politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TMay’s big speech – the reaction

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TMay’s big speech – the reaction

Whatever you think of T May as a politician, she’s a human under a lot of pressure and given the extraordinary circumstances, that was a good speech.

Read the full story here

dixiedean

First? That was competently delivered, but short on detail. The bit on Brexit really made me despair. She really does see Chequers as a way forward.

HYUFD

https://mobile.twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1047447345951068161

DavidL

I was robbed.

I said policy lite, motherhood and apple pie and no details on Brexit. Ticked most the boxes really.

SouthamObserver

DavidL said:

I was robbed.

I said policy lite, motherhood and apple pie and no details on Brexit. Ticked most the boxes really.

She's promised an end to austerity. That is a major announcement which means that either taxes or borrowing will be going up. And she has done it at the same time as removing the cap on councils borrowing to build houses. That will increase the deficit. Interesting times.

DecrepitJohnL

Why the two postponements? There did not seem to be any very new content so perhaps they needed to take something out.

edmundintokyo

“If we all go off in different directions in pursuit of our own visions of the perfect Brexit - we risk ending up with no Brexit at all.”

This is the move: She opposes a People's Vote, but if the ERG won't vote for her deal, she'll be forced to offer it in exchange for votes from the SNP and/or Labour Centrist Dads.

SouthamObserver

I think that in the future we will look back at this speech as May's Hail Mary. It will buy her time, but it has set up a scenario which is unachievable: delivering Brexit while ending austerity.

Tissue_Price

Sitting in the hall, she nailed that, and there were lots of encouraging signs that No 10 is still thinking seriously about the domestic agenda beyond Brexit.

That doesn't make the challenges of Brexit go away, of course.

tpfkar

in a world without Brexit, this would probably be a solid, competent Government and a decent PM's speech. The housing announcement in particular was very welcome (although we actually knew it was coming, we've already had to quietly submit our sites where we will build new council houses on to Government - so I'm surprised it didn't leak more widely.)

But all the fine words about uniting, being for everyone, seem to disappear or get lost when the topic is Brexit. It certainly wasn't the worst she's been, but it's not going to convince many non-Tories that Brexit is anything other than an internal party issue that got out of hand. Might get a few wavering right-wingers back on board though? The risk of *no Brexit* if her plan fails is very different from the risk of *no deal* that she's been saying recently, seems a smarter pivot as it's her right wing who are the swing voters here.

edmundintokyo

dixiedean said:

First? That was competently delivered, but short on detail. The bit on Brexit really made me despair. She really does see Chequers as a way forward.

I dunno, she mentioned that her proposal was "hard for the EU", and drew quite a crude caricature of the options she'd walk away from (BINO or "divide our country"). So once the conference is out of the way and the current leadership challenge has fizzled she just carries on giving up a little bit at a time until she's down to something the EU can accept and she can plausibly deny it being either of those two.

Dura_Ace

SouthamObserver said:

That is a major announcement which means that either taxes or borrowing will be going up.

This is good sort of tax and spend not be confused with the reckless Labour kind.

Roger

I thought she was pretty good. a Hell of a lot better than that public school buffoon we heard yesterday.

philiph

Dura_Ace said:

SouthamObserver said:

That is a major announcement which means that either taxes or borrowing will be going up.

This is good sort of tax and spend not be confused with the reckless Labour kind.

I guess we find that out in the Budget?

IanB2

Tissue_Price said:

Sitting in the hall, she nailed that, and there were lots of encouraging signs that No 10 is still thinking seriously about the domestic agenda beyond Brexit.

That doesn't make the challenges of Brexit go away, of course.

She had already previously ticked the box of being able to make a speech about the problems of unfairness in the country. The unticked boxes are coming up with the ideas to address this and the willingness, ability and political capital to implement any of them.

Brom

Roger said:

I thought she was pretty good. a Hell of a lot better than that public school buffoon we heard yesterday.

Corbyn was last week

FeersumEnjineeya

edmundintokyo said:

dixiedean said:

First? That was competently delivered, but short on detail. The bit on Brexit really made me despair. She really does see Chequers as a way forward.

I dunno, she mentioned that her proposal was "hard for the EU", and drew quite a crude caricature of the options she'd walk away from (BINO or "divide our country"). So once the conference is out of the way and the current leadership challenge has fizzled she just carries on giving up a little bit at a time until she's down to something the EU can accept and she can plausibly deny it being either of those two.

It's hard to see how. FOM is an absolute red line for both sides.

Foxy

dixiedean said:

First? That was competently delivered, but short on detail. The bit on Brexit really made me despair. She really does see Chequers as a way forward.

Amongst the usual bilge and waffle, she did admit that there is a possibility of Brexit not happening.

Interesting.

dixiedean

edmundintokyo said:

dixiedean said:

First? That was competently delivered, but short on detail. The bit on Brexit really made me despair. She really does see Chequers as a way forward.

I dunno, she mentioned that her proposal was "hard for the EU", and drew quite a crude caricature of the options she'd walk away from (BINO or "divide our country"). So once the conference is out of the way and the current leadership challenge has fizzled she just carries on giving up a little bit at a time until she's down to something the EU can accept and she can plausibly deny it being either of those two.

But still insisting it would be better if we all united behind her plan. Have yet to hear by what process me or anyone else doing so would help in any way. If it gets her through Conference fine. But it still won't fly with the EU. Every minor concession will be howled down. Don't think there will be any denial which is plausible.

TGOHF

She should be safe until the spring after that.

Alanbrooke

Roger said:

I thought she was pretty good. a Hell of a lot better than that public school buffoon we heard yesterday.

Toryboy !

GIN1138

Foxy said:

dixiedean said:

First? That was competently delivered, but short on detail. The bit on Brexit really made me despair. She really does see Chequers as a way forward.

Amongst the usual bilge and waffle, she did admit that there is a possibility of Brexit not happening.

Interesting.

Yep, she continues to string Brexiteers along while all the way along plotting to sell them down the river.

Tories out!

AlastairMeeks

The dancing was an inspired idea. Just as well, because if the rest of the speech got heard outside the conference hall, it would merely cement existing impressions. All the same problems remain and Theresa May gave absolutely no hint that she saw need to change tack on any of them.

Competent but fundamentally irrelevant (aside from the dancing). That could almost be Theresa May's epitaph.

Fenster

Decent from May.

- Strong on Corbyn being a bad egg.
- Strong on defending political discourse and rooting out hate (particularly the Diane Abbott words, that was good).
Strong on centre-ground conservative values.

It was a bit uninspired and short on ideas, but she isn't an ideas person.

Richard_Nabavi

Just as well that Ladbrokes limited me so drastically!

edmundintokyo

FeersumEnjineeya said:

edmundintokyo said:

dixiedean said:

First? That was competently delivered, but short on detail. The bit on Brexit really made me despair. She really does see Chequers as a way forward.

I dunno, she mentioned that her proposal was "hard for the EU", and drew quite a crude caricature of the options she'd walk away from (BINO or "divide our country"). So once the conference is out of the way and the current leadership challenge has fizzled she just carries on giving up a little bit at a time until she's down to something the EU can accept and she can plausibly deny it being either of those two.

It's hard to see how. FOM is an absolute red line for both sides.

They already wrote a fudge on FOM for David Cameron, they can use that one again.

david_herdson

Fysics_Teacher said:

david_herdson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OchEye said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OchEye said:

Except people's perception and experiences of the NHS, education, council services, emergency services, transport and all, are at opposite from her rhetoric

They certainly are here in Wales run by labour

But paid for by Westminster... Sorry, I forget, how much money has been cut from budgets? How many labour councils in Wales have gone bust recently?

They get more from the exchequer than the english.

Labour have been in power too long

This morning our council, Aberconwy, said they are seeking an 11.8% council tax rise on the week they introduced 4 weekly bin collections

A question for those more in the know about local government / pensions than me. What's stopping councils from switching pension schemes from defined benefit to defined contribution?

The unions would go ape?

Well, apart from that. I doubt there'd be much sympathy from the majority of the public, who saw that change many years ago. And given the finances of many councils, I'd have thought it a fair option to put on the table.

