The fall in prices has created a lot of forced sellers, as pension funds bought government bonds using leverage. That needs to be collateralised daily and the speed and size of the moves (completely unprecedented) means many are struggling to sell other assets in time. That forced selling pushes prices down further and exacerbates the problem.
This is spiraling out of control and will only get worse without intervention. Absent that, this could end up massively increasingly the deficit of UK DB Pension Funds and removing what buyers the government already had for its debt"
Thank God the BoE (belatedly) intervened.
I don’t buy this vicious cycle theory. I recon we’re more fucked than is being made out. It’s a buyers strike.
Poor John Redwood looks like he's going to have a nervous breakdown. He's dry mouthed and shaking as he tells us how well the government's policy should be welcomed.
Perhaps he is becoming over excited at the thought of really sticking it to the feckless undeserving poor and anyone stupid enough to have to have an actual mortgage.
No, he was ashen faced with fear in his eyes.
He's an excellent performer, it's good to see him in the media more, and clearly the right people are annoyed by it.
Another post from the resident disc jockey at Broadmoor Radio.
I've gone from indifference to active loathing of Liz Truss. Destroying the nation's economy and not even coming out to defend her actions.
She is in a bind, however
As has been noted, if she comes out and sticks to her fiscal guns, she might kick off the panic again. But if she comes out and reverses policies, she is basically committing career suicide, and she might still kick off more panic
What can she possibly say?
In her position the only sensible thing would be to go to the country and pray for a Labour victory.
Essentially what Arthur Balfour did in 1905-06. He & his ministers resigned and allowed Liberals to form new government, in expectation (allegedly) that Libs would loose subsequent general election.
Result was Liberal landslide - and Balfour booted out by electors from his own seat.
Actually, he was hoping the Liberal party would split and be unable to form a government, meaning he could then paint the Liberals as untrustworthy and divided.
It very nearly came off too, in the form of the Relugas Compact designed by Haldane to force Campbell-Bannerman out of the leadership.
Re: your para 1, that's the usual explanation, interpretation. But given the fact that Conservative & Liberal Unionist alliance was itself sharply divided over Tariff Reform, still think that Balfour (a smart cookie) was pretty sure that he'd loose the 1906 election.
Re: para 2, the Regulas Compact was a truly bullshit bluff, predicated on the laughable notion that none of the Compacters would accept office under Campbell-Bannerman. Even Mrs. C-B knew THAT was a crock and a half, as so proved.
Pleasantly surprised to discover that the home of Thomas Dick Lauder who wrote one of the best flood books ever is coming up in mainstream (so to speak) politics.
@BBCTees 🚨 Prime Minister Liz Truss will be speaking live on our breakfast show tomorrow morning!
🤔 Do you have a question you'd like us to ask to her?
What the actual fuck? The day after this mess she's going onto Alan Partridge radio?
It’s BBC Radio Tees.
Not North Norfolk Digital.
Similar audience. I would be baffled as to why BBC Tees and not national. Or a major area. But I know Kwarteng is tied to her. And Cameron Brown is his SPAD. Who worked for Houchen and Wharton. And tees Tories absolutely have local hacks in their pockets...
She’s doing BBC Radio Nottingham too. Looks,like she’s doing the round of the local stations.
Similar to old Republican strategy, of avoiding major media in favor of cultivating local media?
For one thing, higher likelihood of softball instead of hardball questioning.
⚡️Meduza: Kremlin to hold back on illegal annexation of Ukrainian territories.
According to independent Russian media outlet Meduza, the annexation will be postponed as it now won't have the desired "PR effect" on the Russian population that is dissatisfied with mobilization. https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1575197790401007616
A bit baffling in truth. I find it hard to believe even a cowed Russian population would believe any plebsicite yielded 95+ for one side, for anything above a small town, so it was not about convincing anyone, especially as they don't even control all the regions to ask people. So I guess even if people did not believe it they'd have enjoyed it more before?
@PickardJE former Chief Adviser at the Bank of England, Charles Goodhart, tells Times Radio: "You can say goodbye to growth over the period from now until the general election…”
Quelle surprise.
Seems pretty fatal for the government. How can they explain their pro-growth agenda leading to (or failing to prevent) the exact opposite occurring?
So far they seem to be saying
1) You just don't understand it 2) It's the fault of people not believing in it hard enough
But I cannot see that being compelling for the person in the street suffering in a recession.
Make all public sector pensions DC going forward(the db part they already paid remains db). Then cap public sector employer contributions at 6% so down from the current average of 20% and now inline with most private sector employer contributions. Public sector pensions have to become DC sooner or later as DB is unaffordable so may as well do it now when we need to make savings
Why are DB pensions inherently unaffordable when DC are not? What you actually mean is "massively cut their pensions", which is going to be equally (un)popular regardless.
(To my mind, the main difference between DC and DB is who needs to deal with the risks of predicting future market performance etc, and the employer -- in this case the government -- is always going to be better placed to handle that than the individual employee.)
@BBCTees 🚨 Prime Minister Liz Truss will be speaking live on our breakfast show tomorrow morning!
🤔 Do you have a question you'd like us to ask to her?
What the actual fuck? The day after this mess she's going onto Alan Partridge radio?
It’s BBC Radio Tees.
Not North Norfolk Digital.
Similar audience. I would be baffled as to why BBC Tees and not national. Or a major area. But I know Kwarteng is tied to her. And Cameron Brown is his SPAD. Who worked for Houchen and Wharton. And tees Tories absolutely have local hacks in their pockets...
She’s doing BBC Radio Nottingham too. Looks,like she’s doing the round of the local stations.
Speaking of being buggered, @MoonRabbit will be pleased to hear (if she hasn't already) that Yorkshire's board have promised an EGM on the Strauss review. And to be bound by a vote at that meeting on whether to accept it.
Which means the Strauss review is dead. Seven counties will vote to block it.
At least - I am anticipating a bit there. But given Yorkshire's members have indicated they would rather merge with Lancashire than accept these proposals, that's a fairly safe assumption.
And that's *before* today's bailout. Another 5% off at least, you would expect.
I doubt that much. Todays bailout is irrrlevant to most people other than doubling down on the chaos narrative. The real decline comes when it starts affecting people directly.
US really stepping up the supplies to Ukraine. Even a small number of HIMARs made a big difference. 18 more on the way!
$1.1 bln 🇺🇸 additional security assistance for 🇺🇦: ✅18 HIMARS ✅150 HMMWVs ✅20 multi-mission radars ✅40 trucks, 80 trailers ✅Tactical secure comms & surveillance systems ✅Explosive ordnance disposal equipment ✅Body armor Other equipment Thank you to @POTUS & @SecDef! 🇺🇦🤝🇺🇸 https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1575206419061563392
I saw it suggested that these were contracts for delivery over the next 1-2 years, rather than being imminent supplies through the Presidential Drawdown Authority.
If they are for imminent delivery that would be a big deal. Ukraine currently have 16 HIMARS and 11 of the similar, tracked, M270 MLRS. So +18 would be +two-thirds.
Make all public sector pensions DC going forward(the db part they already paid remains db). Then cap public sector employer contributions at 6% so down from the current average of 20% and now inline with most private sector employer contributions. Public sector pensions have to become DC sooner or later as DB is unaffordable so may as well do it now when we need to make savings
Why are DB pensions inherently unaffordable when DC are not? What you actually mean is "massively cut their pensions", which is going to be equally (un)popular regardless.
