new ruling on bespoke

[Costi]

What a tirade! It looks like a full-fledged indictment. I suppose geographical distance didn't bring with it much emotional distance...

[storeynicholas]

Well, home is where you are born and brought up and, in every way (including architecturally and in terms of landscape), as well as manners and customs, my home is no longer recognisable to me - and so I am angry. Yes. However, this stuff probably is out of place here and I should stick to newspapers (some of which - especially regional ones - are glad of an occasional burst of fire). I can't help thinking that, if more people expressed their objections to the lead of national and local government, things would be better.
NJS

[Costi]

Ubi bene, ibi patriam...

[RWS]

Well, home is where you are born and brought up and, in every way (including architecturally and in terms of landscape), as well as manners and customs, my home is no longer recognisable to me . . . .

I remember that an aged cousin -- nearly a hundred years old, I think -- said, when I was a schoolboy in the 1960s, that England had changed more in the previous twenty years than in all the rest of her life. And it's changed even more, largely not for the better, in the forty-some years since that declaration.

Your impassioned epitome of recent British history gave me much to agree with, NJS. But I doubt that simply voicing one's concerns to the Powers That Be would change the course of events.

[storeynicholas]

Costi - yes something in this - especially as here reminds me of there 40 years ago - maybe here is 40 years behind - good, I say - great to buy fresh fruit and vegetables and acai sorbet and such like from independent little tumbledown roadside shacks ; good that the people who live here know each other well enough to wave and greet each other; good to know that neighbours watch out for each other; good that there is not a policy of if it moves regulate its actions to the nth degree; good that there is a presumption that trees should not be felled without good reason and that there are very large areas of statutory natureza reserva. I recently made a list of all the ancient buildings that my hometown has lost in my lifetime - including supposedly protected buildings and even officially protected trees. The buildings include the old railway ticket office (one of the very first of its kind anywhere in the world) - deliberately de-listed and torn down for a modern monstrosity, complete with stainless steel 'Cappucino bar'; the old Oscar Deutsch Odeon cinema (70 years old), several chapels - some centuries old but totally sound (granite and yellow pine construction) fit for other uses; many, many specimen trees from as far apart as Spain, the USA, Tibet and New Zealand; an art deco Fire Station - the siren to summon the firemen had sounded out so that the whole town knew that there was a fire: it had been the air raid siren between 1939-1945 - even this venerable old article - a warning of impending danger and then also, going off, a signal of relief from it - smashed up in the frenzy to make a weedy car park out of the site - a further car park for a town with few shops and so on - tempting to go on - but there we are - an old market town, reduced to rubble and the plans even to 'redevelop' it stagnating because no one wants the retail space to go up as the town has long lost its retail custom!! A total disaster!! I tried to prevent some of it but the vested interests prevailed - as they nearly always do and so I keep away. But sadness and frustration meet over the place; even though here is very good.
best,
NJS

[Costi]

I tried to prevent some of it but the vested interests prevailed - as they nearly always do and so I keep away. But sadness and frustration meet over the place; even though here is very good.
best,
NJS

Dear NJS, no good deed ever remains unpunished. And good intentions are ever so dangerous as they can easily turn into good deeds - so they are firmly discouraged. I live in a country where everything you described and much more all took place in a condensed interval of 15 years. Much good change happened, but also a lot of senseless destruction, some intentional. Although I am young and I received more than one "invitation" to enter politics, I choose to remain outside the pigsty, not because I don't like getting dirty, but because it wouldn't do any good in Augias' stables unless you are Hercules.

[sartorius]

Isn't the world a funny place? You log on to what you expect to be the London Lounge, only to find yourself transported to Speakers Corner!

NJS - I must say I don't recognise much of what you say in the England where I live (and which, for all its flaws, I actually rather adore). One point in particular I simply cannot let go unchallenged:

let's talk about the state of the British pensions' industry

The generation which has retired in the last 20 years is frankly the luckiest in the history of modern times. Employees from all over the country have retired on final salary pensions the like of which will never be seen again. For the first time, a generation has been able to choose to retire in their early and mid-50s safe in the knowledge that they can live out their days in second homes in France and Spain and wiil never have to work again. Those of us in our 30s will probably have to work well into our 70s. So I say to baby boomers everywhere - stop bloody complaining. Macmillan was right - you've never had it so good!

