Well on the plus side it's impossible for roads to leak, right?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
Well on the plus side it's impossible for roads to leak, right?
StealthGoblin
Banned
What on earth have they been doing with all their profits all these years? Sort it the fuck out.
Why, investing in R&D and creating more jobs, the same thing that all noble capitalists do.
J Tourettes
Banned
:lol
This Boris and Ken tax stuff is entertaining me greatly today. Ken is truly fucked if he doesn't release and probably fucked if he does.
radioheadrule83
Banned
There's no excuse for topping a leaks list like that but generally, water scarcity is both baffling and frightening to me.. Thames water want to tap up the River Avon for more water. I mean, seriously... there's not enough water in the South East? You have to come up with some mental scheme to reuse old waterways and nick the South West's water?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Yep. And now the cricket's done for the day this is equally compelling - daren't leave the PC in case Ken gets out LBW when I'm not looking.
J Tourettes
Banned
@PippaCrerar (Evening Standard political reporter) reckons she's got the first lot of Ken's figures from Team Ken now.
StealthGoblin
Banned
Thames Water should pay more in fines per percentage loss of water than they currently do. Fuck the shareholders. The shareholders will have to put more pressure on the company to cut down on the leaks and subsequently improve their profits if they want their payouts. Its absolutely disgusting.
Can you imagine if people said "You've wasted over 20% of the water, so we want approximately 20% off of our bills".
Can you imagine if people said "You've wasted over 20% of the water, so we want approximately 20% off of our bills".
I really hate shitty articles like the Metro one that pop up every few years. The figures and the imagery involved are completely useless. The most useful figure in that article is the Thames Water 25.7% leak rate (I don't even know what that means) in comparison to other water companies. I don't give a fuck how many sporting venues the wasted water could fill. The implication that the leaks could also be completely stopped is also ludicrous.
The blame for the inevitable hosepipe bans and general mismanagement of water resources should be directed at decades worth of governments, and the NIMBY's. Nobody wants to pay for it. If you want to rely on Victorian infrastructure, then this is what you get. See the railways and roads for other examples. Successive governments have seen the price of linking reservoirs, building desalination plants and linking resources in the North, and balked.
This is why I don't get why some people are so partisan in this country any more. That might have been justified in the 80's under Thatcher, but since then the three main parties have all merged into one swirling river of shit. The poor infrastructure in this country, the over-reliance on services, the London centricity etc have all accumulated over decades with contributions from all parties. Nobody has their hands clean.
Also, fuck Ken Livingstone. I hope Boris gets reelected.
The blame for the inevitable hosepipe bans and general mismanagement of water resources should be directed at decades worth of governments, and the NIMBY's. Nobody wants to pay for it. If you want to rely on Victorian infrastructure, then this is what you get. See the railways and roads for other examples. Successive governments have seen the price of linking reservoirs, building desalination plants and linking resources in the North, and balked.
This is why I don't get why some people are so partisan in this country any more. That might have been justified in the 80's under Thatcher, but since then the three main parties have all merged into one swirling river of shit. The poor infrastructure in this country, the over-reliance on services, the London centricity etc have all accumulated over decades with contributions from all parties. Nobody has their hands clean.
Also, fuck Ken Livingstone. I hope Boris gets reelected.
J Tourettes
Banned
Expecting all the leaks to stop may be somewhat of a pipe dream but Thames water are fucking useless. I've seen leaks take up to two weeks to be fixed after reporting, that's fucking ludicrous.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Fuck Thames Water. Government should threaten them with nationalisation if the leak rate isn't under 10% in less than 3 years.
There are two problems that I can think of. The first is that, as a natural monopoly, Thames Water have no competition forcing them to invest in infrastructure, and secondly it's very difficult to improve the infrastructure in London anyway, given that it was built 100+ years ago and it's all underground. It's like a perfect storm for shittiness.
Remember it's Thames Water who wants to build the new London "Super Sewer"; http://www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk/
and everyone is giving them shit for that. Bloody NIMBYs.
It's mainly Thames Water who will be affected by the new "Lane Rental";
http://www.backboris2012.com/news-media/blog/2012-03-green-light-for-london-lane-rental
There's alot more to this than faux outrage, "OMG fix those leaks!"
and everyone is giving them shit for that. Bloody NIMBYs.
