I said earlier this week that the Budget was a set-piece for the govt and Labour just had to ride it out. That's the game they are in.
The time for a move on policy will come, but it is not now. They need clear air.
But Labour - very clearly - do not have a clue. Not a Scooby. They just want to get elected, and then they will enact exactly the same plans as the Coalition, with some stupid Francois Hollandey bits added on, those policies which have done so well for France, the Sick Man of Europe.
Doesn't that unnerve you, as an honest lefty? Really?
It unnerves me. This is, in the round, the worst opposition since Hague in 01 or Foot in 83, both of whom very definitely deserved to lose - yet Balls and Miliband will probably win, thanks to electoral bias.
That would be a tragedy for our country, it almost makes me want Salmond to win his referendum, just to stop Labour. And I am a unionist.
I think that you are right that they will stick to Tory spending plans. But I also think you will like Ed, when you see him as PM. He is One of Us.
Well off, London centric and views anyone living outside the M25 as a Bumpkin?
OK. Let's accept your point that the vast majority of pensioners [ 95% ? ] are responsible people, which they are.
Now, if the other 5% follow Shapps' advice and start drinking more beer and play bingo and blow their little nest egg, they end up needing income support, which all of you do not like.
These 5% need not have ended up needing income support !
I doubt it would be anything like 5% as most people are going to be very conservative, realising that they need to live off that money for the rest of their lives.
You are only thinking about the potential negatives. What about the people who would be better off with a more competitive annuity which will hopefully be promoted by this greater freedom, or better off taking more cash, or only cash, or re-investing in some other way? There are a lot of upsides to giving people more choices. Make pensions work for the pensioners, not for the pensions industry.
Everybody seems to agree that defined contribution pensions are ineffective now, and that there are a lot of disincentives to saving when the returns can be so dismal. All the government wants to do is let people say "no, that's not good enough, I've found something better." Very few people are going to think blowing their savings is a good idea.
I think some times you let your prejudices take over.
All studies so far has indicated that annuity rates will be worse for those still buying because the market will be smaller.
Annuity sellers will actually be selling into a much larger and freer market - that for financial products in general - and losing a state-imposed oligopoly. Subject to seeing your actual "studies so far" I'd thereforeexpect rates to rise rather than fall.
OK. Let's accept your point that the vast majority of pensioners [ 95% ? ] are responsible people, which they are.
Now, if the other 5% follow Shapps' advice and start drinking more beer and play bingo and blow their little nest egg, they end up needing income support, which all of you do not like.
These 5% need not have ended up needing income support !
I doubt it would be anything like 5% as most people are going to be very conservative, realising that they need to live off that money for the rest of their lives.
You are only thinking about the potential negatives. What about the people who would be better off with a more competitive annuity which will hopefully be promoted by this greater freedom, or better off taking more cash, or only cash, or re-investing in some other way? There are a lot of upsides to giving people more choices. Make pensions work for the pensioners, not for the pensions industry.
Everybody seems to agree that defined contribution pensions are ineffective now, and that there are a lot of disincentives to saving when the returns can be so dismal. All the government wants to do is let people say "no, that's not good enough, I've found something better." Very few people are going to think blowing their savings is a good idea.
I think some times you let your prejudices take over.
All studies so far has indicated that annuity rates will be worse for those still buying because the market will be smaller.
I'm calling you out on that one. I reckon that's bullsh*t.
Can you point us to these "studies"?
An annuity is nothing magical - it's very simple. My foundation has been writing them privately for years to encourage charitable giving (you give us £250K upfront and we will give 15K per year to whatever charities you want for the rest of your life).
Interest rates ( a big bearing on annuity rates ) are the lowest since 1695 ie ever effectively. They will rise sure, but that's no help to anyone forced to buy annuities in the past six years. A huge injustice.
Current longevity improvements predict a 45 yr old will make it to 90 odd. I, and I guess others prudent enough to save wisely will take that into account in old age income planning. An annuity will still partially be in my planning ( index linked ) but:-
1) The proposed reforms will give me a much better sustainable income should I choose to take it aged 55-65 than present arrangements. This enables me to phase retirement at my choice more easily.
2) Anything that frees my money ( I earned it, and saved it, nobody else) from interference from a greedy State which has a long track record of dicking about with the rules and moving the goalposts to my disadvantage is an unalloyed good thing. If it enables me to park my money legally well away from idiotic, economically illiterate UK politicians of any stripe, that's great by me.
As you can gather I don't have a lot of faith in others to decide what's best for me and what I've put aside for my and my family's dotage. Too many scars from the Brown era.
Well, just one poll, but my instinct was that the Budget would not shift opinion either way -- there wasn't much in there that would reinforce Labour's argument of "out-of-touch Tory toffs" (ill-advised appeals to bingo players notwithstanding), but equally there wasn't any kind of overarching narrative from the Tories to give people something to latch onto, even if the individual measure might be popular.
Just caught up on the last thread and can't quite believe that Mike tried to compare Shapps's tweet with Byrne's "there's no money left". I've seen Byrne quoted on that nearly every month since he said it; if any anyone quotes Shapps next month I'll be surprised. FFS he said "they" like bingo and beer, not we have no money for anything.
Agreed. The bloody thing only got some people pasting in excitement because it plays into the narrative they already have about Tories, but isn't a significant enough event to actually be memorable. Many a more memorable event has already been forgotten I imagine. The Byrne quote was very memorable and possibly effective because, joke or not, it sounds terrible when repeated. 'Some tit makes lame poster' has far less traction.
That would be a tragedy for our country, it almost makes me want Salmond to win his referendum, just to stop Labour. And I am a unionist.
Labour won both vote-share and seat-totals in England in 1997 and 2001, they could do it again - though not in 2015, natch.
Of course they could. But don't forget that Tony Blair was an atypical Labour leader in his appeal to Middle England and his centrist policies.
In my view, Labour will have to move into a position much like the German CDU, while the Tories have a more economically and socially liberal positioning.
I STILL don't understand this argument that Scotland is somehow infinitely more Labour-friendly than the rest of the UK. 2010 was literally the ONLY time ever that Labour did massively better in Scotland than they did in the rest of the UK. In every election between 1997, 2001 and 2005, their share of the vote in Scotland was barely above the UK-wide share. In '97, Scotland was actually their 4th least-successful region, ahead of only East Anglia, South East England and the South West -- they even performed better in the notoriously "swingy" Midlands than they did in Scotland.
OK. Let's accept your point that the vast majority of pensioners [ 95% ? ] are responsible people, which they are.
Now, if the other 5% follow Shapps' advice and start drinking more beer and play bingo and blow their little nest egg, they end up needing income support, which all of you do not like.
These 5% need not have ended up needing income support !
I doubt it would be anything like 5% as most people are going to be very conservative, realising that they need to live off that money for the rest of their lives.
You are only thinking about the potential negatives. What about the people who would be better off with a more competitive annuity which will hopefully be promoted by this greater freedom, or better off taking more cash, or only cash, or re-investing in some other way? There are a lot of upsides to giving people more choices. Make pensions work for the pensioners, not for the pensions industry.
Everybody seems to agree that defined contribution pensions are ineffective now, and that there are a lot of disincentives to saving when the returns can be so dismal. All the government wants to do is let people say "no, that's not good enough, I've found something better." Very few people are going to think blowing their savings is a good idea.
I think some times you let your prejudices take over.
All studies so far has indicated that annuity rates will be worse for those still buying because the market will be smaller.
Annuity sellers will actually be selling into a much larger and freer market - that for financial products in general - and losing a state-imposed oligopoly. Subject to seeing your actual "studies so far" I'd thereforeexpect rates to rise rather than fall.
Rates will rise anyway because interest rates will rise once the Osborne appointee Carney behaves independently after May 2015 [ why May 2015 ? He is under instructions not to raise interest rates. [ First, he said rates will go up when unemployment rates hit 7%, then said , he didn't mean it after Gideon told him TSTFU ]
The cost of annuities will increase.
"Most importantly it will likely make annuities even more expensive for those who do want to buy them. The market will become much thinner and there will be greater levels of adverse selection – only those expecting to live a long time will want to buy an annuity thereby driving up the price. There is a market failure here. There will be losers from this policy. "
I find it rather comical when politicians like Ed Balls lecture others about pension provision.
