I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
(a) definitely not possible and I don't think they can alter the 15% rule either. Their power extends to the nuts and bolts of the election not to substance. Think of them as returning officers.
d they could choose to increase it further in later rounds. So what would stop them picking a much higher figure?
Secondly, if the committee doesn't have the power either to set a very high threshold or to suspend the membership vote entirely, who does? Would Tory MPs as a whole have the power to adopt a rule change (by what majority?) or would another body within the party have to do so? Either way it is at least conceivable that sufficient support for changing the rules could develop.
I believe it's in the party rules so the membership gets a vote.
@Sandpit Thank you for your kind comment on the last thread. Will report back. As you can see I have reached an age where I can no longer scare the willies out of myself by my own strength and agility (skiing, catamaran sailing) so I am relying on the mechanised forms (Pitts Special, single seater racing car, etc).
I fancy a go on one of the ex Americas cup catamarans, but I can't see how it is possible. I'm guessing you can't get a crew together for a joy ride and even if you could it would cost a fortune to hire them. I seem to remember Top Gear did a race against one in New Zealand. Envious.
Any other suggestions for scaring myself. I don't like heights, but I'm ok if enclosed (hence can ski and pitts special and gliders)
That’s a good question. I’ll put my thinking hat on while you’re going round the race track tomorrow!
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
British Airways now has more retired pilots than active pilots on its books. It’s basically a pension scheme that flies planes around.
Yes, and BA coincidentally has the worst fleet of major airlines it competes with and has underinvested in current staff and routes for at least 10 years. The pension scheme is strangling the business and they need to be freed from the burden by state intervention. If it means retired pilots get £30k in returns from a DC scheme rather than £50k from their current DB scheme then that's the price.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
(a) definitely not possible and I don't think they can alter the 15% rule either. Their power extends to the nuts and bolts of the election not to substance. Think of them as returning officers.
If there's a degree if unanimity about the replacement (eg Wallace), then just run them alongside (say) Sunak until any other no hopers are eliminated in the MP ballots. Sunak then drops out to leave Wallace unopposed. Or whoever. Could be done in a couple of days if they were desperate. Which they ought to be by now if they have any sense left to them.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
Ok, I have two more ideas how Tory MPs could block the members from voting. I provide these for free, although they may turn out just as flawed as my previous suggestions. (1) depending on how many MPs object to the proposed unity candidate, pro-fix MPs may be able to split their votes evenly between two candidates in the first round in order to knock the Trussite or other dissident candidate out of the race. Obviously won't work if the person has a lot of support. (2) the majority of Tory MPs could make absolutely explicit to the members and to the candidates that they will only accept one of the candidates as victor and will immediately seek to oust anyone else. They could apply immense pressure to the second placed candidate to withdraw from the race instead of the decision going to a ballot of party members.
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
(a) definitely not possible and I don't think they can alter the 15% rule either. Their power extends to the nuts and bolts of the election not to substance. Think of them as returning officers.
d they could choose to increase it further in later rounds. So what would stop them picking a much higher figure?
Secondly, if the committee doesn't have the power either to set a very high threshold or to suspend the membership vote entirely, who does? Would Tory MPs as a whole have the power to adopt a rule change (by what majority?) or would another body within the party have to do so? Either way it is at least conceivable that sufficient support for changing the rules could develop.
I believe it's in the party rules so the membership gets a vote.
Yes it’s in the party constitution so in order to remove the membership vote the …. Err…members have to vote to remove it.
Howard tried to remove the members vote before his resignation but the members rejected it.
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
(a) definitely not possible and I don't think they can alter the 15% rule either. Their power extends to the nuts and bolts of the election not to substance. Think of them as returning officers.
Out of interest how would the Tory leadership voting system be changed? Who needs to approve any changes?
I think the answer is, the membership!
Doesn't the power of 'the membership' vary from one organisation to another? I've just received an invitation to renew my 'membership' of the Tate but I've never been consulted about the appointment of a new Director. It's just a fan club. Isn't the Conservative Party much the same (though obviously less worthy)?
The biggest hinder to growth is Brexit, which Keir Starmer and Labour support.
Yes, he’s now got an opportunity to campaign on a return to the single market. The case is overwhelming.
He’s too timid. He’s frightened of his own shadow.
It's a risk too far and would give something for the tories to campaign against.
Best to place it to one side and not risk losing a very winnable election.
The last thing Starmer wants is Labour Landslide becoming the accepted wisdom. Then tons of soft Labour support would feel safe putting their cross on their true first choice - Greens, Lib Dem, Mebyon Kernow, Plaid etc.
He needs to maintain some suspense right up until the polling stations close. What better way than giving the Tories something meaty to campaign against?
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
(a) definitely not possible and I don't think they can alter the 15% rule either. Their power extends to the nuts and bolts of the election not to substance. Think of them as returning officers.
d they could choose to increase it further in later rounds. So what would stop them picking a much higher figure?
Secondly, if the committee doesn't have the power either to set a very high threshold or to suspend the membership vote entirely, who does? Would Tory MPs as a whole have the power to adopt a rule change (by what majority?) or would another body within the party have to do so? Either way it is at least conceivable that sufficient support for changing the rules could develop.
I believe it's in the party rules so the membership gets a vote.
Yes it’s in the party constitution so in order to remove the membership vote the …. Err…members have to vote to remove it.
Howard tried to remove the members vote before his resignation but the members rejected it.
Quite right too, the Conservative Party should not be the only main UK party which does not give its members any say in who is elected its leader.
MPs get to pick 2 candidates to put to the membership, if they cannot find 2 candidates they can live with then that is their fault
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
(a) definitely not possible and I don't think they can alter the 15% rule either. Their power extends to the nuts and bolts of the election not to substance. Think of them as returning officers.
Out of interest how would the Tory leadership voting system be changed? Who needs to approve any changes?
I think the answer is, the membership!
Doesn't the power of 'the membership' vary from one organisation to another? I've just received an invitation to renew my 'membership' of the Tate but I have never been consulted about the appointment of a new Director. It's just a fan club. Isn't the Conservative Party much the same (though obviously less worthy)?
The one actual power that the membership has in the Conservative Party, is the right to elect the party leader. Without that power, they’d lose a lot of members overnight.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I've seen it argued the accession of Truss supports the notion that while in Opposition the leader can and should be chosen with membership involvement, the choice of a Prime Minister in office should be left to the MPs themselves.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
British Airways now has more retired pilots than active pilots on its books. It’s basically a pension scheme that flies planes around.
Yes, and BA coincidentally has the worst fleet of major airlines it competes with and has underinvested in current staff and routes for at least 10 years. The pension scheme is strangling the business and they need to be freed from the burden by state intervention. If it means retired pilots get £30k in returns from a DC scheme rather than £50k from their current DB scheme then that's the price.
A relative has an index linked ICI DB pension, which he took, er, 37 years ago.
Obviously he has been paid an awful lot more by the zombie pension fund than he ever was in salary.
This kind of thing cannot be allowed to continue, particularly where the liabilities are unfunded or partially unfunded.
Ok, I have two more ideas how Tory MPs could block the members from voting. I provide these for free, although they may turn out just as flawed as my previous suggestions. (1) depending on how many MPs object to the proposed unity candidate, pro-fix MPs may be able to split their votes evenly between two candidates in the first round in order to knock the Trussite or other dissident candidate out of the race. Obviously won't work if the person has a lot of support. (2) the majority of Tory MPs could make absolutely explicit to the members and to the candidates that they will only accept one of the candidates as victor and will immediately seek to oust anyone else. They could apply immense pressure to the second placed candidate to withdraw from the race instead of the decision going to a ballot of party members.
Both of those suggestions require a degree of unity across the Tory MPs which up to now has not been much in evidence.
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
(a) definitely not possible and I don't think they can alter the 15% rule either. Their power extends to the nuts and bolts of the election not to substance. Think of them as returning officers.
Out of interest how would the Tory leadership voting system be changed? Who needs to approve any changes?