(To my mind, the main difference between DC and DB is who needs to deal with the risks of predicting future market performance etc, and the employer -- in this case the government -- is always going to be better placed to handle that than the individual employee.)
If the DB pension goes the school system will go with it. It's struggling enough with the move from final salary to career average.
@PickardJE former Chief Adviser at the Bank of England, Charles Goodhart, tells Times Radio: "You can say goodbye to growth over the period from now until the general election…”
Quelle surprise.
Seems pretty fatal for the government. How can they explain their pro-growth agenda leading to (or failing to prevent) the exact opposite occurring?
So far they seem to be saying
1) You just don't understand it 2) It's the fault of people not believing in it hard enough
But I cannot see that being compelling for the person in the street suffering in a recession.
Very similar to the arguments that Herbert Hoover made and kept repeating from the day after Wall Street laid an egg in 1929, until (and even after) he was booted by a landslide from the White House.
⚡️Meduza: Kremlin to hold back on illegal annexation of Ukrainian territories.
According to independent Russian media outlet Meduza, the annexation will be postponed as it now won't have the desired "PR effect" on the Russian population that is dissatisfied with mobilization. https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1575197790401007616
A bit baffling in truth. I find it hard to believe even a cowed Russian population would believe any plebsicite yielded 95+ for one side, for anything above a small town, so it was not about convincing anyone, especially as they don't even control all the regions to ask people. So I guess even if people did not believe it they'd have enjoyed it more before?
Unless America DID scupper Nordstreams 1 and 2 - and now Moscow has blinked at the risk of what comes next?
Could suggest Putin might not be entirely in control.....
US really stepping up the supplies to Ukraine. Even a small number of HIMARs made a big difference. 18 more on the way!
$1.1 bln 🇺🇸 additional security assistance for 🇺🇦: ✅18 HIMARS ✅150 HMMWVs ✅20 multi-mission radars ✅40 trucks, 80 trailers ✅Tactical secure comms & surveillance systems ✅Explosive ordnance disposal equipment ✅Body armor Other equipment Thank you to @POTUS & @SecDef! 🇺🇦🤝🇺🇸 https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1575206419061563392
Well, at least some good news is out there.
With current political luck all that US support will be enough to achieve a Ukrainian victory just in time for President Trump to claim all the credit in 2024.
The fall in prices has created a lot of forced sellers, as pension funds bought government bonds using leverage. That needs to be collateralised daily and the speed and size of the moves (completely unprecedented) means many are struggling to sell other assets in time. That forced selling pushes prices down further and exacerbates the problem.
This is spiraling out of control and will only get worse without intervention. Absent that, this could end up massively increasingly the deficit of UK DB Pension Funds and removing what buyers the government already had for its debt"
Thank God the BoE (belatedly) intervened.
I don’t buy this vicious cycle theory. I recon we’re more fucked than is being made out. It’s a buyers strike.
Terrifying.
I’m just delighted I moved my pension out via the old Qwerps scheme. It was always highly predictable that the UK government (of whatever shade) was gonna do a Maxwell on pension funds.
The fall in prices has created a lot of forced sellers, as pension funds bought government bonds using leverage. That needs to be collateralised daily and the speed and size of the moves (completely unprecedented) means many are struggling to sell other assets in time. That forced selling pushes prices down further and exacerbates the problem.
This is spiraling out of control and will only get worse without intervention. Absent that, this could end up massively increasingly the deficit of UK DB Pension Funds and removing what buyers the government already had for its debt"
Thank God the BoE (belatedly) intervened.
I don’t buy this vicious cycle theory. I recon we’re more fucked than is being made out. It’s a buyers strike.
Terrifying.
I’m just delighted I moved my pension out via the old Qwerps scheme. It was always highly predictable that the UK government (of whatever shade) was gonna do a Maxwell on pension funds.
Personally I'm genuinely delighted at the imminent prospect of rejoining the EU.
I mean, if you'd asked me a year ago, no, I wouldn't have expected it to be by means of a Brussels-administrated Protectorate invited in by King Charles III to replace a failed state. But you take what you can get, right?
Make all public sector pensions DC going forward(the db part they already paid remains db). Then cap public sector employer contributions at 6% so down from the current average of 20% and now inline with most private sector employer contributions. Public sector pensions have to become DC sooner or later as DB is unaffordable so may as well do it now when we need to make savings
Why are DB pensions inherently unaffordable when DC are not? What you actually mean is "massively cut their pensions", which is going to be equally (un)popular regardless.
(To my mind, the main difference between DC and DB is who needs to deal with the risks of predicting future market performance etc, and the employer -- in this case the government -- is always going to be better placed to handle that than the individual employee.)
DB pensions are inherently unaffordable because they are going to fall largely on the tax payer. Someone earning 27k a year under nest is going to get a pension of 4900 a year....someone in a db public sector pension is going to have 13.5k funded by the tax payer. When you talk about rich pensioners you are going to be pretty much talking about public sector workers as the boomer generation die off.
You think people aren't going to get arsey when for some reason they are being taxed more heavily just so public sector workers can get almost 3 times their pension?
It would make a good plot line for a Nordic noir drama.
Gas pipelines now look very vulnerable. I wonder what further security could be added to make others safe, especially if they can be sabotaged by submarines. Not really viable to patrol the whole length by naval boat.
Making them bomb proof would presumably be too costly.
Having multiple mini pipes. Say 10 rather than 1, in a swathe of around 1km? Putting underwater cctv along the length of the pipe. Movement sensors with an alarm trigger (but with the risk of false alarms from whales)? Maybe surround with alarmed netting 10 metres or so from the pipe.
Personally I'm genuinely delighted at the imminent prospect of rejoining the EU.
I mean, if you'd asked me a year ago, no, I wouldn't have expected it to be by means of a Brussels-administrated Protectorate invited in by King Charles III to replace a failed state. But you take what you can get, right?
You think the EU will be fit and standing after this winter? Good luck
Make all public sector pensions DC going forward(the db part they already paid remains db). Then cap public sector employer contributions at 6% so down from the current average of 20% and now inline with most private sector employer contributions. Public sector pensions have to become DC sooner or later as DB is unaffordable so may as well do it now when we need to make savings
Why are DB pensions inherently unaffordable when DC are not? What you actually mean is "massively cut their pensions", which is going to be equally (un)popular regardless.
(To my mind, the main difference between DC and DB is who needs to deal with the risks of predicting future market performance etc, and the employer -- in this case the government -- is always going to be better placed to handle that than the individual employee.)
DB pensions are inherently unaffordable because they are going to fall largely on the tax payer. Someone earning 27k a year under nest is going to get a pension of 4900 a year....someone in a db public sector pension is going to have 13.5k funded by the tax payer. When you talk about rich pensioners you are going to be pretty much talking about public sector workers as the boomer generation die off.
You think people aren't going to get arsey when for some reason they are being taxed more heavily just so public sector workers can get almost 3 times their pension?
"funded by the tax payer". Have a look at the actulal details. Deductions from salary. Which was reduced in the first place by the Treasury because of the pensions.
@PickardJE former Chief Adviser at the Bank of England, Charles Goodhart, tells Times Radio: "You can say goodbye to growth over the period from now until the general election…”
Quelle surprise.
Seems pretty fatal for the government. How can they explain their pro-growth agenda leading to (or failing to prevent) the exact opposite occurring?
