I think that you will find that it is Alex "legal advice" Salmond who is the lying toad.
The changes to the Pensions will hurt profits on annuities for companies like Standard Life, but the increased flexibility and boost to ISAs will benefit them in other ways. This is an opportunity, not a problem for companies like SL.
Is independent Scotland planning to go along with the boost to savings in Danny and Georges Budget, or is it planning to keep Scots shackled to poorly performing annuities?
We will see but I would be surprised if this budget moved the polls all that much. The Autumn statement didn't and the news was at least as good then and Balls was every bit as inept.
political operator, the best since Mandy was in his pomp.
Its certainly firmed up my vote. I was starting to waver into not voting I have been so pissed/couldn't care off with politics and politicians , especially after my wife died but for GE its Tory nailed on again.(eours couldn't care less) The changes to individual pensions are incredibly far reaching and come just at the right time.. Bravo George and Double Bravo for the joke which was one of the best political jokes I have ever heard.
The joke was excellent but Alexander was pointing out on Drive yesterday that it was Webb who has done the groundwork on the pension reforms. I believe it. Having a minister who actually knows what he is talking about is an interesting experiment and not without risks as most experts have their own hobby horses but he has played a blinder first on public sector pensions and now on the private sector.
If the Lib Dems are to get the credit they deserve from this he should be out front and central today explaining how this is going to work and what he has done. He and Clegg apparently don't get on but Clegg needs to promote him today. Alexander called this a great Liberal reform and he was right. They cannot let this be a tory reform.
The Lib Dems deserve to be wiped out at next election , lying toads with no principles. I must say the pension change is a real corker from Osborne. Wonder if Standard Life will be preparing to move its operations out of England due to the risk, LOL.
Morning all and still digesting what George said. If I wasn't a dyed in the woad Tory, the abolition of the compulsory purchase of an annuity would win my vote. I hate the damn things.
George is perhaps believing that God is a Tory after all. The news coming from Australia seems fairly certain the remains of the plane have been found 1500 miles southwest of Perth. Had this been available yesterday evening, the front pages of today's papers would understandably be very different.
Mr. G, if Yes wins, one of the most interesting and potentially stupid decisions will be what happens about Scottish seats in the 2015 election. One suspects a Yes would be springtime for the SNP and Conservatives for the General Election.
Ed Balls making heavy weather of a fairly light interview on Breakfast News about the budget. He looked nonplussed about the pensions changes. The Chancellor is clearly still benefiting from the complete surprise over this announcement.
Milliband had the opportunity to move Balls and should have taken it. I cannot understand why since Blair/Brown we seem to have got stuck in this pattern of (shadow) leader/immovable chancellor double acts.
I have no feel as to whether this budget will give a boost to Conservative poll figures in the short term or not . Mike seems confident that it will do . Conversely , if it has no effect and Labour remain 4 or 5 % ahead it would indicate that the Conservatives chances at the next GE are slim if not non existent . Will wait and see with interest .
Would be surprised if LD fortunes didnt tick up a bit after their mature input and performances yesterday.
@Alanbrooke - "Labour has a solid base of 28-30%. The 35% strategy will not hold up to the GE, I'm predicting the Tories will overtake Labour by the end of the year but will not have enough for an outright majority by election time."
You could well be right, though I suspect Labour will poll closer to 35% than to 30%. They still look best placed to me to get most seats, even though in the normal course of events you'd expect the Tories to be winning outright and quite handily.
I suppose I depends how you look at it. In any case the %ages are meaningless except as a forecasting tool. As usual it will come down to about 100 ish marginal seats and about 250-500k voters in those seats changing their minds. The rest of us are just vote fodder. You at least live in one of the marginals so your opinion counts more than most of us put together ! :-)
First time ever for me. I have never met a canvasser before! But i can't see this seat changing hands. I'd say we're in border country here - from Leamington/Warwick down I can't see Labour picking up many marginals and that will cost them big time. From North Warwickshire up they'll do better.
Mr. G, if Yes wins, one of the most interesting and potentially stupid decisions will be what happens about Scottish seats in the 2015 election. One suspects a Yes would be springtime for the SNP and Conservatives for the General Election.
If Yes wins one of the more interesting questions will be why did Salmond want to give the UK 3 years more oil revenue. It's not as if the last 3 years have been sizzling with the cut and thrust of debate. In the end the SNP campaign was always going to come down to tub thumping.
Reading the references to Professor Steve Webb the LibDem expert on pensions reminds me of that expert in the last government who had the rug pulled from under him, Frank Field. He must be having the last laugh given that he was the author of many of IDS' far reaching reforms of the Welfare system.
Like my noble kinsman Jack W, I hope the "orange bookers" among the LibDems survive the GE and return to government under Dave though if they lose their seats to Tory opponents, I would hope Dave would kick them upstairs so that they can be brought back into government. This coalition government so reminds me of the Tory party of my youth, the party of Macmillan, Whitelaw and Malcolm Rifkind. Economically well right of centre but socially firmly in the middle ground, who don't think protecting the genuinely vulnerable is a dirty "word".
Ed Balls making heavy weather of a fairly light interview on Breakfast News about the budget. He looked nonplussed about the pensions changes. The Chancellor is clearly still benefiting from the complete surprise over this announcement.
Milliband had the opportunity to move Balls and should have taken it. I cannot understand why since Blair/Brown we seem to have got stuck in this pattern of (shadow) leader/immovable chancellor double acts.
Ed Miliband didn't want Ed Balls in the first place. But once he had put Ed Balls in for Alan Johnson, he couldn't afford the embarrassment of moving to a third choice, given that his judgement was already a regular topic of conversation for the commentariat.