I think the answer is, the membership!
Doesn't the power of 'the membership' vary from one organisation to another? I've just received an invitation to renew my 'membership' of the Tate but I have never been consulted about the appointment of a new Director. It's just a fan club. Isn't the Conservative Party much the same (though obviously less worthy)?
The one actual power that the membership has in the Conservative Party, is the right to elect the party leader. Without that power, they’d lose a lot of members overnight.
But it isn't really a power - just a concession by MPs who decided to share their constitutional authority and could well be having second thoughts. Under the circumstances they may calculate that the fan club would gain more members than it lost by replacing the leader.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Lol, she was merely an accountant trying to find savings to ensure the pension fund stayed afloat (hint, she proposed cuts to rail investment because that was the only area that wasn't "protected") but she did say there were a huge number of people retiring at >70% and loads at 80% and the actuaries were saying NR would be bankrupt in 20 years without huge government intervention or cuts elsewhere.
Multiply this to the nation at large and loads of big businesses across the country.
Stdill doesn't meet the sniff test, given the hard work and safety issues involved which woiuld tend to prevent the extension of retirement age. I wonder if actual salary with overtime is being used to work out pension entitlement but for accountants' purposes it hs expressed in basic salary?
That could be it, also NR is hugely bureaucratic so a big proportion of the workers won't be doing manual labour.
If it's being expressed that way (which might well be valid for the accountant) it's arguably misleading to use it in a political realm, as the actual pay, and also pension deductions, were on the basis of base pay plus overtime, certainly for the manual track workers, signallers, and so on, as well as their supervisors. But, to be fair, we're not sure what is actuallyt happening here.
Someone thought it was worth stabbing 4 people for a bike on Bishopsgate during this mornings rush hour. But if you listen to @MayorofLondon you’d think climate change is London’s number one issue at the moment
"The good news is, it's not a terror attack. And another piece of good news is the three victims of the stabbing are not in life-threatening situations, thank God. But it's just a reminder of the dangers of carrying the knife." - Sadiq Khan
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
British Airways now has more retired pilots than active pilots on its books. It’s basically a pension scheme that flies planes around.
Yes, and BA coincidentally has the worst fleet of major airlines it competes with and has underinvested in current staff and routes for at least 10 years. The pension scheme is strangling the business and they need to be freed from the burden by state intervention. If it means retired pilots get £30k in returns from a DC scheme rather than £50k from their current DB scheme then that's the price.
A relative has an index linked ICI DB pension, which he took, er, 37 years ago.
Obviously he has been paid an awful lot more by the zombie pension fund than he ever was in salary.
This kind of thing cannot be allowed to continue, particularly where the liabilities are unfunded or partially unfunded.
His pension will have been paid not by the pension fund but by the annuity provider, surely? At the point of retirement the pension fund would have bought an annuity to pay the pension. The annuity provider will have got a raw deal in your relative's case but the annuity rates are set on an actuarial basis so the cost to the pension fund would unaffected by how long your relative lived.
In Canada in 1993 the Progressive Conservatives got just 16%, even on today's Redfield the Conservatives are still on 24%, so not quite at Canada levels yet. For that to happen they would need to lose voters to their right to Farage too, the Tory vote otherwise is now at its absolute core. All the centrist swing voters are now voting Labour or LD
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
British Airways now has more retired pilots than active pilots on its books. It’s basically a pension scheme that flies planes around.
Yes, and BA coincidentally has the worst fleet of major airlines it competes with and has underinvested in current staff and routes for at least 10 years. The pension scheme is strangling the business and they need to be freed from the burden by state intervention. If it means retired pilots get £30k in returns from a DC scheme rather than £50k from their current DB scheme then that's the price.
A relative has an index linked ICI DB pension, which he took, er, 37 years ago.
Obviously he has been paid an awful lot more by the zombie pension fund than he ever was in salary.
This kind of thing cannot be allowed to continue, particularly where the liabilities are unfunded or partially unfunded.
His pension will have been paid not by the pension fund but by the annuity provider, surely? At the point of retirement the pension fund would have bought an annuity to pay the pension. The annuity provider will have got a raw deal in your relative's case but the annuity rates are set on an actuarial basis so the cost to the pension fund would unaffected by how long your relative lived.
Indeed, paid for by someone dying on their second day of retirement.
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
(a) definitely not possible and I don't think they can alter the 15% rule either. Their power extends to the nuts and bolts of the election not to substance. Think of them as returning officers.
Out of interest how would the Tory leadership voting system be changed? Who needs to approve any changes?
I think the answer is, the membership!
Doesn't the power of 'the membership' vary from one organisation to another? I've just received an invitation to renew my 'membership' of the Tate but I have never been consulted about the appointment of a new Director. It's just a fan club. Isn't the Conservative Party much the same (though obviously less worthy)?
The one actual power that the membership has in the Conservative Party, is the right to elect the party leader. Without that power, they’d lose a lot of members overnight.
But it isn't really a power - just a concession by MPs who decided to share their constitutional authority and could well be having second thoughts. Under the circumstances they may calculate that the fan club would gain more members than it lost by replacing the leader.
It’s the other way round, the membership delegates the whittling-down process to the MPs, to ensure that whoever is elected Leader is well-supported in Parliament.
They didn’t bet on several dozen Ted Heaths, all sulking at the same time.
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
(a) definitely not possible and I don't think they can alter the 15% rule either. Their power extends to the nuts and bolts of the election not to substance. Think of them as returning officers.
Out of interest how would the Tory leadership voting system be changed? Who needs to approve any changes?
I think the answer is, the membership!
Doesn't the power of 'the membership' vary from one organisation to another? I've just received an invitation to renew my 'membership' of the Tate but I've never been consulted about the appointment of a new Director. It's just a fan club. Isn't the Conservative Party much the same (though obviously less worthy)?
Yes, they vary with the rules of the organisation.
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
(a) definitely not possible and I don't think they can alter the 15% rule either. Their power extends to the nuts and bolts of the election not to substance. Think of them as returning officers.
d they could choose to increase it further in later rounds. So what would stop them picking a much higher figure?
Secondly, if the committee doesn't have the power either to set a very high threshold or to suspend the membership vote entirely, who does? Would Tory MPs as a whole have the power to adopt a rule change (by what majority?) or would another body within the party have to do so? Either way it is at least conceivable that sufficient support for changing the rules could develop.
I believe it's in the party rules so the membership gets a vote.
Yes it’s in the party constitution so in order to remove the membership vote the …. Err…members have to vote to remove it.
Howard tried to remove the members vote before his resignation but the members rejected it.
Quite right too, the Conservative Party should not be the only main UK party which does not give its members any say in who is elected its leader.
MPs get to pick 2 candidates to put to the membership, if they cannot find 2 candidates they can live with then that is their fault
There have sometimes been suggestions of some MPs (supporters of the leading candidate) lending tactical support to the candidate they feel is more bearable so that that person goes through to the ballot. I'm not sure if that happened this time round but if it did then what a stark warning to MPs not to play silly buggers in future.
I've seen it argued the accession of Truss supports the notion that while in Opposition the leader can and should be chosen with membership involvement, the choice of a Prime Minister in office should be left to the MPs themselves.
Good proposal - would need to be enshrined in legislation.
Starmer should include such a proposal in the next King's Speech Labour manifesto. And while he's at it he should legislate to require any change of PM to be followed by a GE within 3 months.
They are truly dreadful figures. These things tend to take on a momentum of their own. All bad news is the government's fault (and there'll be plenty of it). Good news ignored. Happened to Major and Brown.
Also, hard to fix as changing leader may not resolve the issue.
War with Russia would fix it. Then once the strategic nukes started flying - which would be within about a week, max - there'd be no country left and survivors wouldn't be answering pollsters or voting. There's practically no opposition on the pro-Zelensky foreign policy.