But leaving the politics aside, are there any legislative / regulatory barriers to prevent a council switching, or - at a lesser level - national agreements that would have to be withdrawn from, where the withdrawal would have other consequences?

NickPalmer

Competent speech as a holding operation. I wouldn't think it will be remembered for very long (any more than Corbyn's this year), but it should give a reasonable poll bounce next week, and more importantly it creates a breathing space to do something.

But what?

GIN1138

NickPalmer said:

Competent speech as a holding operation. I wouldn't think it will be remembered for very long (any more than Corbyn's this year), but it should give a reasonable poll bounce next week, and more importantly it creates a breathing space to do something.

But what?

Sell Brexiteers down the river.... After conning them into voting for her in 2017?

anothernick

AlastairMeeks said:

The dancing was an inspired idea. Just as well, because if the rest of the speech got heard outside the conference hall, it would merely cement existing impressions. All the same problems remain and Theresa May gave absolutely no hint that she saw need to change tack on any of them.

Competent but fundamentally irrelevant (aside from the dancing). That could almost be Theresa May's epitaph.

Interesting - and significant - that the Tories have felt it necessary to diss the idea of a second referendum so publicly. Just about every speech by a cabinet member, not to mention BJ, warned against it. They are clearly nervous about it. So it must be a very serious possibility now.

DavidL

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

I was robbed.

I said policy lite, motherhood and apple pie and no details on Brexit. Ticked most the boxes really.

She's promised an end to austerity. That is a major announcement which means that either taxes or borrowing will be going up. And she has done it at the same time as removing the cap on councils borrowing to build houses. That will increase the deficit. Interesting times.

I read it as the new target was that debt was to fall as a share of GDP. If you have growth of 2% and inflation of 2% that effectively means any deficit under 4% meets that target. We are well below that already which is why debt is falling as a share of GDP this year.

On housing I suspect the devil will be in the detail. Borrowing caps are not the only things inhibiting local authorities. They are also concerned about whether they would get a return on their investment.

My expectation is that short of a recession the deficit will continue to fall but much more modestly than hitherto.

Beverley_C

AlastairMeeks said:

The dancing was an inspired idea. Just as well, because if the rest of the speech got heard outside the conference hall, it would merely cement existing impressions. All the same problems remain and Theresa May gave absolutely no hint that she saw need to change tack on any of them.

Indeed. Brexit is all. Nothing else matters because Brexit taints everything and will do until it is over.

AlastairMeeks said:

Competent but fundamentally irrelevant (aside from the dancing). That could almost be Theresa May's epitaph.

Actually, I did not like the dancing much. I thought it set a trivialising mood to what should be a serious speech.

GIN1138

anothernick said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The dancing was an inspired idea. Just as well, because if the rest of the speech got heard outside the conference hall, it would merely cement existing impressions. All the same problems remain and Theresa May gave absolutely no hint that she saw need to change tack on any of them.

Competent but fundamentally irrelevant (aside from the dancing). That could almost be Theresa May's epitaph.

Interesting - and significant - that the Tores have felt it necessary to diss the idea of a second referendum so publicly. Just about every speech by a cabinet member, not to mention BJ, warned against it. They are clearly nervous about it. So it must be a very serious possibility now.

May has probably been planning this all the way along...

Richard_Nabavi

GIN1138 said:

NickPalmer said:

Competent speech as a holding operation. I wouldn't think it will be remembered for very long (any more than Corbyn's this year), but it should give a reasonable poll bounce next week, and more importantly it creates a breathing space to do something.

But what?

Sell Brexiteers down the river.... After conning them into voting for her in 2017?

It's OK, they can turn to Boris, known throughout the country for his absolute trustworthiness.

Alanbrooke

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

I was robbed.

I said policy lite, motherhood and apple pie and no details on Brexit. Ticked most the boxes really.

She's promised an end to austerity. That is a major announcement which means that either taxes or borrowing will be going up. And she has done it at the same time as removing the cap on councils borrowing to build houses. That will increase the deficit. Interesting times.

I read it as the new target was that debt was to fall as a share of GDP. If you have growth of 2% and inflation of 2% that effectively means any deficit under 4% meets that target. We are well below that already which is why debt is falling as a share of GDP this year.

On housing I suspect the devil will be in the detail. Borrowing caps are not the only things inhibiting local authorities. They are also concerned about whether they would get a return on their investment.

My expectation is that short of a recession the deficit will continue to fall but much more modestly than hitherto.

I was surprised she made that announcement, I would have thought next year might have been a better time to do it

Fysics_Teacher

david_herdson said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

david_herdson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OchEye said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OchEye said:

Except people's perception and experiences of the NHS, education, council services, emergency services, transport and all, are at opposite from her rhetoric

They certainly are here in Wales run by labour

But paid for by Westminster... Sorry, I forget, how much money has been cut from budgets? How many labour councils in Wales have gone bust recently?

They get more from the exchequer than the english.

Labour have been in power too long

This morning our council, Aberconwy, said they are seeking an 11.8% council tax rise on the week they introduced 4 weekly bin collections

A question for those more in the know about local government / pensions than me. What's stopping councils from switching pension schemes from defined benefit to defined contribution?

The unions would go ape?

Well, apart from that. I doubt there'd be much sympathy from the majority of the public, who saw that change many years ago. And given the finances of many councils, I'd have thought it a fair option to put on the table.

But leaving the politics aside, are there any legislative / regulatory barriers to prevent a council switching, or - at a lesser level - national agreements that would have to be withdrawn from, where the withdrawal would have other consequences?

The Local Government pension is funded (as in there is a fund which is invested and whose income pays the pension). It was in deficit last time I had to worry about it, but it is there. The teachers’ pension is not funded, but paid for out of current spending by central government. Many teachers don’t understand the second point as we pay a significant chunk of our nominal pay for it, but it’s a bit like National Insurance. In state schools teaching staff are on one scheme and non-teaching staff a different one.

DavidL

Richard_Nabavi said:

Just as well that Ladbrokes limited me so drastically!

I must confess I thought Chequers was nailed on. Not mentioning it by name was plainly deliberate but I didn't anticipate that.

Brom

anothernick said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The dancing was an inspired idea. Just as well, because if the rest of the speech got heard outside the conference hall, it would merely cement existing impressions. All the same problems remain and Theresa May gave absolutely no hint that she saw need to change tack on any of them.

Competent but fundamentally irrelevant (aside from the dancing). That could almost be Theresa May's epitaph.

Interesting - and significant - that the Tories have felt it necessary to diss the idea of a second referendum so publicly. Just about every speech by a cabinet member, not to mention BJ, warned against it. They are clearly nervous about it. So it must be a very serious possibility now.

It'll be a General Election before any second referendum so depends how keen the Tories are to stay in power.

Richard_Nabavi

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Just as well that Ladbrokes limited me so drastically!

I must confess I thought Chequers was nailed on. Not mentioning it by name was plainly deliberate but I didn't anticipate that.

Nor me, but thinking about it, it makes perfect sense, because the word itself has become a focus of (largely irrational) opposition.

anothernick

GIN1138 said:

anothernick said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The dancing was an inspired idea. Just as well, because if the rest of the speech got heard outside the conference hall, it would merely cement existing impressions. All the same problems remain and Theresa May gave absolutely no hint that she saw need to change tack on any of them.

Competent but fundamentally irrelevant (aside from the dancing). That could almost be Theresa May's epitaph.

Interesting - and significant - that the Tores have felt it necessary to diss the idea of a second referendum so publicly. Just about every speech by a cabinet member, not to mention BJ, warned against it. They are clearly nervous about it. So it must be a very serious possibility now.

May has probably been planning this all the way along...

Unfortunately I do not think May has a long term plan, or indeed any plan at all, all she is interested in is survival. For what I do not know.

david_herdson

edmundintokyo said:

“If we all go off in different directions in pursuit of our own visions of the perfect Brexit - we risk ending up with no Brexit at all.”

This is the move: She opposes a People's Vote, but if the ERG won't vote for her deal, she'll be forced to offer it in exchange for votes from the SNP and/or Labour Centrist Dads.


No, that wouldn't fly. May couldn't accept a second referendum on anything other than a Deal / No Deal basis (and would probably lose that), without being No Confidenced by her MPs.

