Looks like the party is over....

[ProDave]

41 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

For those that retired after 2016 the basic is just under 12k, so they onky be to earn £500 or so to start paying taxes.  

 

This (and the triple lock) is probably why there was a distinct upward kink from 2018/19ish.

 

So pretty much every pensioner who earns more than a few k from an old work place pension or maybe letting a room, or doing a day a week at the supermarket pays income tax. 

In fact, from next April, ALL pensioners under the new scheme will pay some tax, as the pension will go up to just above the tax threshold, but the threshold is not rising.  So over the next few years pensioners will pay more tax.

 

Add in a personal pension as well (shock, horror, current pensioners are more likely to also have a personal pension) that is more tax to pay.

 

I know my circumstances are not average, but by the time me and SWMBO reach state pension age, our combined income will be more than we have been earning for the last 25 years.

[SimonD]

7 minutes ago, ProDave said:

In fact, from next April, ALL pensioners under the new scheme will pay some tax, as the pension will go up to just above the tax threshold, but the threshold is not rising.  So over the next few years pensioners will pay more tax.

 

As is appearing quite typical of this government, they've realised the problem after the fact and are now trying to reassure pensioners that if their sole income is from pension, they won't pay any tax even if it is above the threshold.

 

It's not too dissimilar to the 3p/mile tax on EVs which is another, we're going to do this but haven't got a clue how. Then some clever bean will think we'll just roll out a kind of start meter to be installed, and just like smart meters or fibre broadband it'll be privatised and roll out will maybe happen by 2080....or some other century in the future and use shite technology that doesn't work properly because the infratructure it needs hasn't been installed either.

 

And they wonder why there's a productivity problem in the UK.

[ProDave]

3 minutes ago, SimonD said:

As is appearing quite typical of this government, they've realised the problem after the fact and are now trying to reassure pensioners that if their sole income is from pension, they won't pay any tax even if it is above the threshold.

It's a failure of all governments over my lifetime.  The basic problem is we have 5 year parliaments, so nobody, ever, pledges to do something over a long period.  It is all about what we will do for the next 5 years that will be popular enough to get us a win next time.

 

So there has never been any long term planning.  The fact there are more pensioners than ever and fewer of working age is entirely predictable as the ongoing result of the post war baby boom, but no one has planned in advance how we will invest and adapt to cope with that change.

[Iceverge]

Grants typically just shove up prices. 

 

A progressive carbon tax would have been better money than any grants in my opinion. 

 

And government to get out of the way. 

 

For example a blanket planning (and listed building ) exemption to any house changes reducing its energy use. 

 

Triple Glazing, EWI, ASHP, solar etc etc. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SimonD]

1 hour ago, ProDave said:

It's a failure of all governments over my lifetime.

 

Yep, maybe it's just my age, but it seems to be getting worse by the parliament.

[SimonD]

17 minutes ago, Iceverge said:

Grants typically just shove up prices. 

 

A progressive carbon tax would have been better money than any grants in my opinion. 

 

And government to get out of the way. 

 

For example a blanket planning (and listed building ) exemption to any house changes reducing its energy use. 

 

Triple Glazing, EWI, ASHP, solar etc etc. 

 

 

Somewhere recently I saw some data showing that heat pump uptake follows a curve of parity between fossil fuel prices and electricity - the closer the parity the higher the uptake. something which largely disproves the capital cost argument.

 

 

Interestingly the figures show that heat pumps provide the biggest bang for the buck when it comes carbon savings, even over insulation measures. 

 

I still cannot fathom why our electricity prices are the way they are and how this can in any way be justified other than in terms of profits for energy companies and their shareholders. 

[Iceverge]

1 hour ago, ProDave said:

So there has never been any long term planning.  The fact there are more pensioners than ever and fewer of working age is entirely predictable as the ongoing result of the post war baby boom, but no one has planned in advance how we will invest and adapt to cope with that change.

 

It's an issue. 

 

In the UK 60 years ago there was 4 workers for every pensioner. It's closer to 3 now. 

 

In the 1960s pensioners were 6% of the voters, now they're closer to 18%. 

 

Policy is following the votes.

 

Underspending on new housing, infrastructure, energy and education in favour of protecting homeowner tax breaks, pension protection and old age healthcare.

 

These policies aren't economical productive so the county is suffering. 

 

Retirement should be raised to 75 years old to match the 1960's ratios or this problem will deepen. 

 

 

[MikeSharp01]

7 minutes ago, Iceverge said:

Retirement should be raised to 75 years old to match the 1960's ratios or this problem will deepen. 

Radical Thinking - but maybe where we are heading. Our children, in their 30s, will defo not retire before 70!

 

[Iceverge]

50 minutes ago, SimonD said:

I still cannot fathom why our electricity prices are the way they are and how this can in any way be justified other than in terms of profits for energy companies and their shareholders. 

 

At brief glance I reckon they're inline with most other European economies? Exemptions being the Nordics with good hydro and nuclear and Hungary and Turkey with government price controls?