The kind of person who flies the Ukrainian flag from their house is the type who would have voted for Trump. Practically every property I see flying the blue and yellow right now is also flying the Butcher's Apron. We've got all Trump and no Hillary Clinton. What a wonderful time to be alive...
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
British Airways now has more retired pilots than active pilots on its books. It’s basically a pension scheme that flies planes around.
Yes, and BA coincidentally has the worst fleet of major airlines it competes with and has underinvested in current staff and routes for at least 10 years. The pension scheme is strangling the business and they need to be freed from the burden by state intervention. If it means retired pilots get £30k in returns from a DC scheme rather than £50k from their current DB scheme then that's the price.
A relative has an index linked ICI DB pension, which he took, er, 37 years ago.
Obviously he has been paid an awful lot more by the zombie pension fund than he ever was in salary.
This kind of thing cannot be allowed to continue, particularly where the liabilities are unfunded or partially unfunded.
His pension will have been paid not by the pension fund but by the annuity provider, surely? At the point of retirement the pension fund would have bought an annuity to pay the pension. The annuity provider will have got a raw deal in your relative's case but the annuity rates are set on an actuarial basis so the cost to the pension fund would unaffected by how long your relative lived.
Indeed, paid for by someone dying on their second day of retirement.
Happens more often than one might think - it can be a very stressful transition.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
British Airways now has more retired pilots than active pilots on its books. It’s basically a pension scheme that flies planes around.
Yes, and BA coincidentally has the worst fleet of major airlines it competes with and has underinvested in current staff and routes for at least 10 years. The pension scheme is strangling the business and they need to be freed from the burden by state intervention. If it means retired pilots get £30k in returns from a DC scheme rather than £50k from their current DB scheme then that's the price.
A relative has an index linked ICI DB pension, which he took, er, 37 years ago.
Obviously he has been paid an awful lot more by the zombie pension fund than he ever was in salary.
This kind of thing cannot be allowed to continue, particularly where the liabilities are unfunded or partially unfunded.
His pension will have been paid not by the pension fund but by the annuity provider, surely? At the point of retirement the pension fund would have bought an annuity to pay the pension. The annuity provider will have got a raw deal in your relative's case but the annuity rates are set on an actuarial basis so the cost to the pension fund would unaffected by how long your relative lived.
Sounds right. If the provider employs competent actuaries nobody loses out other than the early decedents who balance out the outliers at the other end.
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
(a) definitely not possible and I don't think they can alter the 15% rule either. Their power extends to the nuts and bolts of the election not to substance. Think of them as returning officers.
d they could choose to increase it further in later rounds. So what would stop them picking a much higher figure?
Secondly, if the committee doesn't have the power either to set a very high threshold or to suspend the membership vote entirely, who does? Would Tory MPs as a whole have the power to adopt a rule change (by what majority?) or would another body within the party have to do so? Either way it is at least conceivable that sufficient support for changing the rules could develop.
I believe it's in the party rules so the membership gets a vote.
Yes it’s in the party constitution so in order to remove the membership vote the …. Err…members have to vote to remove it.
Howard tried to remove the members vote before his resignation but the members rejected it.
Quite right too, the Conservative Party should not be the only main UK party which does not give its members any say in who is elected its leader.
MPs get to pick 2 candidates to put to the membership, if they cannot find 2 candidates they can live with then that is their fault
There have sometimes been suggestions of some MPs (supporters of the leading candidate) lending tactical support to the candidate they feel is more bearable so that that person goes through to the ballot. I'm not sure if that happened this time round but if it did then what a stark warning to MPs not to play silly buggers in future.
Welcome to PB.
I can’t imagine the membership being too happy, if the MP’s vote out their selection of only a month ago. Anything that looks like a stich-up by the MPs to bounce the membership, would go down even worse!
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
A relative has an index linked ICI DB pension, which he took, er, 37 years ago.
Obviously he has been paid an awful lot more by the zombie pension fund than he ever was in salary.
This kind of thing cannot be allowed to continue, particularly where the liabilities are unfunded or partially unfunded.
His pension will have been paid not by the pension fund but by the annuity provider, surely? At the point of retirement the pension fund would have bought an annuity to pay the pension. The annuity provider will have got a raw deal in your relative's case but the annuity rates are set on an actuarial basis so the cost to the pension fund would unaffected by how long your relative lived.
Also, the private sector DB->DC switchover has been a quiet shifting of exposure to risk (investment and length-of-life) from big organisations who should be well able to cope with it and amortize it over many people, to individuals who by and large are much less well placed to understand or deal with it. If organisations have pension troubles now, it's because they overpromised and underfunded in the past, not because a DB pension is somehow an impossibly unworkable financial instrument.
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
(a) definitely not possible and I don't think they can alter the 15% rule either. Their power extends to the nuts and bolts of the election not to substance. Think of them as returning officers.
d they could choose to increase it further in later rounds. So what would stop them picking a much higher figure?
Secondly, if the committee doesn't have the power either to set a very high threshold or to suspend the membership vote entirely, who does? Would Tory MPs as a whole have the power to adopt a rule change (by what majority?) or would another body within the party have to do so? Either way it is at least conceivable that sufficient support for changing the rules could develop.
I believe it's in the party rules so the membership gets a vote.
Yes it’s in the party constitution so in order to remove the membership vote the …. Err…members have to vote to remove it.
Howard tried to remove the members vote before his resignation but the members rejected it.
Quite right too, the Conservative Party should not be the only main UK party which does not give its members any say in who is elected its leader.
MPs get to pick 2 candidates to put to the membership, if they cannot find 2 candidates they can live with then that is their fault
There have sometimes been suggestions of some MPs (supporters of the leading candidate) lending tactical support to the candidate they feel is more bearable so that that person goes through to the ballot. I'm not sure if that happened this time round but if it did then what a stark warning to MPs not to play silly buggers in future.
Conversely if Sunak had played silly buggers he could have lent enough votes to Mordaunt to eliminate Liz. If only...
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
Yes it's really democratic to let 360 MPs decide the next leader instead of 150,000 members.
Max is on his anti-pensioner rant again. But I fully support him.
What’s more, polling evidence suggests that old people don’t give a fuck. Something like 5/6 think the young just need to stop whining and eat fewer avocados.
Part XIII for amending the rules. Schedule 2 for leadership elections.
The National Conservative Convention seems key, itself largely comprised of the Chairmen of each Conservative Association (is that one per constituency?)
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
Yes it's really democratic to let 360 MPs decide the next leader instead of 150,000 members.
At least each of the 360 MPs has been elected; the members, not so much.
Max is on his anti-pensioner rant again. But I fully support him.
What’s more, polling evidence suggests that old people don’t give a fuck. Something like 5/6 think the young just need to stop whining and eat fewer avocados.
Why isn't there a like-for-like comparison? Compare young people today with older people when they were young, not young people today with older people today.
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
Yes it's really democratic to let 360 MPs decide the next leader instead of 150,000 members.
The PM is supposed to command the support of the house, so it makes much more sense that MPs pick her/him than a bunch of incontinent jingos.
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
(a) definitely not possible and I don't think they can alter the 15% rule either. Their power extends to the nuts and bolts of the election not to substance. Think of them as returning officers.
d they could choose to increase it further in later rounds. So what would stop them picking a much higher figure?
Secondly, if the committee doesn't have the power either to set a very high threshold or to suspend the membership vote entirely, who does? Would Tory MPs as a whole have the power to adopt a rule change (by what majority?) or would another body within the party have to do so? Either way it is at least conceivable that sufficient support for changing the rules could develop.
I believe it's in the party rules so the membership gets a vote.
Yes it’s in the party constitution so in order to remove the membership vote the …. Err…members have to vote to remove it.
Howard tried to remove the members vote before his resignation but the members rejected it.
Quite right too, the Conservative Party should not be the only main UK party which does not give its members any say in who is elected its leader.
MPs get to pick 2 candidates to put to the membership, if they cannot find 2 candidates they can live with then that is their fault
There have sometimes been suggestions of some MPs (supporters of the leading candidate) lending tactical support to the candidate they feel is more bearable so that that person goes through to the ballot. I'm not sure if that happened this time round but if it did then what a stark warning to MPs not to play silly buggers in future.