Polruan

Brom said:

anothernick said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The dancing was an inspired idea. Just as well, because if the rest of the speech got heard outside the conference hall, it would merely cement existing impressions. All the same problems remain and Theresa May gave absolutely no hint that she saw need to change tack on any of them.

Competent but fundamentally irrelevant (aside from the dancing). That could almost be Theresa May's epitaph.

Interesting - and significant - that the Tories have felt it necessary to diss the idea of a second referendum so publicly. Just about every speech by a cabinet member, not to mention BJ, warned against it. They are clearly nervous about it. So it must be a very serious possibility now.

It'll be a General Election before any second referendum so depends how keen the Tories are to stay in power.

More likely it’ll be a referendum before a general election because enough Tories are very keen to stay in power.

Nigelb

We have means and opportunity, so it’s helpful of Putin to establish motive...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/03/vladimir-putin-calls-sergei-skripal-a-scumbag-and-traitor

williamglenn

david_herdson said:

No, that wouldn't fly. May couldn't accept a second referendum on anything other than a Deal / No Deal basis (and would probably lose that), without being No Confidenced by her MPs.

She can and she will.

https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/1047263605413072896

DavidL

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Just as well that Ladbrokes limited me so drastically!

I must confess I thought Chequers was nailed on. Not mentioning it by name was plainly deliberate but I didn't anticipate that.

Nor me, but thinking about it, it makes perfect sense, because the word itself has become a focus of (largely irrational) opposition.

There was a comment on the BBC news channel while they were filling that people throw around "Chequers", "Canada", "Canada ++ " and "Norway" and that the vast majority haven't a clue what they are talking about or what the differences are between one and the other. I think that is undoubtedly true although it may not have been true for those who actually bothered to tune in to Mrs May giving a speech. Takes real nerdish dedication that.

Richard_Nabavi

anothernick said:

GIN1138 said:

anothernick said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The dancing was an inspired idea. Just as well, because if the rest of the speech got heard outside the conference hall, it would merely cement existing impressions. All the same problems remain and Theresa May gave absolutely no hint that she saw need to change tack on any of them.

Competent but fundamentally irrelevant (aside from the dancing). That could almost be Theresa May's epitaph.

Interesting - and significant - that the Tores have felt it necessary to diss the idea of a second referendum so publicly. Just about every speech by a cabinet member, not to mention BJ, warned against it. They are clearly nervous about it. So it must be a very serious possibility now.

May has probably been planning this all the way along...

Unfortunately I do not think May has a long term plan, or indeed any plan at all, all she is interested in is survival. For what I do not know.

She has a perfectly sensible plan, which is to do a deal with the EU, and thereby take us out without disaster, following which the party can focus on all the other issues she's been highlighting since becoming PM. Whether it will work or not remains to be seen, but I really can't see what better plan she might be supposed to have, and it's a hell of a lot more coherent than anything proposed by the ERG, Boris, Labour or the LibDems.

matt

Beverley_C said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The dancing was an inspired idea. Just as well, because if the rest of the speech got heard outside the conference hall, it would merely cement existing impressions. All the same problems remain and Theresa May gave absolutely no hint that she saw need to change tack on any of them.

Indeed. Brexit is all. Nothing else matters because Brexit taints everything and will do until it is over.

AlastairMeeks said:

Competent but fundamentally irrelevant (aside from the dancing). That could almost be Theresa May's epitaph.

Actually, I did not like the dancing much. I thought it set a trivialising mood to what should be a serious speech.

You’ve never given a serious speech have you. Listeners decide in the first 20 seconds whether to give you a hearing. This said, it’s not going to be what you’re expecting. It made people listen. You might not like it but dull and portentous is rarely effective.

david_herdson

anothernick said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The dancing was an inspired idea. Just as well, because if the rest of the speech got heard outside the conference hall, it would merely cement existing impressions. All the same problems remain and Theresa May gave absolutely no hint that she saw need to change tack on any of them.

Competent but fundamentally irrelevant (aside from the dancing). That could almost be Theresa May's epitaph.

Interesting - and significant - that the Tories have felt it necessary to diss the idea of a second referendum so publicly. Just about every speech by a cabinet member, not to mention BJ, warned against it. They are clearly nervous about it. So it must be a very serious possibility now.

The risk is not that it happens - it cannot do so without the government agreeing, and the government will not agree - the risk is that the government takes a serious hit for denying a referendum, if people start believing that one is necessary. So to prevent that, you need to explain why one not only isn't necessary but would be reckless and pointless.

DavidL

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

I was robbed.

I said policy lite, motherhood and apple pie and no details on Brexit. Ticked most the boxes really.

She's promised an end to austerity. That is a major announcement which means that either taxes or borrowing will be going up. And she has done it at the same time as removing the cap on councils borrowing to build houses. That will increase the deficit. Interesting times.

I read it as the new target was that debt was to fall as a share of GDP. If you have growth of 2% and inflation of 2% that effectively means any deficit under 4% meets that target. We are well below that already which is why debt is falling as a share of GDP this year.

On housing I suspect the devil will be in the detail. Borrowing caps are not the only things inhibiting local authorities. They are also concerned about whether they would get a return on their investment.

My expectation is that short of a recession the deficit will continue to fall but much more modestly than hitherto.

I was surprised she made that announcement, I would have thought next year might have been a better time to do it

It is not as nearly surprising as Hammond having his budget on the 29th of this month before the negotiations with the EU come to a head. What does he do? It's crazy. Either he proposes a budget with some of the largest contingencies ever or he plays ultra safe. With spreadsheet Phil that means ultra safe with brass knobs on and no real chance to react until next year.

williamglenn

david_herdson said:

anothernick said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The dancing was an inspired idea. Just as well, because if the rest of the speech got heard outside the conference hall, it would merely cement existing impressions. All the same problems remain and Theresa May gave absolutely no hint that she saw need to change tack on any of them.

Competent but fundamentally irrelevant (aside from the dancing). That could almost be Theresa May's epitaph.

Interesting - and significant - that the Tories have felt it necessary to diss the idea of a second referendum so publicly. Just about every speech by a cabinet member, not to mention BJ, warned against it. They are clearly nervous about it. So it must be a very serious possibility now.

The risk is not that it happens - it cannot do so without the government agreeing, and the government will not agree - the risk is that the government takes a serious hit for denying a referendum, if people start believing that one is necessary. So to prevent that, you need to explain why one not only isn't necessary but would be reckless and pointless.

What happens if they aren't able to win those arguments?

matt

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

No, that wouldn't fly. May couldn't accept a second referendum on anything other than a Deal / No Deal basis (and would probably lose that), without being No Confidenced by her MPs.

She can and she will.

https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/1047263605413072896

Please say something interesting or unexpected. Your two stage flow chart where everying automatically ends in a second referendum is fuckwitted.

david_herdson

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

No, that wouldn't fly. May couldn't accept a second referendum on anything other than a Deal / No Deal basis (and would probably lose that), without being No Confidenced by her MPs.

She can and she will.

https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/1047263605413072896

Do you fancy a bet on that?

david_herdson

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

anothernick said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The dancing was an inspired idea. Just as well, because if the rest of the speech got heard outside the conference hall, it would merely cement existing impressions. All the same problems remain and Theresa May gave absolutely no hint that she saw need to change tack on any of them.

Competent but fundamentally irrelevant (aside from the dancing). That could almost be Theresa May's epitaph.

Interesting - and significant - that the Tories have felt it necessary to diss the idea of a second referendum so publicly. Just about every speech by a cabinet member, not to mention BJ, warned against it. They are clearly nervous about it. So it must be a very serious possibility now.

The risk is not that it happens - it cannot do so without the government agreeing, and the government will not agree - the risk is that the government takes a serious hit for denying a referendum, if people start believing that one is necessary. So to prevent that, you need to explain why one not only isn't necessary but would be reckless and pointless.

What happens if they aren't able to win those arguments?

Then they take a hit in the polls.

Richard_Nabavi

DavidL said:

It is not as nearly surprising as Hammond having his budget on the 29th of this month before the negotiations with the EU come to a head. What does he do? It's crazy. Either he proposes a budget with some of the largest contingencies ever or he plays ultra safe. With spreadsheet Phil that means ultra safe with brass knobs on and no real chance to react until next year.