So far they seem to be saying
1) You just don't understand it 2) It's the fault of people not believing in it hard enough
But I cannot see that being compelling for the person in the street suffering in a recession.
A recession is the least of the problems for people in the street.
Depression Decline and fall Junk credit ratings Authoritarianism Nuclear conflict Evaporating public services
The Yookay is entering the end game. A “recession” is a walk in the park compared to what’s about to happen.
⚡️Meduza: Kremlin to hold back on illegal annexation of Ukrainian territories.
According to independent Russian media outlet Meduza, the annexation will be postponed as it now won't have the desired "PR effect" on the Russian population that is dissatisfied with mobilization. https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1575197790401007616
A bit baffling in truth. I find it hard to believe even a cowed Russian population would believe any plebsicite yielded 95+ for one side, for anything above a small town, so it was not about convincing anyone, especially as they don't even control all the regions to ask people. So I guess even if people did not believe it they'd have enjoyed it more before?
Unless America DID scupper Nordstreams 1 and 2 - and now Moscow has blinked at the risk of what comes next?
Could suggest Putin might not be entirely in control.....
It felt a bit like that when he delayed his speech about mobilisation. Internal power struggle?
Make all public sector pensions DC going forward(the db part they already paid remains db). Then cap public sector employer contributions at 6% so down from the current average of 20% and now inline with most private sector employer contributions. Public sector pensions have to become DC sooner or later as DB is unaffordable so may as well do it now when we need to make savings
Why are DB pensions inherently unaffordable when DC are not? What you actually mean is "massively cut their pensions", which is going to be equally (un)popular regardless.
(To my mind, the main difference between DC and DB is who needs to deal with the risks of predicting future market performance etc, and the employer -- in this case the government -- is always going to be better placed to handle that than the individual employee.)
DB pensions are inherently unaffordable because they are going to fall largely on the tax payer. Someone earning 27k a year under nest is going to get a pension of 4900 a year....someone in a db public sector pension is going to have 13.5k funded by the tax payer. When you talk about rich pensioners you are going to be pretty much talking about public sector workers as the boomer generation die off.
You think people aren't going to get arsey when for some reason they are being taxed more heavily just so public sector workers can get almost 3 times their pension?
"funded by the tax payer". Have a look at the actulal details. Deductions from salary.
Who do you think is paying the 20% employer contribution into public sector pensions if not tax payers? Plus not all public sector pensions are fully funded
The fall in prices has created a lot of forced sellers, as pension funds bought government bonds using leverage. That needs to be collateralised daily and the speed and size of the moves (completely unprecedented) means many are struggling to sell other assets in time. That forced selling pushes prices down further and exacerbates the problem.
This is spiraling out of control and will only get worse without intervention. Absent that, this could end up massively increasingly the deficit of UK DB Pension Funds and removing what buyers the government already had for its debt"
Thank God the BoE (belatedly) intervened.
I don’t buy this vicious cycle theory. I recon we’re more fucked than is being made out. It’s a buyers strike.
Truss is going to square her circle with huge spending cuts, focussed on the red wall.
Turns out, in 2019 they voted for Thatcher mk2.
If I were a Tory MP in the red wall, I’d be upping my security….
Love to know what she can cut - beyond projects that have not started yet....
There is a 14% cut that can be made on the public sector wage bill just waiting for a start
You will have to spell that out to people who can’t read your mind…
Make all public sector pensions DC going forward(the db part they already paid remains db). Then cap public sector employer contributions at 6% so down from the current average of 20% and now inline with most private sector employer contributions. Public sector pensions have to become DC sooner or later as DB is unaffordable so may as well do it now when we need to make savings
Public sector salaries are low but compensated for by a better pension.
Yep you can cut public sector pensions but you will need to pay workers 10-20% more
Just how concerned are Tory MPs? And what happens next?! I’ve been hitting the phones with colleagues all today trying to find out. Quick conclusions on what we’ve heard below... 1/
Yes, unsurprisingly, there is concern. Deep concern. Not just for financial situation but the political ramifications for Tories. This is meant to be Truss’s honeymoon period. Instead: £ dropping, rates soaring, Bank of England intervening after first big fiscal package. But… 2/
There is a difference b/w off record fury, intense hand-wringing, nervous watching of what comes next (like the public) and a concerted push to do something about it. Political reaction still catching up to financial fallout. Worth noting… 3/
… it is recess (so MPs aren’t around Parli to discuss/plot). There’s been 6+ months of painful divisions / deposing a leader and everyone wants a breather. And a wide instinct among losing Rishi camp (from before Friday) to step back and let Truss govern. 4/
@PickardJE former Chief Adviser at the Bank of England, Charles Goodhart, tells Times Radio: "You can say goodbye to growth over the period from now until the general election…”
Quelle surprise.
Seems pretty fatal for the government. How can they explain their pro-growth agenda leading to (or failing to prevent) the exact opposite occurring?
So far they seem to be saying
1) You just don't understand it 2) It's the fault of people not believing in it hard enough
But I cannot see that being compelling for the person in the street suffering in a recession.
A recession is the least of the problems for people in the street.
Depression Decline and fall Junk credit ratings Authoritarianism Nuclear conflict Evaporating public services
The Yookay is entering the end game. A “recession” is a walk in the park compared to what’s about to happen.
Gosh, I didn't realise things were that grim in Sweden. No wonder they want to join NATO.
Make all public sector pensions DC going forward(the db part they already paid remains db). Then cap public sector employer contributions at 6% so down from the current average of 20% and now inline with most private sector employer contributions. Public sector pensions have to become DC sooner or later as DB is unaffordable so may as well do it now when we need to make savings
Why are DB pensions inherently unaffordable when DC are not? What you actually mean is "massively cut their pensions", which is going to be equally (un)popular regardless.
(To my mind, the main difference between DC and DB is who needs to deal with the risks of predicting future market performance etc, and the employer -- in this case the government -- is always going to be better placed to handle that than the individual employee.)
DB pensions are inherently unaffordable because they are going to fall largely on the tax payer. Someone earning 27k a year under nest is going to get a pension of 4900 a year....someone in a db public sector pension is going to have 13.5k funded by the tax payer. When you talk about rich pensioners you are going to be pretty much talking about public sector workers as the boomer generation die off.
You think people aren't going to get arsey when for some reason they are being taxed more heavily just so public sector workers can get almost 3 times their pension?
"funded by the tax payer". Have a look at the actulal details. Deductions from salary.
Who do you think is paying the 20% employer contribution into public sector pensions if not tax payers? Plus not all public sector pensions are fully funded
You're ignoring commercial and other income. Universities, for instance, rely on fees, commercial activities, and so on.
The fall in prices has created a lot of forced sellers, as pension funds bought government bonds using leverage. That needs to be collateralised daily and the speed and size of the moves (completely unprecedented) means many are struggling to sell other assets in time. That forced selling pushes prices down further and exacerbates the problem.
This is spiraling out of control and will only get worse without intervention. Absent that, this could end up massively increasingly the deficit of UK DB Pension Funds and removing what buyers the government already had for its debt"
Thank God the BoE (belatedly) intervened.
I don’t buy this vicious cycle theory. I recon we’re more fucked than is being made out. It’s a buyers strike.
Terrifying.
I’m just delighted I moved my pension out via the old Qwerps scheme. It was always highly predictable that the UK government (of whatever shade) was gonna do a Maxwell on pension funds.
Er, surely a typo there?