Welcome to PB.
I can’t imagine the membership being too happy, if the MP’s vote out their selection of only a month ago. Anything that looks like a stich-up by the MPs to bounce the membership, would go down even worse!
I would think the members would be happy just to have a new leader.
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
Yes it's really democratic to let 360 MPs decide the next leader instead of 150,000 members.
The PM is supposed to command the support of the house, so it makes much more sense that MPs pick her/him than a bunch of incontinent jingos.
Our system of government is representative democracy. We elect MPs who make decisions. To say its undemocratic to have 360 MPs make a decision is to say everything they do is undemocratic.
Not sure that is the point the "protect Truss at all costs" drones are trying to make.
They are truly dreadful figures. These things tend to take on a momentum of their own. All bad news is the government's fault (and there'll be plenty of it). Good news ignored. Happened to Major and Brown.
Also, hard to fix as changing leader may not resolve the issue.
War with Russia would fix it. Then once the strategic nukes started flying - which would be within about a week, max - there'd be no country left and survivors wouldn't be answering pollsters or voting. There's practically no opposition on the pro-Zelensky foreign policy.
The kind of person who flies the Ukrainian flag from their house is the type who would have voted for Trump. Practically every property I see flying the blue and yellow right now is also flying the Butcher's Apron. We've got all Trump and no Hillary Clinton. What a wonderful time to be alive...
Wow:
I do believe we have another one.
Can we let this one run for a bit? Much more sophisticated than the others. It's almost as though there's an actual human behind it.
It didn't even get triggered by @Sandpit's comment about BA and last week asked me what I was talking about when I raised it. They're really upping their game.
Max is on his anti-pensioner rant again. But I fully support him.
What’s more, polling evidence suggests that old people don’t give a fuck. Something like 5/6 think the young just need to stop whining and eat fewer avocados.
The problem with any pensions raid, from a young person's perspective, is it massively disincentivises people to put (as much) money into a pension in the first place. Why bother if the government is going to nick it all in thirty years time? Or change the rules? etc.
In Canada in 1993 the Progressive Conservatives got just 16%, even on today's Redfield the Conservatives are still on 24%, so not quite at Canada levels yet. For that to happen they would need to lose voters to their right to Farage too, the Tory vote otherwise is now at its absolute core. All the centrist swing voters are now voting Labour or LD
I'm disappointed.
I was hoping you'd go with how Truss is the first Tory leader since Eden to have similar approval ratings in both England and Scotland.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
The theft is what's going on at the minute where pensioners who never put aside savings for their own pension when working have voted themselves superinflated pensions that they expect people who never agreed to pay them, would end up paying instead of their own savings.
If a Christmas Savings Fund like Park goes out of business because it doesn't have enough money to pay out its liabilities then is that theft? Well those on DB haven't set aside enough money to cover their own benefits, so the DB needs to go bust and say we can't afford these benefits anymore.
They are truly dreadful figures. These things tend to take on a momentum of their own. All bad news is the government's fault (and there'll be plenty of it). Good news ignored. Happened to Major and Brown.
Also, hard to fix as changing leader may not resolve the issue.
War with Russia would fix it. Then once the strategic nukes started flying - which would be within about a week, max - there'd be no country left and survivors wouldn't be answering pollsters or voting. There's practically no opposition on the pro-Zelensky foreign policy.
The kind of person who flies the Ukrainian flag from their house is the type who would have voted for Trump. Practically every property I see flying the blue and yellow right now is also flying the Butcher's Apron. We've got all Trump and no Hillary Clinton. What a wonderful time to be alive...
Max is on his anti-pensioner rant again. But I fully support him.
What’s more, polling evidence suggests that old people don’t give a fuck. Something like 5/6 think the young just need to stop whining and eat fewer avocados.
Why isn't there a like-for-like comparison? Compare young people today with older people when they were young, not young people today with older people today.
Ok. Typical comparisons as obviously exceptions and variations across each cohort.
Todays Young - Can't afford decent housing, ever rising tax burden, student debt effectively extra tax, work til 70 with reasonable possibility of state pension being abolished by the time they can claim it. Will be poorer than their parents, may not be able to afford to raise a family and often have the indignity of returning to parental home.
Previous couple of generations whilst young. Decent housing achievable on median salaries, strong asset growth through working life, retirement in fifties or early sixties by choice not unusual, one parent often able to stay at home for years when kids young. Richer than their parents.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
(a) definitely not possible and I don't think they can alter the 15% rule either. Their power extends to the nuts and bolts of the election not to substance. Think of them as returning officers.
d they could choose to increase it further in later rounds. So what would stop them picking a much higher figure?
Secondly, if the committee doesn't have the power either to set a very high threshold or to suspend the membership vote entirely, who does? Would Tory MPs as a whole have the power to adopt a rule change (by what majority?) or would another body within the party have to do so? Either way it is at least conceivable that sufficient support for changing the rules could develop.
I believe it's in the party rules so the membership gets a vote.
Yes it’s in the party constitution so in order to remove the membership vote the …. Err…members have to vote to remove it.
Howard tried to remove the members vote before his resignation but the members rejected it.
Quite right too, the Conservative Party should not be the only main UK party which does not give its members any say in who is elected its leader.
MPs get to pick 2 candidates to put to the membership, if they cannot find 2 candidates they can live with then that is their fault
There have sometimes been suggestions of some MPs (supporters of the leading candidate) lending tactical support to the candidate they feel is more bearable so that that person goes through to the ballot. I'm not sure if that happened this time round but if it did then what a stark warning to MPs not to play silly buggers in future.
Welcome to PB.
I can’t imagine the membership being too happy, if the MP’s vote out their selection of only a month ago. Anything that looks like a stich-up by the MPs to bounce the membership, would go down even worse!
What are they going to do about if it happens? Vote Labour?
They could always leave the party but that would probably be a good thing for the Tories. Export the whole darn lot to UKIP and let them grumble away into their G&Ts
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
The theft is what's going on at the minute where pensioners who never put aside savings for their own pension when working have voted themselves superinflated pensions that they expect people who never agreed to pay them, would end up paying instead of their own savings.
If a Christmas Savings Fund like Park goes out of business because it doesn't have enough money to pay out its liabilities then is that theft? Well those on DB haven't set aside enough money to cover their own benefits, so the DB needs to go bust and say we can't afford these benefits anymore.
What are you on about? Who has voted themselves what pension?
They are truly dreadful figures. These things tend to take on a momentum of their own. All bad news is the government's fault (and there'll be plenty of it). Good news ignored. Happened to Major and Brown.
Also, hard to fix as changing leader may not resolve the issue.
War with Russia would fix it. Then once the strategic nukes started flying - which would be within about a week, max - there'd be no country left and survivors wouldn't be answering pollsters or voting. There's practically no opposition on the pro-Zelensky foreign policy.
The kind of person who flies the Ukrainian flag from their house is the type who would have voted for Trump. Practically every property I see flying the blue and yellow right now is also flying the Butcher's Apron. We've got all Trump and no Hillary Clinton. What a wonderful time to be alive...
Wow:
I do believe we have another one.
Can we let this one run for a bit? Much more sophisticated than the others. It's almost as though there's an actual human behind it.
It didn't even get triggered by @Sandpit's comment about BA and last week asked me what I was talking about when I raised it. They're really upping their game.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
Yes it's really democratic to let 360 MPs decide the next leader instead of 150,000 members.
At least each of the 360 MPs has been elected; the members, not so much.
Someone enterprising should perhaps run a social media campaign to get normal people to join both main parties. If just 5% of us were willing to join the parties that is probably enough to give us much better governance than when we leave it to the partisan loons and vested interests.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
British Airways now has more retired pilots than active pilots on its books. It’s basically a pension scheme that flies planes around.