As it happens there has been a massive reform of the pension system in the last few years. We can all put away as much as we like, claim tax relief on it all and live off the income when we retire without having to buy some shockingly low rate annuity (shockingly low, mark you, because our elders and betters are now all living to be 120!).

Anyway, I think I can now safely suggest that we are well and truly off topic!

[storeynicholas]

Isn't the world a funny place? You log on to what you expect to be the London Lounge, only to find yourself transported to Speakers Corner!

NJS - I must say I don't recognise much of what you say in the England where I live (and which, for all its flaws, I actually rather adore). One point in particular I simply cannot let go unchallenged:

let's talk about the state of the British pensions' industry

The generation which has retired in the last 20 years is frankly the luckiest in the history of modern times. Employees from all over the country have retired on final salary pensions the like of which will never be seen again. For the first time, a generation has been able to choose to retire in their early and mid-50s safe in the knowledge that they can live out their days in second homes in France and Spain and wiil never have to work again. Those of us in our 30s will probably have to work well into our 70s. So I say to baby boomers everywhere - stop bloody complaining. Macmillan was right - you've never had it so good!

As it happens there has been a massive reform of the pension system in the last few years. We can all put away as much as we like, claim tax relief on it all and live off the income when we retire without having to buy some shockingly low rate annuity (shockingly low, mark you, because our elders and betters are now all living to be 120!).

Anyway, I think I can now safely suggest that we are well and truly off topic!

I am not sure that I can even agree that we are off-topic - although, after this, I shall ceratinly find some other diversion around the LL. The original question revolves around the conflicting ideals of Rule Britannia (people like us) and Kool Britannia (people like you): I am afraid that we will have to agree to disagree over the state of the nation. I just thank my lucky stars that I don't have to attempt the thankless and hopeless task of tolerating the intolerable. Two quite different modern british (the lower case is deliberate) business people wrote to me recently on very simlpe, uncontentious matters and each managed, in her own way, to be thoroughly and deliberately obnoxious: didactic, prescriptive and rude - and they stand for me as representatve of the manners of the people of the country which I have left behind.
As for the pensions' point: you misunderstand my point. I will clarify. First, I agree with you that the generation which has been retiring and still is retiring, is, in Thatcherite terms "All right Jack". This is because their accrued rights derive from pension schemes with generous final salary provision, excellent deferred rights benefits and some even with index linking, because indeed, many aim for the ultimate objective of their carefully healthy risk-free lives: to dribble on to 120. These pension schemes had to close to new members and that is why your generation will be worse off. One of the main reasons that they closed to new members was that the employers and predatory take-over outfits in the 1980s and 1990s stripped out what flexible professional advisers were prepared to say were surpluses of assets over liabilities. In the mid to long term these surpluses did not exist. Add to this the mess made of 'appropriate personal pension schemes' by inadequate financial institutions - and the losses sustained by prospective pensioners hopping off employing company schemes onto what an eager Thatcher government promised them was a gravy train - and you have a total hash. That's why your generation will be paying for it by working until you're middle-aged (at 80) - however much you stash with your tax breaks. This is called
hard cheese
NJS

[chelsea]

I may or may not be interested in my fellow members views on clothes. I am not remotely interested in their politics.

I was always brought up to believe as a gentleman one never spoke of politics, sex or religion in a social gathering. Indeed, to break this basic rule marked one out as being anything but a gentleman.


I believe these standards should be upheld at LL.