Qurops? Something beginning with q anyway. It was a long time ago.
Notwithstanding the dynamics of this week's crisis, the market does also hate the government's fiscal plans and they need to be revised to restore long term confidence.
No10 and Treasury ministers reject any notion tonight that there's a crisis. Meetings are continuing on a range of subjects in Number 10 - but there's no big focus on the market turmoil. Ministers in cabinet rubbish the link between Friday's statement and today's turmoil....
.... No10 see this is a communications and stakeholder error not a policy messup. So for them, it's business as usual.
I'm as sure as I can be that the Bank of England - and much of the City and the IMF - do not agree
Make all public sector pensions DC going forward(the db part they already paid remains db). Then cap public sector employer contributions at 6% so down from the current average of 20% and now inline with most private sector employer contributions. Public sector pensions have to become DC sooner or later as DB is unaffordable so may as well do it now when we need to make savings
Why are DB pensions inherently unaffordable when DC are not? What you actually mean is "massively cut their pensions", which is going to be equally (un)popular regardless.
(To my mind, the main difference between DC and DB is who needs to deal with the risks of predicting future market performance etc, and the employer -- in this case the government -- is always going to be better placed to handle that than the individual employee.)
DB pensions are inherently unaffordable because they are going to fall largely on the tax payer. Someone earning 27k a year under nest is going to get a pension of 4900 a year....someone in a db public sector pension is going to have 13.5k funded by the tax payer. When you talk about rich pensioners you are going to be pretty much talking about public sector workers as the boomer generation die off.
You think people aren't going to get arsey when for some reason they are being taxed more heavily just so public sector workers can get almost 3 times their pension?
"funded by the tax payer". Have a look at the actulal details. Deductions from salary.
Who do you think is paying the 20% employer contribution into public sector pensions if not tax payers? Plus not all public sector pensions are fully funded
For example the wage bill for the NHS is 56.1 billion (46.6% of total nhs budget) source
This means of that 56.1 about 9 billion is employer pension contributions. Where do you think that is coming from if not the tax payer?
That by election win in Sherbourne feels a looooooong time ago! The Tory vote share in tomorrows will be interesting! How many will vote blue in the teeth of the gale??
I think there may be something for you Tory-inclined in tomorrow's by-elections. Some tricky LD defences in Harborough and Warrington. I think the party will do well to hold them all.
@PickardJE former Chief Adviser at the Bank of England, Charles Goodhart, tells Times Radio: "You can say goodbye to growth over the period from now until the general election…”
Quelle surprise.
Seems pretty fatal for the government. How can they explain their pro-growth agenda leading to (or failing to prevent) the exact opposite occurring?
So far they seem to be saying
1) You just don't understand it 2) It's the fault of people not believing in it hard enough
But I cannot see that being compelling for the person in the street suffering in a recession.
A recession is the least of the problems for people in the street.
Depression Decline and fall Junk credit ratings Authoritarianism Nuclear conflict Evaporating public services
The Yookay is entering the end game. A “recession” is a walk in the park compared to what’s about to happen.
We are now quite a poor country...many people just dont realise it yet. We have a current account deficit of 8.3% of gdp and a budget deficit of 4.8% of gdp with total debt to gdp nr 100%. There will now be massive drops in living standards for the majority of the population
The fall in prices has created a lot of forced sellers, as pension funds bought government bonds using leverage. That needs to be collateralised daily and the speed and size of the moves (completely unprecedented) means many are struggling to sell other assets in time. That forced selling pushes prices down further and exacerbates the problem.
This is spiraling out of control and will only get worse without intervention. Absent that, this could end up massively increasingly the deficit of UK DB Pension Funds and removing what buyers the government already had for its debt"
Thank God the BoE (belatedly) intervened.
I don’t buy this vicious cycle theory. I recon we’re more fucked than is being made out. It’s a buyers strike.
Terrifying.
I’m just delighted I moved my pension out via the old Qwerps scheme. It was always highly predictable that the UK government (of whatever shade) was gonna do a Maxwell on pension funds.
Er, surely a typo there?
Qurops? Something beginning with q anyway. It was a long time ago.
SERPS? State Earnings Related Pension Scheme. (Your word was very much an Urban Dict one - but quitre possibly peculiarly appropriate.)
Notwithstanding the dynamics of this week's crisis, the market does also hate the government's fiscal plans and they need to be revised to restore long term confidence.
Speculators keen to move on to shorting the Euro next. They'll all get their turn with Operation Fed screws the world
Why are DB pensions inherently unaffordable when DC are not? What you actually mean is "massively cut their pensions", which is going to be equally (un)popular regardless.
(To my mind, the main difference between DC and DB is who needs to deal with the risks of predicting future market performance etc, and the employer -- in this case the government -- is always going to be better placed to handle that than the individual employee.)
DB pensions are inherently unaffordable because they are going to fall largely on the tax payer. Someone earning 27k a year under nest is going to get a pension of 4900 a year....someone in a db public sector pension is going to have 13.5k funded by the tax payer. When you talk about rich pensioners you are going to be pretty much talking about public sector workers as the boomer generation die off.
That is the employer making decisions about how much they want to put into pensions, as a benefit that is part of the overall employment package. If they think that's too much, they can offer a less generous DB pension, in the same way they can offer lower salaries (and in the same way that my own employer chooses how much they offer to put into my DC pension).
Separately, if the government or any other DB pension scheme has screwed up its predictions and underfunded it, that is bad, but we should be blaming the government for mis-planning and underinvesting, not concluding that DB pensions are mysteriously "unaffordable" in a way DC schemes are not. Plan ahead, work out the cost to the employer of the pension you're offering to employees, consider it like salary to be the cost of employing somebody. If that's too much for your budget, offer a less generous DB scheme.
Truss is going to square her circle with huge spending cuts, focussed on the red wall.
Turns out, in 2019 they voted for Thatcher mk2.
If I were a Tory MP in the red wall, I’d be upping my security….
Love to know what she can cut - beyond projects that have not started yet....
There is a 14% cut that can be made on the public sector wage bill just waiting for a start
You will have to spell that out to people who can’t read your mind…
Make all public sector pensions DC going forward(the db part they already paid remains db). Then cap public sector employer contributions at 6% so down from the current average of 20% and now inline with most private sector employer contributions. Public sector pensions have to become DC sooner or later as DB is unaffordable so may as well do it now when we need to make savings
Public sector salaries are low but compensated for by a better pension.
Yep you can cut public sector pensions but you will need to pay workers 10-20% more
Figure 4(b) shows that the higher-skilled private sector employees in the knowledge-intensive industries earned more than their public sector counterparts, with the upper-skilled occupations earnings 17% more on average. The results show that taking employer pension contributions significantly increases the earnings of public sector workers relative to those of private sector workers
That by election win in Sherbourne feels a looooooong time ago! The Tory vote share in tomorrows will be interesting! How many will vote blue in the teeth of the gale??
I think there may be something for you Tory-inclined in tomorrow's by-elections. Some tricky LD defences in Harborough and Warrington. I think the party will do well to hold them all.
Elsewhere, doesn't look easy for the Blues.
Jennifer Saunders is the Tory candidate in Oxford. Joke of a Party.
Who do you think is paying the 20% employer contribution into public sector pensions if not tax payers? Plus not all public sector pensions are fully funded
You could argue the "tax payer" is paying for the whole thing. The term "Public Sector Pension" covers a multitude of sins and is a lazy catch-all. The pension arrangements for civil servants, local Government officers, fire fighters, the Police and the Armed Forces are all different.