Yes, and BA coincidentally has the worst fleet of major airlines it competes with and has underinvested in current staff and routes for at least 10 years. The pension scheme is strangling the business and they need to be freed from the burden by state intervention. If it means retired pilots get £30k in returns from a DC scheme rather than £50k from their current DB scheme then that's the price.
A relative has an index linked ICI DB pension, which he took, er, 37 years ago.
Obviously he has been paid an awful lot more by the zombie pension fund than he ever was in salary.
This kind of thing cannot be allowed to continue, particularly where the liabilities are unfunded or partially unfunded.
His pension will have been paid not by the pension fund but by the annuity provider, surely? At the point of retirement the pension fund would have bought an annuity to pay the pension. The annuity provider will have got a raw deal in your relative's case but the annuity rates are set on an actuarial basis so the cost to the pension fund would unaffected by how long your relative lived.
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
Yes it's really democratic to let 360 MPs decide the next leader instead of 150,000 members.
Yes it is. Because part of the reason those 360 members were elected was to help pick who would be PM. Those 150,000 members are not part of the democratic process outside of a GE and should have no part in choosing how is the new PM of this country.
Only MPs should have been part of this process.
And the decision should then have been put to a compulsory vote of confidence in The Commons as a whole before any other business could be addressed.
Max is on his anti-pensioner rant again. But I fully support him.
What’s more, polling evidence suggests that old people don’t give a fuck. Something like 5/6 think the young just need to stop whining and eat fewer avocados.
Why isn't there a like-for-like comparison? Compare young people today with older people when they were young, not young people today with older people today.
Ok. Typical comparisons as obviously exceptions and variations across each cohort.
Todays Young - Can't afford decent housing, ever rising tax burden, student debt effectively extra tax, work til 70 with reasonable possibility of state pension being abolished by the time they can claim it. Will be poorer than their parents, may not be able to afford to raise a family and often have the indignity of returning to parental home.
Previous couple of generations whilst young. Decent housing achievable on median salaries, strong asset growth through working life, retirement in fifties or early sixties by choice not unusual, one parent often able to stay at home for years when kids young. Richer than their parents.
Remiss of me not to mention that to balance it out that todays young do get the enormous pleasure of eating avocado.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
I've seen it argued the accession of Truss supports the notion that while in Opposition the leader can and should be chosen with membership involvement, the choice of a Prime Minister in office should be left to the MPs themselves.
Max is on his anti-pensioner rant again. But I fully support him.
What’s more, polling evidence suggests that old people don’t give a fuck. Something like 5/6 think the young just need to stop whining and eat fewer avocados.
Why isn't there a like-for-like comparison? Compare young people today with older people when they were young, not young people today with older people today.
Ok. Typical comparisons as obviously exceptions and variations across each cohort.
Todays Young - Can't afford decent housing, ever rising tax burden, student debt effectively extra tax, work til 70 with reasonable possibility of state pension being abolished by the time they can claim it. Will be poorer than their parents, may not be able to afford to raise a family and often have the indignity of returning to parental home.
Previous couple of generations whilst young. Decent housing achievable on median salaries, strong asset growth through working life, retirement in fifties or early sixties by choice not unusual, one parent often able to stay at home for years when kids young. Richer than their parents.
Remiss of me not to mention that to balance it out that todays young do get the enormous pleasure of eating avocado.
I would like to like that posting but I hate avocado so I won't. Doesn't avocado mean 'testicle' in some South American language or other? Or is that just an urban myth?
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
"Asda offers over 60s soup, a roll and unlimited tea and coffees for £1 in its 205 cafes to help customers get through cost of living crisis this winter"
I see we have one of our occasional temporary visitors this evening.
On a related topic: Musk is in danger of doing serious Brewdog-style damage to his Tesla brand. He’s already chipped away at it with his apparent Tourette’s tendencies and general demeanour. Revealing himself as a West Coast Tucker Carlson is not a great way to reassure his core clientele. Would be like the owners of Riverford organic coming out for Brexit or the John Lewis Partnership proposing a fast-tracked Rwanda deportation policy.
Another little joke that can be done with Kwasi's name is that it is almost a homophone for "quasi" which of course means apparently but not really or seemingly.
We therefore have an apparently but not really budget, from an apparently but not really Chancellor. A Kwasi budget for a Kwasi chancellor.
Alternatively he could be known as the hunchback of No11; Kwasi-modo, a very average chancellor.
Another little joke that can be done with Kwasi's name is that it is almost a homophone for "quasi" which of course means apparently but not really or seemingly.
We therefore have an apparently but not really budget, from an apparently but not really Chancellor. A Kwasi budget for a Kwasi chancellor.
Alternatively he could be known as the hunchback of No11; Kwasi-modo, a very average chancellor.
I've seen it argued the accession of Truss supports the notion that while in Opposition the leader can and should be chosen with membership involvement, the choice of a Prime Minister in office should be left to the MPs themselves.
100% agree with this
I don’t know if I was the first person to bring it up here but it’s the required compromise our Parliamentary democracy (where our representatives should be picking the Pm) and giving party members some say…
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
I've seen it argued the accession of Truss supports the notion that while in Opposition the leader can and should be chosen with membership involvement, the choice of a Prime Minister in office should be left to the MPs themselves.
100% agree with this
You're very kind - the Conservatives of course are only grudging supporters of internal party democracy.
The MPs decide who is going to be on the ballot paper and it's only a straight choice. Why not, in Opposition, allow all who get the required number of nominations to put their case to the membership. Straight forward OMOV is probably a bit on the nose for Conservative MPs but in Opposition it seems a reasonable way forward.
"Asda offers over 60s soup, a roll and unlimited tea and coffees for £1 in its 205 cafes to help customers get through cost of living crisis this winter"
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
(a) definitely not possible and I don't think they can alter the 15% rule either. Their power extends to the nuts and bolts of the election not to substance. Think of them as returning officers.
d they could choose to increase it further in later rounds. So what would stop them picking a much higher figure?
Secondly, if the committee doesn't have the power either to set a very high threshold or to suspend the membership vote entirely, who does? Would Tory MPs as a whole have the power to adopt a rule change (by what majority?) or would another body within the party have to do so? Either way it is at least conceivable that sufficient support for changing the rules could develop.
I believe it's in the party rules so the membership gets a vote.
Yes it’s in the party constitution so in order to remove the membership vote the …. Err…members have to vote to remove it.
Howard tried to remove the members vote before his resignation but the members rejected it.
Quite right too, the Conservative Party should not be the only main UK party which does not give its members any say in who is elected its leader.
MPs get to pick 2 candidates to put to the membership, if they cannot find 2 candidates they can live with then that is their fault
There have sometimes been suggestions of some MPs (supporters of the leading candidate) lending tactical support to the candidate they feel is more bearable so that that person goes through to the ballot. I'm not sure if that happened this time round but if it did then what a stark warning to MPs not to play silly buggers in future.
Welcome to PB.
I can’t imagine the membership being too happy, if the MP’s vote out their selection of only a month ago. Anything that looks like a stich-up by the MPs to bounce the membership, would go down even worse!
I would think the members would be happy just to have a new leader.
I think the lesson in all this is: if you have a candidate who is saying all this batshit crazy stuff, don’t just assume they’re saying it to get elected. They might, you know, do the crazy stuff. Which won’t be good.
Another little joke that can be done with Kwasi's name is that it is almost a homophone for "quasi" which of course means apparently but not really or seemingly.
We therefore have an apparently but not really budget, from an apparently but not really Chancellor. A Kwasi budget for a Kwasi chancellor.
Alternatively he could be known as the hunchback of No11; Kwasi-modo, a very average chancellor.
If Truss is done (and that’s only an ‘if’) and a consensus candidate is needed, I think Gove, Sunak and Johnson are out. I know nowt about Wallace but he’s bald and has only backed Ukraine (the MoD equivalent of furlough and eat owt to help out)
Which leaves Pendolino - when you have eliminated the impossible and the unlikely is all that is left…
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
(a) definitely not possible and I don't think they can alter the 15% rule either. Their power extends to the nuts and bolts of the election not to substance. Think of them as returning officers.