He'll surely produce a budget predicated on there being a deal and the transition period kicking in, so no disruption. If it turns out that things go pear-shaped, then he can introduce emergency measures, together with intervention by the BoE, to limit the damage.

david_herdson

Fysics_Teacher said:

david_herdson said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

david_herdson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OchEye said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OchEye said:

Except people's perception and experiences of the NHS, education, council services, emergency services, transport and all, are at opposite from her rhetoric

They certainly are here in Wales run by labour

But paid for by Westminster... Sorry, I forget, how much money has been cut from budgets? How many labour councils in Wales have gone bust recently?

They get more from the exchequer than the english.

Labour have been in power too long

This morning our council, Aberconwy, said they are seeking an 11.8% council tax rise on the week they introduced 4 weekly bin collections

A question for those more in the know about local government / pensions than me. What's stopping councils from switching pension schemes from defined benefit to defined contribution?

The unions would go ape?

Well, apart from that. I doubt there'd be much sympathy from the majority of the public, who saw that change many years ago. And given the finances of many councils, I'd have thought it a fair option to put on the table.

But leaving the politics aside, are there any legislative / regulatory barriers to prevent a council switching, or - at a lesser level - national agreements that would have to be withdrawn from, where the withdrawal would have other consequences?

The Local Government pension is funded (as in there is a fund which is invested and whose income pays the pension). It was in deficit last time I had to worry about it, but it is there. The teachers’ pension is not funded, but paid for out of current spending by central government. Many teachers don’t understand the second point as we pay a significant chunk of our nominal pay for it, but it’s a bit like National Insurance. In state schools teaching staff are on one scheme and non-teaching staff a different one.

Yes, I knew that difference but the contributions for any final-salary / defined benefits scheme will be huge compared with the average. There is a big potential saving to be made by switching. Obviously, that is a hit to employees' terms and conditions but when a council like Northampton is going bust, you'd think it'd be an option (and unlike the teachers' pension, where future payments will be related to past commitments for decades, in a funded scheme, the savings would take effect immediately).

grabcocque

There is nowhere left for May to hide, there hasn't been since Salzburg. Which is why, I think, her attention has shifted from bludgeoning the equine carcass of Chequers to mediocre Boris roasts.

Doing a deal is now practically impossible, slagging off Boris however is shooting fish in a barrel. Of course May is going for the latter.

DavidL

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

It is not as nearly surprising as Hammond having his budget on the 29th of this month before the negotiations with the EU come to a head. What does he do? It's crazy. Either he proposes a budget with some of the largest contingencies ever or he plays ultra safe. With spreadsheet Phil that means ultra safe with brass knobs on and no real chance to react until next year.

He'll surely produce a budget predicated on there being a deal and the transition period kicking in, so no disruption. If it turns out that things go pear-shaped, then he can introduce emergency measures, together with intervention by the BoE, to limit the damage.

And the money for, for example, beefing up our borders to collect tariffs and visa checks on EU citizens? Does he allow it or does he assume a deal which does not require it or does he simply have an undesignated contingency? It seems to me he would have been much better to have his budget in late November/early December.

williamglenn

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

No, that wouldn't fly. May couldn't accept a second referendum on anything other than a Deal / No Deal basis (and would probably lose that), without being No Confidenced by her MPs.

She can and she will.

https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/1047263605413072896

Do you fancy a bet on that?

Sure.

Sandpit

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

I was robbed.

I said policy lite, motherhood and apple pie and no details on Brexit. Ticked most the boxes really.

She's promised an end to austerity. That is a major announcement which means that either taxes or borrowing will be going up. And she has done it at the same time as removing the cap on councils borrowing to build houses. That will increase the deficit. Interesting times.

I read it as the new target was that debt was to fall as a share of GDP. If you have growth of 2% and inflation of 2% that effectively means any deficit under 4% meets that target. We are well below that already which is why debt is falling as a share of GDP this year.

On housing I suspect the devil will be in the detail. Borrowing caps are not the only things inhibiting local authorities. They are also concerned about whether they would get a return on their investment.

My expectation is that short of a recession the deficit will continue to fall but much more modestly than hitherto.

I was surprised she made that announcement, I would have thought next year might have been a better time to do it

It is not as nearly surprising as Hammond having his budget on the 29th of this month before the negotiations with the EU come to a head. What does he do? It's crazy. Either he proposes a budget with some of the largest contingencies ever or he plays ultra safe. With spreadsheet Phil that means ultra safe with brass knobs on and no real chance to react until next year.

There’s got to be a reasonable chance of a second budget in March - ironically just where it used to be before Hammond moved it to October.

Richard_Nabavi

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

It is not as nearly surprising as Hammond having his budget on the 29th of this month before the negotiations with the EU come to a head. What does he do? It's crazy. Either he proposes a budget with some of the largest contingencies ever or he plays ultra safe. With spreadsheet Phil that means ultra safe with brass knobs on and no real chance to react until next year.

He'll surely produce a budget predicated on there being a deal and the transition period kicking in, so no disruption. If it turns out that things go pear-shaped, then he can introduce emergency measures, together with intervention by the BoE, to limit the damage.

And the money for, for example, beefing up our borders to collect tariffs and visa checks on EU citizens? Does he allow it or does he assume a deal which does not require it or does he simply have an undesignated contingency? It seems to me he would have been much better to have his budget in late November/early December.

In the overall scheme of things those aren't going to be big items of expenditure. Much more at issue is possible economic disruption, but that's almost impossible to plan for. In any case, I think they have a pretty good idea that they'll reach a deal.

david_herdson

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

No, that wouldn't fly. May couldn't accept a second referendum on anything other than a Deal / No Deal basis (and would probably lose that), without being No Confidenced by her MPs.

She can and she will.

https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/1047263605413072896

Do you fancy a bet on that?

Sure.

£50 at evens says that parliament will not pass legislation for a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option before 29 March 2019.

Beverley_C

matt said:

Beverley_C said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The dancing was an inspired idea. Just as well, because if the rest of the speech got heard outside the conference hall, it would merely cement existing impressions. All the same problems remain and Theresa May gave absolutely no hint that she saw need to change tack on any of them.

Indeed. Brexit is all. Nothing else matters because Brexit taints everything and will do until it is over.

AlastairMeeks said:

Competent but fundamentally irrelevant (aside from the dancing). That could almost be Theresa May's epitaph.

Actually, I did not like the dancing much. I thought it set a trivialising mood to what should be a serious speech.

You’ve never given a serious speech have you. Listeners decide in the first 20 seconds whether to give you a hearing. This said, it’s not going to be what you’re expecting. It made people listen. You might not like it but dull and portentous is rarely effective.

Speeches? No, not really, but I have given plenty of presentations and lectures over the years on various business, technical and science issues.

Admittedly I was not leading the country, but Mrs May isn't either

Philip_Thompson

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

It is not as nearly surprising as Hammond having his budget on the 29th of this month before the negotiations with the EU come to a head. What does he do? It's crazy. Either he proposes a budget with some of the largest contingencies ever or he plays ultra safe. With spreadsheet Phil that means ultra safe with brass knobs on and no real chance to react until next year.

He'll surely produce a budget predicated on there being a deal and the transition period kicking in, so no disruption. If it turns out that things go pear-shaped, then he can introduce emergency measures, together with intervention by the BoE, to limit the damage.

And the money for, for example, beefing up our borders to collect tariffs and visa checks on EU citizens? Does he allow it or does he assume a deal which does not require it or does he simply have an undesignated contingency? It seems to me he would have been much better to have his budget in late November/early December.

Especially because changes announced only come into effect next Spring don't they? As part of what used to be the Budget in the Spring but with more notice? So what's the hurry?

welshowl

@david_herdson

A (reputable) pensions advisor opined to me a few years back that in future there will be three groups of people when it comes to pensions:-

1) Those who have worked for a good time in the public sector.
2) Successful business owners.
3) Everyone else ( Who are all stuffed).


Overblown a tad maybe, but as I was explaining to my wife recently at her age the benefits she is clocking up annually in the public sector amounted to well over the equivalent of 40% of her salary to buy the exact same benefits in the private sector.