One obvious stretch of blue water in the last two weeks is Labour being seen to be not trusting the electorate and the Tories trusting it. It's a risk for Ed and he has to explain carefully.
No, you can't have a referendum; we trust you, but the uncertainty is bad for the economy. And no, you can't have control of your own pension; we trust you but it's that other person who would squander it all and rely on the state.
Labour supporters shouldn't dismiss these pension changes (was Ed calling for them ? No ) many many people are now in defined benefit schemes and these changes give much needed flexibility.
Labour will back the changes, not least because they will raise extra tax revenues.
I am not sure, but I think at least some of the reforms will not be available to public sector employees on final salary schemes. If they all cashed in their pension pots it would leave the government in something of a hole.
So what's the point of Labour ? More of the same but with extra class war ? They seem to be devoid of ideas
Ed's policy free policy is now biting him on the arse. He has nothing to say and it's more obvious by the day - his alternative narrative doesn't exist.
And more interestingly the Tories (plus Yellow sidekicks) are getting their act in gear on making Labour's mainfest economic weaknesses apparent. We're strating to see the example of Wales becoming visible, for example. I suspect that we'll see ALOT more of Tories challenging Labour directly to say what they'd do. Ed n Ed will come under ever increasing pressure to clarify their policies. And asking either Ed or Ed to clarify anything in the economic realm rarely works out well for them. It's going to be a rough ride into May 2015.
With 14 months to the GE labour still haven't said what they stand for, except their not tories or LD rodents. With Euros and Indyref in the way they haven't much time to set out a platform.
While the Spads say it's clever not to reveal plans too early since they'll be attacked, I take it the other way and say plans need test destructing and time to sink in. A crap policy will get torn apart whether it's revealed 18 days before the GE or 18 months.
The Coalition Government is giving Wales tax-raising powers? I think I saw that. More like giving them some rope.
Quick thought - perhaps the reason so little pre-budget leakage this time was the pensions stuff is all from a well respected (in my biz) pension minister who is a Lib Dem. Both parties were in it together on this big change.
I've also bought shares this morning in JRG and PA. - a bit like knife catching but I still see a place for enhanced annuities even in this new 'world'... and the market reaction is to the shock... I could lose a lot if I'm wrong mind you and DYOR, this is not a recommendation etc.
On a serious note, I actually kept pen and paper notes, and it'd be interesting to know whether it seems that made a difference (good or bad) to the post-race piece.
Quick thought - perhaps the reason so little pre-budget leakage this time was the pensions stuff is all from a well respected (in my biz) pension minister who is a Lib Dem. Both parties were in it together on this big change.
I've also bought shares this morning in JRG and PA. - a bit like knife catching but I still see a place for enhanced annuities even in this new 'world'... and the market reaction is to the shock... I could lose a lot if I'm wrong mind you and DYOR, this is not a recommendation etc.
I understand the logic. It's brave, but then fortune is supposed to favour the brave.
There was an interesting stat discussed on BBC Wales News last night.
Unemployment declined by 12,000 (from 7.2% to 6.7%) but employment rose by only 1,000.
So where did the missing 11,000 go? Theories put forward included: people retiring, people opting out of employment but not claiming JSA, people acting as carers etc.
Two possibilities were not mentioned by the very PC debaters: people leaving Wales for pastures new - either England or emigrating; or people being forced off the JSA and entering the the black economy.
Of course the stats could be wrong and will be corrected next month?
Reading the references to Professor Steve Webb the LibDem expert on pensions reminds me of that expert in the last government who had the rug pulled from under him, Frank Field. He must be having the last laugh given that he was the author of many of IDS' far reaching reforms of the Welfare system.
Like my noble kinsman Jack W, I hope the "orange bookers" among the LibDems survive the GE and return to government under Dave though if they lose their seats to Tory opponents, I would hope Dave would kick them upstairs so that they can be brought back into government. This coalition government so reminds me of the Tory party of my youth, the party of Macmillan, Whitelaw and Malcolm Rifkind. Economically well right of centre but socially firmly in the middle ground, who don't think protecting the genuinely vulnerable is a dirty "word".
I think Steve Webb must be the frontrunner for outstanding middle ranking minister of the Coalition. Even Peter Oborne in "The Telegraph" praises his contribution to the reforms in todays paper :
Squeaky bum time for NO campaign...........down to 3% swing required and 6 months to go.
The independence referendum has been blown wide open with a new poll showing support for Yes now just five points behind that of No.
The poll, conducted by Panelbase, has revealed that support for independence is now sitting at 40%, its highest mark since campaigning began in earnest, with those against sitting at 45% and Undecided on 15%.
The latest survey, which was commissioned by Newsnet Scotland, surveyed 1036 people between 7-14 March.
The survey asked - "There will be a referendum on an independent Scotland on the 18th of September. How do you intend to vote in response to the question: Should Scotland be an independent country?"
The findings mean Yes is up three points since the last Panelbase survey, with No down two. The number of Don't Knows was also down one point. The swing to Yes means the No campaign's lead has halved compared with the previous Panelbase survey in February.
When Don't Knows are stripped out, Yes is on 47% with No on 53%, meaning Yes needs a swing of around three points in order to overtake its rival.
Squeaky bum time for NO campaign...........down to 3% swing required and 6 months to go.
The independence referendum has been blown wide open with a new poll showing support for Yes now just five points behind that of No.
The findings mean Yes is up three points since the last Panelbase survey, with No down two. The number of Don't Knows was also down one point. The swing to Yes means the No campaign's lead has halved compared with the previous Panelbase survey in February.
