nfe
OT Initiate
Posts: 144
|
Post by nfe on Mar 13, 2023 11:14:57 GMT -5
I voted for Brexit and I'm not a Tory. Had my reasons, still do. Dismissing him as an 'ardent Brexiteer' this many years on really says more about yourself than it does McNeill. I'm not dismissing Andrew Neill because he's an ardent Brexiteer and Tory. He is fully entitled to his views (though some of his publishing actions should probably fall foul of hate speech laws, and many certainly fall foul of any decency). I'm dismissing him being presented as a balanced and incisive interviewer of whom politicians were equally scared because he let the fact that he was an ardent Brexiteer and Tory lead his political journalism.
|
|
|
Post by mrmystic on Mar 13, 2023 11:47:56 GMT -5
I voted for Brexit and I'm not a Tory. Had my reasons, still do. Dismissing him as an 'ardent Brexiteer' this many years on really says more about yourself than it does McNeill. I'm not dismissing Andrew Neill because he's an ardent Brexiteer and Tory. He is fully entitled to his views (though some of his publishing actions should probably fall foul of hate speech laws, and many certainly fall foul of any decency). I'm dismissing him being presented as a balanced and incisive interviewer of whom politicians were equally scared because he let the fact that he was an ardent Brexiteer and Tory lead his political journalism. Okay. Then answer me this. What bearing did his being a brexiteer have on his capabilities as a journalist or interviewer that made you point it out? What made you mention him as an 'ardent brexiteer' in the same breath as you were dismissing him, if it had absolutely nothing to do with what you were saying? It's bit like saying he was an 'ardent duck feeder at the local pond' or 'an ardent human rights activist' or an 'ardent believer in the concept of Trotskyist economics'. If it has literally -nothing- to do with your assessment of him as a political interviewer, why was it mentioned? I'm genuinely curious to hear what reason you had for bringing up his personal political views.
|
|
herzlos
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 700
|
Post by herzlos on Mar 13, 2023 17:04:42 GMT -5
I think his point, as covered in the last sentence is that it's hard to claim to be impartial whilst having clear opinions in one direction.
So it'd be just as bad if he was an ardent remainer.
Could I claim to be impartial on whether Manchester United or Manchester City was the better football team, if I had a Man United tattoo?
|
|
nfe
OT Initiate
Posts: 144
|
Post by nfe on Mar 13, 2023 17:10:15 GMT -5
I'm not dismissing Andrew Neil because he's an ardent Brexiteer and Tory. He is fully entitled to his views (though some of his publishing actions should probably fall foul of hate speech laws, and many certainly fall foul of any decency). I'm dismissing him being presented as a balanced and incisive interviewer of whom politicians were equally scared because he let the fact that he was an ardent Brexiteer and Tory lead his political journalism. Okay. Then answer me this. What bearing did his being a brexiteer have on his capabilities as a journalist or interviewer that made you point it out? What made you mention him as an 'ardent brexiteer' in the same breath as you were dismissing him, if it had absolutely nothing to do with what you were saying? It's bit like saying he was an 'ardent duck feeder at the local pond' or 'an ardent human rights activist' or an 'ardent believer in the concept of Trotskyist economics'. If it has literally -nothing- to do with your assessment of him as a political interviewer, why was it mentioned? I'm genuinely curious to hear what reason you had for bringing up his personal political views. Because it does have something to do with it. Just not what you framed it as. I've stated why twice. Once in the original post: 'He's an ardent Brexiteer Tory that chaired (and continues to chair) a hard right, and frequently far right, political magazine who let that spill over into interviews on a regular basis. And again in the post you are quoting here: 'I'm dismissing him being presented as a balanced and incisive interviewer of whom politicians were equally scared because he let the fact that he was an ardent Brexiteer and Tory lead his political journalism'. He is, fairly famously, far more aggressive towards left of centre politicians (and absolutely scathing towards left of centre commentators) than those to the right. This Week was essentially a platform for him to annihilate lefties and have chummy chats with centrists and right wingers, and he gave endless platforms and friendly interviews on Daily Politics to hard right figures like his buddy Fraser Nelson, who published praising articles about the Wermacht, Golden Dawn, and why there isn't enough Islamaphobia in the Tory party, or Republicans Abroad and later the Adam Smith Institute's Kate Andrews, sometimes whilst wearing his Adam Smith Institute pin badge! He habitually talks about left wing nutters, Brussels bureaucrats, and the climate change mafia during interviews but presents no similar ad hominems or sterotype buzzwords for the right. Try to find a right-facing equivalent of his famous interview with Caroline Lucas where he made repeated nonsensical accusations about her being uninterested in Telford rapes because she was talking about harassment of women MPs. Non-politician guests on his shows are overwhelmingly on the right and are frequently gifted extensive unchallenged monologues, especially on issues such as climate science denial and brexit (not exclusively right wing talking points, but almost exclusively presented from a right wing position on Neil's shows). No such opportunities for, by way of example, climate protestors. He is a forensic interviewer and always on top of the detail, but it is ridiculous to present him as even handed.
|
|
|
Post by pacific on Mar 14, 2023 9:59:20 GMT -5
Neil is great as a subject in Private Eye, provides them with so much material and it was rare that an issue passed with at least one satirical article about him or something he was involved in.
On a separate note, quite amusing reading Alistair Campbell getting all high and mighty about government interference in the BBC. He was literally right there in the inner sanctum when the BBC got pulled over hot coals and Greg Dyke had to resign over the 'sexed-up dossier' claims relating to the Iraq war. So you have to think he is at least partly responsible for the BBC being castrated and answerable to what whatever the presiding government wants.
|
|
|
Post by maddocgrotsnik on Mar 15, 2023 6:04:27 GMT -5
It’s Budget Day.