He and Gordon Brown stole £125 billion from private sector pension funds and then lectured us about not saving enough for retirement. In the almost 4 years of the Coalition government my pension fund has recovered the 33% it lost during the Brown/Balls years 1997-2010 and added a further 30% so far. In short, over the past 4 years it has doubled in value.
He has been on the public payroll for most of his adult life, has a gold plated pension which the rest of us are paying for and between him and his wife costs the taxpayer around £1/2 million a year in salary and expenses.
Whilst agreeing with you about the damage Labour did to private sector pensions - damage which this government hasn't stopped let alone reversed I point out - for your pension fund to have varied like that it must have had some very curious investments.
Its only wise to use personal anecdotes if they're believable.
I will plan to spend my pension up front in my retirement. Between 65-80, I will travel, buy a decent motor and generally have a good time. I may give a fair bit to my son to pay off some of his student debts.
After age 80 I will slow down, if I am still alive, and read books and watch the football, I shall live frugally for another decade or so in an old house, with old clothes and an old motor. If I am dead then I will not need money at all.
It makes sense to spend the money in early active retirement, at least to me. You can't take it with you...
They could not have withdrawn before retirement since most pension schemes would not allow that.
The money only ended up in the scheme because they worked hard and contributed in the first place. Do you really think that people who have put away that money will reach their retirement, lose their income from working, and then decide against all common sense to blow their savings? It defies logic.
The people Labour should be worrying about are those that haven't saved into a pension scheme, not those that have. They are the people who are going to need the most help.
OK. Let's accept your point that the vast majority of pensioners [ 95% ? ] are responsible people, which they are.
Now, if the other 5% follow Shapps' advice and start drinking more beer and play bingo and blow their little nest egg, they end up needing income support, which all of you do not like.
These 5% need not have ended up needing income support !
So even following that logic the 95% have to be denied the freedom to access their own money and be forced to buy a State manipulated rip off annuity just in case 5% might lose out.??
Are you saying the current annuity rates will remain forever ? Annuity rates have historically been better than savings rates !
No one seems to have answered what happens to those people who have not purchased an annuity but live longer than they expect. Statistically, people aged 60 - 65 believe they will die sooner than they do partly because people assume , on average, they will die around the same time as their parents and grandparents but people are now living longer.
The IFS has made a very good study of these changes. It basically concludes that until 2018, tax receipts will go up and, thereafter, the opposite will happen.
I think the main purpose of these changes was:
1. to increase the short term tax receipts, which will be considerable [ paid by people withdrawing their cash earlier than would have ]
2. to make this into a very efficient tax avoidance vehicle for HRT payers who are mostly Tory voters.
Ridiculous how this interview has become some big news story and makes Steve Webb sound out of touch. Nothing to do with the meat of the proposal (good or bad), but been spun into this headline...
The BBC and the Left are in despair. They thought Miliband was cruising to victory. Suddenly Osborne's master-stroke, Miliband's haplessness and Balls's bumbling condescension have knocked such presumptions into a cocked hat. The bingo tweet and Lamborghini stuff is just a 'look squirrel' ploy. However, I fear for Labour. They're looking naked today. If they've nothing to say in opposition, the thought will go, what the hell will be the point of them in government?
It is the utter, unwavering, confident certainty of the most partisan Conservatives on here I find interesting.
I find such unwavering confident certainty almost unsettling no matter who it comes from, but fascinating all the same. Being chronically indecisive, I've never managed to fully understand the mindset of people on either side who manage to automatically interpret things favourably for their political party of choice, or remain so confident in a favourable outcome when it looks like all is against them. Sometimes that confidence even turns out to be correct, or at least the boundless confidence carries a side through something which it looks like they should be brought down, but I still don't understand it.
"The Crimeans have spoken so clearly about their future, and now other countries right across the world, I hope, will respect and revere this very, very clear result." - David Cameron
The real underlying bomb ticking away for the Tories is [ thanks to the Lib Dem influence in the coalition ] the number of tax payers entering the 40% tax bracket. These are supposed to be their "aspirers". In addition, the child benefit losers at between £50k and £60k are angry !
Gideon thinks that they would be elated to enter the HRT. So why not increase it to 45% ?
As one who has been at the sharp end of the pensions industry, dealing with the punters and the "experts", I would like to put in my tuppence worth.
Most pensions that are so dearly held and saved for are less than £50k, and with the best will in the world, are absolutely useless at providing an annuity. To get a reasonable return, you need to have a fund of over £500,000, at which point, you can afford an IFA and they can be bothered to work with you knowing that it is financially worth their while.
Now, the main problem is lack of knowledge by the average person into how pensions work, and regrettably I have to include the present CoE, in that when an annuity is bought from the pension fund, the money goes into gilts and bonds giving a guaranteed return which is paid out over the lifetime of the policy holder (and depending on how savvy the IFA is, provides for the spouse /partner and dependants).
I would also like to explain how the actuaries work. They take the charts, provided by the Government, to work out the average life expectancy of a person based on their age, health, marital status and post code (yeah, I know, no sex please we're European). Different pension providers have their own actuaries who decide, based on their own rules and the returns that they can obtain from the mixture of gilts and bonds that they can purchase, decide what annuity rate to offer to a client that will be viable for their anticipated life time of the client.
Now, I would suspect that most PBers would realise that no annuities being bought might have an eensy teensy problem for the Government concerning the purchase, or lack of such by the pension providers of gilts and government bonds.
If you have a declared personal fortune of over £13 million (GO) or £30 million (DC) then worries about how you will live when retirement or unemployment beckons might seem to be trivial, others may have a different point of view.
Did anyone predict there would be big moves in their favour? It seems like those who thought it was a game changing budget still thought it might lead to a small bounce in the short term with hopefully more of a narrative shift changing the long term prospects.
And congratulations on Labour and the anti-Tories for taking what was a fairly funny aside and sucking all joy from it . #Torybingo
Rates will rise anyway because interest rates will rise once the Osborne appointee Carney behaves independently after May 2015 [ why May 2015 ? He is under instructions not to raise interest rates. [ First, he said rates will go up when unemployment rates hit 7%, then said , he didn't mean it after Gideon told him TSTFU ]
You don't half spout a load of rubbish.
So the Lib Dem minister is trying to help rich Tories avoid tax, and now the Governor of the BoE has secretly ceded control of interest rates back to the Treasury.
The unstoppable force (pensions) is pegged back by the immovable object (bingo)
House!
Budgets don't usually shift votes, as I've said before, though I thought the press orgy sbout this one would produce a short-lived Tory bounce. I think the Sunday polls will show that people say yes, very nice, to quite a few of the details, without actually shifting in large numbers.
38%ish of the voters dislike the Conservatives and want them out. Neither the Budget nor the economy are changing that basic fact. But I think the Tories will be disappointed if it turns out that they haven't picked up a bit - they could have reasonably hoped for 36-37. They won't get many more press raptures before 2015.
Meanwhile, Miliband and Balls are quietly piling up a number of concessions that supporters don't much like, giving them a warchest for a few concrete vote-winners next year. People who think Miliband is short of ideas are IMO mistaken. He's a patient strategist, and the correct time to start launching vote-winners in October and not a day earlier.
OK. Let's accept your point that the vast majority of pensioners [ 95% ? ] are responsible people, which they are.
Now, if the other 5% follow Shapps' advice and start drinking more beer and play bingo and blow their little nest egg, they end up needing income support, which all of you do not like.
These 5% need not have ended up needing income support !
I doubt it would be anything like 5% as most people are going to be very conservative, realising that they need to live off that money for the rest of their lives.
You are only thinking about the potential negatives. What about the people who would be better off with a more competitive annuity which will hopefully be promoted by this greater freedom, or better off taking more cash, or only cash, or re-investing in some other way? There are a lot of upsides to giving people more choices. Make pensions work for the pensioners, not for the pensions industry.
Everybody seems to agree that defined contribution pensions are ineffective now, and that there are a lot of disincentives to saving when the returns can be so dismal. All the government wants to do is let people say "no, that's not good enough, I've found something better." Very few people are going to think blowing their savings is a good idea.
I think some times you let your prejudices take over.
All studies so far has indicated that annuity rates will be worse for those still buying because the market will be smaller.