Chelsea

[storeynicholas]

Hello Chelsea,
What's the weather like? Rain again? Having an undecided interest in other members' views on clothes would seem to be a disavantage hereabouts. As a point of information, some of us have been discussing the state of the nation, as its attitudes and values reflect upon clothes and manners. It has been something of a diversion but not wholly meaningless. By the way, I was always brought up to believe that openly to comment on a particular individual's manners was the greatest sin and to do so while proclaiming oneself to be a 'gentleman' compounded the error. But there we are - maybe, as I described it above, it is the preponderance of yeoman/peasant blood in my veins which has offended you.
NJS

[sartorius]

The original question revolves around the conflicting ideals of Rule Britannia (people like us) and Kool Britannia (people like you)

I will take that as a compliment, NJS, but whether it is meant as such or not, these two "ideals" were never actually that far apart. They certainly do not conflict. Cool Britannia (it has never been spelt with a K ) was a media invention used to characterise a pride in all things British (coinciding, as it happened, with New Labour's election) which emerged in the late 90s. So, as a symbol of national pride, the two are actually very closely aligned. Your associating them with different age groups is quite right, but the underlying themes are very similar.

I am afraid that we will have to agree to disagree over the state of the nation. I just thank my lucky stars that I don't have to attempt the thankless and hopeless task of tolerating the intolerable

I'm sure that your reasons for leaving the UK were just as compelling as for the other 40,000 or so who emigrate each year. And reading the British press will certainly reinforce your disillusion. You won't find any good news in the media - good news doesn't sell papers!

These pension schemes had to close to new members and that is why your generation will be worse off. One of the main reasons that they closed to new members was that the employers and predatory take-over outfits in the 1980s and 1990s stripped out what flexible professional advisers were prepared to say were surpluses of assets over liabilities.

I see that you subscribe to the view that the only difference between lawyers and prostitutes is that the latter are honest about screwing you!

The main reason that final salary pension schemes have closed is that nobody these days stays with the same employer for more than about 5 years. As benefits were not portable, there was no point joining anyway. Thankfully pensions have now been opened up with the introduction of SIPPs, which makes the pensions sector a hell of a lot healthier than you suggest.

The fact that pensions could not afford to take on new members was not the fault of professional advisors, but largely a result of retirees failing to expire within a few years of leaving the payroll. As life expectancy has risen, so the cost to pension funds has increased exponentially. Asset stripping obviously didn't help, but they would have been incapable of keeping up with the cost of retirement with or without it.

Anyway, I shall now return to the minor but somehow still important matter of Warwickshire v Leicestershire at Grace Road. It is a delighfully balmy summer's evening and I think it may be time for a pint of warm beer. Yes, the lark is definitely on the wing, and the snail's on the thorn...

[storeynicholas]

Sartorius,
I see Cool Britannia and Rule Britannia largely as denoting an age divide. You are probably nearer to my daughter's age than mine - so we are just about a generation apart and the England that I can remember is not something that you would have experienced. I just miss it, that's all. A shame that it's gone and a good deal of it seems to be beyond recall - although the matches, the birdsong and the beer, with hope, will endure (enjoy the evening, by the way!). On pensions - lawyers and actuaries were at the surpluses (an actuary is an accountant who found life too interesting). It is true about the movement of workers. However, since changes brought about by the Social Security Act 1986, occupational pensions schemes have been portable - largely this was introduced to enable members to opt into 'appropriate' personal pension schemes. I hope that you are right and that pension provision will recover but the fact is that a lot of schemes got into trouble with equalization of pension ages for men and women and asset-stripping (which became concomitant bugbears) - and the stripping was, despite what you say, of a piratical nature and on quite a grand scale. Anyhow, no doubt, our paths will cross again! Anyway, to end my own contributions here on a light note - and since you make a lawyer joke, here's another, which is, probably, not in general circulation: the late (and very great) George Carmen QC was once late for a hearing in the High Court. Everyone (except the Judge) was waiting in the court room; the usher was holding open the door, expectantly - and then turned and mimed to the clerk "He's coming!" The hurried footsteps became audible from the long, tiled corridor and someone, possibly to diffuse the tension (and when better to use humour?) started chanting, in time to the footfalls: "One thousand pounds; two thousand pounds; three thousand pounds..."
NJS