> @felix said: > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > On tuition fees, Layla has written a good article on these yesterday. > > > > > > A good article? Are you mad? For a start, she seems to think that Phillip Augar is a Conservative politician. And what's with this 'I am angry' nonsense? The Augur proposals are a serious attempt to improve things, but it's a complex set of trade-offs. Shouting 'Tory con-tricks' just shows how unserious she is. > > > > If you want to read a good article on the subject, here it is: > > > > https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2019/05/editorial-comment--the-augar-report-heralds-the-end-of-student--/ > > Watch out when Layla gets angry fists fly
Martin Lewis would be an excellent leader of a radical centre party, I guess LDs and CUK have tried to get him onboard but he wants to remain neutral (partly for obvious commercial reasons but partly he seems to have a healthy disdain for political parties).
> @GIN1138 said: > > Nah, he'd have just been even more determined to keep us in the ERM which would have meant interest rates would have gone even higher, more families would have been thrown to the wolves in their mad desire to peg us to the ERM and Black Wednesday would have turned into Black Thursday and Black Friday etc
They’d have just changed the bands so the pound could devalue within the ERM.
Chris Pattern has always been a complete and utter waste of space so any criticism from him is good news for Boris...
Ideally when he was thrown out of Bath by his constituents in 1992 we'd have never heard from him again... But unfortunately it never quite works out like that with these five or six ageing pro-EU Tory "grandees"
He was the butt of a very funny off the cuff joke I heard. When he was negotiating the handover of Hong Kong at one point the BBC reported "the Chinese have objections to the British Constitution". The woman I was watching the broadcast with instantly quipped "Chris Patten has a beer gut".
As well as a growing intolerance in other areas, I'm finding the ageism around at the moment dispiriting and disappointing. Dismissing someone because they are old or 'yesterday's man' is simply a mask for saying you don't agree with them. Don't bring age into it. There are wise and foolish people of all ages. After all, most people revere David Attenborough and the Queen.
> @kinabalu said: > Given The Brexit Party was hidden behind "other" in the who would you vote for question, what would the result have been with the 4 leading parties presented as equal options? I guess we'll find out soon enough. > > Any negative effect of this on the BP polling figures was almost certainly dwarfed by the positive delta on their real vote as a consequence of that 'in your face' right facing arrow in their logo on the Euro ballot paper. It steered large numbers of the undecideds and the unwary towards voting for Farage's party, in many cases accidentally. > > What was the net effect of this? Did it impact on MEP seat numbers? We will never know.
Where are you getting "It steered large numbers of the undecideds and the unwary towards voting for Farage's party, in many cases accidentally"? A "not even an anecdote" warning would be appropriate.
I am entirely confident that BP will be allowed to keep their logo unchanged in future elections.
To those asking why Lab has been forgiven for Iraq whilst LDs still have tuition fees / coalition as an albatross around its neck, the answer is Corbyn.
Corbyn and his movement are so anti war that it cleaned that slate for Labour. LDs cannot, on the other hand, do that with Swinson or Davey, who were at the heart of the coalition.
> @brokenwheel said: > https://twitter.com/yougov/status/1134373516252471296 > > > > Not prompting for minor parties makes sense, the bigger issue I would say is that prompting for the LDs right now in this febrile atmosphere may be contributing to their inflated VI.
Well, it makes sense if you want BXP supporters to hate you. I think it was v naive of YouGov to do this. What is presented to poll panellists should approximate to a generic ballot paper, and given that Farage has said that BXP will stand in the election, it shouldn't currently be hidden with the also-rans.
> @148grss said: > To those asking why Lab has been forgiven for Iraq whilst LDs still have tuition fees / coalition as an albatross around its neck, the answer is Corbyn. > > Corbyn and his movement are so anti war that it cleaned that slate for Labour. LDs cannot, on the other hand, do that with Swinson or Davey, who were at the heart of the coalition.
Corbyn isn't anti-war. He seems OK with it if it is waged by HAMAS or the IRA.
Where are you getting "It steered large numbers of the undecideds and the unwary towards voting for Farage's party, in many cases accidentally"? A "not even an anecdote" warning would be appropriate.
I am entirely confident that BP will be allowed to keep their logo unchanged in future elections.