That by election win in Sherbourne feels a looooooong time ago! The Tory vote share in tomorrows will be interesting! How many will vote blue in the teeth of the gale??
I think there may be something for you Tory-inclined in tomorrow's by-elections. Some tricky LD defences in Harborough and Warrington. I think the party will do well to hold them all.
Elsewhere, doesn't look easy for the Blues.
It may be the national situation doesnt filter down locally immediately but id not be surprised by most blues staying home tomorrow or protesting. I think the LDs will be fine but we will see. Im more interested (and in a purely 'interested' sense) how many blues are prepared to x in the teeth of this gale, it will inform somewhat as to the potential scale of the coming Torypocalypse
Who do you think is paying the 20% employer contribution into public sector pensions if not tax payers? Plus not all public sector pensions are fully funded
You could argue the "tax payer" is paying for the whole thing. The term "Public Sector Pension" covers a multitude of sins and is a lazy catch-all. The pension arrangements for civil servants, local Government officers, fire fighters, the Police and the Armed Forces are all different.
No10 and Treasury ministers reject any notion tonight that there's a crisis. Meetings are continuing on a range of subjects in Number 10 - but there's no big focus on the market turmoil. Ministers in cabinet rubbish the link between Friday's statement and today's turmoil....
.... No10 see this is a communications and stakeholder error not a policy messup. So for them, it's business as usual.
I'm as sure as I can be that the Bank of England - and much of the City and the IMF - do not agree
For example the wage bill for the NHS is 56.1 billion (46.6% of total nhs budget)
This means of that 56.1 about 9 billion is employer pension contributions. Where do you think that is coming from if not the tax payer?
Of course the government as an employer is paying employer pension contributions. Assuming we want the government to have employees we do actually need to pay the costs (salary, employer pension contribution and everything else) of employing people.
@PickardJE former Chief Adviser at the Bank of England, Charles Goodhart, tells Times Radio: "You can say goodbye to growth over the period from now until the general election…”
Quelle surprise.
Seems pretty fatal for the government. How can they explain their pro-growth agenda leading to (or failing to prevent) the exact opposite occurring?
So far they seem to be saying
1) You just don't understand it 2) It's the fault of people not believing in it hard enough
But I cannot see that being compelling for the person in the street suffering in a recession.
A recession is the least of the problems for people in the street.
Depression Decline and fall Junk credit ratings Authoritarianism Nuclear conflict Evaporating public services
The Yookay is entering the end game. A “recession” is a walk in the park compared to what’s about to happen.
We are now quite a poor country...many people just dont realise it yet. We have a current account deficit of 8.3% of gdp and a budget deficit of 4.8% of gdp with total debt to gdp nr 100%. There will now be massive drops in living standards for the majority of the population
What strikes me when visiting the UK is the crap people buy. Duff cars, cheap clothes, dreadful furniture, junk food, tat. There is no taste for quality. There is no taste full stop.
Mayfair, one of my more frequent haunts during recent years, is a special case. All those awful overpriced Italian sports cars that seem to just be permanently parked for show.
The immense wealth has been “spaffed up a wall”, to quote the most recent useless FM to be kicked out of office.
With respect to Hurricane Ian, am thinking that it may well have impact on 2022 Florida gubernatorial election. Given
> the intensity & immensity of the storm, which is going to cause a LOT of grief to Floridians in next few days AND weeks, and indeed (for some) for years to come.
> the prominence AND responsibility of Governor DeSantis in leading state government response to Hurricane Ian and it's aftermath.
Could conceivably make OR break. Or (more likely) somewhere in the middle.
Another factor: will almost certainly make it HARDER for many Floridians to vote in this election, due to personal AND public disruptions. With both NOT helped by recent efforts by DeSantis and rest of GOP to make voting harder (say for people whose drivers license is under water).
Given that impact of storm appears MAY be worst in southwest Florida, this MIGHT prove worse for Republicans than Democrats.
Who do you think is paying the 20% employer contribution into public sector pensions if not tax payers? Plus not all public sector pensions are fully funded
You could argue the "tax payer" is paying for the whole thing. The term "Public Sector Pension" covers a multitude of sins and is a lazy catch-all. The pension arrangements for civil servants, local Government officers, fire fighters, the Police and the Armed Forces are all different.
The fact remains we have two choices
Spend less or tax more.
Tax more isn't an option because the amount of extra tax that is needed is far more than could be raised from upper earners therefore the basic rate would have to be raised and that would push millions from just about managing to poverty.
The sooner we accept we have to spend less and have a grown up conversation about what we can do without the sooner things get fixed.
Currently all we have is people yelping spend more, taxing the rich more will pay for it when in reality the extra tax we could raise is going to nowhere near cutting the deficit. We would probably need to raise the basic rate to at least 25% even if we made top rate tax 75% to cover the deficit
That by election win in Sherbourne feels a looooooong time ago! The Tory vote share in tomorrows will be interesting! How many will vote blue in the teeth of the gale??
I think there may be something for you Tory-inclined in tomorrow's by-elections. Some tricky LD defences in Harborough and Warrington. I think the party will do well to hold them all.
Elsewhere, doesn't look easy for the Blues.
Jennifer Saunders is the Tory candidate in Oxford. Joke of a Party.
Odd she's bouncing between Churchill (well to the NW of Oxford) and Hinksey Park (where my friends used to live - outer Victorian suburb to south of the centre, between the river meadows).
⚡️Meduza: Kremlin to hold back on illegal annexation of Ukrainian territories.
According to independent Russian media outlet Meduza, the annexation will be postponed as it now won't have the desired "PR effect" on the Russian population that is dissatisfied with mobilization. https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1575197790401007616
A bit baffling in truth. I find it hard to believe even a cowed Russian population would believe any plebsicite yielded 95+ for one side, for anything above a small town, so it was not about convincing anyone, especially as they don't even control all the regions to ask people. So I guess even if people did not believe it they'd have enjoyed it more before?
Unless America DID scupper Nordstreams 1 and 2 - and now Moscow has blinked at the risk of what comes next?
Could suggest Putin might not be entirely in control.....
It felt a bit like that when he delayed his speech about mobilisation. Internal power struggle?
One Russian analyst (no longer in the country iirc) said the delay of the speech was deliberate by Putin to emphasise that he was pushed into it by one or other of the factions, who will then get the full blame when the slaughter in the Ukrainian mud begins.
Re; the bailout not moving the polls further, or even as much as five per cent more , I wouldn't agree there.
I agree with wooliedyed that the biggest drop will be when people start feeling the economic or mortgage impact for themselves, but I don't think one should underestimate today as the start of a psychological step-change, either.
For years, the most faithful Tory voters have understood that financial chaos, rather than just the setbacks of last week, is something to be entirely identified with Labour and 'socialism', just by its very nature. Now suddenly the Mail tonight is full of "hours from chaos" and "the IMF".
This is supposed to be Labour and the GFC , or Labour in the 1970's, not the Tories in 2022.