@surbiton: the current problem is that low interest rate make annuity yields awful. If I had the choice between investing in basket of blue chip shares, yielding more than an annuity, and an annuity, I would be a fool to pick the latter. Indeed, as the income stream from the shares would be expected to grow at a rate faster than inflation, I would be a double winner. One final advantage: when I passed away, I would still own the shares, so my children would get something.
There is a wonderful opportunity for financial services companies to make variable annuities, which are - say - one half traditional annuity, one half high dividend shares.
"The Crimeans have spoken so clearly about their future, and now other countries right across the world, I hope, will respect and revere this very, very clear result." - David Cameron
I think the position of all the parties [ and, I include Labour ] on Crimea has been hypocritical.
Clearly, the vast majority wants to be with Russia. Instead , I feel the pressure should have been to protect the rights of minorities both in the Ukraine [ Russians ] and in the Crimea [ Tatars ]
If the secession of Crimea was interfering with the territorial integrity of the Ukraine, then so was Kosovo interfering with the territorial integrity of Serbia.
We were right then, and Russia is right now regarding Crimea.
Is it just me or are more people referring to Osborne as Gideon in the past few days? I thought that gag had been mostly retired, but apparently it's funny again? Good to know. Hopefully Red Ed will make a comeback, that one was pretty laughable, because people are really frightened when you imply someone is socialist you know, it's not as though anyone from mid 30s down never had quite the same impact in having a global superpower socialist state to worry about that to make it as threatening.
The unstoppable force (pensions) is pegged back by the immovable object (bingo)
House!
Budgets don't usually shift votes, as I've said before, though I thought the press orgy sbout this one would produce a short-lived Tory bounce. I think the Sunday polls will show that people say yes, very nice, to quite a few of the details, without actually shifting in large numbers.
38%ish of the voters dislike the Conservatives and want them out. Neither the Budget nor the economy are changing that basic fact. But I think the Tories will be disappointed if it turns out that they haven't picked up a bit - they could have reasonably hoped for 36-37. They won't get many more press raptures before 2015.
Meanwhile, Miliband and Balls are quietly piling up a number of concessions that supporters don't much like, giving them a warchest for a few concrete vote-winners next year. People who think Miliband is short of ideas are IMO mistaken. He's a patient strategist, and the correct time to start launching vote-winners in October and not a day earlier.
"The Crimeans have spoken so clearly about their future, and now other countries right across the world, I hope, will respect and revere this very, very clear result." - David Cameron
I think the position of all the parties [ and, I include Labour ] on Crimea has been hypocritical.
Clearly, the vast majority wants to be with Russia. Instead , I feel the pressure should have been to protect the rights of minorities both in the Ukraine [ Russians ] and in the Crimea [ Tatars ]
If the secession of Crimea was interfering with the territorial integrity of the Ukraine, then so was Kosovo interfering with the territorial integrity of Serbia.
We were right then, and Russia is right now regarding Crimea.
Crimeans were not under any real threat, but yes, we are being hypocritical. That doesn't make Russia right legally or otherwise, it is not a zero sum game. All states don't follow the rules when it suits them, and when we or they don't, the other sides have to pretend that they always do by expressing outrage that the rules were not followed. That doesn't make us angels, but it hardly makes Russia right either.
Good luck to Crimea though. Events have only happened because Russia made a bold play to salvage a messy situation, and there are downsides to that, but clearly Crimeans by and large are getting what they want. Won't the Russians now thrown a bone to the poor people of transdniestra?
As one who has been at the sharp end of the pensions industry, dealing with the punters and the "experts", I would like to put in my tuppence worth.
Most pensions that are so dearly held and saved for are less than £50k, and with the best will in the world, are absolutely useless at providing an annuity. To get a reasonable return, you need to have a fund of over £500,000, at which point, you can afford an IFA and they can be bothered to work with you knowing that it is financially worth their while.
Now, the main problem is lack of knowledge by the average person into how pensions work, and regrettably I have to include the present CoE, in that when an annuity is bought from the pension fund, the money goes into gilts and bonds giving a guaranteed return which is paid out over the lifetime of the policy holder (and depending on how savvy the IFA is, provides for the spouse /partner and dependants).
I would also like to explain how the actuaries work. They take the charts, provided by the Government, to work out the average life expectancy of a person based on their age, health, marital status and post code (yeah, I know, no sex please we're European). Different pension providers have their own actuaries who decide, based on their own rules and the returns that they can obtain from the mixture of gilts and bonds that they can purchase, decide what annuity rate to offer to a client that will be viable for their anticipated life time of the client.
Now, I would suspect that most PBers would realise that no annuities being bought might have an eensy teensy problem for the Government concerning the purchase, or lack of such by the pension providers of gilts and government bonds.
If you have a declared personal fortune of over £13 million (GO) or £30 million (DC) then worries about how you will live when retirement or unemployment beckons might seem to be trivial, others may have a different point of view.
For such a self satisfied opening, that post added 0 new information, and what it repeated was standard general knowledge for the financially literate.
I have to inform you that you failed your productivity question last week.
Despite being provided with the data you requested you were unable to produce any worthwhile analysis.
And your attempts to conceal with using 'big words' merely compounded your failing.
another_richard: any government which implemented a £12/hour minimum wage would massively increase productivity.
Of course, productivity would be raised as a result of firms firing employees who it was no longer economic to employ.
In fact, productivity statistics correlate remarkably well with the cost of employing low skilled workers. If it is cheap to employ them (few social costs, low minimum wage, etc.) then you will have 'low productivity'. Alternatively, if you are France, and you've priced one in 10 people out of the workforce, you will have 'high productivity'.
"The Crimeans have spoken so clearly about their future, and now other countries right across the world, I hope, will respect and revere this very, very clear result." - David Cameron
I think the position of all the parties [ and, I include Labour ] on Crimea has been hypocritical.
Clearly, the vast majority wants to be with Russia. Instead , I feel the pressure should have been to protect the rights of minorities both in the Ukraine [ Russians ] and in the Crimea [ Tatars ]
If the secession of Crimea was interfering with the territorial integrity of the Ukraine, then so was Kosovo interfering with the territorial integrity of Serbia.
We were right then, and Russia is right now regarding Crimea.
"The Crimeans have spoken so clearly about their future, and now other countries right across the world, I hope, will respect and revere this very, very clear result." - David Cameron
I think the position of all the parties [ and, I include Labour ] on Crimea has been hypocritical.
Clearly, the vast majority wants to be with Russia. Instead , I feel the pressure should have been to protect the rights of minorities both in the Ukraine [ Russians ] and in the Crimea [ Tatars ]
If the secession of Crimea was interfering with the territorial integrity of the Ukraine, then so was Kosovo interfering with the territorial integrity of Serbia.
We were right then, and Russia is right now regarding Crimea.
Has anyone added up by how much Osborne is missing his 2010 borrowing targets ?
Somewhere over £200bn at a guess.
Not as bad as Alistair Darling but it still makes the 'penny of a pint' look like the microscopically small beer which it is.
Truly the biggest disappointment of this government, but unfortunately not one the opposition can use as a stick to beat him with any credibility. Trying to explain that their 'too far too fast' argument does not mean they cannot say he has not cut enough quickly enough is a difficult sell.
That would be a tragedy for our country, it almost makes me want Salmond to win his referendum, just to stop Labour. And I am a unionist.
Labour won both vote-share and seat-totals in England in 1997 and 2001, they could do it again - though not in 2015, natch.
Of course they could. But don't forget that Tony Blair was an atypical Labour leader in his appeal to Middle England and his centrist policies.
In my view, Labour will have to move into a position much like the German CDU, while the Tories have a more economically and socially liberal positioning.
I STILL don't understand this argument that Scotland is somehow infinitely more Labour-friendly than the rest of the UK. 2010 was literally the ONLY time ever that Labour did massively better in Scotland than they did in the rest of the UK. In every election between 1997, 2001 and 2005, their share of the vote in Scotland was barely above the UK-wide share. In '97, Scotland was actually their 4th least-successful region, ahead of only East Anglia, South East England and the South West -- they even performed better in the notoriously "swingy" Midlands than they did in Scotland.
It is, I believe, to do with the distribution of the Labour vote - there are a lot of Labour MPs from Scotland for that vote and very few i.e. just one Tory MP. Playing with Electoral Calculus suggests a similar situation as in England - the main oppo to Labour (SNP) needs to get a few more percentage points to win the same number of seats under FPTP.