Not saying it was cheating. It was clever.
As to the effect who knows? Certainly I was very conscious of it when I was in there.
Where are you getting "It steered large numbers of the undecideds and the unwary towards voting for Farage's party, in many cases accidentally"? A "not even an anecdote" warning would be appropriate.
I am entirely confident that BP will be allowed to keep their logo unchanged in future elections.
Not saying it was cheating. It was clever.
As to the effect who knows? Certainly I was very conscious of it when I was in there.
Lack of any at all logo at all was the final nail in CHUK's coffin.
> @148grss said: > To those asking why Lab has been forgiven for Iraq whilst LDs still have tuition fees / coalition as an albatross around its neck, the answer is Corbyn. > > Corbyn and his movement are so anti war that it cleaned that slate for Labour. LDs cannot, on the other hand, do that with Swinson or Davey, who were at the heart of the coalition.
Tuition fees is also much more recent than Iraq.
But last weeks results suggests that the Lib Dems are beginning to emerge from the shadows, and Corbyn seems determined to do everything he can to help them further.
On topic: The question which looks most interesting to me about the poll is: is the surge to the LibDems likely to be more or less durable than the surge to the Brexit Party? Obviously that's going to depend both on the characteristics of those two parties and on the response of Labour and the Tories to the threat, as well as (crucially) on what happens to the Brexit process over the next few months.
As regards the two new front-runners, the LibDems have the big advantage of an established infrastructure and a fairly wide pool of at least somewhat experienced politicians beyond their immediate small pool of MPs. They have a large presence in the Lords, and a large pool of current and ex-councillors, and former parliamentary candidates, with campaigning and debating experience. The Brexit Party is going to have to create an organisation and structure from scratch, relying presumably on ex-Conservatives to fill the gaps. They have been very professional and slick so far, but the party is structured very much as a one-band band and I have no doubt that very soon the strains will start to show as they did to some extent with UKIP.
In addition, you can see how the LibDems could build up a credible GE manifesto and a reasonably coherent centre-left platform, provided they resist the temptation to stay too much in their comfort zone. The Brexit Party, on the other hand, is going to start putting supporters off as soon as it starts being explicit on policy.
On the response of the two main established parties, it's hard to see the hard left relinquishing control of Labour. Indeed, perhaps more likely is further defections - but this time to the LibDems. Overall, I think the surge to the LibDems looks pretty durable.
The Tories look well set to make a major blunder by trying to deal with Farage by imitating him, which can't work because he can always find more rocks to throw at them, and because it destroys what's left of the the Tories' USP of being the sensible, pragmatic, financially responsible party. The Brexit Party will collapse of its own contradictions if the Conservatives keep their nerve, but will prosper at least for a while if they don't.
> @148grss said: > To those asking why Lab has been forgiven for Iraq whilst LDs still have tuition fees / coalition as an albatross around its neck, the answer is Corbyn. > > Corbyn and his movement are so anti war that it cleaned that slate for Labour. LDs cannot, on the other hand, do that with Swinson or Davey, who were at the heart of the coalition.
To be honest I find all this forgiveness malarky very childish. We have a very limited set of options, none of which are great. To restrict that choice further because of something that happened in the past is very restrictive.
I find the current Tory party incompetent, many of their MPs borderline stupid and they have caused the country great harm with the Brexit obsession yet I would have little problem voting for a different Tory leader with a better manifesto than the alternatives in the future.
Chris Pattern has always been a complete and utter waste of space so any criticism from him is good news for Boris...
Ideally when he was thrown out of Bath by his constituents in 1992 we'd have never heard from him again... But unfortunately it never quite works out like that with these five or six ageing pro-EU Tory "grandees"
This is why the bus business is bad for Boris because it brings back to people's minds his sketchy relationship with the truth. Boris was sacked by the Times for lying, and sacked by Michael Howard for lying. None of that need be fatal to his chances except the bus case reminds MPs (the electorate in this case) and makes it more likely interviewers will ask him about other incidents, like when he could not justify to the Select Committee his claims about bendy banana-type EU regulations. What Boris needs is for the bus case to be dismissed now, or for nothing to happen till after the summer.