Out of interest how would the Tory leadership voting system be changed? Who needs to approve any changes?
I think the answer is, the membership!
Doesn't the power of 'the membership' vary from one organisation to another? I've just received an invitation to renew my 'membership' of the Tate but I have never been consulted about the appointment of a new Director. It's just a fan club. Isn't the Conservative Party much the same (though obviously less worthy)?
The one actual power that the membership has in the Conservative Party, is the right to elect the party leader. Without that power, they’d lose a lot of members overnight.
If they depose Truss only in order to spend the next month or two … or three pandering to their geriatric members, they won’t have a party left anyway.
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
(a) definitely not possible and I don't think they can alter the 15% rule either. Their power extends to the nuts and bolts of the election not to substance. Think of them as returning officers.
d they could choose to increase it further in later rounds. So what would stop them picking a much higher figure?
Secondly, if the committee doesn't have the power either to set a very high threshold or to suspend the membership vote entirely, who does? Would Tory MPs as a whole have the power to adopt a rule change (by what majority?) or would another body within the party have to do so? Either way it is at least conceivable that sufficient support for changing the rules could develop.
I believe it's in the party rules so the membership gets a vote.
Yes it’s in the party constitution so in order to remove the membership vote the …. Err…members have to vote to remove it.
Howard tried to remove the members vote before his resignation but the members rejected it.
Quite right too, the Conservative Party should not be the only main UK party which does not give its members any say in who is elected its leader.
MPs get to pick 2 candidates to put to the membership, if they cannot find 2 candidates they can live with then that is their fault
There have sometimes been suggestions of some MPs (supporters of the leading candidate) lending tactical support to the candidate they feel is more bearable so that that person goes through to the ballot. I'm not sure if that happened this time round but if it did then what a stark warning to MPs not to play silly buggers in future.
Conversely if Sunak had played silly buggers he could have lent enough votes to Mordaunt to eliminate Liz. If only...
Perhaps he considered Liz more beatable (I meant tactical voting to elevate the more beatable opponent - not "bearable") but it's more likely that he didn't have enough spare votes to lend them out or for his supporters to feel that they should. Lending votes to Mordaunt would have been something of a public service in the interest of the greater good! But perhaps it's easier to see that with the benefit of hindsight (Thank you to you and anothers for the replies and the welcome.)
I've seen it argued the accession of Truss supports the notion that while in Opposition the leader can and should be chosen with membership involvement, the choice of a Prime Minister in office should be left to the MPs themselves.
100% agree with this
Me too. The MPs at least nominally represent the electorate at large. Personally I think members of political parties should be limited to electing Party Chairman and no more.
They are truly dreadful figures. These things tend to take on a momentum of their own. All bad news is the government's fault (and there'll be plenty of it). Good news ignored. Happened to Major and Brown.
Also, hard to fix as changing leader may not resolve the issue.
War with Russia would fix it. Then once the strategic nukes started flying - which would be within about a week, max - there'd be no country left and survivors wouldn't be answering pollsters or voting. There's practically no opposition on the pro-Zelensky foreign policy.
The kind of person who flies the Ukrainian flag from their house is the type who would have voted for Trump. Practically every property I see flying the blue and yellow right now is also flying the Butcher's Apron. We've got all Trump and no Hillary Clinton. What a wonderful time to be alive...
Wow:
I do believe we have another one.
Can we let this one run for a bit? Much more sophisticated than the others. It's almost as though there's an actual human behind it.
It didn't even get triggered by @Sandpit's comment about BA and last week asked me what I was talking about when I raised it. They're really upping their game.
If Truss is done (and that’s only an ‘if’) and a consensus candidate is needed, I think Gove, Sunak and Johnson are out. I know nowt about Wallace but he’s bald and has only backed Ukraine (the MoD equivalent of furlough and eat owt to help out)
Which leaves Pendolino - when you have eliminated the impossible and the unlikely is all that is left…
Max is on his anti-pensioner rant again. But I fully support him.
What’s more, polling evidence suggests that old people don’t give a fuck. Something like 5/6 think the young just need to stop whining and eat fewer avocados.
Why isn't there a like-for-like comparison? Compare young people today with older people when they were young, not young people today with older people today.
Ok. Typical comparisons as obviously exceptions and variations across each cohort.
Todays Young - Can't afford decent housing, ever rising tax burden, student debt effectively extra tax, work til 70 with reasonable possibility of state pension being abolished by the time they can claim it. Will be poorer than their parents, may not be able to afford to raise a family and often have the indignity of returning to parental home.
Previous couple of generations whilst young. Decent housing achievable on median salaries, strong asset growth through working life, retirement in fifties or early sixties by choice not unusual, one parent often able to stay at home for years when kids young. Richer than their parents.
Worth pointing out that those couple of post war generations were pretty unique in terms of the economic development at the time. Go back one more generation and you find young who could not afford their own house - perhaps ever, with large multigenerational families all living together, more often than not in rented accommodation and with very poor pension or retirement provision.
I am not using this as an argument against what you are saying. I agree we need to rebalance. But I wonder if the last couple of generations were really just a post war boom aberration and we are now unfortunately returning to the norm.
One thing I would say - particularly with regard to single working families - is that where I think we have gone most wrong is in allowing companies to drive down wages as a means of increasing profits. This is why I like the minimum wage so much and think it should be increased significantly. The social security system since WW2 has allowed companies to pay wages below a basic living standard and effectively use the taxpayer to subsidise their wage bill. This is something that should be dealt with, most simply by increasing the minimum wage significantly. It should not be the case in the UK or the rest of Europe that companies are able to pay full time employees wages that are below a living wage and expect the taxpayer to make up the difference.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
If Truss is done (and that’s only an ‘if’) and a consensus candidate is needed, I think Gove, Sunak and Johnson are out. I know nowt about Wallace but he’s bald and has only backed Ukraine (the MoD equivalent of furlough and eat owt to help out)
Which leaves Pendolino - when you have eliminated the impossible and the unlikely is all that is left…
Well the Daily Mail would hate that, which would be an immediate plus for me. Did seem that there were a lot of colleagues that came out swinging for Penny during the contest though, suggests she might find it tough being the consensus candidate. Plus do you really go for someone who has limited cabinet experience as someone to steady the ship?
I cannot take seriously any genuine comment which uses the term Butcher's Apron in an effort to be edgy.
On the flying of flags, so few people fly them anyway (as opposed to somewhere like the USA) that it is probably hard to draw any conclusions from it.
He has picked it up on here not realising it is a Scoticism. See also the superfluous wonderful in the final sentence - needs to work on his idioms.
Isn't it on the contrary a political expression, like Whig? Also a Jacobite one, in this case from Cumberland's atrocities post-Culloden in 1746. Perhaps stemming from this cartoon.
Always assumed the butcher was Cumberland and therefore the expression Scottish.
Only in the sense that the immediate victims were. But, like Culloden itself, it reflects the much wider Hanoverian/Jacobite split, which was present not only in Scotland but in the UK and Ireland. Very many Scots would never have used the term, that's for sure. So it's not a specifrically Scottish vs UK thing in its origins. (Plenty of non-Scots were killed by Cumberland's armies, too.)
True enough. However, IIRC there was some sharpish criticism south of the Border, specifically in the more genteel sections of London & environs, concerning Cumberland's rather robust methodology, with particular reference to aftermath of Culloden?
They are truly dreadful figures. These things tend to take on a momentum of their own. All bad news is the government's fault (and there'll be plenty of it). Good news ignored. Happened to Major and Brown.
Also, hard to fix as changing leader may not resolve the issue.
War with Russia would fix it. Then once the strategic nukes started flying - which would be within about a week, max - there'd be no country left and survivors wouldn't be answering pollsters or voting. There's practically no opposition on the pro-Zelensky foreign policy.