Also, as I keep pointing out there are a lot more Tory voters than one might think from that, as the Scottish Parliament makes clear.
Some of those Labour MPs are there, in any case, as tactical voting ("anything to keep the Tories out"), where a vote for the SNP has historically been that much more of a gamble. But one effect of the Referendum, whether yes* or no, may well be to disrupt that and to give the SNP a boost even in Westminster, judging from recent polling, and the sight of Labour politicians either very publicly in metaphorical bed with Tories or in hiding (or both at the same time or at least within a few days of each other, in the case of Ms Lamont).
*Assuming, for the moment, that Scotland sends MPs to Westminster in the 2015 UKGE (but let's not argue about this as I don't want to derail this thread).
The IFS line on this is downright bizzare - they seem to be upset that he didn't account for a rounding error in 20 years time. Sadly they feel the need to create a story and justify their existence.
How long does it usually take for a budget to unravel? It was political genius/masterstroke/best budget in living memory yesterday.....on the third day....it fell on it's arse.
Rates will rise anyway because interest rates will rise once the Osborne appointee Carney behaves independently after May 2015 [ why May 2015 ? He is under instructions not to raise interest rates. [ First, he said rates will go up when unemployment rates hit 7%, then said , he didn't mean it after Gideon told him TSTFU ]
You don't half spout a load of rubbish.
So the Lib Dem minister is trying to help rich Tories avoid tax, and now the Governor of the BoE has secretly ceded control of interest rates back to the Treasury.
Got any more daft conspiracy theories?
Listen, you stupid man ! Who said that ? I didn't. I vote Lib Dem !!
What the Lib Dems have done [ thankfully ] has been not to allow the Tories raising the starting point of the HRT.
This will have some consequence for the Tories as many of their supporters are paying one hellava more tax than they think they should.
The IFS line on this is downright bizzare - they seem to be upset that he didn't account for a rounding error in 20 years time. Sadly they feel the need to create a story and justify their existence.
And, yet, the Times is running their main story on it. Is your judgement OK ?
The people are wrong ! They have not understood the "freedom" from annuities and are instead unnecessarity fretting about cost of living etc.
Plus that horrible BBC and Sky promoting that nice Mr Green's congratulatory message to beer guzzling bingo players.
They should know better.
Again, that would be hilarious, had anyone seriously thought the Tories would get an immediate sizable bump in the polls. Or how about:
The people are wrong: They have not understood how horrible the Tories are because they give with one hand and take another, and have done nothing to fix the economy, and how patronising they are when someone is not good at media design, instead fretting about their savings and growth.
The people should know better! Why didn't the Tories drop points because someone made a bad poster. I'll bet it was the telegraph not mentioning enough about it, yeah that's it. --- If the bingo crap was significant, and level of pathetic repetition on it suggests people desperately hope it is as a reflection of how people remember the budget (don't tell me people are not saying it is important - by making it equal to the budget itself in terms of what it shows about the Tories, supposedly, that is the exact argument people are indirectly making; that this poster is serious because of what it implies), and therefore the budget was a gigantic cock up, why did Labour not get a rise then?
I don't even see how it's fun for people to pretend the bingo thing has any merit, as we all know political arguing can make for the fun times, so I'm left to conclude people really do think it is funny and important, meaning either thousands of random people are idiots or I am, and that depresses me because statistically that makes me more likely to be the fool.
How long does it usually take for a budget to unravel? It was political genius/masterstroke/best budget in living memory yesterday.....on the third day....it fell on it's arse.
Well I suppose the tory supporting papers will be happy with a Ed miliband Government,that's the way we are heading.
The IFS line on this is downright bizzare - they seem to be upset that he didn't account for a rounding error in 20 years time. Sadly they feel the need to create a story and justify their existence.
Yes, 2033 is when this alleged sleight of hand will have its impact. Ed Miliband will be the next Tony Benn and National Treasure by that time.
Now, I would suspect that most PBers would realise that no annuities being bought might have an eensy teensy problem for the Government concerning the purchase, or lack of such by the pension providers of gilts and government bonds.
I think I pointed out this little nugget last night.
It may well be the best minefield that George has laid, to make ramping up borrowing more expensive. It does tie the hands of Balls, and forcing everyone to buy an annuity is not an option. Clever stuff George and Danny.
I have to inform you that you failed your productivity question last week.
Despite being provided with the data you requested you were unable to produce any worthwhile analysis.
And your attempts to conceal with using 'big words' merely compounded your failing.
another_richard: any government which implemented a £12/hour minimum wage would massively increase productivity.
Of course, productivity would be raised as a result of firms firing employees who it was no longer economic to employ.
In fact, productivity statistics correlate remarkably well with the cost of employing low skilled workers. If it is cheap to employ them (few social costs, low minimum wage, etc.) then you will have 'low productivity'. Alternatively, if you are France, and you've priced one in 10 people out of the workforce, you will have 'high productivity'.
Indeed.
Although I will point out that unemployment is higher now than it was seven years ago even though productivity is lower (also see point 2 below).
These are the thoughts I had regarding the great productivity stagnation:
1) With two thirds of the economy based upon consumer spending the government's massive subsidy of consumption with borrowed money creates no pressure for increased productivity among producers in that sector.
2) A supply of almost endless cheap and willing low skilled economic migrants acts as a brake on investment in new technology and equipment.
3) Zero interest rates has stopped the malinvestment and zombie firms from being cleared out of the economy. Creative destruction is a fundamental part of productivity growth and healthy capitalism.
4) Ever increasing regulations require an increasing proportion of overhead labour which doesn't increase output.
Has anyone added up by how much Osborne is missing his 2010 borrowing targets ?
Somewhere over £200bn at a guess.
Not as bad as Alistair Darling but it still makes the 'penny of a pint' look like the microscopically small beer which it is.
Truly the biggest disappointment of this government, but unfortunately not one the opposition can use as a stick to beat him with any credibility. Trying to explain that their 'too far too fast' argument does not mean they cannot say he has not cut enough quickly enough is a difficult sell.
Let's not forget, this government will have borrowed more money than all the governments did put together since the war !
Meanwhile, Miliband and Balls are quietly piling up a number of concessions that supporters don't much like, giving them a warchest for a few concrete vote-winners next year. People who think Miliband is short of ideas are IMO mistaken. He's a patient strategist, and the correct time to start launching vote-winners in October and not a day earlier.
By "warchest", do you mean money to spend on new government programmes? I can't see how that is going to work alongside a pledge to create a budget surplus. There just wouldn't be enough money to go round to not make further significant cuts, bring in new things AND get a surplus. The Labour leadership seem to be creeping towards trying to square the circle with a line that their proposed public-sector reforms will mean they can keep services at the same level, while spending less money - while that might have some truth to it (might; I'm sceptical), it's going to be an impossible message to sell to most people.
When Labour supporters including myself object to Labour's pledge to stick to Tory spending plans, it's not that we have some fundamental issue against a surplus in principle. It's because, in practice, it's a bar on Labour being able to (credibly) promise ANYTHING that a Labour government should be doing.
"The Crimeans have spoken so clearly about their future, and now other countries right across the world, I hope, will respect and revere this very, very clear result." - David Cameron
I think the position of all the parties [ and, I include Labour ] on Crimea has been hypocritical.
Clearly, the vast majority wants to be with Russia. Instead , I feel the pressure should have been to protect the rights of minorities both in the Ukraine [ Russians ] and in the Crimea [ Tatars ]
If the secession of Crimea was interfering with the territorial integrity of the Ukraine, then so was Kosovo interfering with the territorial integrity of Serbia.
We were right then, and Russia is right now regarding Crimea.
Crimeans were not under any real threat, but yes, we are being hypocritical. That doesn't make Russia right legally or otherwise, it is not a zero sum game. All states don't follow the rules when it suits them, and when we or they don't, the other sides have to pretend that they always do by expressing outrage that the rules were not followed. That doesn't make us angels, but it hardly makes Russia right either.
Good luck to Crimea though. Events have only happened because Russia made a bold play to salvage a messy situation, and there are downsides to that, but clearly Crimeans by and large are getting what they want. Won't the Russians now thrown a bone to the poor people of transdniestra?
Irina Kubanskikh, a spokeswoman for the Transnistrian parliament, said that the region's public bodies had "appealed to the Russian Federation leadership to examine the possibility of extending to Trans-Dniester the legislation, currently under discussion in the State Duma, on granting Russian citizenship and admitting new subjects into Russia."
