back up.

Edited March 9, 2021 by strichener

[strichener]

30 minutes ago, BFTD said:

Furlough.

Thankfully, I've had a small amount of savings that I've been able to burn through in the past year.

I won't bother with the "at least you still have a job" shite as I don't subscribe to the sentiment but hopefully better times are soon upon us with businesses back operating and people back doing their jobs.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I had an accident, sickness and redundancy policy in place for about 5 years.  Policy went up from £51 to £78 to £135 per month for cover of £2000 per month in the space of 5 months.  Hopefully my employment is secure because there is no way that I can justify that level of premium.
I think there are a great many people that have been caught out.  As you say those that would have thought they were in secure employment, those that were living week to week and see their income fall below the "minimum wage".  It makes a mockery of the increased savings claims that are going around.  Yes there will be increased savings for those that are possibly not seeing any difference at work but there are many others like yourself and BFTD that are eating into their savings just to get by.  I think I saw you posting that your wife has been unwell recently but hopefully she gets back to work and you can start building the savings back up.

She's just lost her job with Debenhams - thankfully she was covered.

[renton]

Regarding polling. It should be kept in mid that the last time Yes started registering large positive swings was the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote.

While I don't think the Salmond thing has had no impact on reversing the trend seen recently, it should be remembered what got Yes up there in the first place.

I don't think it's because everyone suddenly had enough time to read through Andrew Wilson's economic plan, or read Wightman's stuff on land reform, or Loki's poverty safari.

... and Sturgeon's appearances through the pandemic is only part of it.

We have a population more or less split evenly on independence where, quite frankly, the current swing vote is middle class professionals who run for the exits when the British state lurches into crisis - or at least appears to.

Sturgeon offering a sober, and reasoned face to the pandemic allowed the Yes vote to go up, but it needed the rudderless British state to look good against. With the vaccine roll out and the seeming tipping point of the crisis, life goes back to the status quo, and the vote with it.

This effect needs to be carefully considered when thinking about the timing of the next referendum. Now, it may well be that an effective campaign could turn such people into hard Yes voters - they are at least open to the idea in extremis.

Or, if you can catch Westminster at some nadir of it's efficiency, or in some particularly monstrous mood, you'll disgust enough people into the Yes camp. Last time out there were enough dithering people not looking for a reason to vote Yes, but looking for a reason to vote No who grabbed the Vow with both hands. I'm not sure you could play that card again though.

So for me, any new referendum has to probably cater to that swing vote, hard. Yet I still think it'll take a good clean crisis in living standards or something similar to push the current electorate over the line. One way or the other, it's a gamble.

I'm honestly not sure if waiting it out another couple of years (assuming the choice exists after May) to get voter turnover to a new generation for whom devolution and the open question of indy is far more normalised, and where there is greater support building up faster, wouldnt be a safer route to a sustainable Yes majority.

Edited March 9, 2021 by renton

[Glen Sannox]

2 hours ago, BFTD said:

I'm not after sympathy from anyone, but I'm currently £100 a month in the hole, and I don't have a lot of frivolous expenses. My mortgage is about half of what it would cost if I was renting too, so I really feel for the poor b*****ds who have less money than me...and there are a lot. Galling to see articles on the BBC website about how everyone's been saving so much in the past year that there's going to be a retail bonanza after Covid. Everyone, aye?

Never mind; if decades of Tory rule have taught me anything, it's that it's my own fault for not getting a better job and climbing the greasy pole.

But we’ve not had decades of Tory rule, have we? We had Labour administrations watching over the rich/poor divide widening. A non Tory Scottish parliament presiding over now decades of poverty and falling life expectancy. They are an easy target these nasty Tories.

[BFTD]

21 minutes ago, Glen Sannox said:

But we’ve not had decades of Tory rule, have we? We had Labour administrations watching over the rich/poor divide widening. A non Tory Scottish parliament presiding over now decades of poverty and falling life expectancy. They are an easy target these nasty Tories.

Aye, I wasn't referring to the Conservative Party.

[GordonS]

1 hour ago, Glen Sannox said:

But we’ve not had decades of Tory rule, have we? We had Labour administrations watching over the rich/poor divide widening. A non Tory Scottish parliament presiding over now decades of poverty and falling life expectancy. They are an easy target these nasty Tories.

Inequality widened a little under Labour, but the poor didn't get poorer, they got better off. Things like the minimum wage, the new deals for lone parents and young people and working tax credits all made a difference.

Life expectancy has not fallen in Scotland, but growth has stalled (see chart). It levelled off at the same rate and time as in the rest of the UK, and to me it looks like it's connected to post-2008 austerity. The UK now has the lowest life expectancy in western or northern Europe, in line with it being the least wealthy country per head among its neighbours. https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/files//statistics/nrs-visual/life-expectancy-in-scotland/17-19/life-expectancy-17-19-infographic.pdf

The major levers for getting people out of poverty are welfare and creating good jobs for lower qualified people. The Scottish Parliament has only just taken control of limited aspects of welfare and the first top-ups are starting to be paid in the last few months. Job creation... I don't know enough about that and I'm not sure I believe those who say they do.

Given that all four countries in the UK have been moving exactly the same way on these measures you'd have to say it looks like it's the UK government that has control over them.

[SandyCromarty]

15 hours ago, gaz5 said:

I'm into thinking out loud territory here, but in an iScot I think I'd like to see a state pension that operates on a sliding scale based on an individual's average lifetime earnings, or something of that nature.

Until we have a pot the size of Norway that is, when everyone will be golden.

Isn't it the case that the a person's present state pension is based on his NI contributions and serps etc, and is that not a sliding scale. 

The Treasury Grant Mechanism is in place to safeguard National Insurance Fund losses, and with the pandemic and reduced incomes and NI contributions. that's probably in use now.