@Richard_Nabavi The Brexit party's platform will be small c conservative, with a few sprinkles of some of the more popular left wing policies chucked in.
Scrapping High Speed 2, possible nationalisation and definitely investment in the railways for instance.
> @Pulpstar said: > @Richard_Nabavi The Brexit party's platform will be small c conservative, with a few sprinkles of some of the more popular left wing policies chucked in. > > Scrapping High Speed 2, possible nationalisation and definitely investment in the railways for instance.
I think small f fascism may be a better description
> @Theuniondivvie said: > > @Foxy said: > > For me, the biggest risk is the reunification of Ireland and independence of Scotland, as both are clearly moving very strongly against the political mood in England and Wales. Good for the Scots and Irish, but it would be a backward step for England, leaving us in the hands of the swivel eyes loons, at least for the near future. > > > Tbh I'm not really sure that you (and therefore we) aren't already in the hands of the swivel eyed loons.
I don’t really see that it is the job of the Irish and the Scots to save the English from their own swivel eyed loons. They really need to learn how to govern their own country.
> @StuartDickson said: > > @Theuniondivvie said: > > > @Foxy said: > > > For me, the biggest risk is the reunification of Ireland and independence of Scotland, as both are clearly moving very strongly against the political mood in England and Wales. Good for the Scots and Irish, but it would be a backward step for England, leaving us in the hands of the swivel eyes loons, at least for the near future. > > > > > > Tbh I'm not really sure that you (and therefore we) aren't already in the hands of the swivel eyed loons. > > I don’t really see that it is the job of the Irish and the Scots to save the English from their own swivel eyed loons. They really need to learn how to govern their own country. >
The Scots will only save us from our swivel-eyed loons by ignoring their own versions. Scottish nationalism and English nationalism are two cheeks of the same foul smelling arse
@Richard_Nabavi The Brexit party's platform will be small c conservative, with a few sprinkles of some of the more popular left wing policies chucked in.
Scrapping High Speed 2, possible nationalisation and definitely investment in the railways for instance.
Still, they'll be asked about tax and welfare and the NHS, and will need to say something.
> Not prompting for minor parties makes sense, the bigger issue I would say is that prompting for the LDs right now in this febrile atmosphere may be contributing to their inflated VI.
Well, it makes sense if you want BXP supporters to hate you. I think it was v naive of YouGov to do this. What is presented to poll panellists should approximate to a generic ballot paper, and given that Farage has said that BXP will stand in the election, it shouldn't currently be hidden with the also-rans.
Even as someone sympathetic to TBP I’m not sure a pollster should really care about what party supporters think, after all Corbynites attack Yougov polls for no other reason than it was founded by Tories...
It is a known phenomenon that prompting for minor parties can inflate their VI, and given that Yougov DID prompt for TBP in the euros and overshot their VI it might give credence to this being an issue.
On topic it is worth remembering that only 2 years ago what used to be the 2 major parties got 82.4% of the vote in a GE, something, IIRC, of a record, in at least recent times. They got this on a high turnout of 68.8%.
We live in interesting times and things have obviously changed. But that much?
@Richard_Nabavi The Brexit party's platform will be small c conservative, with a few sprinkles of some of the more popular left wing policies chucked in.
Scrapping High Speed 2, possible nationalisation and definitely investment in the railways for instance.
Still, they'll be asked about tax and welfare and the NHS, and will need to say something.
Come on Richard, you know what the NHS policy will be. It's been written out on the side of a big red bus !
> @DavidL said: > On topic it is worth remembering that only 2 years ago what used to be the 2 major parties got 82.4% of the vote in a GE, something, IIRC, of a record, in at least recent times. They got this on a high turnout of 68.8%. > > We live in interesting times and things have obviously changed. But that much? > >
The reason for 82.4% was Brexit. May wanted support for a Brexit deal so Brexiteers flocked to her, and remainers/soft Brexiteers went to Labour. Unfortunately both parties, especially Labour, have assumed that it was because they were popular when they clearly are not.
Dropping to sub 60% seems likely, sub 50% possible and sub 40% not impossible. Again the reason will be Brexit.
Not really. Vince Cable is not a very good leader and has had his time. The difficulty for them is that they have a very small number of MPs. They perhaps should look outside parliament.