It's mainly Thames Water who will be affected by the new "Lane Rental";
http://www.backboris2012.com/news-media/blog/2012-03-green-light-for-london-lane-rental
There's alot more to this than faux outrage, "OMG fix those leaks!"
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Guido's done the numbers:
As a percentage of income tax paid by each candidate
Ken - 14.5%
Paddick - 24.7%
Boris - 45.1%
Boris earned the most, but paid full tax on every penny of it. That tells me one thing, he has been expecting this sooner rather than later and has ensured he hasn't ever avoided paying any taxes. Possibly in preparation for a run at the Tory party leadership.
Ken is a full on tax avoider.
As a percentage of income tax paid by each candidate
Ken - 14.5%
Paddick - 24.7%
Boris - 45.1%
Boris earned the most, but paid full tax on every penny of it. That tells me one thing, he has been expecting this sooner rather than later and has ensured he hasn't ever avoided paying any taxes. Possibly in preparation for a run at the Tory party leadership.
Ken is a full on tax avoider.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Absolutely agree, but they are more than happy to raise the rates and not invest their profits in the network.
Exactly: natural monopoly. They have no incentive to invest in R&D from competition, and people can't flock to other providers, so they can raise rates and avoid investment all they want. Especially if regulation is too weak.
[edit]R&D is perhaps the wrong term here. I mean that they have little incentive to improve the water network.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
That's why I think threatening them with nationalisation would force them to improve, BT had to improve their service because LLU providers were destroying their customer base, obviously that isn't a possibility with water so the government needs to give all water companies a downside risk for not improving. At the moment they are not answerable to anyone and shareholders know that since consumers have no choice they have no downside risk, the government need to make them answerable to someone.
Looks like Boris will stroll to re-election.
Probably good news for the people of London, he seems to be a good leader.
Manchester will be having a referendum on whether it wants a mayor in May. I'm not sure if I'm in favour of it, the mayor should be one for Greater Manchester as opposed to just Manchester (the situation where Manchester and Salford have different mayors if bloody ridiculous).
Another problem is that the city mayors will all sit at a cabinet meeting with the PM/Pickles/Alexander to discuss business proposals and funding issues every couple of months. That seems great but when you think that all of the "big" cities (the ones who will take part in the referendums come May) with mayors will be there and that those cities include Doncaster, Salford and Wakefield alongsidse Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds is a bit silly considering the difference in importance between those cities. I think any situation where the mayor of Doncaster is given the same platform to speak on as the mayor of Manchester/Birmingham is a bit ridiculous.
The full list of cities having referendums is below:
- Birmingham
- Bradford
- Bristol
- Coventry
- Doncaster
- Leeds
- Manchester
- Newcastle
- Nottingham
- Salford
- Sheffield
- Wakefield
Probably good news for the people of London, he seems to be a good leader.
Manchester will be having a referendum on whether it wants a mayor in May. I'm not sure if I'm in favour of it, the mayor should be one for Greater Manchester as opposed to just Manchester (the situation where Manchester and Salford have different mayors if bloody ridiculous).
Another problem is that the city mayors will all sit at a cabinet meeting with the PM/Pickles/Alexander to discuss business proposals and funding issues every couple of months. That seems great but when you think that all of the "big" cities (the ones who will take part in the referendums come May) with mayors will be there and that those cities include Doncaster, Salford and Wakefield alongsidse Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds is a bit silly considering the difference in importance between those cities. I think any situation where the mayor of Doncaster is given the same platform to speak on as the mayor of Manchester/Birmingham is a bit ridiculous.
The full list of cities having referendums is below:
- Birmingham
- Bradford
- Bristol
- Coventry
- Doncaster
- Leeds
- Manchester
- Newcastle
- Nottingham
- Salford
- Sheffield
- Wakefield
J Tourettes
Banned
It does seem that BoJo has been playing the long game and totally flipped the tables on Ken. The official Team Ken narrative is that he pays about 36% tax but that's obviously with some creative accounting. Unfortunately a lot of the media outlets are reporting it as that too.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I'll be somewhere between the two I think, and maybe even lower.
Ken hasn't helped himself by not releasing full income figures (he shows personal income figures coming OUT of the company, but not income going INTO the company), and then fiddles things by showing corporation tax (and maybe just PART of the corporation tax, it isn't clear) as if it were personal, rather than company, taxation.