Interesting the desperation in Labour posters on here trying to diss the budget.. We won't really know how its gone down for some time, People need to get to grips with their new options..
The IFS stance is bizarre. Is it politically neutral?
Now, I would suspect that most PBers would realise that no annuities being bought might have an eensy teensy problem for the Government concerning the purchase, or lack of such by the pension providers of gilts and government bonds.
I think I pointed out this little nugget last night.
It may well be the best minefield that George has laid, to make ramping up borrowing more expensive.It does tie the hands of Balls, and forcing everyone to buy an annuity is not an option. Clever stuff George and Danny.
So, you are expecting to see Balls as the next Chancellor ? Fruedian slip !
Has anyone added up by how much Osborne is missing his 2010 borrowing targets ?
Somewhere over £200bn at a guess.
Not as bad as Alistair Darling but it still makes the 'penny of a pint' look like the microscopically small beer which it is.
Truly the biggest disappointment of this government, but unfortunately not one the opposition can use as a stick to beat him with any credibility. Trying to explain that their 'too far too fast' argument does not mean they cannot say he has not cut enough quickly enough is a difficult sell.
Let's not forget, this government will have borrowed more money than all the governments did put together since the war !
Some achievement, Gideon !
I don't blame them for the high borrowing - whoever came in would have borrowed similar amounts - I blame them for not being better at eliminating the need for borrowing. The promise to eliminate the deficit rather than merely halve it was one which resonated with me.
Unfortunately for Labour that wins them no points from me because they wanted to borrow about the same amount as Osborne has ended up doing. Or it would be 'unfortuantely' for them if I did not live in a safe seat where whatever sways my vote will make no difference.
Rates will rise anyway because interest rates will rise once the Osborne appointee Carney behaves independently after May 2015 [ why May 2015 ? He is under instructions not to raise interest rates. [ First, he said rates will go up when unemployment rates hit 7%, then said , he didn't mean it after Gideon told him TSTFU ]
You don't half spout a load of rubbish.
So the Lib Dem minister is trying to help rich Tories avoid tax, and now the Governor of the BoE has secretly ceded control of interest rates back to the Treasury.
Got any more daft conspiracy theories?
Listen, you stupid man ! Who said that ? I didn't. I vote Lib Dem !!
What the Lib Dems have done [ thankfully ] has been not to allow the Tories raising the starting point of the HRT.
This will have some consequence for the Tories as many of their supporters are paying one hellava more tax than they think they should.
Look, when writing about the pensions policy, you wrote:
"I think the main purpose of these changes was:
1. to increase the short term tax receipts, which will be considerable [ paid by people withdrawing their cash earlier than would have ]
2. to make this into a very efficient tax avoidance vehicle for HRT payers who are mostly Tory voters."
I want to know why you think a Lib Dem Pensions Minister (Steve Webb) would want "to make this into a very efficient tax avoidance vehicle for HRT payers who are mostly Tory voters."
Thinking about comparisons between pension annuity changes and IHT thresholds.
I would caution Conservative supporters who think they would have the same resonance.
The IHT threshold was easy to understand and linked with something - tax payments - which are unpopular.
Pension annuity changes aren't easy to understand, involve usually much smaller amounts of money and seem vague - "instead of having to do X with your pension fund you will be able to do X or Y".
It makes me proud of our media! Clearly the pressmen have concluded that Labour are incapable of offering any opposition and have assumed the mantle themselves for the sake of democracy.
As one who has been at the sharp end of the pensions industry, dealing with the punters and the "experts", I would like to put in my tuppence worth.
Most pensions that are so dearly held and saved for are less than £50k, and with the best will in the world, are absolutely useless at providing an annuity. To get a reasonable return, you need to have a fund of over £500,000, at which point, you can afford an IFA and they can be bothered to work with you knowing that it is financially worth their while.
Now, the main problem is lack of knowledge by the average person into how pensions work, and regrettably I have to include the present CoE, in that when an annuity is bought from the pension fund, the money goes into gilts and bonds giving a guaranteed return which is paid out over the lifetime of the policy holder (and depending on how savvy the IFA is, provides for the spouse /partner and dependants).
I would also like to explain how the actuaries work. They take the charts, provided by the Government, to work out the average life expectancy of a person based on their age, health, marital status and post code (yeah, I know, no sex please we're European). Different pension providers have their own actuaries who decide, based on their own rules and the returns that they can obtain from the mixture of gilts and bonds that they can purchase, decide what annuity rate to offer to a client that will be viable for their anticipated life time of the client.
Now, I would suspect that most PBers would realise that no annuities being bought might have an eensy teensy problem for the Government concerning the purchase, or lack of such by the pension providers of gilts and government bonds.
If you have a declared personal fortune of over £13 million (GO) or £30 million (DC) then worries about how you will live when retirement or unemployment beckons might seem to be trivial, others may have a different point of view.
For such a self satisfied opening, that post added 0 new information, and what it repeated was standard general knowledge for the financially literate.
I am so glad that there is one person on this site who is financially literate. I was responding to the comments of others who seemed to be unsure of pensions.
Ross Hawkins @rosschawkins · 9 mins Question Time. Burnham: "public schoolboys have no idea what life is like for ordinary people in Warrington" Balls was privately educated
Did anyone predict there would be big moves in their favour?
Yes, there have been several predictions here of post-budget crossover. Could still happen, but I doubt it. We probably need to wait till next week for things to settle though.
Assumnig nothing much moves, what events have we got left that might shift a lot of votes that have been stable for a year, barring black swans? 1. The Euros (because of impact on UKIP) 2. The Indyref (might move SNP sharply up or down, or of course recast the landscape) 3. The party conference season (doesn't usually do much) ...and then we're into the election.
Not a Freudian slip. I have been predicting either a minority or majority Labour government for several years on this board.
I challenge you to find a post where I have predicted anything else.
I have also been one of the very few posters here that praises Ed Milliband and says he is not crap. I have also been consistent in saying Balls is a malignant and useless git.
Now, I would suspect that most PBers would realise that no annuities being bought might have an eensy teensy problem for the Government concerning the purchase, or lack of such by the pension providers of gilts and government bonds.
I think I pointed out this little nugget last night.
It may well be the best minefield that George has laid, to make ramping up borrowing more expensive.It does tie the hands of Balls, and forcing everyone to buy an annuity is not an option. Clever stuff George and Danny.
So, you are expecting to see Balls as the next Chancellor ? Fruedian slip !
Now, I would suspect that most PBers would realise that no annuities being bought might have an eensy teensy problem for the Government concerning the purchase, or lack of such by the pension providers of gilts and government bonds.
I think I pointed out this little nugget last night.
It may well be the best minefield that George has laid, to make ramping up borrowing more expensive.It does tie the hands of Balls, and forcing everyone to buy an annuity is not an option. Clever stuff George and Danny.
So, you are expecting to see Balls as the next Chancellor ? Fruedian slip !
Ross Hawkins @rosschawkins · 9 mins Question Time. Burnham: "public schoolboys have no idea what life is like for ordinary people in Warrington" Balls was privately educated
It is an unfortunate truth that while both sets of party elites are out of touch, for various reasons, Labour are able to get away with attacking the Tories for being out of touch with very little blowback despite it applying to them as well. The benefits of having a better brand image - even if saying the same thing, or doing the same thing, a Tory will be viewed more negatively than a Labour person.
It's unfortunate because even though I have never voted Tory, it means Labour can get away with that mild level of hypocrisy better than their opponents, which doesn't seem fair.
For as much stick as Question Time gets, in my view the fact it moves around the country makes it one of the most accurate "weather-vanes" of political opinion. For the second time in a few weeks (after Scunthorpe a few weeks ago), northerners are rightly venting their fury at politicians pandering to the south east constantly and taking away from the rest of the country to give to the south east. Yet the establishment remains blissfully unaware of it.
Thinking about comparisons between pension annuity changes and IHT thresholds.
I would caution Conservative supporters who think they would have the same resonance.
The IHT threshold was easy to understand and linked with something - tax payments - which are unpopular.
Pension annuity changes aren't easy to understand, involve usually much smaller amounts of money and seem vague - "instead of having to do X with your pension fund you will be able to do X or Y".