These are big numbers.

matt

Beverley_C said:

matt said:

Beverley_C said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The dancing was an inspired idea. Just as well, because if the rest of the speech got heard outside the conference hall, it would merely cement existing impressions. All the same problems remain and Theresa May gave absolutely no hint that she saw need to change tack on any of them.

Indeed. Brexit is all. Nothing else matters because Brexit taints everything and will do until it is over.

AlastairMeeks said:

Competent but fundamentally irrelevant (aside from the dancing). That could almost be Theresa May's epitaph.

Actually, I did not like the dancing much. I thought it set a trivialising mood to what should be a serious speech.

You’ve never given a serious speech have you. Listeners decide in the first 20 seconds whether to give you a hearing. This said, it’s not going to be what you’re expecting. It made people listen. You might not like it but dull and portentous is rarely effective.

Speeches? No, not really, but I have given plenty of presentations and lectures over the years on various business, technical and science issues.

Admittedly I was not leading the country, but Mrs May isn't either

You’ll know then that capturing early attention and storytelling is critical. The speech included both of those aspects. You seem to be saying that serious has to be solemn. It doesn’t.

grabcocque

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

It is not as nearly surprising as Hammond having his budget on the 29th of this month before the negotiations with the EU come to a head. What does he do? It's crazy. Either he proposes a budget with some of the largest contingencies ever or he plays ultra safe. With spreadsheet Phil that means ultra safe with brass knobs on and no real chance to react until next year.

He'll surely produce a budget predicated on there being a deal and the transition period kicking in, so no disruption. If it turns out that things go pear-shaped, then he can introduce emergency measures, together with intervention by the BoE, to limit the damage.

And the money for, for example, beefing up our borders to collect tariffs and visa checks on EU citizens? Does he allow it or does he assume a deal which does not require it or does he simply have an undesignated contingency? It seems to me he would have been much better to have his budget in late November/early December.

In the overall scheme of things those aren't going to be big items of expenditure. Much more at issue is possible economic disruption, but that's almost impossible to plan for. In any case, I think they have a pretty good idea that they'll reach a deal.

I wish I had your calm self-assurance on this. That despite all of the evidence pointing to infinite numbers of contraries, and despite there not being anybody who can apparently describe a sensible, plausible route to a deal, despite May's repeated painting herself into corners, but with landmines... Despite all that, you still believe she has some unplayed card in her back pocket that any day now she'll slap down with a flourish and it will be so brilliant and perfect it will make the DUP, the EU27, the ERG, TRG, the Labour party etc. all suddenly come to their senses and go, you know what, sure. Let's take this deal, let's do it.

matt

As an aside Bridgen and Dudderidge must be feeling pretty silly now.

anothernick

david_herdson said:

Yes, I knew that difference but the contributions for any final-salary / defined benefits scheme will be huge compared with the average. There is a big potential saving to be made by switching. Obviously, that is a hit to employees' terms and conditions but when a council like Northampton is going bust, you'd think it'd be an option (and unlike the teachers' pension, where future payments will be related to past commitments for decades, in a funded scheme, the savings would take effect immediately).

I believe that the LGPS is statutory (like the scehemes for teachers and civil servants) so a council could only opt out if legislation were changed to allow this. If it were possible to leave I'm sure a council like, say, Wandsworth, would have left by now.

Richard_Nabavi

grabcocque said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

It is not as nearly surprising as Hammond having his budget on the 29th of this month before the negotiations with the EU come to a head. What does he do? It's crazy. Either he proposes a budget with some of the largest contingencies ever or he plays ultra safe. With spreadsheet Phil that means ultra safe with brass knobs on and no real chance to react until next year.

He'll surely produce a budget predicated on there being a deal and the transition period kicking in, so no disruption. If it turns out that things go pear-shaped, then he can introduce emergency measures, together with intervention by the BoE, to limit the damage.

And the money for, for example, beefing up our borders to collect tariffs and visa checks on EU citizens? Does he allow it or does he assume a deal which does not require it or does he simply have an undesignated contingency? It seems to me he would have been much better to have his budget in late November/early December.

In the overall scheme of things those aren't going to be big items of expenditure. Much more at issue is possible economic disruption, but that's almost impossible to plan for. In any case, I think they have a pretty good idea that they'll reach a deal.

I wish I had your calm self-assurance on this. That despite all of the evidence pointing to infinite number of contraries, and despite there not being anybody who can describe a sensible route to a deal, despite May's repeated painting herself into corners, but with landmines... Despite all that, you still believe she has some unplayed card in her back pocket that any day now she'll slap down with a flourish and it will be so brilliant and perfect it will make the DUP, the EU27, the ERG, TRG, the Labour party etc. all suddenly come to their senses and go, you know what, sure. Let's take this deal, let's do it.

It's not an unplayed card, it's the obvious one she's played all along: TINA.

Edit: I should add that I don't have calm self-assurance on this. Things can still go very wrong, leading either to a disastrous No Deal or to Corbyn, or both. Still, the likelihood is some fudge loosely based on Chequers.

DavidL

matt said:

As an aside Bridgen and Dudderidge must be feeling pretty silly now.

If they had that level of self awareness perhaps they might not have acted as such prats in the first place.

Jonathan

Leaving her politics aside, from the cut of her Jib alone, May is approaching national treasure statement.

grabcocque

Richard_Nabavi said:

grabcocque said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

It is not as nearly surprising as Hammond having his budget on the 29th of this month before the negotiations with the EU come to a head. What does he do? It's crazy. Either he proposes a budget with some of the largest contingencies ever or he plays ultra safe. With spreadsheet Phil that means ultra safe with brass knobs on and no real chance to react until next year.

He'll surely produce a budget predicated on there being a deal and the transition period kicking in, so no disruption. If it turns out that things go pear-shaped, then he can introduce emergency measures, together with intervention by the BoE, to limit the damage.

And the money for, for example, beefing up our borders to collect tariffs and visa checks on EU citizens? Does he allow it or does he assume a deal which does not require it or does he simply have an undesignated contingency? It seems to me he would have been much better to have his budget in late November/early December.

In the overall scheme of things those aren't going to be big items of expenditure. Much more at issue is possible economic disruption, but that's almost impossible to plan for. In any case, I think they have a pretty good idea that they'll reach a deal.

I wish I had your calm self-assurance on this. That despite all of the evidence pointing to infinite number of contraries, and despite there not being anybody who can describe a sensible route to a deal, despite May's repeated painting herself into corners, but with landmines... Despite all that, you still believe she has some unplayed card in her back pocket that any day now she'll slap down with a flourish and it will be so brilliant and perfect it will make the DUP, the EU27, the ERG, TRG, the Labour party etc. all suddenly come to their senses and go, you know what, sure. Let's take this deal, let's do it.

It's not an unplayed card, it's the obvious one she's played all along: TINA.

Yeah, well. We saw at Salzburg how well that worked.

Sandpit

david_herdson said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

david_herdson said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

david_herdson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OchEye said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OchEye said:

They get more from the exchequer than the english.

Labour have been in power too long

This morning our council, Aberconwy, said they are seeking an 11.8% council tax rise on the week they introduced 4 weekly bin collections

A question for those more in the know about local government / pensions than me. What's stopping councils from switching pension schemes from defined benefit to defined contribution?

The unions would go ape?

Well, apart from that. I doubt there'd be much sympathy from the majority of the public, who saw that change many years ago. And given the finances of many councils, I'd have thought it a fair option to put on the table.

But leaving the politics aside, are there any legislative / regulatory barriers to prevent a council switching, or - at a lesser level - national agreements that would have to be withdrawn from, where the withdrawal would have other consequences?

The Local Government pension is funded (as in there is a fund which is invested and whose income pays the pension). It was in deficit last time I had to worry about it, but it is there. The teachers’ pension is not funded, but paid for out of current spending by central government. Many teachers don’t understand the second point as we pay a significant chunk of our nominal pay for it, but it’s a bit like National Insurance. In state schools teaching staff are on one scheme and non-teaching staff a different one.