Guido Fawkes has probably swung a bit far the other way in taking gross company income rather than net profit somewhere.
Whichever way it goes, you can't say that what Ken has released is anywhere near transparent.
EDIT: and of course it serves him jolly well right for provoking the row in the first place
Poor show for Ken. Not a fan of Borris and have always preferred London under Ken's management. Certainly been better for much of the smaller and poorer communities and so on anyway.
Whilst I've always done well in London myself (pre and post recession), I think it's selfish to ignore the plight of the people struggling at the moment, and cutting funding to or abolishing youth clubs, community and youth help and guidance organisations etc were terrible moves. I'm almost certain these things will come back to bite London in the ass at some point in future. The disconnect certainly seems to be at an incredible high.
Perhaps, but the fact remains, the British government cut taxes to the rich and the Pensioners are indirectly paying for it, or at least have taken the downside of the changes. Both of these things compare to what the Republican party want to peruse.
Whilst I've always done well in London myself (pre and post recession), I think it's selfish to ignore the plight of the people struggling at the moment, and cutting funding to or abolishing youth clubs, community and youth help and guidance organisations etc were terrible moves. I'm almost certain these things will come back to bite London in the ass at some point in future. The disconnect certainly seems to be at an incredible high.
Perhaps, but the fact remains, the British government cut taxes to the rich and the Pensioners are indirectly paying for it, or at least have taken the downside of the changes. Both of these things compare to what the Republican party want to peruse.
J Tourettes
Banned
Fuck the pensioners, moaning old cunts.
As said, its obvious that Boris has been planning his tax affairs for a while to make him come out squeaky clean. Ken Livingstone is guilty of doing something many people in his position have been doing for years. But he stupidly made an issue of it, along with calling Boris a liar.
Boris is going to win by double figures i would think now.
Boris is going to win by double figures i would think now.
They made Britain what it is, and the generation they raised have been fucking it over in a humongous way, fuelled by greed for several years now. So no, I can't agree with you there. They did their part to help out, often with higher rate taxes and all the rest, so fuck the greedy shits who are ungrateful and want to cut them out. They've already had a raw deal over the last several years and it's a travesty it's getting worse only so the super rich can enjoy a bit more off the top.
Remember, you reap what you sow. One day we'll be old and struggling. Having put a lifetime of service towards this country, and taxes and all the rest (many paying less than current pensioners did I might add), you can be damn sure I'll expect something in return.
The notion proposed that we should work till we're 70 now as well, WTF is that shit? Like fuck.
J Tourettes
Banned
The older generation helped make the country what it is you're right there. Baby boomers had the best of it all and fucked the rest of us over, let them lose their tax breaks.
I think he was trolling you.
As for that last bit, well we (under 35's) should, our life expectancy is over 100 now, we may be commonly living beyond 110, and not decrepit either, like "in your 50-60's" well into your late 80's.
All retiring at 65 and then living for 30 years+ on a pension when you are as fit as a fiddle? Like fuck.
Sorry I disagree. The one's who fucked it up for us are the one's still fucking it up and still working in the upper echelons of finance, government etc. Current pensioners I doubt had as much of a hand in it, but are still taking a big hit because of it. Fuck, even the 80's recession was a completely different kettle of fish to the gargantuan mess we have today.
What the hell are you talking about lol. Is over 100 now? Last I checked it was 79.4 years based on figures from 2005 to 2010. I love how you magically added 20 years to the average and think it will further move anther 10 above even that. It's like you want to fuck yourself over with pensions for the future.
I think the French had the right idea on this one.
killer_clank
Member
I'm so glad the Tories never got round to privatising water supply up here in Scotland.
The life expectancy in the UK is 80.1 but it rises on average (and quite steadily post war) at about 1 year of added life expectancy per 3 years. If you live for 30 years, your life expectancy will go up by 10 years. I'm 20 at the moment, and if I live to the CURRENT life expectancy of 80, it would actually be 100~ because of the increase in technology/medicinal breakthrough.
Also, bear in mind that the general life expectancy is affected negatively, rather than positively by anomalies. There are a lot of people who only live until 30 years before the life expectancy (50) but a tiny amount of people who live 30 years above it (110). If you live a decent life in a non-dangerous occupation, don't smoke, don't drink excessively, exercise regularly, don't kill yourself (!) and don't live in high-deprivation areas (for example, caravan parks where the life expectancy is, in men, around 50).