What is easy to understand is the dire performance of may pensions over the last 15 years, seeing low, slow or negative forecasts, and having yourself tied to the same group of suppliers to offer you a low rate annuity.
There is no love lost between the investors in pensions and the providers of those services.
It is one of the most important topics for those 45 to 65 year olds.
"The Crimeans have spoken so clearly about their future, and now other countries right across the world, I hope, will respect and revere this very, very clear result." - David Cameron
I think the position of all the parties [ and, I include Labour ] on Crimea has been hypocritical.
Clearly, the vast majority wants to be with Russia. Instead , I feel the pressure should have been to protect the rights of minorities both in the Ukraine [ Russians ] and in the Crimea [ Tatars ]
If the secession of Crimea was interfering with the territorial integrity of the Ukraine, then so was Kosovo interfering with the territorial integrity of Serbia.
We were right then, and Russia is right now regarding Crimea.
You're quite right in one sense. Had the people of the Crimea, and the Russian government, asked for a fair poll to be conducted under OSCE observation, it would very likely still have resulted in voluntary annexation to Russia. So the question is why didn't they?
Answers:
1. Because it takes time and time inflates risk. 2. Because they weren't confident enough that a fair referendum would go the right way. 3. The big one: because Putin wanted to reassert the principle that Russia could enter other countries in order to 'protect' ethnic Russians (note - not even Russian citizens). Playing it by the book would mean having to play by the book in the future too.
1) With two thirds of the economy based upon consumer spending the government's massive subsidy of consumption with borrowed money creates no pressure for increased productivity among producers in that sector.
The problem with this argument is that consumption account for 60-off percent of economies of almost all developed countries. And no-one is suggesting that US firms have been slow to invest, despite a higher proportion of US GDP being consumption than in the UK.
2) A supply of almost endless cheap and willing low skilled economic migrants acts as a brake on investment in new technology and equipment.
An interesting question: all things being equal cheaper labour will tend to encourage firms to invest in people rather than capital. However, the empirical evidence is rather mixed, not least because most UK manufacturing companies are in the high end of the skill market (Maclaren might benefit from immigration of German engineers, but this is hardly low wage). I think a bigger issue here is the one identified by @Alanbrooke, which is that the banks in the UK have been going through a multi-year process of deleveraging, and this has meant is has been very difficult for smaller firms to get bank financing.
3) Zero interest rates has stopped the malinvestment and zombie firms from being cleared out of the economy. Creative destruction is a fundamental part of productivity growth and healthy capitalism.
I tend to agree with this - sometimes it's better to have a quick car crash, than a slow moving one. The issue is that allowing unproductive firms to go bust - all at once - as Mrs Thatcher did in the early 1980s, or is happening now in Spain, leads to massive unemployment. Your economy may be fitter on the far side of the transition, but it is an incredibly difficult process.
4) Ever increasing regulations require an increasing proportion of overhead labour which doesn't increase output.
I wouldn't over-estimate regulations. Small businesses in the UK are among the free-est of any in the developed world, and certainly massively less regulated than ones in the US. To put in context, a limited company in the UK is basically only required to fill out about four forms a year for the government - one for corporation tax, and three for Companies House. If you are VAT registered then it's a bit worse - but it's certainly not got any worse since the early 1970s.
"The Crimeans have spoken so clearly about their future, and now other countries right across the world, I hope, will respect and revere this very, very clear result." - David Cameron
I think the position of all the parties [ and, I include Labour ] on Crimea has been hypocritical.
Clearly, the vast majority wants to be with Russia. Instead , I feel the pressure should have been to protect the rights of minorities both in the Ukraine [ Russians ] and in the Crimea [ Tatars ]
If the secession of Crimea was interfering with the territorial integrity of the Ukraine, then so was Kosovo interfering with the territorial integrity of Serbia.
We were right then, and Russia is right now regarding Crimea.
You're quite right in one sense. Had the people of the Crimea, and the Russian government, asked for a fair poll to be conducted under OSCE observation, it would very likely still have resulted in voluntary annexation to Russia. So the question is why didn't they?
Answers:
1. Because it takes time and time inflates risk. 2. Because they weren't confident enough that a fair referendum would go the right way. 3. The big one: because Putin wanted to reassert the principle that Russia could enter other countries in order to 'protect' ethnic Russians (note - not even Russian citizens). Playing it by the book would mean having to play by the book in the future too.
Thinking about comparisons between pension annuity changes and IHT thresholds.
I would caution Conservative supporters who think they would have the same resonance.
The IHT threshold was easy to understand and linked with something - tax payments - which are unpopular.
Pension annuity changes aren't easy to understand, involve usually much smaller amounts of money and seem vague - "instead of having to do X with your pension fund you will be able to do X or Y".
What is easy to understand is the dire performance of may pensions over the last 15 years, seeing low, slow or negative forecasts, and having yourself tied to the same group of suppliers to offer you a low rate annuity.
There is no love lost between the investors in pensions and the providers of those services.
It is one of the most important topics for those 45 to 65 year olds.
The dire performance of your, and mine, pension fund over the last 15 years is closely connected with the dire performance of the UK stock market over the same period and one stage further the dire performance of the UK economy over the same period.
That of course doesn't stop those financial services parasites, which we're all supposed to admire, from taking their cut from pension fund contributions for the 'services' they have rendered.
For as much stick as Question Time gets, in my view the fact it moves around the country makes it one of the most accurate "weather-vanes" of political opinion. For the second time in a few weeks (after Scunthorpe a few weeks ago), northerners are rightly venting their fury at politicians pandering to the south east constantly and taking away from the rest of the country to give to the south east. Yet the establishment remains blissfully unaware of it.
Eh, let the northern england vote for independence if they hate it that much*
*written from the south-west. We hate the south-east too.
For as much stick as Question Time gets, in my view the fact it moves around the country makes it one of the most accurate "weather-vanes" of political opinion. For the second time in a few weeks (after Scunthorpe a few weeks ago), northerners are rightly venting their fury at politicians pandering to the south east constantly and taking away from the rest of the country to give to the south east. Yet the establishment remains blissfully unaware of it.
Eh, let the northern england vote for independence if they hate it that much*
*written from the south-west. We hate the south-east too.
For as much stick as Question Time gets, in my view the fact it moves around the country makes it one of the most accurate "weather-vanes" of political opinion. For the second time in a few weeks (after Scunthorpe a few weeks ago), northerners are rightly venting their fury at politicians pandering to the south east constantly and taking away from the rest of the country to give to the south east. Yet the establishment remains blissfully unaware of it.
Eh, let the northern england vote for independence if they hate it that much*
*written from the south-west. We hate the south-east too.
"The Crimeans have spoken so clearly about their future, and now other countries right across the world, I hope, will respect and revere this very, very clear result." - David Cameron
I think the position of all the parties [ and, I include Labour ] on Crimea has been hypocritical.
Clearly, the vast majority wants to be with Russia. Instead , I feel the pressure should have been to protect the rights of minorities both in the Ukraine [ Russians ] and in the Crimea [ Tatars ]
If the secession of Crimea was interfering with the territorial integrity of the Ukraine, then so was Kosovo interfering with the territorial integrity of Serbia.
We were right then, and Russia is right now regarding Crimea.
You're quite right in one sense. Had the people of the Crimea, and the Russian government, asked for a fair poll to be conducted under OSCE observation, it would very likely still have resulted in voluntary annexation to Russia. So the question is why didn't they?
Answers:
1. Because it takes time and time inflates risk. 2. Because they weren't confident enough that a fair referendum would go the right way. 3. The big one: because Putin wanted to reassert the principle that Russia could enter other countries in order to 'protect' ethnic Russians (note - not even Russian citizens). Playing it by the book would mean having to play by the book in the future too.
The turnout last week (84%) was far higher than in the 1973 Northern Ireland sovereignty referendum (59%), though the "yes" vote was a touch lower - was 98.9% in NI's case.
@surbiton: the current problem is that low interest rate make annuity yields awful. If I had the choice between investing in basket of blue chip shares, yielding more than an annuity, and an annuity, I would be a fool to pick the latter. Indeed, as the income stream from the shares would be expected to grow at a rate faster than inflation, I would be a double winner. One final advantage: when I passed away, I would still own the shares, so my children would get something.