When Don't Knows are stripped out, Yes is on 47% with No on 53%, meaning Yes needs a swing of around three points in order to overtake its rival.
I think the national polls could have a big influence on the result! If the Tories are seen to be gaining ground and may have a second term, I can imagine the tribal Scots would prefer independence to being subjected to another 5 years of Tory (coalition?) rule.
Squeaky bum time for Labour I think.
LOL , Labour are in meltdown, published their more powers commission result after 2 years work, 14 pages of mince. Interviewed the regional leader on TV and she was ridiculed and could not even answer questions on it. In poll above ,Labour voters are flocking to YES. Among Labour voters, Yes gained 9% (from 17% to 26%) – Yes took 3% from No and 6% from Undecideds.
Thirteenth duo spells more uncertainty for pensions
29th January 2008
Steve Bee, Head of Pensions Strategy at Scottish Life has expressed his concern at the lack of continuity in the leadership of our pensions system.
The appointment of James Purnell marks the thirteenth change and pairing of Ministers leading the agenda.
Steve Bee commented: “Since May 1997, when Harriet Harman and Frank Field became the first pair at the pensions helm, only once have the same two Ministers -- Alasdair Darling and Jeff Rooker – remained in post for more than 18 months. On average the pairings have lasted less than nine months.
“This merry-go-round speaks volumes about pensions and their importance on the political agenda. Although Mike O’Brien will provide some stability by remaining in post to support James Purnell, this is the thirteenth change in just under eleven years and my guess is that we’re likely to see more changes before the year is out. This lack of continuity at the top provides a further blow to the chances of the Government delivering workable pensions reform.”
Haha, Kay Burley has just said "Chancellor Gordon Brown will be joining us to discuss the Budget". She always did have a soft spot for Brown, I guess she misses him!
I went off her completely during the Bejing Olympics. She virtually had an orgasm live on TV with the excitement of conducting a live interview with Gordon Brown at the London 2012 party there. Given my ultra low opinion of Brown, I have always viewed her with suspicion since but must concede she is a damn fine journalist as are many of the SKY women. The contrast with many of the females on the BBC is note worthy. They often appear to be little more than walking, talking, fashion clothes horses.
Mr. Jonathan, do they? I would've thought anti-climate change policies, such as lower fuel bills, would be more popular than expensive wind farm nonsense.
Mr. Jonathan, do they? I would've thought anti-climate change policies, such as lower fuel bills, would be more popular than expensive wind farm nonsense.
You're just talking about yourself. Tories are really good at that.
Mr. Jonathan, do they? I would've thought anti-climate change policies, such as lower fuel bills, would be more popular than expensive wind farm nonsense.
Well, I must admit that lower airfares to Thailand will be a personal benefit. And I’m sure also for a much more well-known poster here.
F1: Betfair markets are up and running (Ladbrokes aren't). Contemplating a No Safety Car bet, but that'll depend on the weather forecast and odds. Malaysia's actually amongst the least likely to suffer one (wide track, lots of run-off) but because of the monsoon in 2009 everyone thinks it's likely to occur than it really is.
Mr. Jonathan, I've voted for UKIP before, and for three other parties (counting Independent as a party). The only thing with a mouthful of dust is your errant assumption.
You also accidentally failed to comment on Ed Miliband calling for higher fuel bills a few years ago and now demanding a price freeze, an economic policy so stupid it was denounced by Ammianus Marcellinus over 16 centuries ago.
Mr. G, if Yes wins, one of the most interesting and potentially stupid decisions will be what happens about Scottish seats in the 2015 election. One suspects a Yes would be springtime for the SNP and Conservatives for the General Election.
I would imagine they would put through some emergency bill and we could just forget the 2015 election in Scotland. Be nice to get all the labour troughers chucked out as early as possible.
Another interesting consequence of the recovery being too efficient. Now all of a sudden the Scots believe that they don't need the Cons what is all the fuss about and are more inclined to head out into the deep dark sea on their own.
Just goes to show re. the Cons - no good deed goes unpunished.
Mr. Monkfield, morris dancing is a broad church encompassing many traditions and perspectives. Whether a traditional white and decked in bells, or a multi-coloured raiment with a painted wiffle stick, all are welcome.
If Yes wins one of the more interesting questions will be why did Salmond want to give the UK 3 years more oil revenue.
That's like saying why didn't Roosevelt & Churchill invade France in 1942* to stop the Hun drinking all the Chateau Lafite Rothschild. It may be only with the benefit of hindsight, but having a referendum in the depths of the recession, Eurogeddon and while the Tories looked extremely unlikely to be in power after 2015 doesn't look the greatest proposition.
*I know they dipped their toe in La Manche in '42, and look what a ****ing disaster that was.
Mr. Monkfield, morris dancing is a broad church encompassing many traditions and perspectives. Whether a traditional white and decked in bells, or a multi-coloured raiment with a painted wiffle stick, all are welcome.
I was shocked to learn recently that Morris Dancing was first conducted in rural Aberdeenshire and then exported to Englandshire. I have to say it is a fair swap for Haggis which apparently went in the opposite direction.
Mr. Monkfield, morris dancing is a broad church encompassing many traditions and perspectives. Whether a traditional white and decked in bells, or a multi-coloured raiment with a painted wiffle stick, all are welcome.
I was shocked to learn recently that Morris Dancing was first conducted in rural Aberdeenshire and then exported to Englandshire. I have to say it is a fair swap for Haggis which apparently went in the opposite direction.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), there's a legitimate view that (even if it's only in the immediate term) people aren't well-informed enough in this area, but that line will not go down well.