> On topic it is worth remembering that only 2 years ago what used to be the 2 major parties got 82.4% of the vote in a GE, something, IIRC, of a record, in at least recent times. They got this on a high turnout of 68.8%.
>
> We live in interesting times and things have obviously changed. But that much?
>
>
The reason for 82.4% was Brexit. May wanted support for a Brexit deal so Brexiteers flocked to her, and remainers/soft Brexiteers went to Labour. Unfortunately both parties, especially Labour, have assumed that it was because they were popular when they clearly are not.
Dropping to sub 60% seems likely, sub 50% possible and sub 40% not impossible. Again the reason will be Brexit.
Likely = odds on? What odds are you willing to offer that the combined vote of Labour +Tories will be less than 60% of the GB votes cast at the next GE?
> @Richard_Nabavi said: > So how's the anti-semitism training that Pete Willsman received working out? > > Very well, he's learnt a lot more about how the shadowy Jewish organisations work.
> @rottenborough said: > > @Nigel_Foremain said: > > > @rottenborough said: > > > I was also wondering this: > > > > > > https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1134399525169315840 > > > > Not really. Vince Cable is not a very good leader and has had his time. The difficulty for them is that they have a very small number of MPs. They perhaps should look outside parliament. > > A mate asked in the pub last night whatever happened to the idea of a leader who was not MP? > > I said I thought conference had rejected the idea, but I'm not 100%
It is not necessarily a nice thought for them but it works for the Faragist Party and the Scottish Nationalists
> @rottenborough said: > > @Nigel_Foremain said: > > > @rottenborough said: > > > I was also wondering this: > > > > > > https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1134399525169315840 > > > > Not really. Vince Cable is not a very good leader and has had his time. The difficulty for them is that they have a very small number of MPs. They perhaps should look outside parliament. > > A mate asked in the pub last night whatever happened to the idea of a leader who was not MP? > > I said I thought conference had rejected the idea, but I'm not 100%
Yep. The constitutional changes were watered down leaving only the idea of a supporters club.
> @DavidL said: > > @DavidL said: > > > On topic it is worth remembering that only 2 years ago what used to be the 2 major parties got 82.4% of the vote in a GE, something, IIRC, of a record, in at least recent times. They got this on a high turnout of 68.8%. > > > > > > We live in interesting times and things have obviously changed. But that much? > > > > > > > > > > The reason for 82.4% was Brexit. May wanted support for a Brexit deal so Brexiteers flocked to her, and remainers/soft Brexiteers went to Labour. Unfortunately both parties, especially Labour, have assumed that it was because they were popular when they clearly are not. > > > > Dropping to sub 60% seems likely, sub 50% possible and sub 40% not impossible. Again the reason will be Brexit. > > Likely = odds on? What odds are you willing to offer that the combined vote of Labour +Tories will be less than 60% of the GB votes cast at the next GE?
I would think it odds on yes, but happy backing no overall majority at the moment which gives protection well beyond the 60% level (although could lose if Brexit landslide) so unlikely to be odds you find appealing. (And 82.4% was Uk vote share, so I was still talking UK vote share not GB).
Albert Edwards, of Societe Generale predicts deflation across the West in next recession.
Deflation + National Populism? What could possibly go wrong.
We have effectively been in the grip of deflation since the "funny money" went up in smoke in 2008. QE has just kept us on the inflationary side of the line but only just. That suggests to me that the underlying pressure on prices has been downwards. Whether that will continue to be the case remains to be seen but the enthusiasm for deficit reduction seems to have waned markedly suggesting we might have reached either the end or the beginning of the end of that cycle.
Stranger things have happened than a recent Daily Telegraph article having any close proximity to reality. On the same page it was advertising an article saying that the EU was scared of Dominic Raab's negotiating. Pissed myself!
> On topic it is worth remembering that only 2 years ago what used to be the 2 major parties got 82.4% of the vote in a GE, something, IIRC, of a record, in at least recent times. They got this on a high turnout of 68.8%.
>
> We live in interesting times and things have obviously changed. But that much?
>
>
The reason for 82.4% was Brexit. May wanted support for a Brexit deal so Brexiteers flocked to her, and remainers/soft Brexiteers went to Labour. Unfortunately both parties, especially Labour, have assumed that it was because they were popular when they clearly are not.