 

On the other hand I think private enterprise short termism is a bad fit for vital public services like transport, energy, water etc . The likes of EDF and Thames Water should be trading only in decades long bonds to force them to take a long view rather than normal shares and dividends. 

[Iceverge]

8 minutes ago, MikeSharp01 said:

Radical Thinking - but maybe where we are heading. Our children, in their 30s, will defo not retire before 70!

 

 

My day job isn't climbing scaffold or screeding concrete so barring any disastrous health problems I expect I could do it until at least then. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SimonD]

53 minutes ago, Iceverge said:

At brief glance I reckon they're inline with most other European economies? Exemptions being the Nordics with good hydro and nuclear and Hungary and Turkey with government price controls?

 

I think we're mostly on a par with Germany in terms of highest costs. It's no surprise given both rely so much on gas.

 

But there are so many inconsistencies that make little sense from the perspective of an environmental policy.

 

We still subsidise fossils fuels to the tune of £17.5 billion per year. The greatest increase in electricity costs are relating to wholesale costs and social/environmental costs on the average bill since 2021. It seems strange given the profits made by producers and that Gas has not been significantly levied from a social and environmental perspective, but is privy to significant subsidies beyond the subsidies available for renewables.

 

Yes, the government has announced some reductions for electricity in the budget, but we'll have to see how that pans out in reality.

[Mike]

On 29/11/2025 at 10:26, JohnMo said:

But I think everyone should be allowed to vote

I'd go further and suggest that everyone should be required to vote. Reports of the benefits of doing so in Australia - such as this one from the BBC - seem, on balance, to be be positive. In particular, it means that any party that wants to get elected / stay in office has to address the concerns of all segments the population, rather than just the demographic that habitually votes.

[JohnMo]

3 minutes ago, Mike said:

everyone should be required to vote

Yep.  You certainly have nothing to complain about if you don't vote, you are obviously happy with everything, anyone throws at you. 

[SteamyTea]

4 hours ago, JohnMo said:

You certainly have nothing to complain about if you don't vote

Except political disenfranchisement.

 

I tend to think that people that don't vote are happy with what government is currently in.

 

A better system is to give the incumbent the unused votes, there is more of a voter incentive to vote a party out, or keep them in, that way.

[ProDave]

A discussion with relatives recently revealed most of them don't like ANY of the choices on the ballot paper and if there was a "none of the above" box on the paper that is what they would choose.

 

I get the impression that Reform, will take the mantle of that none of the above choice, simply because it is something different to what has been tried before and deemed by so many to have failed.

[JamesPa]

1 hour ago, ProDave said:

A discussion with relatives recently revealed most of them don't like ANY of the choices on the ballot paper and if there was a "none of the above" box on the paper that is what they would choose.

Sorry but that appears to be where we have descended to (and I use the word descended deliberately)

 

People now expect government (made up of human beings remember) to solve often insoluble problems in timescales that are wholly unrealistic even for the subset of problems that are soluble.  The media whip up hatred/discontent by positioning almost everything as bad, without bothering to consider any of the past or other difficult or impossible to control conditions that in fact must be dealt with.  The result is general discontent and the 'none of the above' approach.  It must be pretty depressing if you are a well meaning politician knowing that you can never achieve what people now expect.  Frankly being PM or Chancellor must be a pretty shit job given the feedback unless, like some but by no means all, you are in it purely for your own ends.

 

In the real world (unless we abdicate all choice) we have to make a choice between imperfect options promoted by human beings constrained by the real world.  

 

If we were a bit (well actually quite a lot) more patient and allowed perhaps a decade for meaningful change we might be able to improve some of the underlying constraints, but we have given up on that it seems and expect big change within a few months.  As it is we are risk throwing everything that is good out with the bathwater by not recognising that we cant always have what we want, and even when we can we definitely cant have when we want it.

 

I am sorry but, whilst I fully respect someone's right not to vote, I have absolutely zero sympathy or respect for anyone who wishes to vote 'none of the above'.   Its simply abdicating reality. 

 

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by JamesPa

[Nestor]

Cheer up

"If voting changed anything, they would make it illegal"

Emma Goldman 1869-1940.

[Beelbeebub]

2 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

A better system is to give the incumbent the unused votes, there is more of a voter incentive to vote a party out, or keep them in, that way.

I cannot think of a better way to allow a corrupt government to remain with a veneer of democracy.  They simply have to depress the turnout (limited polling opening times, voter ID, disinformation etc) and voila! they are voted for overwhelmingly. 

 

Voter apathy and hopelessness is easy to manufacture. 

 

See:

6 minutes ago, Nestor said:

Cheer up

"If voting changed anything, they would make it illegal"

Emma Goldman 1869-1940.

The counter to this is - "if voting were so useless, why would the rich and powerful spend so much to make you think it was?" 

[Crofter]

2 hours ago, ProDave said:

Reform, will take the mantle of that none of the above choice, simply because it is something different to what has been tried before and deemed by so many to have failed.