On topic: I'm not sure how much this will affect the Euros, but I agree with Mike that it's a narrative-changer.
That's why I was so astonished last night at Labour's complacency; it looks as though they are genuinely so out of touch with ordinary working people who aren't lucky enough to have a final-salary pension scheme (i.e. the vast majority of non-public-sector workers) that they didn't see the significance of the changes Osborne is making.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), there's a legitimate view that (even if it's only in the immediate term) people aren't well-informed enough in this area, but that line will not go down well.
Why not apply that logic to your salary then ? Confiscate all earnings and issue food stamps.
On topic: I'm not sure how much this will affect the Euros, but I agree with Mike that it's a narrative-changer.
That's why I was so astonished last night at Labour's complacency; it looks as though they are genuinely so out of touch with ordinary working people who aren't lucky enough to have a final-salary pension scheme (i.e. the vast majority of non-public-sector workers) that they didn't see the significance of the changes Osborne is making.
On topic: I'm not sure how much this will affect the Euros, but I agree with Mike that it's a narrative-changer.
That's why I was so astonished last night at Labour's complacency; it looks as though they are genuinely so out of touch with ordinary working people who aren't lucky enough to have a final-salary pension scheme (i.e. the vast majority of non-public-sector workers) that they didn't see the significance of the changes Osborne is making.
They would also appear to believe that only the filthy rich bother to save in ISAs. The millions of ordinary working people who do are dismissed and ignored. Silly.
On topic: I'm not sure how much this will affect the Euros, but I agree with Mike that it's a narrative-changer.
That's why I was so astonished last night at Labour's complacency; it looks as though they are genuinely so out of touch with ordinary working people who aren't lucky enough to have a final-salary pension scheme (i.e. the vast majority of non-public-sector workers) that they didn't see the significance of the changes Osborne is making.
The key issue which Lab and their supporters miss and which is critical to GE2015 and beyond is: Aspiration.
It may well be that some of the measures assume some level of disposable income (way short of IPPR's) when, according to eg. @RochdalePioneers, half the country is queuing at a foodbank. However, a key battleground is that of the aspirational poor. It used to be game, set & match to Maggie but somehow since then both parties have let this key demographic go.
It's actually the difference between "Hard Working Families" = nebulous soundbite and "Hard Working People" = that means me. And, notably, GO didn't mention the former and did mention the latter yday.
If Lab thinking on here is representative then the aspirational poor should fear a Lab govt (not only because Lab transparently either don't trust people with or would prefer them not to have their own money) but because for someone who is poor but hopes sometime not to be, the "look forward to" with Lab is to be penalised.
On topic: I'm not sure how much this will affect the Euros, but I agree with Mike that it's a narrative-changer.
That's why I was so astonished last night at Labour's complacency; it looks as though they are genuinely so out of touch with ordinary working people who aren't lucky enough to have a final-salary pension scheme (i.e. the vast majority of non-public-sector workers) that they didn't see the significance of the changes Osborne is making.
They would also appear to believe that only the filthy rich bother to save in ISAs. The millions of ordinary working people who do are dismissed and ignored. Silly.
I also have a few ISA's. Mostly they have less money in them than when they started.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), there's a legitimate view that (even if it's only in the immediate term) people aren't well-informed enough in this area, but that line will not go down well.
My opinion on this is simple. It's their money, they can do what they like with it. That includes wasting it on cruises and Audi's if they want to.
However, given that most people which off their own backs have paid into a pension are saving, I think they will all too aware of the need to use that money wisely.
Besides which, who after working for 40+ years doesn't deserve a little fun. The state pension is still there for a safety net after all, and people who spend their pension will just have to cut their cloth, as all pensions do already.
I look forward to reading Osborne's memoirs in 2045, where he describes the strategy of supporting NO to ensure a YES, and devolving tax powers to Wales (where they would go on to screw things up royally) thus stripping Labour of it's Celtic security blanket and resulting in a decades-long English Belle Époque.
There was a good tweet yesterday (I forget where I saw it, so I'm quoting from memory): "When I retired I spent part of my pension pot on a sports car, but I squandered most of it on an annuity"
Mr. Flashman (deceased), there's a legitimate view that (even if it's only in the immediate term) people aren't well-informed enough in this area, but that line will not go down well.
My opinion on this is simple. It's their money, they can do what they like with it. That includes wasting it on cruises and Audi's if they want to.
However, given that most people which off their own backs have paid into a pension are saving, I think they will all too aware of the need to use that money wisely.
Besides which, who after working for 40+ years doesn't deserve a little fun. The state pension is still there for a safety net after all, and people who spend their pension will just have to cut their cloth, as all pensions do already.
I absolutely agree that it's not our business how pensioners spend their money. But aren't you a bit concerned about people spending large pension pots AND then claiming lots of benefits - housing benefit being the obvious one? Because that's what the annuity system which we're now undermining was designed to prevent. It was quite a Tory concept, IMO.
Mr. Slackbladder, I broadly agree, but would add that provision of at least basic advice would be a good thing.
Which Osborne put money aside for I believe.
For me, as someone which does have a pension (although a long way off claiming it) and seeking to put more money into it, these proposals are pretty exciting in what they could do in making my (long way off) retirement more flexable and interesting.
For too long, pensions have been seen as something you have to have, but potentially not really worth it, and I don't think that's the case anymore.
Certainly interesting from a tax planning point of view for me professionally.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), there's a legitimate view that (even if it's only in the immediate term) people aren't well-informed enough in this area, but that line will not go down well.