The kind of person who flies the Ukrainian flag from their house is the type who would have voted for Trump. Practically every property I see flying the blue and yellow right now is also flying the Butcher's Apron. We've got all Trump and no Hillary Clinton. What a wonderful time to be alive...
Wow:
I do believe we have another one.
Can we let this one run for a bit? Much more sophisticated than the others. It's almost as though there's an actual human behind it.
It didn't even get triggered by @Sandpit's comment about BA and last week asked me what I was talking about when I raised it. They're really upping their game.
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
(a) definitely not possible and I don't think they can alter the 15% rule either. Their power extends to the nuts and bolts of the election not to substance. Think of them as returning officers.
d they could choose to increase it further in later rounds. So what would stop them picking a much higher figure?
Secondly, if the committee doesn't have the power either to set a very high threshold or to suspend the membership vote entirely, who does? Would Tory MPs as a whole have the power to adopt a rule change (by what majority?) or would another body within the party have to do so? Either way it is at least conceivable that sufficient support for changing the rules could develop.
I believe it's in the party rules so the membership gets a vote.
Yes it’s in the party constitution so in order to remove the membership vote the …. Err…members have to vote to remove it.
Howard tried to remove the members vote before his resignation but the members rejected it.
Quite right too, the Conservative Party should not be the only main UK party which does not give its members any say in who is elected its leader.
MPs get to pick 2 candidates to put to the membership, if they cannot find 2 candidates they can live with then that is their fault
There have sometimes been suggestions of some MPs (supporters of the leading candidate) lending tactical support to the candidate they feel is more bearable so that that person goes through to the ballot. I'm not sure if that happened this time round but if it did then what a stark warning to MPs not to play silly buggers in future.
Conversely if Sunak had played silly buggers he could have lent enough votes to Mordaunt to eliminate Liz. If only...
Perhaps he considered Liz more beatable (I meant tactical voting to elevate the more beatable opponent - not "bearable") but it's more likely that he didn't have enough spare votes to lend them out or for his supporters to feel that they should. Lending votes to Mordaunt would have been something of a public service in the interest of the greater good! But perhaps it's easier to see that with the benefit of hindsight (Thank you to you and anothers for the replies and the welcome.)
Welcome from me, too. He was pretty dim if he didn't realise Liz was always going to beat him in the runoff. That, or he misunderestimated the gormlessness of the membership and thought they would see Liz for what she iz in the hustings.
I've seen it argued the accession of Truss supports the notion that while in Opposition the leader can and should be chosen with membership involvement, the choice of a Prime Minister in office should be left to the MPs themselves.
100% agree with this
Me too. The MPs at least nominally represent the electorate at large. Personally I think members of political parties should be limited to electing Party Chairman and no more.
Even if you think they should have no say in government, party members must at least have a say in picking their leader in opposition. The public can then confirm if they agree with that choice at the next general election.
If only MPs get a say on the next PM for a party in power, then Labour would also have to agree to remove the membership having a vote in power too. In 2007 for example, John McDonnell wanted to challenge Brown for leader and had John McDonnell got enough MPs nominations he would have gone to a ballot including Labour members and affiliated supporters. McDonnell could therefore in theory have ended up PM, not Gordon Brown
On topic, I need a new analogy for the shellacking the Tory Party is going to receive.
Buried like a squirrel's nuts.
This party is no more! It has ceased to be! It’s expired and gone to meet it’s Maker! This is a late party. It’s a stiff! Bereft of life, It rests in peace! If you the membership had not nailed it to the perch it would be pushing up the daisies! It’s run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-PARTY!!
Max is on his anti-pensioner rant again. But I fully support him.
What’s more, polling evidence suggests that old people don’t give a fuck. Something like 5/6 think the young just need to stop whining and eat fewer avocados.
Why isn't there a like-for-like comparison? Compare young people today with older people when they were young, not young people today with older people today.
Ok. Typical comparisons as obviously exceptions and variations across each cohort.
Todays Young - Can't afford decent housing, ever rising tax burden, student debt effectively extra tax, work til 70 with reasonable possibility of state pension being abolished by the time they can claim it. Will be poorer than their parents, may not be able to afford to raise a family and often have the indignity of returning to parental home.
Previous couple of generations whilst young. Decent housing achievable on median salaries, strong asset growth through working life, retirement in fifties or early sixties by choice not unusual, one parent often able to stay at home for years when kids young. Richer than their parents.
Worth pointing out that those couple of post war generations were pretty unique in terms of the economic development at the time. Go back one more generation and you find young who could not afford their own house - perhaps ever, with large multigenerational families all living together, more often than not in rented accommodation and with very poor pension or retirement provision.
I am not using this as an argument against what you are saying. I agree we need to rebalance. But I wonder if the last couple of generations were really just a post war boom aberration and we are now unfortunately returning to the norm.
One thing I would say - particularly with regard to single working families - is that where I think we have gone most wrong is in allowing companies to drive down wages as a means of increasing profits. This is why I like the minimum wage so much and think it should be increased significantly. The social security system since WW2 has allowed companies to pay wages below a basic living standard and effectively use the taxpayer to subsidise their wage bill. This is something that should be dealt with, most simply by increasing the minimum wage significantly. It should not be the case in the UK or the rest of Europe that companies are able to pay full time employees wages that are below a living wage and expect the taxpayer to make up the difference.
I don't see an easy path at all to give the younger generations what their parents and grandparents have had, so yes we and they will have to live with it as best they can. What could be easily done, is some recognition from the luckier generations, that it is harder now than it was (at least economically), and it is mostly down to luck of when they were born than rather than hard work or avocados.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
Max is on his anti-pensioner rant again. But I fully support him.
What’s more, polling evidence suggests that old people don’t give a fuck. Something like 5/6 think the young just need to stop whining and eat fewer avocados.
Why isn't there a like-for-like comparison? Compare young people today with older people when they were young, not young people today with older people today.
Ok. Typical comparisons as obviously exceptions and variations across each cohort.
Todays Young - Can't afford decent housing, ever rising tax burden, student debt effectively extra tax, work til 70 with reasonable possibility of state pension being abolished by the time they can claim it. Will be poorer than their parents, may not be able to afford to raise a family and often have the indignity of returning to parental home.
Previous couple of generations whilst young. Decent housing achievable on median salaries, strong asset growth through working life, retirement in fifties or early sixties by choice not unusual, one parent often able to stay at home for years when kids young. Richer than their parents.
Worth pointing out that those couple of post war generations were pretty unique in terms of the economic development at the time. Go back one more generation and you find young who could not afford their own house - perhaps ever, with large multigenerational families all living together, more often than not in rented accommodation and with very poor pension or retirement provision.
I am not using this as an argument against what you are saying. I agree we need to rebalance. But I wonder if the last couple of generations were really just a post war boom aberration and we are now unfortunately returning to the norm.
One thing I would say - particularly with regard to single working families - is that where I think we have gone most wrong is in allowing companies to drive down wages as a means of increasing profits. This is why I like the minimum wage so much and think it should be increased significantly. The social security system since WW2 has allowed companies to pay wages below a basic living standard and effectively use the taxpayer to subsidise their wage bill. This is something that should be dealt with, most simply by increasing the minimum wage significantly. It should not be the case in the UK or the rest of Europe that companies are able to pay full time employees wages that are below a living wage and expect the taxpayer to make up the difference.
How about this for a compromise on the Leadership rules that the Conservative Party could probably get through.
1) Same as currently to choose Final 2.
2) MPs and members then vote separately on Final 2 and the result is a 50:50 Electoral College.
In recent election, Truss won members 57-43. So for Sunak to have won overall, he would have needed to win the MPs by more than 57-43.
Seems a fair compromise. Members still play a major role. But if MPs want Candidate X by whatever margin, then members must want Candidate Y by a bigger margin for member choice to prevail.
Con Party needs to make this change now - and I suspect they could get it through.
They are truly dreadful figures. These things tend to take on a momentum of their own. All bad news is the government's fault (and there'll be plenty of it). Good news ignored. Happened to Major and Brown.