So for example: Very few MPs are hitting the airways publicly calling for reverdals to mini-Budget. Or calling for sackings on record. Or really congregating about any specific move / policy change (beyond a general kind of ‘aaaah this is bad’). 5/
But… that should not be mistaken for support. Scores of Tory MPs are aware something very much not good is happening in the markets. So much depends politically on where we are next week and the week after. To take two examples… 6/
A Commons rebellion. The first vote is a week Tuesday on reversing National Insurance rise. This should pass fine - wide party support, heart of Truss’s successful leadership bid. Bigger challenge is the Finance Bill containing most of Friday’s other (more contested) elements. 7/
But could reversing the 45p top tax rate move be the focus for rebels? It was/is a) unexpected b) cited by critical economists as misstep c) jumped on by Labour d) doesn’t raise loads of cash e) isn’t polling well. One grandee told @christopherhope it’ll be tricky to pass. 8/
Same recording, or only a handful of minutes on each?
Eight different interviews. Some stations have been touting for questions on social media from listeners.
She’s missed out Wales, Scotland and NI which is pisspoor.
Quite, but as HYUFD says they don't count. Not enough Tory votes
And it's barely enough time to say good morning at each, and try to remember not to congratulate Leeds on Lancashire's cricket win and remark in Teesside on the Colston statue. Certainly not compared with an hour beign grilled by the BBC or Sky. .
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 37m "Ministers in cabinet rubbish the link between Friday's statement and today's turmoil". Then those Ministers have no business being anywhere near a whelk-stall, never mind the cabinet table.
For example the wage bill for the NHS is 56.1 billion (46.6% of total nhs budget)
This means of that 56.1 about 9 billion is employer pension contributions. Where do you think that is coming from if not the tax payer?
Of course the government as an employer is paying employer pension contributions. Assuming we want the government to have employees we do actually need to pay the costs (salary, employer pension contribution and everything else) of employing people.
I didnt suggest they dont pay employer contributions. I suggested they were payed at a more realistic rate 20% is ridiculous when we are at this level of debt and deficit
Who do you think is paying the 20% employer contribution into public sector pensions if not tax payers? Plus not all public sector pensions are fully funded
You could argue the "tax payer" is paying for the whole thing. The term "Public Sector Pension" covers a multitude of sins and is a lazy catch-all. The pension arrangements for civil servants, local Government officers, fire fighters, the Police and the Armed Forces are all different.
The fact remains we have two choices
Spend less or tax more.
Tax more isn't an option because the amount of extra tax that is needed is far more than could be raised from upper earners therefore the basic rate would have to be raised and that would push millions from just about managing to poverty.
The sooner we accept we have to spend less and have a grown up conversation about what we can do without the sooner things get fixed.
Currently all we have is people yelping spend more, taxing the rich more will pay for it when in reality the extra tax we could raise is going to nowhere near cutting the deficit. We would probably need to raise the basic rate to at least 25% even if we made top rate tax 75% to cover the deficit
The 45% rate cut accounts for just 2 billion which is an extraordinary small amount to lose credibility on
And yes you are right, tax increases and spending cuts loom a long way into the future
Poor John Redwood looks like he's going to have a nervous breakdown. He's dry mouthed and shaking as he tells us how well the government's policy should be welcomed.
Perhaps he is becoming over excited at the thought of really sticking it to the feckless undeserving poor and anyone stupid enough to have to have an actual mortgage.
No, he was ashen faced with fear in his eyes.
He's an excellent performer, it's good to see him in the media more, and clearly the right people are annoyed by it.
Another post from the resident disc jockey at Broadmoor Radio.
Russianguy1983 is literally the worst poster on this site.
It doesn't matter what you say, he'll say his agenda piece and then put you on ignore.
Didn't you say literally the same thing about Casino, literally last night?
Are you still literally looking to literally make your year by literally bullying a genial pensioner literally off this site?
For example the wage bill for the NHS is 56.1 billion (46.6% of total nhs budget)
This means of that 56.1 about 9 billion is employer pension contributions. Where do you think that is coming from if not the tax payer?
Of course the government as an employer is paying employer pension contributions. Assuming we want the government to have employees we do actually need to pay the costs (salary, employer pension contribution and everything else) of employing people.
I didnt suggest they dont pay employer contributions. I suggested they were payed at a more realistic rate 20% is ridiculous when we are at this level of debt and deficit
They are realistic when set against the original reduction in salary. Free market innit. See what @Selebian said.
Who do you think is paying the 20% employer contribution into public sector pensions if not tax payers? Plus not all public sector pensions are fully funded
You could argue the "tax payer" is paying for the whole thing. The term "Public Sector Pension" covers a multitude of sins and is a lazy catch-all. The pension arrangements for civil servants, local Government officers, fire fighters, the Police and the Armed Forces are all different.
The fact remains we have two choices
Spend less or tax more.
Tax more isn't an option because the amount of extra tax that is needed is far more than could be raised from upper earners therefore the basic rate would have to be raised and that would push millions from just about managing to poverty.
The sooner we accept we have to spend less and have a grown up conversation about what we can do without the sooner things get fixed.
Currently all we have is people yelping spend more, taxing the rich more will pay for it when in reality the extra tax we could raise is going to nowhere near cutting the deficit. We would probably need to raise the basic rate to at least 25% even if we made top rate tax 75% to cover the deficit
Wealth, Pagan. The total wealth of the UK is, what, £17 trillion? £17,000bn
For example the wage bill for the NHS is 56.1 billion (46.6% of total nhs budget)
This means of that 56.1 about 9 billion is employer pension contributions. Where do you think that is coming from if not the tax payer?
Of course the government as an employer is paying employer pension contributions. Assuming we want the government to have employees we do actually need to pay the costs (salary, employer pension contribution and everything else) of employing people.
I didnt suggest they dont pay employer contributions. I suggested they were payed at a more realistic rate 20% is ridiculous when we are at this level of debt and deficit
They are realistic when set against the original reduction in salary. Free market innit. See what @Selebian said.
But as the source I supplied indicated apart from knowledge intensive industries public sector employees actually earn more than their private sector counterparts
Make all public sector pensions DC going forward(the db part they already paid remains db). Then cap public sector employer contributions at 6% so down from the current average of 20% and now inline with most private sector employer contributions. Public sector pensions have to become DC sooner or later as DB is unaffordable so may as well do it now when we need to make savings
Why are DB pensions inherently unaffordable when DC are not? What you actually mean is "massively cut their pensions", which is going to be equally (un)popular regardless.
(To my mind, the main difference between DC and DB is who needs to deal with the risks of predicting future market performance etc, and the employer -- in this case the government -- is always going to be better placed to handle that than the individual employee.)
DB pensions are inherently unaffordable because they are going to fall largely on the tax payer. Someone earning 27k a year under nest is going to get a pension of 4900 a year....someone in a db public sector pension is going to have 13.5k funded by the tax payer. When you talk about rich pensioners you are going to be pretty much talking about public sector workers as the boomer generation die off.
You think people aren't going to get arsey when for some reason they are being taxed more heavily just so public sector workers can get almost 3 times their pension?
"funded by the tax payer". Have a look at the actulal details. Deductions from salary.
Who do you think is paying the 20% employer contribution into public sector pensions if not tax payers? Plus not all public sector pensions are fully funded
For example the wage bill for the NHS is 56.1 billion (46.6% of total nhs budget) source
This means of that 56.1 about 9 billion is employer pension contributions. Where do you think that is coming from if not the tax payer?
Yes, because people take that into account when they decide what career and sector to take their skills into. People accept the salaries on offer, because they know it will be compensated by a relatively secure pension.