My opinion on this is simple. It's their money, they can do what they like with it. That includes wasting it on cruises and Audi's if they want to.
However, given that most people which off their own backs have paid into a pension are saving, I think they will all too aware of the need to use that money wisely.
Besides which, who after working for 40+ years doesn't deserve a little fun. The state pension is still there for a safety net after all, and people who spend their pension will just have to cut their cloth, as all pensions do already.
If people can't be trusted to spend their pensions wisely, how can they be trusted to spend their savings wisely, or their salaries? In each case it's THEIR money, there is no difference. So by Labour's logic everything we earn should be seized by the government as taxes, then given back to us in the form of weekly credits, and free medicine.
Oh wait, that IS what Labour do.
The Tories should be drilling into this, relentlessly. It is the motherlode. The lizard face of Marxism underneath the social democratic mask.
On topic: I'm not sure how much this will affect the Euros, but I agree with Mike that it's a narrative-changer.
That's why I was so astonished last night at Labour's complacency; it looks as though they are genuinely so out of touch with ordinary working people who aren't lucky enough to have a final-salary pension scheme (i.e. the vast majority of non-public-sector workers) that they didn't see the significance of the changes Osborne is making.
They would also appear to believe that only the filthy rich bother to save in ISAs. The millions of ordinary working people who do are dismissed and ignored. Silly.
I also have a few ISA's. Mostly they have less money in them than when they started.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), there's a legitimate view that (even if it's only in the immediate term) people aren't well-informed enough in this area, but that line will not go down well.
My opinion on this is simple. It's their money, they can do what they like with it. That includes wasting it on cruises and Audi's if they want to.
However, given that most people which off their own backs have paid into a pension are saving, I think they will all too aware of the need to use that money wisely.
Besides which, who after working for 40+ years doesn't deserve a little fun. The state pension is still there for a safety net after all, and people who spend their pension will just have to cut their cloth, as all pensions do already.
If people can't be trusted to spend their pensions wisely, how can they be trusted to spend their savings wisely, or their salaries? In each case it's THEIR money, there is no difference. So by Labour's logic everything we earn should be seized by the government as taxes, then given back to us in the form of weekly credits, and free medicine.
Oh wait, that IS what Labour do.
The Tories should be drilling into this, relentlessly. It is the motherlode. The lizard face of Marxism underneath the social democratic mask.
Hyperbolic (natch), but I think there's a nugget of gold in that comment, if not quite a motherlode. The Tories should really push on personal freedoms and property rights. Would be another broadside against UKIP too.
DavidL the other day was saying that the Tory MEPs are bound to vote for the EPP candidate. The position actually seems to be that they won't have a joint recommendation, as they think it would be too Europhile to do such a thing:
I absolutely agree that it's not our business how pensioners spend their money. But aren't you a bit concerned about people spending large pension pots AND then claiming lots of benefits - housing benefit being the obvious one? Because that's what the annuity system which we're now undermining was designed to prevent. It was quite a Tory concept, IMO.
That argument would be stronger if annuities were always the prudent option, but they're not. They are a value trap locking the pensioner into a risk of long-term destitution because of inflation. Remember that 95% of annuities are at fixed rates (i.e. not index-linked or with an automatic annual increment); that is because inflation-linked annuities are unaffordable, and generally extremely poor value.
In addition, there are all sorts of individual circumstances where annuities don't make sense.
Oh dear - my early punts on the 2 enhanced annuity provider's being unfairly hit is off to a poor start... currently nearly £2k in the red since I bought earlier....
Oh dear - my early punts on the 2 enhanced annuity provider's being unfairly hit is off to a poor start... currently nearly £2k in the red since I bought earlier....
Mr. Nabavi, you can get annuities linked to inflation. It may be a bad idea, though, because people spend more money earlier in retirement, and to make more overall you need to live longer than expected,
It's interesting that nobody appeared to know anything about these pension reforms. When was the last time such secrecy was maintained in politics on a matter as serious as this [discounting national security concerns]? The Coalition negotiations? Those were hilarious, as hand-fed journalists suddenly found themselves going hungry.
I absolutely agree that it's not our business how pensioners spend their money. But aren't you a bit concerned about people spending large pension pots AND then claiming lots of benefits - housing benefit being the obvious one? Because that's what the annuity system which we're now undermining was designed to prevent. It was quite a Tory concept, IMO.
That argument would be stronger if annuities were always the prudent option, but they're not. They are a value trap locking the pensioner into a risk of long-term destitution because of inflation. Remember that 95% of annuities are at fixed rates (i.e. not index-linked or with an automatic annual increment); that is because inflation-linked annuities are unaffordable, and generally extremely poor value.
In addition, there are all sorts of individual circumstances where annuities don't make sense.
Yes and No.... they also reflect that younger retired are more active and need more income in their earlier years than the later ones where they are more sedantry and less active. You are right ideally RPI linked would be great BUT level annuities do often fit people's income needs through their retirement.
I view fixed term annuities as getting a boost from these changes and that's another reason for my punt as one of the 2 hit so badly is a big player in that market too.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), there's a legitimate view that (even if it's only in the immediate term) people aren't well-informed enough in this area, but that line will not go down well.
My opinion on this is simple. It's their money, they can do what they like with it. That includes wasting it on cruises and Audi's if they want to.
However, given that most people which off their own backs have paid into a pension are saving, I think they will all too aware of the need to use that money wisely.
Besides which, who after working for 40+ years doesn't deserve a little fun. The state pension is still there for a safety net after all, and people who spend their pension will just have to cut their cloth, as all pensions do already.