Realistically my generation (born say 1985-1995) will be working until we're at least 85. I for one am glad about it
Oh, and the 1 year of growth per 3 years is liable to get quicker as significant tech breakthroughs continue, for example nano-tech and the genome map, so 100 for people my age is the conservative estimate. The only thing that could reduce it significantly would be some kind of terrible pandemic or a large world war. Both seem relatively unlikely.
The life expectancy in the UK is 80.1 but it rises on average (and quite steadily post war) at about 1 year of added life expectancy per 3 years. If you live for 30 years, your life expectancy will go up by 10 years. I'm 20 at the moment, and if I live to the CURRENT life expectancy of 80, it would actually be 100~ because of the increase in technology/medicinal breakthrough.
Also, bear in mind that the general life expectancy is affected negatively, rather than positively by anomalies. There are a lot of people who only live until 30 years before the life expectancy (50) but a tiny amount of people who live 30 years above it (110). If you live a decent life in a non-dangerous occupation, don't smoke, don't drink excessively, exercise regularly, don't kill yourself (!) and don't live in high-deprivation areas (for example, caravan parks where the life expectancy is, in men, around 50).
Realistically my generation (born say 1985-1995) will be working until we're at least 85. I for one am glad about it
Oh, and the 1 year of growth per 3 years is liable to get quicker as significant tech breakthroughs continue, for example nano-tech and the genome map, so 100 for people my age is the conservative estimate. The only thing that could reduce it significantly would be some kind of terrible pandemic or a large world war. Both seem relatively unlikely.
Thanks Meadows, that's "What the hell I am talking about lol".
The whole concept of retirement and pensions is lost on me. We need to develop a culture where there is a small, public pension on offer and the rest is up to the individual to save and be prudent over their working lives. Ive lost count of how many companies and governments are currently at mercy to huge pension obligations.
My grandfather is in his mid-80's now and he worked for the Patent Office. He has a fantastic state pension and is living very, very well. Obviously I don't begrudge him his pension but its an example where the government is locked into paying someone, who frankly doesn't need a pension at all, regular payments.
If we are all going to be living longer and spending a larger proportion of our lives in retirement then someone has to pay for these lifestyles. We can't afford the current pension obligations, what should suggest we will be able to afford it in 50 years time when I'll be reaching pension age?
The retirement age must go up, end of story. Im going to treat my working years as if I will retire only on the wealth that I accrue over my life and not on the hope of a government pension plan.
My grandfather is in his mid-80's now and he worked for the Patent Office. He has a fantastic state pension and is living very, very well. Obviously I don't begrudge him his pension but its an example where the government is locked into paying someone, who frankly doesn't need a pension at all, regular payments.
If we are all going to be living longer and spending a larger proportion of our lives in retirement then someone has to pay for these lifestyles. We can't afford the current pension obligations, what should suggest we will be able to afford it in 50 years time when I'll be reaching pension age?
The retirement age must go up, end of story. Im going to treat my working years as if I will retire only on the wealth that I accrue over my life and not on the hope of a government pension plan.
if he doesn't need the money, why doesn't he stop collecting his pension? they government aren't going to force the money on him.
I'm fine with Boris personally, and I'm not even a Tory.
He's certainly better than Ken in my opinion.
He's certainly better than Ken in my opinion.
You really want to be working until you're 85?Realistically my generation (born say 1985-1995) will be working until we're at least 85. I for one am glad about it
Because that's irrational.
how? he's collecting money he doesn't need, he should stop and allow the government to use that money on someone who really needs it.
Hopefully longer. I can take leave for say 6 months to a year every few years or so to enjoy travelling around the world and just find another job, but I want a really active life working and earning a good salary to take care of myself and eventually my kids.
I think that working 30-35 hours a week will become the norm in a few decades as tech starts to take over people's jobs, leaving more leisure time for all of us
(I'm a bit of an optimist)free money
anyone would collect it really
You are no more likely to be wrong / right than the thousands of pessimists on the forum.
Little Old Man
Member
Simple as that. As a whole we are living longer. The state retirement and pension age must increase proportionally with it over time. Legislation on this isn't not just something that can be addressed every 20 or 30 years and then forgotten about, it NEEDS to be kept on top of before pressure builds up in the system again.