There is a wonderful opportunity for financial services companies to make variable annuities, which are - say - one half traditional annuity, one half high dividend shares.
Spot on, on all the points you make.
Osborne's reforms are a real Thatcherite game-changer, comparable in their significance to Big Bang, Right to Buy, or the end of exchange controls. The full implications will take a long time to sink in, but here are a few pointers:
1) As you rightly say, financial services companies (yes, I know, I know..) have a great opportunity here. The share prices of some of them fell back, or collapsed, after Osborne's announcement, but that is a mistake. They'll find a way to offer products which are a much better fit to what people actually want and need than conventional level annuities, which are the most inflexible investment known to man.
2) Even without such products, a basket of 20 good-yielding blue-chip shares (yielding between 4% and 5% dividends, which are very likely to increase over time, and which may also increase in capital terms over 20 years) is a far better bet than a level annuity, yielding initially 5%, and fixed until death, when it's worth zero. It's a no-brainer.
3) There's a whole raft of implications for care for the elderly. Pension funds could become part of the solution to this hitherto completely intractable problem.
"Choose life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, Choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players, and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol and dental insurance. Choose fixed- interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisure wear and matching luggage. Choose a three piece suite on hire purchase in a range of fucking fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing sprit- crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing you last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked-up brats you have spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life: I chose something else."
Unlike Dan Hodges, he is smart enough to know you have to mix up your attacks on people you despise every now and then, try it from different angles. Whichever way he can undermine Cameron, he will do so.
But I like Tebbit's articles, and suspect he is at least genuine and not playing up to a niche he has carved out in the blogging market at least when he attacks the government every way he can.
Ridiculous how this interview has become some big news story and makes Steve Webb sound out of touch. Nothing to do with the meat of the proposal (good or bad), but been spun into this headline...
The BBC and the Left are in despair. They thought Miliband was cruising to victory. Suddenly Osborne's master-stroke, Miliband's haplessness and Balls's bumbling condescension have knocked such presumptions into a cocked hat. The bingo tweet and Lamborghini stuff is just a 'look squirrel' ploy. However, I fear for Labour. They're looking naked today. If they've nothing to say in opposition, the thought will go, what the hell will be the point of them in government?
It is the utter, unwavering, confident certainty of the most partisan Conservatives on here I find interesting.
I find such unwavering confident certainty almost unsettling no matter who it comes from, but fascinating all the same. Being chronically indecisive, I've never managed to fully understand the mindset of people on either side who manage to automatically interpret things favourably for their political party of choice, or remain so confident in a favourable outcome when it looks like all is against them. Sometimes that confidence even turns out to be correct, or at least the boundless confidence carries a side through something which it looks like they should be brought down, but I still don't understand it.
Comments
It's a pretty dubious change, but it's hardly a back of the book sneak.
The unstoppable force (pensions) is pegged back by the immovable object (bingo)
House!
Though UKIP surgers must be getting anxious, Elections two months away and stalled or slipping back.
Can you point us to these "studies"?
An annuity is nothing magical - it's very simple. My foundation has been writing them privately for years to encourage charitable giving (you give us £250K upfront and we will give 15K per year to whatever charities you want for the rest of your life).
Surbiton:
Interest rates ( a big bearing on annuity rates ) are the lowest since 1695 ie ever effectively. They will rise sure, but that's no help to anyone forced to buy annuities in the past six years. A huge injustice.
Current longevity improvements predict a 45 yr old will make it to 90 odd. I, and I guess others prudent enough to save wisely will take that into account in old age income planning. An annuity will still partially be in my planning ( index linked ) but:-
1) The proposed reforms will give me a much better sustainable income should I choose to take it aged 55-65 than present arrangements. This enables me to phase retirement at my choice more easily.
2) Anything that frees my money ( I earned it, and saved it, nobody else) from interference from a greedy State which has a long track record of dicking about with the rules and moving the goalposts to my disadvantage is an unalloyed good thing. If it enables me to park my money legally well away from idiotic, economically illiterate UK politicians of any stripe, that's great by me.
As you can gather I don't have a lot of faith in others to decide what's best for me and what I've put aside for my and my family's dotage. Too many scars from the Brown era.
Top headline: 'LAMBORGHINI' PENSIONS
Second headline: 2M MORE ON 40P RATE - IFS
Third Headline: BEDROOM TAX WARNING
Fourth Headline: TORY AD SLAMMED
Fifth Headline : CAM FIRM ON RUSSIA
Yep, that budget went down a storm.
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/94926/the_daily_telegraph_friday_21st_march_2014.html
The cost of annuities will increase.
"Most importantly it will likely make annuities even more expensive for those who do want to buy them. The market will become much thinner and there will be greater levels of adverse selection – only those expecting to live a long time will want to buy an annuity thereby driving up the price. There is a market failure here. There will be losers from this policy. "
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/mar/20/budget-2014-reaction-and-osbornes-today-programme-interview-politics-live-blog#block-532af6b1e4b0d364d9befddf
Its only wise to use personal anecdotes if they're believable.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2585426/People-using-food-banks-spend-money-save-junk-food-Lord-Tebbit-claims.html
- David Cameron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_referendum,_2013
But do not underestimate how much of the electorate is happy to vote for that.
Gideon thinks that they would be elated to enter the HRT. So why not increase it to 45% ?
Then there wasn't.
Lab didn't notice straight away cos they're the same.
Most pensions that are so dearly held and saved for are less than £50k, and with the best will in the world, are absolutely useless at providing an annuity. To get a reasonable return, you need to have a fund of over £500,000, at which point, you can afford an IFA and they can be bothered to work with you knowing that it is financially worth their while.
Now, the main problem is lack of knowledge by the average person into how pensions work, and regrettably I have to include the present CoE, in that when an annuity is bought from the pension fund, the money goes into gilts and bonds giving a guaranteed return which is paid out over the lifetime of the policy holder (and depending on how savvy the IFA is, provides for the spouse /partner and dependants).
I would also like to explain how the actuaries work. They take the charts, provided by the Government, to work out the average life expectancy of a person based on their age, health, marital status and post code (yeah, I know, no sex please we're European). Different pension providers have their own actuaries who decide, based on their own rules and the returns that they can obtain from the mixture of gilts and bonds that they can purchase, decide what annuity rate to offer to a client that will be viable for their anticipated life time of the client.
Now, I would suspect that most PBers would realise that no annuities being bought might have an eensy teensy problem for the Government concerning the purchase, or lack of such by the pension providers of gilts and government bonds.
If you have a declared personal fortune of over £13 million (GO) or £30 million (DC) then worries about how you will live when retirement or unemployment beckons might seem to be trivial, others may have a different point of view.
And congratulations on Labour and the anti-Tories for taking what was a fairly funny aside and sucking all joy from it . #Torybingo
So the Lib Dem minister is trying to help rich Tories avoid tax, and now the Governor of the BoE has secretly ceded control of interest rates back to the Treasury.
Got any more daft conspiracy theories?
I have to inform you that you failed your productivity question last week.
Despite being provided with the data you requested you were unable to produce any worthwhile analysis.
And your attempts to conceal with using 'big words' merely compounded your failing.
38%ish of the voters dislike the Conservatives and want them out. Neither the Budget nor the economy are changing that basic fact. But I think the Tories will be disappointed if it turns out that they haven't picked up a bit - they could have reasonably hoped for 36-37. They won't get many more press raptures before 2015.
Meanwhile, Miliband and Balls are quietly piling up a number of concessions that supporters don't much like, giving them a warchest for a few concrete vote-winners next year. People who think Miliband is short of ideas are IMO mistaken. He's a patient strategist, and the correct time to start launching vote-winners in October and not a day earlier.
There is a wonderful opportunity for financial services companies to make variable annuities, which are - say - one half traditional annuity, one half high dividend shares.
Clearly, the vast majority wants to be with Russia. Instead , I feel the pressure should have been to protect the rights of minorities both in the Ukraine [ Russians ] and in the Crimea [ Tatars ]
If the secession of Crimea was interfering with the territorial integrity of the Ukraine, then so was Kosovo interfering with the territorial integrity of Serbia.
We were right then, and Russia is right now regarding Crimea.
The people are wrong ! They have not understood the "freedom" from annuities and are instead unnecessarity fretting about cost of living etc.
Plus that horrible BBC and Sky promoting that nice Mr Green's congratulatory message to beer guzzling bingo players.