I absolutely agree that it's not our business how pensioners spend their money. But aren't you a bit concerned about people spending large pension pots AND then claiming lots of benefits - housing benefit being the obvious one? Because that's what the annuity system which we're now undermining was designed to prevent. It was quite a Tory concept, IMO.
No.. not really. I think it's likely that the vast majority of pensioners with anything in the way of sizeable pension pots, (and we're taking 100s of thousands rather than 10s of thousands here) are likely to own their own homes anyway.
I doubt we'll see many people which didn't claim any housing benefit before now having to as a result of these actions. I simply don't see people suddenly going mad spending wise.
The other point on annuities is of course that politcial interference from the EU has made it illegal for annuity providers to use objective mortality data by sex. That was a piece of unbridled lunacy which defrauds male retirees.
Pension campaigners have welcomed Mr Osborne’s “savings revolution”, saying that it would finally stop people being forced to buy poor-value annuities that condemned them to receiving low annual incomes.
However, Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, warned that pensioners could end up making the “wrong choices” because of Mr Osborne’s reforms.
“There is a reason why there’s been an expectation you would buy an annuity in our country if you’ve saved tax advantage in a pension – that’s been there for 80 or 90 years,” Mr Balls told the BBC.
“The question will be - will there be proper protections and proper financial education so people don’t make the wrong choices and end up running out of their pension pot well before their retirement ends.
The motherlode indeed. Or in Ed Balls' case the motherf%$#erlode.
I absolutely agree that it's not our business how pensioners spend their money. But aren't you a bit concerned about people spending large pension pots AND then claiming lots of benefits - housing benefit being the obvious one? Because that's what the annuity system which we're now undermining was designed to prevent. It was quite a Tory concept, IMO.
That argument would be stronger if annuities were always the prudent option, but they're not. They are a value trap locking the pensioner into a risk of long-term destitution because of inflation. Remember that 95% of annuities are at fixed rates (i.e. not index-linked or with an automatic annual increment); that is because inflation-linked annuities are unaffordable, and generally extremely poor value.
In addition, there are all sorts of individual circumstances where annuities don't make sense.
Do we know how many people currently make use of the lump sum (which is under a generous tax regime, I think)?
Pensions are not my strong point except in the broadest terms.
Oh dear - my early punts on the 2 enhanced annuity provider's being unfairly hit is off to a poor start... currently nearly £2k in the red since I bought earlier....
Oops. Many a slip tween cup and lip.
You should get yourself a financial adviser.
Fortunately I, like most IFAs, am not authorised to recommend individual shares, gilts etc - what I need is a stockbroker to slap me round the face for betting the extension of my belief that I know a bit more about the annuity market than is being priced in. I could be spectacularly wrong so Mrs. Scrap is not in the loop.
I am encouaraged by these sorts of articles however:
@Topping - "If Lab thinking on here is representative then the aspirational poor should fear a Lab govt (not only because Lab transparently either don't trust people with or would prefer them not to have their own money) but because for someone who is poor but hopes sometime not to be, the "look forward to" with Lab is to be penalised."
Any chance of some examples of this or are you just projecting what you want to be true?
(which actually censors even modest unionist comments - I know, I had a go once).
You mean they weren't fine with death threats or maliciously revealing a posters family details? Good thing PB is far more 'forgiving' to a right-winger such as yourself.
One issue which I haven't seen addressed is what happens to the unclaimed pension pots when you die. Do they vanish, or form part of your estate? Annunities vanish of course.
Do we know how many people currently make use of the lump sum (which is under a generous tax regime, I think)?
I believe most people do (Scrapheap will be able to confirm if I'm right), but of course they are not necessarily spending the tax-free sum on bingo and cruises: they may invest it in ISAs or property, or use it to pay off debt.
One issue which I haven't seen addressed is what happens to the unclaimed pension pots when you die. Do they vanish, or form part of your estate? Annunities vanish of course.
Death benefits have always been a feature of DC pensions. If untouched these are most IHT friendly (pre 75 at least) and then get less so - under drawdown there is currently a 55% tax on the lump sum if taken as such - but that % is also under review now, previously a widow would be advised not to take the lump sum but use the money for their own annuity and/or drawdown - annuities are 'for life' so that's the deal, you pass your longevity risk to the insurer but if your spouse is on there, or there is a min. years guarantee then the income continues even after you the annuitant has died.
Pension campaigners have welcomed Mr Osborne’s “savings revolution”, saying that it would finally stop people being forced to buy poor-value annuities that condemned them to receiving low annual incomes.
However, Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, warned that pensioners could end up making the “wrong choices” because of Mr Osborne’s reforms.
“There is a reason why there’s been an expectation you would buy an annuity in our country if you’ve saved tax advantage in a pension – that’s been there for 80 or 90 years,” Mr Balls told the BBC.
“The question will be - will there be proper protections and proper financial education so people don’t make the wrong choices and end up running out of their pension pot well before their retirement ends.
The motherlode indeed. Or in Ed Balls' case the motherf%$#erlode.
If you substitute 'death' for 'retirement ends' (which is the same thing ) In Ed Balls comments then I would think most people would wish they have spent their pension pot before they die ,especially as an annuity will not pay to their estate after death.
Labour need to get out of the public sector and look at how worried about annuity rates many ordinary workers in the private sector are. For the sake of pension certainty they could negate any tory advantage by totally agreeing with the change (this would help people pay into pensions with certainty and therefore boost pension saving) rather than playing politics because they somehow see the private sector as a load of bankers
Comments
The changes to the Pensions will hurt profits on annuities for companies like Standard Life, but the increased flexibility and boost to ISAs will benefit them in other ways. This is an opportunity, not a problem for companies like SL.