 

The greatest trick that Reform have managed to pull is to convince people that they are new, and different, when in fact they are merely the current iteration UKIP/ Brexit Party, which has roots going back decades. And most of their elected members are former Torys. They wholeheartedly endorsed Brexit and the Truss government, both of which are deeply unpopular today. It boggles the mind why anybody would trust this bunch of charlatans, especially in light of the Nathan Gill Russian bribery scandal. But, as you say, they've managed to somehow convince a chunk of the electorate that they're a new option on the ballot.

[BotusBuild]

On 28/11/2025 at 17:11, SteamyTea said:

Makes it easy to see the Venezuela has more proven reserves/resources that anyone else.

Which is why The Orange Man is trying to put a friendly government in to replace Maduro, oh, and pamper to the Russians as well, in order to secure a future supply for their gas guzzlers and overheated and overchilled housing and office space.

And of course, cozy up to the murderers of Khashoggi.

How does Israel fit in? Arms (pun intended) length "nuke 'em outfit" to keeps the Middle East in check

[LnP]

On 29/11/2025 at 11:56, SimonD said:

I still cannot fathom why our electricity prices are the way they are and how this can in any way be justified other than in terms of profits for energy companies and their shareholders. 

Listen to Dieter Helm's lecture "System costs of low carbon energy". It's because of system costs. Approximately 50% of UK electricity is now supplied by renewables. Although the marginal cost of renewable electricity is low, and it still looks good value when you include amortised capital cost (to get a "levelised cost"), it's the system costs which make it expensive. I hope I summarised his arguments correctly ...

• When we had a few large coal, gas and nuclear powers stations, which delivered "firm" power, we had a generating capacity of 60 GW. We now have a capacity of 120 GW, not because the demand has increased. In fact demand has decreased. We need that extra capacity because of intermittency.
• Renewables are distributed around the country and the grid wasn't built for this so we get curtailment. We still pay for the electricity even though we can't use it.
• The wind farms are in the wrong place. Generation is in the North Sea off Scotland and the demand is in the SE of England. It costs to transmit it.

He paints a rather bleak picture. We have the highest price industrial electricity in the developed world, which is why our manufacturing industries are voting with their feet. Just in the chemicals world, Ineos Grangemouth, ExxonMobil Fife ethylene plant, the CF Fertilisers ammonia plants at Ince and Billingham ... etc all gone or going.

[Crofter]

4 minutes ago, LnP said:

Listen to Dieter Helm's lecture "System costs of low carbon energy". It's because of system costs. Approximately 50% of UK electricity is now supplied by renewables. Although the marginal cost of renewable electricity is low, and it still looks good value when you include amortised capital cost (to get a "levelised cost"), it's the system costs which make it expensive. I hope I summarised his arguments correctly ...

• When we had a few large coal, gas and nuclear powers stations, which delivered "firm" power, we had a generating capacity of 60 GW. We now have a capacity of 120 GW, not because the demand has increased. In fact demand has decreased. We need that extra capacity because of intermittency.
• Renewables are distributed around the country and the grid wasn't built for this so we get curtailment. We still pay for the electricity even though we can't use it.
• The wind farms are in the wrong place. Generation is in the North Sea off Scotland and the demand is in the SE of England. It costs to transmit it.

He paints a rather bleak picture. We have the highest price industrial electricity in the developed world, which is why our manufacturing industries are voting with their feet. Just in the chemicals world, Ineos Grangemouth, ExxonMobil Fife ethylene plant, the CF Fertilisers ammonia plants at Ince and Billingham ... etc all gone or going.

Won't Dogger help address the location issue?

[Michael_S]

55 minutes ago, LnP said:

Listen to Dieter Helm's lecture "System costs of low carbon energy". It's because of system costs. Approximately 50% of UK electricity is now supplied by renewables. Although the marginal cost of renewable electricity is low, and it still looks good value when you include amortised capital cost (to get a "levelised cost"), it's the system costs which make it expensive. I hope I summarised his arguments correctly ...

• When we had a few large coal, gas and nuclear powers stations, which delivered "firm" power, we had a generating capacity of 60 GW. We now have a capacity of 120 GW, not because the demand has increased. In fact demand has decreased. We need that extra capacity because of intermittency.
• Renewables are distributed around the country and the grid wasn't built for this so we get curtailment. We still pay for the electricity even though we can't use it.
• The wind farms are in the wrong place. Generation is in the North Sea off Scotland and the demand is in the SE of England. It costs to transmit it.

He paints a rather bleak picture. We have the highest price industrial electricity in the developed world, which is why our manufacturing industries are voting with their feet. Just in the chemicals world, Ineos Grangemouth, ExxonMobil Fife ethylene plant, the CF Fertilisers ammonia plants at Ince and Billingham ... etc all gone or going.

You might ask why we have put in place CFDs for the build out of wind that has no route to market?  Surely a self-inflicted wound?

[-rick-]

27 minutes ago, Michael_S said:

You might ask why we have put in place CFDs for the build out of wind that has no route to market?  Surely a self-inflicted wound?

 

One part of government not co-ordinating with another (planning). So the upgrades were planned then got slammed into planning issues. Supposedly a lot of new build and upgrades to the network will happen over the next 5 years. Paid for out of bills of course, but if it stops curtailment and the associated cost the impact will be more limited.