The only ones who loose out partially are those just shy of retirement, who won't benefit greatly from future increases to their life expectancy due having lived most of their lives already, or have planned private pension schemes in line with. However, given how much notice people have about upcoming changes, it is largely a non issue.
I hope you're right, but I doubt it.Hopefully longer. I can take leave for say 6 months to a year every few years or so to enjoy travelling around the world and just find another job, but I want a really active life working and earning a good salary to take care of myself and eventually my kids.
I think that working 30-35 hours a week will become the norm in a few decades as tech starts to take over people's jobs, leaving more leisure time for all of us
free money
anyone would collect it really
Okay, now design a government policy that would encourage every pensioner on a private or public pension plan to give up their pension if they don't need it. What would the threshold be? How will you tackle the many legal challenges by people who have the legal and contractual right to collect their pension?
If we are going to form government policy on the expectation that people will take what they need give back money they dont require then lets just abolish all taxation!
Im not saying that its fair or that its moral, but that's the situation we are in and that's why we need a change of culture.
You said our life expectancy is over 100 now. Not will be in X number of years. Which is irrelevant, because we can't know for sure what the future holds. Generally such budgets and government rulings apply to today, not a distant future. And today, the average life expectancy is 79.4 or 80.1. That's the figure we should be working on. Retirement age in 30 years time is all but irrelevant to pensioners today.
And what a horrid notion, working till you're 85 (that's on the assumption you're even healthy enough to do so). Not that I know many 85 year olds (most of my family generally die well before that), but those I do know around that age have all manner of issues such as arthritis, diabetes etc.
You may live longer, sure, but we're getting less exercise these days and the damage to our bodies hasn't really changed with respect to the physical (if anything we're lazier today and suffer for it later on). Muscle or bone wear etc, it's the same today as it has been for decades. You may live till you're 85, but chances are you're not going to be fit as a fiddle and general day to day work will be infinitely harder and more difficult than it was when you were young.
I'm a bit traditional in the sense that I don't think old people should be working away the vast majority of their lives. They raised us with blood sweat and tears, let them enjoy the remaining years in peace and leisure, with their grand children, on travels or whatever. It should be OUR duty to look after them and all the rest. Pensions etc certainly take some of the load off
why does the government need to do this? it should be up the individual. if you're living comfortably, you don't need a state pension so don't collect one. your grandad, with all respect, is being greedy by claiming money he doesn't need.
if the gov must do something, make it means tested instead of a flat rate.
We have a good idea though, that's what statistical trend modelling is all about.
that's just incorrect. People drink less, smoke less, don't work in mines, haven't been exposed to wars etc. Yes we're less fit but this is less important than problems around stuff like asbestos, coal fume inhalation, cancer from cigarettes etc.
Osbourne announced an automatic pension age increase policy in the Budget.
Doesn't matter. You can't go making changes relating to models for 30 years away. You'd be crippling millions of pensioners for decades to come till the actual number even caught up to that estimated figure (if it actually ever even does).
I agree, there are less of some of the issues you mentioned, but there are also new one's. You mentioned less drinking, but isn't drink a major issue in the UK now? Mass binge drinking, liver damage, laziness resorting to all sorts of future deficiencies, high cholesterol levels from fatty junk foods, record numbers of obesity etc etc. We're living longer sure, but like I said before, it's doubtful most will be as healthy as you think at age 85 (if they even live to that age that is).
P.S, walking a lot is a positive not negative. People are less healthy because they walk less, not more healthy. Irrespective of pollution, the benefits to the body in the form of exercise from walking can be substantial, which is why a lot of GP's recommend it, especially to overweight and elderly people.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
That's the life expectancy at birth. Make it into your thirties and it gets a lot higher (childhood diseases/accidents/stupid youngsters doing stupid things). So Meadows may not be all that far off.
Good luck with that when you are in your 50s or 60s and the government of the day is subsidising employers to take on youngsters, so effectively pricing you out of the market.
Well, that only works if the government actually does use it on somebody who needs it rather that, say, on more civil servants, or MPs expenses or junkets for heads of quangos.
By the far the most effective way for Grandad to use that money if he doesn't need it is to directly give it to (or better still, employ) somebody who does need it and cut out the rapacious middleman. Big Society FTW.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
I like the government's idea that Osborne outlined in the budget, automatic retirement age rises with life expectancy. Automatic stabilisers ftw...