Is independent Scotland planning to go along with the boost to savings in Danny and Georges Budget, or is it planning to keep Scots shackled to poorly performing annuities?
George is perhaps believing that God is a Tory after all. The news coming from Australia seems fairly certain the remains of the plane have been found 1500 miles southwest of Perth. Had this been available yesterday evening, the front pages of today's papers would understandably be very different.
Mr. G, if Yes wins, one of the most interesting and potentially stupid decisions will be what happens about Scottish seats in the 2015 election. One suspects a Yes would be springtime for the SNP and Conservatives for the General Election.
Like my noble kinsman Jack W, I hope the "orange bookers" among the LibDems survive the GE and return to government under Dave though if they lose their seats to Tory opponents, I would hope Dave would kick them upstairs so that they can be brought back into government. This coalition government so reminds me of the Tory party of my youth, the party of Macmillan, Whitelaw and Malcolm Rifkind. Economically well right of centre but socially firmly in the middle ground, who don't think protecting the genuinely vulnerable is a dirty "word".
No, you can't have a referendum; we trust you, but the uncertainty is bad for the economy. And no, you can't have control of your own pension; we trust you but it's that other person who would squander it all and rely on the state.
A tricky political minefield.
I've also bought shares this morning in JRG and PA. - a bit like knife catching but I still see a place for enhanced annuities even in this new 'world'... and the market reaction is to the shock... I could lose a lot if I'm wrong mind you and DYOR, this is not a recommendation etc.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/australia-post-race-analysis.html
On a serious note, I actually kept pen and paper notes, and it'd be interesting to know whether it seems that made a difference (good or bad) to the post-race piece.
I'm with the ARSE more than the panel.
There was an interesting stat discussed on BBC Wales News last night.
Unemployment declined by 12,000 (from 7.2% to 6.7%) but employment rose by only 1,000.
So where did the missing 11,000 go? Theories put forward included: people retiring, people opting out of employment but not claiming JSA, people acting as carers etc.
Two possibilities were not mentioned by the very PC debaters: people leaving Wales for pastures new - either England or emigrating; or people being forced off the JSA and entering the the black economy.
Of course the stats could be wrong and will be corrected next month?
http://www.investmentweek.co.uk/investment-week/news/2335278/hargreaves-chief-future-of-standard-annuities-in-doubt?utm_term=&utm_content=Hargreaves chief: Future of standard annuities in doubt&utm_campaign=IW.Daily_RL.EU.A.U&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=IW.DCM.Editors_Updates
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/10708724/Budget-2014-A-triumph-for-Mr-Osborne-and-atriumph-for-the-Coalition-too.html
The independence referendum has been blown wide open with a new poll showing support for Yes now just five points behind that of No.
The poll, conducted by Panelbase, has revealed that support for independence is now sitting at 40%, its highest mark since campaigning began in earnest, with those against sitting at 45% and Undecided on 15%.
The latest survey, which was commissioned by Newsnet Scotland, surveyed 1036 people between 7-14 March.
The survey asked - "There will be a referendum on an independent Scotland on the 18th of September. How do you intend to vote in response to the question: Should Scotland be an independent country?"
The findings mean Yes is up three points since the last Panelbase survey, with No down two. The number of Don't Knows was also down one point. The swing to Yes means the No campaign's lead has halved compared with the previous Panelbase survey in February.
When Don't Knows are stripped out, Yes is on 47% with No on 53%, meaning Yes needs a swing of around three points in order to overtake its rival. LOL , Labour are in meltdown, published their more powers commission result after 2 years work, 14 pages of mince. Interviewed the regional leader on TV and she was ridiculed and could not even answer questions on it. In poll above ,Labour voters are flocking to YES.
Among Labour voters, Yes gained 9% (from 17% to 26%) – Yes took 3% from No and 6% from Undecideds.
Compare to the rabble before:
Thirteenth duo spells more uncertainty for pensions
29th January 2008
Steve Bee, Head of Pensions Strategy at Scottish Life has expressed his concern at the lack of continuity in the leadership of our pensions system.
The appointment of James Purnell marks the thirteenth change and pairing of Ministers leading the agenda.
Steve Bee commented: “Since May 1997, when Harriet Harman and Frank Field became the first pair at the pensions helm, only once have the same two Ministers -- Alasdair Darling and Jeff Rooker – remained in post for more than 18 months. On average the pairings have lasted less than nine months.
“This merry-go-round speaks volumes about pensions and their importance on the political agenda. Although Mike O’Brien will provide some stability by remaining in post to support James Purnell, this is the thirteenth change in just under eleven years and my guess is that we’re likely to see more changes before the year is out. This lack of continuity at the top provides a further blow to the chances of the Government delivering workable pensions reform.”
kerching, and thank you...
Grant Shapps seen playing Bingo with a pint before next General Election
10/1
Also, I'm not a Conservative, and you're a very naughty boy for making that error. I'll be voting UKIP at the euros.
And what of the general election. Is taxation of floral hats a deal breaker ?
LOL
Here we can clearly see where JackARSE gets his raw 'data'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8jkLLsyd1s
You also accidentally failed to comment on Ed Miliband calling for higher fuel bills a few years ago and now demanding a price freeze, an economic policy so stupid it was denounced by Ammianus Marcellinus over 16 centuries ago.
The General Election's easy, because Balls is my MP and the only one with a hope of beating him is the Conservative candidate.