They should know better.
Somewhere over £200bn at a guess.
Not as bad as Alistair Darling but it still makes the 'penny of a pint' look like the microscopically small beer which it is.
Good luck to Crimea though. Events have only happened because Russia made a bold play to salvage a messy situation, and there are downsides to that, but clearly Crimeans by and large are getting what they want. Won't the Russians now thrown a bone to the poor people of transdniestra?
Of course, productivity would be raised as a result of firms firing employees who it was no longer economic to employ.
In fact, productivity statistics correlate remarkably well with the cost of employing low skilled workers. If it is cheap to employ them (few social costs, low minimum wage, etc.) then you will have 'low productivity'. Alternatively, if you are France, and you've priced one in 10 people out of the workforce, you will have 'high productivity'.
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/94929/the_times_friday_21st_march_2014.html
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/94929/the_times_friday_21st_march_2014.html
Also, as I keep pointing out there are a lot more Tory voters than one might think from that, as the Scottish Parliament makes clear.
Some of those Labour MPs are there, in any case, as tactical voting ("anything to keep the Tories out"), where a vote for the SNP has historically been that much more of a gamble. But one effect of the Referendum, whether yes* or no, may well be to disrupt that and to give the SNP a boost even in Westminster, judging from recent polling, and the sight of Labour politicians either very publicly in metaphorical bed with Tories or in hiding (or both at the same time or at least within a few days of each other, in the case of Ms Lamont).
*Assuming, for the moment, that Scotland sends MPs to Westminster in the 2015 UKGE (but let's not argue about this as I don't want to derail this thread).
What the Lib Dems have done [ thankfully ] has been not to allow the Tories raising the starting point of the HRT.
This will have some consequence for the Tories as many of their supporters are paying one hellava more tax than they think they should.
The people are wrong: They have not understood how horrible the Tories are because they give with one hand and take another, and have done nothing to fix the economy, and how patronising they are when someone is not good at media design, instead fretting about their savings and growth.
The people should know better! Why didn't the Tories drop points because someone made a bad poster. I'll bet it was the telegraph not mentioning enough about it, yeah that's it.
---
If the bingo crap was significant, and level of pathetic repetition on it suggests people desperately hope it is as a reflection of how people remember the budget (don't tell me people are not saying it is important - by making it equal to the budget itself in terms of what it shows about the Tories, supposedly, that is the exact argument people are indirectly making; that this poster is serious because of what it implies), and therefore the budget was a gigantic cock up, why did Labour not get a rise then?
I don't even see how it's fun for people to pretend the bingo thing has any merit, as we all know political arguing can make for the fun times, so I'm left to conclude people really do think it is funny and important, meaning either thousands of random people are idiots or I am, and that depresses me because statistically that makes me more likely to be the fool.
It may well be the best minefield that George has laid, to make ramping up borrowing more expensive. It does tie the hands of Balls, and forcing everyone to buy an annuity is not an option. Clever stuff George and Danny.
Although I will point out that unemployment is higher now than it was seven years ago even though productivity is lower (also see point 2 below).
These are the thoughts I had regarding the great productivity stagnation:
1) With two thirds of the economy based upon consumer spending the government's massive subsidy of consumption with borrowed money creates no pressure for increased productivity among producers in that sector.
2) A supply of almost endless cheap and willing low skilled economic migrants acts as a brake on investment in new technology and equipment.
3) Zero interest rates has stopped the malinvestment and zombie firms from being cleared out of the economy. Creative destruction is a fundamental part of productivity growth and healthy capitalism.
4) Ever increasing regulations require an increasing proportion of overhead labour which doesn't increase output.
Some achievement, Gideon !
But the question is - would you?
By "warchest", do you mean money to spend on new government programmes? I can't see how that is going to work alongside a pledge to create a budget surplus. There just wouldn't be enough money to go round to not make further significant cuts, bring in new things AND get a surplus. The Labour leadership seem to be creeping towards trying to square the circle with a line that their proposed public-sector reforms will mean they can keep services at the same level, while spending less money - while that might have some truth to it (might; I'm sceptical), it's going to be an impossible message to sell to most people.
When Labour supporters including myself object to Labour's pledge to stick to Tory spending plans, it's not that we have some fundamental issue against a surplus in principle. It's because, in practice, it's a bar on Labour being able to (credibly) promise ANYTHING that a Labour government should be doing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26627236
The IFS stance is bizarre. Is it politically neutral?
Unfortunately for Labour that wins them no points from me because they wanted to borrow about the same amount as Osborne has ended up doing. Or it would be 'unfortuantely' for them if I did not live in a safe seat where whatever sways my vote will make no difference.
One to keep for, say, autumn 2016
Look, when writing about the pensions policy, you wrote:
"I think the main purpose of these changes was:
1. to increase the short term tax receipts, which will be considerable [ paid by people withdrawing their cash earlier than would have ]
2. to make this into a very efficient tax avoidance vehicle for HRT payers who are mostly Tory voters."
I want to know why you think a Lib Dem Pensions Minister (Steve Webb) would want "to make this into a very efficient tax avoidance vehicle for HRT payers who are mostly Tory voters."
I would caution Conservative supporters who think they would have the same resonance.
The IHT threshold was easy to understand and linked with something - tax payments - which are unpopular.
Pension annuity changes aren't easy to understand, involve usually much smaller amounts of money and seem vague - "instead of having to do X with your pension fund you will be able to do X or Y".
By the bye, who is this person you refer to?
ROFLMSO.
Question Time. Burnham: "public schoolboys have no idea what life is like for ordinary people in Warrington" Balls was privately educated
Yes, there have been several predictions here of post-budget crossover. Could still happen, but I doubt it. We probably need to wait till next week for things to settle though.
Assumnig nothing much moves, what events have we got left that might shift a lot of votes that have been stable for a year, barring black swans?
1. The Euros (because of impact on UKIP)
2. The Indyref (might move SNP sharply up or down, or of course recast the landscape)
3. The party conference season (doesn't usually do much)
...and then we're into the election.
I challenge you to find a post where I have predicted anything else.
I have also been one of the very few posters here that praises Ed Milliband and says he is not crap. I have also been consistent in saying Balls is a malignant and useless git.
It's unfortunate because even though I have never voted Tory, it means Labour can get away with that mild level of hypocrisy better than their opponents, which doesn't seem fair.
There is no love lost between the investors in pensions and the providers of those services.
It is one of the most important topics for those 45 to 65 year olds.
Sun Politics @Sun_Politics · 6 mins
Forget Frost/Nixon - it's Corden/Cameron: Sun Guest editor @JKCorden grills
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/94933/the_sun_friday_21st_march_2014.html
Answers:
1. Because it takes time and time inflates risk.
2. Because they weren't confident enough that a fair referendum would go the right way.
3. The big one: because Putin wanted to reassert the principle that Russia could enter other countries in order to 'protect' ethnic Russians (note - not even Russian citizens). Playing it by the book would mean having to play by the book in the future too.
Please explain.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/19/norman-tebbit-bedroom-tax-conservative-party_n_4994203.html
That of course doesn't stop those financial services parasites, which we're all supposed to admire, from taking their cut from pension fund contributions for the 'services' they have rendered.
*written from the south-west. We hate the south-east too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_sovereignty_referendum,_1973
Osborne's reforms are a real Thatcherite game-changer, comparable in their significance to Big Bang, Right to Buy, or the end of exchange controls. The full implications will take a long time to sink in, but here are a few pointers:
1) As you rightly say, financial services companies (yes, I know, I know..) have a great opportunity here. The share prices of some of them fell back, or collapsed, after Osborne's announcement, but that is a mistake. They'll find a way to offer products which are a much better fit to what people actually want and need than conventional level annuities, which are the most inflexible investment known to man.
2) Even without such products, a basket of 20 good-yielding blue-chip shares (yielding between 4% and 5% dividends, which are very likely to increase over time, and which may also increase in capital terms over 20 years) is a far better bet than a level annuity, yielding initially 5%, and fixed until death, when it's worth zero. It's a no-brainer.
3) There's a whole raft of implications for care for the elderly. Pension funds could become part of the solution to this hitherto completely intractable problem.
But I like Tebbit's articles, and suspect he is at least genuine and not playing up to a niche he has carved out in the blogging market at least when he attacks the government every way he can.