Yes, I knew that difference but the contributions for any final-salary / defined benefits scheme will be huge compared with the average. There is a big potential saving to be made by switching. Obviously, that is a hit to employees' terms and conditions but when a council like Northampton is going bust, you'd think it'd be an option (and unlike the teachers' pension, where future payments will be related to past commitments for decades, in a funded scheme, the savings would take effect immediately).

Is the issue not actually that in moving from an unfunded scheme to a funded scheme, there will be four or five decades of having to pay in to both at the same time?

grabcocque

Jonathan said:

Leaving her politics aside, from the cut of her Jib alone, May is approaching national treasure statement.

You know, the British have always had a weird affection for hopeless causes and the hapless oafs that pursue them.

Theresa May is the Eddie the Eagle of politics.

david_herdson

welshowl said:

@david_herdson

A (reputable) pensions advisor opined to me a few years back that in future there will be three groups of people when it comes to pensions:-

1) Those who have worked for a good time in the public sector.
2) Successful business owners.
3) Everyone else ( Who are all stuffed).

Overblown a tad maybe, but as I was explaining to my wife recently at her age the benefits she is clocking up annually in the public sector amounted to well over the equivalent of 40% of her salary to buy the exact same benefits in the private sector.

These are big numbers.

Indeed. Which is precisely why you'd think that a council under pressure would look at it.

OldKingCole

Richard_Nabavi said:

grabcocque said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

It is not as nearly surprising as Hammond having his budget on the 29th of this month before the negotiations with the EU come to a head. What does he do? It's crazy. Either he proposes a budget with some of the largest contingencies ever or he plays ultra safe. With spreadsheet Phil that means ultra safe with brass knobs on and no real chance to react until next year.

And the money for, for example, beefing up our borders to collect tariffs and visa checks on EU citizens? Does he allow it or does he assume a deal which does not require it or does he simply have an undesignated contingency? It seems to me he would have been much better to have his budget in late November/early December.

In the overall scheme of things those aren't going to be big items of expenditure. Much more at issue is possible economic disruption, but that's almost impossible to plan for. In any case, I think they have a pretty good idea that they'll reach a deal.

I wish I had your calm self-assurance on this. That despite all of the evidence pointing to infinite number of contraries, and despite there not being anybody who can describe a sensible route to a deal, despite May's repeated painting herself into corners, but with landmines... Despite all that, you still believe she has some unplayed card in her back pocket that any day now she'll slap down with a flourish and it will be so brilliant and perfect it will make the DUP, the EU27, the ERG, TRG, the Labour party etc. all suddenly come to their senses and go, you know what, sure. Let's take this deal, let's do it.

It's not an unplayed card, it's the obvious one she's played all along: TINA.

Edit: I should add that I don't have calm self-assurance on this. Things can still go very wrong, leading either to a disastrous No Deal or to Corbyn, or both. Still, the likelihood is some fudge losely based on Chequers.

I just hope we get through to a (the?) transition phase without anything disastrous happening. I must say that although a Remainer (soon to be a Rejoiner) I don’t see any sense in having a rerun of the Referendum (and getting, probably, a 52-48 for staying) in 2019 or indeed almost certainly the same will apply in 2020.
I expect (fear) that we are going to have to put up a slowing of our economy and all sorts of silly and aggravating pin-pricks before the 2022 General Election when I hope we’ll have a credible Rejoin party. Even then I don’t really expect it to win until 2027.

williamglenn

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

No, that wouldn't fly. May couldn't accept a second referendum on anything other than a Deal / No Deal basis (and would probably lose that), without being No Confidenced by her MPs.

She can and she will.

https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/1047263605413072896

Do you fancy a bet on that?

Sure.

£50 at evens says that parliament will not pass legislation for a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option before 29 March 2019.

Change it to “that Theresa May will not back a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option” and you’re on.

Scott_P

matt said:

As an aside Bridgen and Dudderidge must be feeling pretty silly now.

The good news for Dudderidge is nobody knows who he is or will remember what he did

IanB2

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

No, that wouldn't fly. May couldn't accept a second referendum on anything other than a Deal / No Deal basis (and would probably lose that), without being No Confidenced by her MPs.

She can and she will.

https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/1047263605413072896

Do you fancy a bet on that?

Sure.

£50 at evens says that parliament will not pass legislation for a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option before 29 March 2019.

Change it to “that Theresa May will not back a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option” and you’re on.

It would be reasonable to go for a later date, since a delay is in exit is a prerequisite but s vote could be conceded and follow later

FF43

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Just as well that Ladbrokes limited me so drastically!

I must confess I thought Chequers was nailed on. Not mentioning it by name was plainly deliberate but I didn't anticipate that.

Nor me, but thinking about it, it makes perfect sense, because the word itself has become a focus of (largely irrational) opposition.

There was a comment on the BBC news channel while they were filling that people throw around "Chequers", "Canada", "Canada ++ " and "Norway" and that the vast majority haven't a clue what they are talking about or what the differences are between one and the other. I think that is undoubtedly true although it may not have been true for those who actually bothered to tune in to Mrs May giving a speech. Takes real nerdish dedication that.

True. All people need to know is that the EU is not interested in the partnership of equals that the Leave vote was premised on. Which leaves a choice of a partnership of unequals or no partnership at all. If they don't know what No Deal looks like, they will find out soon enough and it won't be pleasant.

The path through this mess, I think, is another form of No Deal. Where we commit to an end policy but carry on more or less as we are until we get there, which we never do. Canada being long and complex is a useful time-waster.

grabcocque

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

No, that wouldn't fly. May couldn't accept a second referendum on anything other than a Deal / No Deal basis (and would probably lose that), without being No Confidenced by her MPs.

She can and she will.

https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/1047263605413072896

Do you fancy a bet on that?

Sure.

£50 at evens says that parliament will not pass legislation for a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option before 29 March 2019.

Change it to “that Theresa May will not back a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option” and you’re on.

They seem to me quite different propositions. If the Tories decide to back a people's vote as a way to break a parliamentary logjam, I can't conceivably see how they could seriously expect May to lead that campaign.

Switching her out for a caretaker leader would surely be a sine qua non of the Tories supporting a people's vote?

not_on_fire

david_herdson said:

welshowl said:

@david_herdson

A (reputable) pensions advisor opined to me a few years back that in future there will be three groups of people when it comes to pensions:-

1) Those who have worked for a good time in the public sector.
2) Successful business owners.
3) Everyone else ( Who are all stuffed).

Overblown a tad maybe, but as I was explaining to my wife recently at her age the benefits she is clocking up annually in the public sector amounted to well over the equivalent of 40% of her salary to buy the exact same benefits in the private sector.

These are big numbers.

Indeed. Which is precisely why you'd think that a council under pressure would look at it.

In the long run, adding public sector workers to the list of people who are screwed isn’t going to save any money.

david_herdson

anothernick said:

david_herdson said:

Yes, I knew that difference but the contributions for any final-salary / defined benefits scheme will be huge compared with the average. There is a big potential saving to be made by switching. Obviously, that is a hit to employees' terms and conditions but when a council like Northampton is going bust, you'd think it'd be an option (and unlike the teachers' pension, where future payments will be related to past commitments for decades, in a funded scheme, the savings would take effect immediately).

I believe that the LGPS is statutory (like the scehemes for teachers and civil servants) so a council could only opt out if legislation were changed to allow this. If it were possible to leave I'm sure a council like, say, Wandsworth, would have left by now.

Thanks. That was the sort of thing I was wondering about. Anyone know the legislation in question?

anothernick

Richard_Nabavi said:

<

It's not an unplayed card, it's the obvious one she's played all along: TINA.

Edit: I should add that I don't have calm self-assurance on this. Things can still go very wrong, leading either to a disastrous No Deal or to Corbyn, or both. Still, the likelihood is some fudge loosely based on Chequers.

The problem for May is that the majority of MPs now think the chaos that would result from a no deal can be used to favour the outcome they want. The Labour leadership thinks it could result in the outcome they want, namely a general election. Ther ERG and Tory ultras think it could result in the outcome they want, namely a no deal Brexit. And Labour remainers (and probably some Tory remainers as well) think it could result in the outcome they want, namely a second referendum to reverse the result of the first. Until recently remainers did not talk in terms of reversing the leave vote, only of softening Brexit, but now they think reversal is possible and so they are less inclined to suppprt a May fudge. Given that whatever deal May comes up with will be clearly worse than the UKs current position it is very hard to see how a Commons majority will be found for it.

welshowl

david_herdson said:

welshowl said:

@david_herdson

A (reputable) pensions advisor opined to me a few years back that in future there will be three groups of people when it comes to pensions:-

1) Those who have worked for a good time in the public sector.
2) Successful business owners.
3) Everyone else ( Who are all stuffed).