Also, hard to fix as changing leader may not resolve the issue.
War with Russia would fix it. Then once the strategic nukes started flying - which would be within about a week, max - there'd be no country left and survivors wouldn't be answering pollsters or voting. There's practically no opposition on the pro-Zelensky foreign policy.
The kind of person who flies the Ukrainian flag from their house is the type who would have voted for Trump. Practically every property I see flying the blue and yellow right now is also flying the Butcher's Apron. We've got all Trump and no Hillary Clinton. What a wonderful time to be alive...
Wow:
I do believe we have another one.
Can we let this one run for a bit? Much more sophisticated than the others. It's almost as though there's an actual human behind it.
It didn't even get triggered by @Sandpit's comment about BA and last week asked me what I was talking about when I raised it. They're really upping their game.
Comments
Sunak then drops out to leave Wallace unopposed. Or whoever.
Could be done in a couple of days if they were desperate.
Which they ought to be by now if they have any sense left to them.
(1) depending on how many MPs object to the proposed unity candidate, pro-fix MPs may be able to split their votes evenly between two candidates in the first round in order to knock the Trussite or other dissident candidate out of the race. Obviously won't work if the person has a lot of support.
(2) the majority of Tory MPs could make absolutely explicit to the members and to the candidates that they will only accept one of the candidates as victor and will immediately seek to oust anyone else. They could apply immense pressure to the second placed candidate to withdraw from the race instead of the decision going to a ballot of party members.
Howard tried to remove the members vote before his resignation but the members rejected it.
He needs to maintain some suspense right up until the polling stations close. What better way than giving the Tories something meaty to campaign against?
MPs get to pick 2 candidates to put to the membership, if they cannot find 2 candidates they can live with then that is their fault
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I've seen it argued the accession of Truss supports the notion that while in Opposition the leader can and should be chosen with membership involvement, the choice of a Prime Minister in office should be left to the MPs themselves.
Obviously he has been paid an awful lot more by the zombie pension fund than he ever was in salary.
This kind of thing cannot be allowed to continue, particularly where the liabilities are unfunded or partially unfunded.
Ya dancer!
-45 in South West England
Canada incoming!
(Welcome to PB btw!)
Part XIII for amending the rules. Schedule 2 for leadership elections.
They didn’t bet on several dozen Ted Heaths, all sulking at the same time.
Starmer should include such a proposal in the next King's Speech Labour manifesto. And while he's at it he should legislate to require any change of PM to be followed by a GE within 3 months.
I do believe we have another one.
I can’t imagine the membership being too happy, if the MP’s vote out their selection of only a month ago. Anything that looks like a stich-up by the MPs to bounce the membership, would go down even worse!
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
But I fully support him.
What’s more, polling evidence suggests that old people don’t give a fuck. Something like 5/6 think the young just need to stop whining and eat fewer avocados.
Beaten like morning wood?
Not sure that is the point the "protect Truss at all costs" drones are trying to make.
It didn't even get triggered by @Sandpit's comment about BA and last week asked me what I was talking about when I raised it. They're really upping their game.
I was hoping you'd go with how Truss is the first Tory leader since Eden to have similar approval ratings in both England and Scotland.
If a Christmas Savings Fund like Park goes out of business because it doesn't have enough money to pay out its liabilities then is that theft? Well those on DB haven't set aside enough money to cover their own benefits, so the DB needs to go bust and say we can't afford these benefits anymore.
Fifty Shades of Grave?
Todays Young - Can't afford decent housing, ever rising tax burden, student debt effectively extra tax, work til 70 with reasonable possibility of state pension being abolished by the time they can claim it. Will be poorer than their parents, may not be able to afford to raise a family and often have the indignity of returning to parental home.
Previous couple of generations whilst young. Decent housing achievable on median salaries, strong asset growth through working life, retirement in fifties or early sixties by choice not unusual, one parent often able to stay at home for years when kids young. Richer than their parents.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They could always leave the party but that would probably be a good thing for the Tories. Export the whole darn lot to UKIP and let them grumble away into their G&Ts
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
https://www.lcp.uk.com/pensions-benefits/case-studies/ici-a-10bn-de-risking-blueprint/
Only MPs should have been part of this process.
And the decision should then have been put to a compulsory vote of confidence in The Commons as a whole before any other business could be addressed.
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11287165/Asda-offers-60s-soup-roll-unlimited-tea-coffees-1-winter.html
On a related topic: Musk is in danger of doing serious Brewdog-style damage to his Tesla brand. He’s already chipped away at it with his apparent Tourette’s tendencies and general demeanour. Revealing himself as a West Coast Tucker Carlson is not a great way to reassure his core clientele. Would be like the owners of Riverford organic coming out for Brexit or the John Lewis Partnership proposing a fast-tracked Rwanda deportation policy.
We therefore have an apparently but not really budget, from an apparently but not really Chancellor. A Kwasi budget for a Kwasi chancellor.
Alternatively he could be known as the hunchback of No11; Kwasi-modo, a very average chancellor.
The MPs decide who is going to be on the ballot paper and it's only a straight choice. Why not, in Opposition, allow all who get the required number of nominations to put their case to the membership. Straight forward OMOV is probably a bit on the nose for Conservative MPs but in Opposition it seems a reasonable way forward.
Sorry(!)
See also Trump, D.
If Truss is done (and that’s only an ‘if’) and a consensus candidate is needed, I think Gove, Sunak and Johnson are out. I know nowt about Wallace but he’s bald and has only backed Ukraine (the MoD equivalent of furlough and eat owt to help out)
Which leaves Pendolino - when you have eliminated the impossible and the unlikely is all that is left…
Lending votes to Mordaunt would have been something of a public service in the interest of the greater good! But perhaps it's easier to see that with the benefit of hindsight
(Thank you to you and anothers for the replies and the welcome.)
Which reminds me, I’ve managed to acquire breasts over a sedentary summer, need to lose a stone before Christmas!
I was in a couple of places today that definitely had the heating on despite it being about 18 degrees outside.
I am not using this as an argument against what you are saying. I agree we need to rebalance. But I wonder if the last couple of generations were really just a post war boom aberration and we are now unfortunately returning to the norm.
One thing I would say - particularly with regard to single working families - is that where I think we have gone most wrong is in allowing companies to drive down wages as a means of increasing profits. This is why I like the minimum wage so much and think it should be increased significantly. The social security system since WW2 has allowed companies to pay wages below a basic living standard and effectively use the taxpayer to subsidise their wage bill. This is something that should be dealt with, most simply by increasing the minimum wage significantly. It should not be the case in the UK or the rest of Europe that companies are able to pay full time employees wages that are below a living wage and expect the taxpayer to make up the difference.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Proto (or Paleo?) Woke!
"I oppose abortion in all cases, unless it's to save the political life of the father"
https://twitter.com/JohnFugelsang/status/1577377547406426138
If only MPs get a say on the next PM for a party in power, then Labour would also have to agree to remove the membership having a vote in power too. In 2007 for example, John McDonnell wanted to challenge Brown for leader and had John McDonnell got enough MPs nominations he would have gone to a ballot including Labour members and affiliated supporters. McDonnell could therefore in theory have ended up PM, not Gordon Brown
- Well, I'd better replace it, then.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/19/work-pay-labour-food-banks-angela-rayner-rachel-reeves
1) Same as currently to choose Final 2.
2) MPs and members then vote separately on Final 2 and the result is a 50:50 Electoral College.
In recent election, Truss won members 57-43. So for Sunak to have won overall, he would have needed to win the MPs by more than 57-43.
Seems a fair compromise. Members still play a major role. But if MPs want Candidate X by whatever margin, then members must want Candidate Y by a bigger margin for member choice to prevail.
Con Party needs to make this change now - and I suspect they could get it through.
Looking forward to a cheap Christmas holiday in the UK. Although after my summer holiday last week, anything else is going to be cheap!!