*chortle*
My loving stalker returns.
Huzzah.
Danny Alexander on Tory Bingo ad: "I thought it was a spoof at first. It’s pretty extraordinary. It may be our budget but it’s their words"
Titters...
Just goes to show re. the Cons - no good deed goes unpunished.
*I know they dipped their toe in La Manche in '42, and look what a ****ing disaster that was.
Why aren't there more Scottish morris dancers?
http://order-order.com/2014/03/20/tories-play-hardball/
That's why I was so astonished last night at Labour's complacency; it looks as though they are genuinely so out of touch with ordinary working people who aren't lucky enough to have a final-salary pension scheme (i.e. the vast majority of non-public-sector workers) that they didn't see the significance of the changes Osborne is making.
It may well be that some of the measures assume some level of disposable income (way short of IPPR's) when, according to eg. @RochdalePioneers, half the country is queuing at a foodbank. However, a key battleground is that of the aspirational poor. It used to be game, set & match to Maggie but somehow since then both parties have let this key demographic go.
It's actually the difference between "Hard Working Families" = nebulous soundbite and "Hard Working People" = that means me. And, notably, GO didn't mention the former and did mention the latter yday.
If Lab thinking on here is representative then the aspirational poor should fear a Lab govt (not only because Lab transparently either don't trust people with or would prefer them not to have their own money) but because for someone who is poor but hopes sometime not to be, the "look forward to" with Lab is to be penalised.
However, given that most people which off their own backs have paid into a pension are saving, I think they will all too aware of the need to use that money wisely.
Besides which, who after working for 40+ years doesn't deserve a little fun. The state pension is still there for a safety net after all, and people who spend their pension will just have to cut their cloth, as all pensions do already.
I look forward to reading Osborne's memoirs in 2045, where he describes the strategy of supporting NO to ensure a YES, and devolving tax powers to Wales (where they would go on to screw things up royally) thus stripping Labour of it's Celtic security blanket and resulting in a decades-long English Belle Époque.
Hey, I can dream...
For me, as someone which does have a pension (although a long way off claiming it) and seeking to put more money into it, these proposals are pretty exciting in what they could do in making my (long way off) retirement more flexable and interesting.
For too long, pensions have been seen as something you have to have, but potentially not really worth it, and I don't think that's the case anymore.
Certainly interesting from a tax planning point of view for me professionally.
http://www.euractiv.com/eu-elections-2014/european-far-right-parties-rejec-news-534127?utm_source=EurActiv Newsletter&utm_campaign=4c52ad0298-newsletter_uk_in_europe&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bab5f0ea4e-4c52ad0298-245514803
In addition, there are all sorts of individual circumstances where annuities don't make sense.
Oops. Many a slip tween cup and lip.
It's interesting that nobody appeared to know anything about these pension reforms. When was the last time such secrecy was maintained in politics on a matter as serious as this [discounting national security concerns]? The Coalition negotiations? Those were hilarious, as hand-fed journalists suddenly found themselves going hungry.
I view fixed term annuities as getting a boost from these changes and that's another reason for my punt as one of the 2 hit so badly is a big player in that market too.
The CON bingo poster came from party chairman Grant Shapps See this from his Twitter page pic.twitter.com/ekOCIBa3a9
Jack Seale @jackseale 1h
Suggestion: news programmes replace interview with @grantshapps with two minutes of the presenters just laughing. pic.twitter.com/a0P9DgOmBU
HuffPostUKPolitics @HuffPostUKPol 1h
Not a parody. Repeat. Not a parody. http://huff.to/1fIbDjv #bingogate pic.twitter.com/IUCJmqmLHu
Comment is free @commentisfree 23m
Ouch! #torybingo still trending after 12 hours. Here's what it refers to: pic.twitter.com/zRZrIED1ST via @grantshapps
The word they are searching for is unspoofable, sorry, as PB own Alan Partridge and unwitting self parody would highlight the word, UNSPOOFABLE.
I doubt we'll see many people which didn't claim any housing benefit before now having to as a result of these actions. I simply don't see people suddenly going mad spending wise.
From today's Telegraph:
Pension campaigners have welcomed Mr Osborne’s “savings revolution”, saying that it would finally stop people being forced to buy poor-value annuities that condemned them to receiving low annual incomes.
However, Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, warned that pensioners could end up making the “wrong choices” because of Mr Osborne’s reforms.
“There is a reason why there’s been an expectation you would buy an annuity in our country if you’ve saved tax advantage in a pension – that’s been there for 80 or 90 years,” Mr Balls told the BBC.
“The question will be - will there be proper protections and proper financial education so people don’t make the wrong choices and end up running out of their pension pot well before their retirement ends.
The motherlode indeed. Or in Ed Balls' case the motherf%$#erlode.
Pensions are not my strong point except in the broadest terms.
I am encouaraged by these sorts of articles however:
http://www.investmentweek.co.uk/investment-week/news/2335270/priced-for-armageddon-should-you-snap-up-shares-in-annuity-providers?utm_term=&utm_content=Priced for Armageddon: Should you snap up shares in annuity providers?&utm_campaign=IW.Daily_RL.EU.A.U&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=IW.DCM.Editors_Updates
Any chance of some examples of this or are you just projecting what you want to be true?
ROFL
Labour need to get out of the public sector and look at how worried about annuity rates many ordinary workers in the private sector are. For the sake of pension certainty they could negate any tory advantage by totally agreeing with the change (this would help people pay into pensions with certainty and therefore boost pension saving) rather than playing politics because they somehow see the private sector as a load of bankers