Get rid of the current pension arrangements, and you are going to have to give people working in schools, hospitals, town halls and so on a bigger salary, or you won't be able to recruit. Bear in mind that there are already problems getting people to do a lot of these jobs (see comments by Foxy, Yodethur,dixiedean, me and others passim ad nauseum).
You may resent how much these people are paid- fair enough. But things and people still cost what they cost. If the government wants to save money- fair enough. But it needs to do it by either stopping doing things, or doing them more efficiently. Don't kid yourself that unilaterally paying less for the same things is an option.
One of contributing factors to the markets crisis was the Govt didn't publish OBR forecasts alongside mini-Budget = uncertainty. Govt said OBR couldn't get them ready within timescales for 23 Sept. In fact, the OBR "stood ready" to produce them by 14 Sept:
In its defence, govt said this week that the OBR had said (quoting OBR) any forecasts would “necessarily require some reduction in the breadth and depth of the analysis and information that we would be able to provide”
HOWEVER this does not tell the full story. In a letter to Treasury cttee chair on 26 August, OBR chair said "we would do our best in the time available to give the Govt, Parliament & the public the most complete & up-to-date picture of the economic and fiscal outlook as possible"
For example the wage bill for the NHS is 56.1 billion (46.6% of total nhs budget)
This means of that 56.1 about 9 billion is employer pension contributions. Where do you think that is coming from if not the tax payer?
Of course the government as an employer is paying employer pension contributions. Assuming we want the government to have employees we do actually need to pay the costs (salary, employer pension contribution and everything else) of employing people.
I didnt suggest they dont pay employer contributions. I suggested they were payed at a more realistic rate 20% is ridiculous when we are at this level of debt and deficit
They are realistic when set against the original reduction in salary. Free market innit. See what @Selebian said.
But as the source I supplied indicated apart from knowledge intensive industries public sector employees actually earn more than their private sector counterparts
Some do, some don't, so it evens out to some degree. But in any case it is not relevant. You were complaining not about total salary but about 20% employer contribs on salary, while ignoring the reduction in salary by something like 10% in the first place.
Who do you think is paying the 20% employer contribution into public sector pensions if not tax payers? Plus not all public sector pensions are fully funded
You could argue the "tax payer" is paying for the whole thing. The term "Public Sector Pension" covers a multitude of sins and is a lazy catch-all. The pension arrangements for civil servants, local Government officers, fire fighters, the Police and the Armed Forces are all different.
The fact remains we have two choices
Spend less or tax more.
Tax more isn't an option because the amount of extra tax that is needed is far more than could be raised from upper earners therefore the basic rate would have to be raised and that would push millions from just about managing to poverty.
The sooner we accept we have to spend less and have a grown up conversation about what we can do without the sooner things get fixed.
Currently all we have is people yelping spend more, taxing the rich more will pay for it when in reality the extra tax we could raise is going to nowhere near cutting the deficit. We would probably need to raise the basic rate to at least 25% even if we made top rate tax 75% to cover the deficit
Wealth, Pagan. The total wealth of the UK is, what, £17 trillion? £17,000bn
That's gonna have to be taxed.
That is a paper figure only based on if everyone sold their home at current market valuation. Wealth on paper is worthless. You folk on the left when we suggest that the unemployed shouldn't get housing benefit to live in high cost areas squeal about how dare we be heartless and force them to move from their homes and support networks to places where they have no family. Yet strangely don't care about forcing elderly people to move in a similar fashion because they can't afford the tax on a house that they bought 40 years ago and have never seen as anything more than a home. Double standards much?
@trussliz I spoke to President @ZelenskyyUa earlier to underline steadfast 🇬🇧 support in light of Russia’s sham referendums, which we will never recognise.
I thanked him for helping secure the release of 5 British nationals & discussed ways to protect 🇺🇦 gas supplies.
Who do you think is paying the 20% employer contribution into public sector pensions if not tax payers? Plus not all public sector pensions are fully funded
You could argue the "tax payer" is paying for the whole thing. The term "Public Sector Pension" covers a multitude of sins and is a lazy catch-all. The pension arrangements for civil servants, local Government officers, fire fighters, the Police and the Armed Forces are all different.
The fact remains we have two choices
Spend less or tax more.
Tax more isn't an option because the amount of extra tax that is needed is far more than could be raised from upper earners therefore the basic rate would have to be raised and that would push millions from just about managing to poverty.
The sooner we accept we have to spend less and have a grown up conversation about what we can do without the sooner things get fixed.
Currently all we have is people yelping spend more, taxing the rich more will pay for it when in reality the extra tax we could raise is going to nowhere near cutting the deficit. We would probably need to raise the basic rate to at least 25% even if we made top rate tax 75% to cover the deficit
Wealth, Pagan. The total wealth of the UK is, what, £17 trillion? £17,000bn
That's gonna have to be taxed.
Starmer was just asked about a wealth tax by Rigby on Sky and muttered something about taxing dividends ( bad news for pensions) but really did not want to be drawn
Of course the mantra always is wealth taxes are good as long as they do not effect me
Comments
Terrifying.
For one thing, higher likelihood of softball instead of hardball questioning.
https://www.di.se/live/sapo-tar-over-utredning-om-nord-stream/
So far they seem to be saying
1) You just don't understand it
2) It's the fault of people not believing in it hard enough
But I cannot see that being compelling for the person in the street suffering in a recession.
(To my mind, the main difference between DC and DB is who needs to deal with the risks of predicting future market performance etc, and the employer -- in this case the government -- is always going to be better placed to handle that than the individual employee.)
Which means the Strauss review is dead. Seven counties will vote to block it.
At least - I am anticipating a bit there. But given Yorkshire's members have indicated they would rather merge with Lancashire than accept these proposals, that's a fairly safe assumption.
If they are for imminent delivery that would be a big deal. Ukraine currently have 16 HIMARS and 11 of the similar, tracked, M270 MLRS. So +18 would be +two-thirds.
Pinky promise and everything apparently
Could suggest Putin might not be entirely in control.....
With current political luck all that US support will be enough to achieve a Ukrainian victory just in time for President Trump to claim all the credit in 2024.
I mean, if you'd asked me a year ago, no, I wouldn't have expected it to be by means of a Brussels-administrated Protectorate invited in by King Charles III to replace a failed state. But you take what you can get, right?
You think people aren't going to get arsey when for some reason they are being taxed more heavily just so public sector workers can get almost 3 times their pension?
The fiscal event hadn’t really sunk in yet.
I told him something along the lines of “wait for Monday, this could get scary”, but he didn’t really get it.
We know these things take a while to sink in.
Making them bomb proof would presumably be too costly.
Having multiple mini pipes. Say 10 rather than 1, in a swathe of around 1km? Putting underwater cctv along the length of the pipe. Movement sensors with an alarm trigger (but with the risk of false alarms from whales)? Maybe surround with alarmed netting 10 metres or so from the pipe.
Depression
Decline and fall
Junk credit ratings
Authoritarianism
Nuclear conflict
Evaporating public services
The Yookay is entering the end game. A “recession” is a walk in the park compared to what’s about to happen.