Overblown a tad maybe, but as I was explaining to my wife recently at her age the benefits she is clocking up annually in the public sector amounted to well over the equivalent of 40% of her salary to buy the exact same benefits in the private sector.

These are big numbers.

Indeed. Which is precisely why you'd think that a council under pressure would look at it.

Of course, And precisely why the unions know it's such a huge benefit.

david_herdson

Sandpit said:

david_herdson said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

david_herdson said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

david_herdson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OchEye said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OchEye said:

They get more from the exchequer than the english.

Labour have been in power too long

This morning our council, Aberconwy, said they are seeking an 11.8% council tax rise on the week they introduced 4 weekly bin collections

A question for those more in the know about local government / pensions than me. What's stopping councils from switching pension schemes from defined benefit to defined contribution?

The unions would go ape?

Well, apart from that. I doubt there'd be much sympathy from the majority of the public, who saw that change many years ago. And given the finances of many councils, I'd have thought it a fair option to put on the table.

But leaving the politics aside, are there any legislative / regulatory barriers to prevent a council switching, or - at a lesser level - national agreements that would have to be withdrawn from, where the withdrawal would have other consequences?

The Local Government pension is funded (as in there is a fund which is invested and whose income pays the pension). It was in deficit last time I had to worry about it, but it is there. The teachers’ pension is not funded, but paid for out of current spending by central government. Many teachers don’t understand the second point as we pay a significant chunk of our nominal pay for it, but it’s a bit like National Insurance. In state schools teaching staff are on one scheme and non-teaching staff a different one.

Yes, I knew that difference but the contributions for any final-salary / defined benefits scheme will be huge compared with the average. There is a big potential saving to be made by switching. Obviously, that is a hit to employees' terms and conditions but when a council like Northampton is going bust, you'd think it'd be an option (and unlike the teachers' pension, where future payments will be related to past commitments for decades, in a funded scheme, the savings would take effect immediately).

Is the issue not actually that in moving from an unfunded scheme to a funded scheme, there will be four or five decades of having to pay in to both at the same time?

The local government scheme is funded. Were it not, yes, that would be an issue (although it'd largely be a book-keeping one because in reality the commitment ought to count as a notional debt).

david_herdson

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

No, that wouldn't fly. May couldn't accept a second referendum on anything other than a Deal / No Deal basis (and would probably lose that), without being No Confidenced by her MPs.

She can and she will.

https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/1047263605413072896

Do you fancy a bet on that?

Sure.

£50 at evens says that parliament will not pass legislation for a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option before 29 March 2019.

Change it to “that Theresa May will not back a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option” and you’re on.

Surely my wording is both more favourable to you and more precisely defined (what does "will not back a referendum" mean)?

On my wording, you gain the possibility of May's government falling and a Labour government introducing the referendum - which is by far the most likely way it could come about.

felix

welshowl said:

@david_herdson

A (reputable) pensions advisor opined to me a few years back that in future there will be three groups of people when it comes to pensions:-

1) Those who have worked for a good time in the public sector.
2) Successful business owners.
3) Everyone else ( Who are all stuffed).


Overblown a tad maybe, but as I was explaining to my wife recently at her age the benefits she is clocking up annually in the public sector amounted to well over the equivalent of 40% of her salary to buy the exact same benefits in the private sector.

These are big numbers.

I'd say that for most people that is the case now. I live in extraordinary comfort on my teachers' pension despite retiring early at 55 nearly ten years ago. I have a brand new car every 2/3 years and my savings pot from 10 years ago has held steady despite appalling interest rates and the usual unforseen expenses, flash holidays, etc from someone without many extravagant tastes. The basis of my comfort has been the pension with regular 2/3 % annual rises and of course the very generous personal allowance compared to a decade ago. i guess I have been fortunate but I paid all my contributions as required while other cashed in the scheme when they young.

archer101au

grabcocque said:

There is nowhere left for May to hide, there hasn't been since Salzburg. Which is why, I think, her attention has shifted from bludgeoning the equine carcass of Chequers to mediocre Boris roasts.

Doing a deal is now practically impossible, slagging off Boris however is shooting fish in a barrel. Of course May is going for the latter.

Agreed. I think we should just reflect on the level of surrealism of what we have just seen. A week after being told that Chequers is unacceptable to the EU and less than a month before a crucial summit, the British PM makes a speech supporting a plan that she knows can never be adopted and her cabinet all line up in support even though they all know it is nonsense. And to distract attention they all snipe at Boris, who has done nothing other than resign over a matter of principle and put an alternative (and far more realistic policy) before the people.

And the thing is, it is all lies. May knows that the moment she escapes the conference she intends to run off to Brussels and sell out on all her red lines and promises, not a word of which she mentioned to the UK public in her speech. And we are meant to see this as some sort of virtue? If she believes in keeping the UK locked in a customs union and having a regulatory border in the Irish Sea, why did she not just say so?

This speech, such as it was, will be forgotten in a day. And we will be back to the reality that someone who is totally incompetent and untrustworthy is negotiating on behalf of the country.

welshowl

not_on_fire said:

david_herdson said:

welshowl said:

@david_herdson

A (reputable) pensions advisor opined to me a few years back that in future there will be three groups of people when it comes to pensions:-

1) Those who have worked for a good time in the public sector.
2) Successful business owners.
3) Everyone else ( Who are all stuffed).

Overblown a tad maybe, but as I was explaining to my wife recently at her age the benefits she is clocking up annually in the public sector amounted to well over the equivalent of 40% of her salary to buy the exact same benefits in the private sector.

These are big numbers.

Indeed. Which is precisely why you'd think that a council under pressure would look at it.

In the long run, adding public sector workers to the list of people who are screwed isn’t going to save any money.

In the long run, assuming longevity hasn't stopped increasing (interesting question), and/or interest rate don't rise (you reading this Mr Carney?) we either:-

Save more,
Retire later.
Retire on less.
A combination of the three.

felix

matt said:

Beverley_C said:

matt said:

Beverley_C said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The dancing was an inspired idea. Just as well, because if the rest of the speech got heard outside the conference hall, it would merely cement existing impressions. All the same problems remain and Theresa May gave absolutely no hint that she saw need to change tack on any of them.

Indeed. Brexit is all. Nothing else matters because Brexit taints everything and will do until it is over.

AlastairMeeks said:

Competent but fundamentally irrelevant (aside from the dancing). That could almost be Theresa May's epitaph.

Actually, I did not like the dancing much. I thought it set a trivialising mood to what should be a serious speech.

You’ve never given a serious speech have you. Listeners decide in the first 20 seconds whether to give you a hearing. This said, it’s not going to be what you’re expecting. It made people listen. You might not like it but dull and portentous is rarely effective.

Speeches? No, not really, but I have given plenty of presentations and lectures over the years on various business, technical and science issues.

Admittedly I was not leading the country, but Mrs May isn't either

You’ll know then that capturing early attention and storytelling is critical. The speech included both of those aspects. You seem to be saying that serious has to be solemn. It doesn’t.

She is saying she hates Brexit and that colours all of her other thoughts. It is a common sickness and the symtoms are likely to worsen as the evil day approaches.

felix

matt said:

As an aside Bridgen and Dudderidge must be feeling pretty silly now.

That requires a brain and there is little evidence of such a thing certainly in the case of the former. I believe he is Esther McVey's squeeze so one can only speculate at his hidden talents.

CarlottaVance

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Just as well that Ladbrokes limited me so drastically!

I must confess I thought Chequers was nailed on. Not mentioning it by name was plainly deliberate but I didn't anticipate that.