A;ready announced is fuel bill help extending to June.
|
|
herzlos
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 700
|
Post by herzlos on Mar 15, 2023 9:13:34 GMT -5
This one jumped out at me: "Work Capability Assessment abolished and funding for up to 50,000 places on a new voluntary employment scheme for disabled people, called Universal Support "
That's a big deal, the disability assessments are (deliberately) cruel and unnecessary. I know the Tories aren't scrapping it to be nice, but it'd be a good byproduct.
The scrapping of pension lifetime allowance (from £1.05m) and increase of tax free pension contributions from £40-60k is frustrating though - it's helping the already wealthy, since to pay £40k in tax you need to be earning well over £100k, and that 'saved' tax will need to come from somewhere else. Similar story with the lifetime limit; assuming you work from 18-67 you'd need to pay in £21.5k/year to hit that limit which already puts it out of reach of most people.
|
|
|
Post by maddocgrotsnik on Mar 15, 2023 9:49:21 GMT -5
Pitch for the pension change is to keep folk in work, as it’s an argument against early retirement.
As someone born in the 80’s lucky enough to have a Really Good Pension, I’m not sure how effective that’ll be. If you can comfortably retire at say, 55 already? Why would you want to stick around longer than necessary?
Glad to see Corporation Tax increasing as promised as well.
|
|
|
Post by easye on Mar 15, 2023 10:31:06 GMT -5
Ummmm, I thought people never retiring was a big issue with the current economy and was undermining the ability of younger works to increase their own payscales? Seems like undercutting early retirement is a terrible idea right now?
Is it different in the UK?
|
|
herzlos
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 700
|
Post by herzlos on Mar 15, 2023 12:06:56 GMT -5
Pitch for the pension change is to keep folk in work, as it’s an argument against early retirement. As someone born in the 80’s lucky enough to have a Really Good Pension, I’m not sure how effective that’ll be. If you can comfortably retire at say, 55 already? Why would you want to stick around longer than necessary? I'm not sure how well it'll work for keeping people retiring later; it'll only really apply to people earning well above average anyway and they'll almost certainly be able to retire whenever they want. I thought the bigger concern was people who were forced to retire but not having enough pension and having to rely on state funding to top it up (which is what the automatic workplace pension is supposed to address), or being able to afford the general costs of being old. So getting everyone to put more into pensions helps, but letting people put even more into pensions isn't going to help many. I earn pretty well and I'm in absolutely no danger of coming close to the old limits. The current £40k annual limit is more than my take home salary, and I'd need to put virtually my entire wage in to hit the lifetime limit.
Money going into tax free pensions also means money not going to the tax pot or into the economy - it'll almost all be in investment funds and I'm not convinced they have any economic benefit.
|
|
|
Post by maddocgrotsnik on Mar 15, 2023 12:32:13 GMT -5
Pensions aren’t my forte.
I can tell you mine is good. And if it’s predictions are right, I’ll be About Nice at retirement, spesh given by then I’ll almost certainly have had enough inheritance to buy a modest home outright and so be living rent/mortgage free.
The rest is just something I’ve never had to learn.
|
|
|
Post by maddocgrotsnik on Mar 15, 2023 12:34:33 GMT -5
Private Pensions are taxable though once they’re paying out. You don’t pay NI, but you do pay tax. So the tax does get paid - it’s just sort of deferred.
|
|
herzlos
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 700
|
Post by herzlos on Mar 15, 2023 17:00:26 GMT -5
Private Pensions are taxable though once they’re paying out. You don’t pay NI, but you do pay tax. So the tax does get paid - it’s just sort of deferred. All pensions are counted as income for tax, the difference between private and public sector pension is that the public one is usually a lot more generous. Most modern private pensions are defined contributions though - you essentially pay into a savings account and on retirement use that account to buy a pension - whereas I think public pensions are based on your final salary. Usually, when you retire you can take up to 50% of the pension pot in a tax free lump sum. I don't know if there's an upper limit on it (because someone could take £500k in cash and that seems silly).
I have no idea what happens if you start a private pension in addition to a public pension in terms of what your contributions would look like though regarding the annual limit.
My pension is pretty garbage (~15% of my salary); though I should be able to live on it once the mortgage is paid off, it just won't allow me much indulgence like taking up Warhammer again. I do still have some time to turn it around and throw some more money into it to try and get it near the ideal 50% of salary.
|
|
|
Post by pacific on Mar 16, 2023 5:58:43 GMT -5
I liked the quote from Hunt "At 50, people still have twenty years of graft in them." (Or words similar)
The words of a man who has not done a day's labour in his life. By the time my dad got into his late 50s, a car mechanic for his career, his hands were so dry and cracked they looked like the bark of an oak tree. He was so cold from a day stood out over winter he would come home and sit on a radiator for the evening, and would still not warm up. If he had had to work on up until 70 he almost certainly wouldn't have lasted. But perhaps that is the idea.
|
|
herzlos
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 700
|
Post by herzlos on Mar 16, 2023 8:20:38 GMT -5
Imagine trying to get old people back into work instead of allowing in young energetic labourers from overseas.
I honestly can't imagine any 'graft' jobs that could still be done at 70. Sadly like we're seeing in the US, with the pitiful state of pensions and social security, there are going to be many more folk working until the day of their funeral.
|
|