Yep you can cut public sector pensions but you will need to pay workers 10-20% more
Yes, unsurprisingly, there is concern. Deep concern. Not just for financial situation but the political ramifications for Tories. This is meant to be Truss’s honeymoon period. Instead: £ dropping, rates soaring, Bank of England intervening after first big fiscal package. But… 2/
There is a difference b/w off record fury, intense hand-wringing, nervous watching of what comes next (like the public) and a concerted push to do something about it. Political reaction still catching up to financial fallout. Worth noting… 3/
… it is recess (so MPs aren’t around Parli to discuss/plot). There’s been 6+ months of painful divisions / deposing a leader and everyone wants a breather. And a wide instinct among losing Rishi camp (from before Friday) to step back and let Truss govern. 4/
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1575211359377059840
Something beginning with q anyway. It was a long time ago.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1575203920443371520
No10 and Treasury ministers reject any notion tonight that there's a crisis. Meetings are continuing on a range of subjects in Number 10 - but there's no big focus on the market turmoil. Ministers in cabinet rubbish the link between Friday's statement and today's turmoil....
.... No10 see this is a communications and stakeholder error not a policy messup. So for them, it's business as usual.
I'm as sure as I can be that the Bank of England - and much of the City and the IMF - do not agree
source
This means of that 56.1 about 9 billion is employer pension contributions. Where do you think that is coming from if not the tax payer?
Elsewhere, doesn't look easy for the Blues.
People Polling (GB News) had a 26 and a 25 in August.
Separately, if the government or any other DB pension scheme has screwed up its predictions and underfunded it, that is bad, but we should be blaming the government for mis-planning and underinvesting, not concluding that DB pensions are mysteriously "unaffordable" in a way DC schemes are not. Plan ahead, work out the cost to the employer of the pension you're offering to employees, consider it like salary to be the cost of employing somebody. If that's too much for your budget, offer a less generous DB scheme.
source
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/publicandprivatesectorearnings/2019#:~:text=The biggest earnings difference between,with fewer than 11 employees.
quote from above
Figure 4(b) shows that the higher-skilled private sector employees in the knowledge-intensive industries earned more than their public sector counterparts, with the upper-skilled occupations earnings 17% more on average. The results show that taking employer pension contributions significantly increases the earnings of public sector workers relative to those of private sector workers
Joke of a Party.
Im more interested (and in a purely 'interested' sense) how many blues are prepared to x in the teeth of this gale, it will inform somewhat as to the potential scale of the coming Torypocalypse
Kwarteng should resign anyway
Truss is skating on very thin ice
Here are the BBC Local Radio Stations PM Liz Truss is on tomorrow morning and their timings.
0800 LEEDS
0808 NORFOLK
0815 KENT
0822 LANCASHIRE
0830 NOTTINGHAM
0838 TEES
0845 BRISTOL
0852 STOKE
Cummings was right.
Mayfair, one of my more frequent haunts during recent years, is a special case. All those awful overpriced Italian sports cars that seem to just be permanently parked for show.
The immense wealth has been “spaffed up a wall”, to quote the most recent useless FM to be kicked out of office.
> the intensity & immensity of the storm, which is going to cause a LOT of grief to Floridians in next few days AND weeks, and indeed (for some) for years to come.
> the prominence AND responsibility of Governor DeSantis in leading state government response to Hurricane Ian and it's aftermath.
Could conceivably make OR break. Or (more likely) somewhere in the middle.
Another factor: will almost certainly make it HARDER for many Floridians to vote in this election, due to personal AND public disruptions. With both NOT helped by recent efforts by DeSantis and rest of GOP to make voting harder (say for people whose drivers license is under water).
Given that impact of storm appears MAY be worst in southwest Florida, this MIGHT prove worse for Republicans than Democrats.
She’s missed out Wales, Scotland and NI which is pisspoor.
Spend less or tax more.
Tax more isn't an option because the amount of extra tax that is needed is far more than could be raised from upper earners therefore the basic rate would have to be raised and that would push millions from just about managing to poverty.
The sooner we accept we have to spend less and have a grown up conversation about what we can do without the sooner things get fixed.
Currently all we have is people yelping spend more, taxing the rich more will pay for it when in reality the extra tax we could raise is going to nowhere near cutting the deficit. We would probably need to raise the basic rate to at least 25% even if we made top rate tax 75% to cover the deficit
Chief Sec to the Treasury Chris Philp: "No we're not"
#TheTake
https://twitter.com/SophyRidgeSky/status/1575214980592328704
https://whocanivotefor.co.uk/person/86968/jennifer-saunders
Odd she's bouncing between Churchill (well to the NW of Oxford) and Hinksey Park (where my friends used to live - outer Victorian suburb to south of the centre, between the river meadows).
The Labour conference is over now
I agree with wooliedyed that the biggest drop will be when people start feeling the economic or mortgage impact for themselves, but I don't think one should underestimate today as the start of a psychological step-change, either.
For years, the most faithful Tory voters have understood that financial chaos, rather than just the setbacks of last week, is something to be entirely identified with Labour and 'socialism', just by its very nature. Now suddenly the Mail tonight is full of "hours from chaos" and "the IMF".
This is supposed to be Labour and the GFC , or Labour in the 1970's, not the Tories in 2022.
NOT in seven minutes.
Addendum - And obviously NO meaningful questioning.
But… that should not be mistaken for support. Scores of Tory MPs are aware something very much not good is happening in the markets. So much depends politically on where we are next week and the week after. To take two examples… 6/
A Commons rebellion. The first vote is a week Tuesday on reversing National Insurance rise. This should pass fine - wide party support, heart of Truss’s successful leadership bid. Bigger challenge is the Finance Bill containing most of Friday’s other (more contested) elements. 7/
But could reversing the 45p top tax rate move be the focus for rebels? It was/is a) unexpected b) cited by critical economists as misstep c) jumped on by Labour d) doesn’t raise loads of cash e) isn’t polling well. One grandee told @christopherhope it’ll be tricky to pass. 8/
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1575215628260347905
And it's barely enough time to say good morning at each, and try to remember not to congratulate Leeds on Lancashire's cricket win and remark in Teesside on the Colston statue. Certainly not compared with an hour beign grilled by the BBC or Sky. .
@DPJHodges
·
37m
"Ministers in cabinet rubbish the link between Friday's statement and today's turmoil". Then those Ministers have no business being anywhere near a whelk-stall, never mind the cabinet table.
And yes you are right, tax increases and spending cuts loom a long way into the future
Are you still literally looking to literally make your year by literally bullying a genial pensioner literally off this site?
You bully. Literally.
That's gonna have to be taxed.
Get rid of the current pension arrangements, and you are going to have to give people working in schools, hospitals, town halls and so on a bigger salary, or you won't be able to recruit. Bear in mind that there are already problems getting people to do a lot of these jobs (see comments by Foxy, Yodethur,dixiedean, me and others passim ad nauseum).
You may resent how much these people are paid- fair enough. But things and people still cost what they cost. If the government wants to save money- fair enough. But it needs to do it by either stopping doing things, or doing them more efficiently. Don't kid yourself that unilaterally paying less for the same things is an option.
Another mis-step from Truss.
In its defence, govt said this week that the OBR had said (quoting OBR) any forecasts would “necessarily require some reduction in the breadth and depth of the analysis and information that we would be able to provide”
HOWEVER this does not tell the full story. In a letter to Treasury cttee chair on 26 August, OBR chair said "we would do our best in the time available to give the Govt, Parliament & the public the most complete & up-to-date picture of the economic and fiscal outlook as possible"
https://twitter.com/janemerrick23/status/1575215566448517120
This is why the markets have no confidence in the Truss Ministry.
In a state.
Of course the mantra always is wealth taxes are good as long as they do not effect me