You haven't been paying attention. After the Salzburg debacle Mrs May didn't mention Chequers either - just the ambitions which underpin it.

felix

grabcocque said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

grabcocque said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

It is not as nearly surprising as Hammond having his budget on the 29th of this month before the negotiations with the EU come to a head. What does he do? It's crazy. Either he proposes a budget with some of the largest contingencies ever or he plays ultra safe. With spreadsheet Phil that means ultra safe with brass knobs on and no real chance to react until next year.

He'll surely produce a budget predicated on there being a deal and the transition period kicking in, so no disruption. If it turns out that things go pear-shaped, then he can introduce emergency measures, together with intervention by the BoE, to limit the damage.

And the money for, for example, beefing up our borders to collect tariffs and visa checks on EU citizens? Does he allow it or does he assume a deal which does not require it or does he simply have an undesignated contingency? It seems to me he would have been much better to have his budget in late November/early December.

In the overall scheme of things those aren't going to be big items of expenditure. Much more at issue is possible economic disruption, but that's almost impossible to plan for. In any case, I think they have a pretty good idea that they'll reach a deal.

I wish I had your calm self-assurance on this. That despite all of the evidence pointing to infinite number of contraries, and despite there not being anybody who can describe a sensible route to a deal, despite May's repeated painting herself into corners, but with landmines... Despite all that, you still believe she has some unplayed card in her back pocket that any day now she'll slap down with a flourish and it will be so brilliant and perfect it will make the DUP, the EU27, the ERG, TRG, the Labour party etc. all suddenly come to their senses and go, you know what, sure. Let's take this deal, let's do it.

It's not an unplayed card, it's the obvious one she's played all along: TINA.

Yeah, well. We saw at Salzburg how well that worked.

As with all negotiations we will only know at the end - second guessing is fun but ultimately pointless.

williamglenn

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

No, that wouldn't fly. May couldn't accept a second referendum on anything other than a Deal / No Deal basis (and would probably lose that), without being No Confidenced by her MPs.

She can and she will.

https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/1047263605413072896

Do you fancy a bet on that?

Sure.

£50 at evens says that parliament will not pass legislation for a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option before 29 March 2019.

Change it to “that Theresa May will not back a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option” and you’re on.

Surely my wording is both more favourable to you and more precisely defined (what does "will not back a referendum" mean)?

On my wording, you gain the possibility of May's government falling and a Labour government introducing the referendum - which is by far the most likely way it could come about.

The main issue I have with your version is how to define “passing legislation” as the process could potentially drag on into an A50 extension. Also if the government is backing it, there’s a slim chance a way could be found to do it without new legislation. Maybe change it to passing a motion?

TOPPING

archer101au said:

grabcocque said:

There is nowhere left for May to hide, there hasn't been since Salzburg. Which is why, I think, her attention has shifted from bludgeoning the equine carcass of Chequers to mediocre Boris roasts.

Doing a deal is now practically impossible, slagging off Boris however is shooting fish in a barrel. Of course May is going for the latter.

Agreed. I think we should just reflect on the level of surrealism of what we have just seen. A week after being told that Chequers is unacceptable to the EU and less than a month before a crucial summit, the British PM makes a speech supporting a plan that she knows can never be adopted and her cabinet all line up in support even though they all know it is nonsense. And to distract attention they all snipe at Boris, who has done nothing other than resign over a matter of principle and put an alternative (and far more realistic policy) before the people.

And the thing is, it is all lies. May knows that the moment she escapes the conference she intends to run off to Brussels and sell out on all her red lines and promises, not a word of which she mentioned to the UK public in her speech. And we are meant to see this as some sort of virtue? If she believes in keeping the UK locked in a customs union and having a regulatory border in the Irish Sea, why did she not just say so?

This speech, such as it was, will be forgotten in a day. And we will be back to the reality that someone who is totally incompetent and untrustworthy is negotiating on behalf of the country.

It will certainly be an intriguing next few months.

welshowl

felix said:

welshowl said:

@david_herdson

A (reputable) pensions advisor opined to me a few years back that in future there will be three groups of people when it comes to pensions:-

1) Those who have worked for a good time in the public sector.
2) Successful business owners.
3) Everyone else ( Who are all stuffed).


Overblown a tad maybe, but as I was explaining to my wife recently at her age the benefits she is clocking up annually in the public sector amounted to well over the equivalent of 40% of her salary to buy the exact same benefits in the private sector.

These are big numbers.

I'd say that for most people that is the case now. I live in extraordinary comfort on my teachers' pension despite retiring early at 55 nearly ten years ago. I have a brand new car every 2/3 years and my savings pot from 10 years ago has held steady despite appalling interest rates and the usual unforseen expenses, flash holidays, etc from someone without many extravagant tastes. The basis of my comfort has been the pension with regular 2/3 % annual rises and of course the very generous personal allowance compared to a decade ago. i guess I have been fortunate but I paid all my contributions as required while other cashed in the scheme when they young.

Good for you. You are right to feel blessed.

Just looked up retiring on rpi increases at 55 with 50% spouse benefit on death (spouse same age) guaranteed for 5 years.

The answer is you need a pot 55 (fifty five) times the annual sum. So 20K pension requires about 1.1M (or more than the upper tax break you are allowed in the private sector).

Big numbers.

david_herdson

not_on_fire said:

david_herdson said:

welshowl said:

@david_herdson

A (reputable) pensions advisor opined to me a few years back that in future there will be three groups of people when it comes to pensions:-

1) Those who have worked for a good time in the public sector.
2) Successful business owners.
3) Everyone else ( Who are all stuffed).

Overblown a tad maybe, but as I was explaining to my wife recently at her age the benefits she is clocking up annually in the public sector amounted to well over the equivalent of 40% of her salary to buy the exact same benefits in the private sector.

These are big numbers.

Indeed. Which is precisely why you'd think that a council under pressure would look at it.

In the long run, adding public sector workers to the list of people who are screwed isn’t going to save any money.

Bringing the public sector into line with the rest of society isn't "screwing them". It's an unsustainable benefit, in my opinion.

In any case, it wouldn't be the whole public sector; it'd be local government, which for reasons already mentioned can make that switch more easily than schemes which are funded out of current taxation.

CarlottaVance

Er....which other third countries have immigration rules set by the EU?

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1047387997635837952

JohnO

felix said:

matt said:

As an aside Bridgen and Dudderidge must be feeling pretty silly now.

That requires a brain and there is little evidence of such a thing certainly in the case of the former. I believe he is Esther McVey's squeeze so one can only speculate at his hidden talents.

No, that’s Philip Davies.

grabcocque

archer101au said:

grabcocque said:

There is nowhere left for May to hide, there hasn't been since Salzburg. Which is why, I think, her attention has shifted from bludgeoning the equine carcass of Chequers to mediocre Boris roasts.

Doing a deal is now practically impossible, slagging off Boris however is shooting fish in a barrel. Of course May is going for the latter.

Agreed. I think we should just reflect on the level of surrealism of what we have just seen. A week after being told that Chequers is unacceptable to the EU and less than a month before a crucial summit, the British PM makes a speech supporting a plan that she knows can never be adopted and her cabinet all line up in support even though they all know it is nonsense. And to distract attention they all snipe at Boris, who has done nothing other than resign over a matter of principle and put an alternative (and far more realistic policy) before the people.

And the thing is, it is all lies. May knows that the moment she escapes the conference she intends to run off to Brussels and sell out on all her red lines and promises, not a word of which she mentioned to the UK public in her speech. And we are meant to see this as some sort of virtue? If she believes in keeping the UK locked in a customs union and having a regulatory border in the Irish Sea, why did she not just say so?

This speech, such as it was, will be forgotten in a day. And we will be back to the reality that someone who is totally incompetent and untrustworthy is negotiating on behalf of the country.

I don't think Boris's suggestions are feasible. But I don't think they're any more doomed than May's.

But what May's onslaught has done is retroactively and probably unintentionally made Boris look both principled and insightful, which of course he wasn't.

When the leadership election comes he can now with a straight face and a clear conscience say to Tory members "I was the *only one* of the leadership candidates with the courage to be honest with you about May's disastrous attempts at compromise, every other of my colleagues here tonight willfully attempted to deceive you that Chequers wasn't the abomination you all clearly perceived it to be".

May's political incompetence is so all-encompassing it can even bite her in the arse from beyond the political grave.