Dropping to sub 60% seems likely, sub 50% possible and sub 40% not impossible. Again the reason will be Brexit.
Likely = odds on? What odds are you willing to offer that the combined vote of Labour +Tories will be less than 60% of the GB votes cast at the next GE?
In 1910 the big two (Conservative & Liberal) were at over 90%. Next election was 64.8%.
> Not really. Vince Cable is not a very good leader and has had his time. The difficulty for them is that they have a very small number of MPs. They perhaps should look outside parliament.
A mate asked in the pub last night whatever happened to the idea of a leader who was not MP?
I said I thought conference had rejected the idea, but I'm not 100%
Albert Edwards, of Societe Generale predicts deflation across the West in next recession.
Deflation + National Populism? What could possibly go wrong.
We have effectively been in the grip of deflation since the "funny money" went up in smoke in 2008. QE has just kept us on the inflationary side of the line but only just. That suggests to me that the underlying pressure on prices has been downwards. Whether that will continue to be the case remains to be seen but the enthusiasm for deficit reduction seems to have waned markedly suggesting we might have reached either the end or the beginning of the end of that cycle.
> > On topic it is worth remembering that only 2 years ago what used to be the 2 major parties got 82.4% of the vote in a GE, something, IIRC, of a record, in at least recent times. They got this on a high turnout of 68.8%.
>
> >
>
> > We live in interesting times and things have obviously changed. But that much?
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> The reason for 82.4% was Brexit. May wanted support for a Brexit deal so Brexiteers flocked to her, and remainers/soft Brexiteers went to Labour. Unfortunately both parties, especially Labour, have assumed that it was because they were popular when they clearly are not.
>
>
>
> Dropping to sub 60% seems likely, sub 50% possible and sub 40% not impossible. Again the reason will be Brexit.
>
> Likely = odds on? What odds are you willing to offer that the combined vote of Labour +Tories will be less than 60% of the GB votes cast at the next GE?
I would think it odds on yes, but happy backing no overall majority at the moment which gives protection well beyond the 60% level (although could lose if Brexit landslide) so unlikely to be odds you find appealing. (And 82.4% was Uk vote share, so I was still talking UK vote share not GB).
It's no surprise that LDs are polling well. In past lives UKIP were the kings of NOTA. Not any more. Neither is TBP as they are very clearly for something so no one can project their hopes, fears or desires onto the party.
Which leaves the LDs. And to a lesser extent the Greens.
> @Nigel_Foremain said: > Not really. Vince Cable is not a very good leader and has had his time. The difficulty for them is that they have a very small number of MPs. They perhaps should look outside parliament.
They've got exactly the leader they need in Layla Moran. They just need to persuade her that the voters aren't going to care that she went all Amy Klobuchar on her boyfriend for bringing the wrong laptop cable or whatever.
I doubt the Germans use the same accounting assumptions as UK pension funds - many people would argue the UK system overreacted to the Maxwell and other scandals and imposed an excessively cautious regime on pension schemes.
> @DavidL said: > > @DavidL said: > > > > @DavidL said: > > > > > > > On topic it is worth remembering that only 2 years ago what used to be the 2 major parties got 82.4% of the vote in a GE, something, IIRC, of a record, in at least recent times. They got this on a high turnout of 68.8%. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We live in interesting times and things have obviously changed. But that much? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason for 82.4% was Brexit. May wanted support for a Brexit deal so Brexiteers flocked to her, and remainers/soft Brexiteers went to Labour. Unfortunately both parties, especially Labour, have assumed that it was because they were popular when they clearly are not. > > > > > > > > > > > > Dropping to sub 60% seems likely, sub 50% possible and sub 40% not impossible. Again the reason will be Brexit. > > > > > > Likely = odds on? What odds are you willing to offer that the combined vote of Labour +Tories will be less than 60% of the GB votes cast at the next GE? > > > > I would think it odds on yes, but happy backing no overall majority at the moment which gives protection well beyond the 60% level (although could lose if Brexit landslide) so unlikely to be odds you find appealing. (And 82.4% was Uk vote share, so I was still talking UK vote share not GB). > > Evens?
Sorry 1.7 no overall majority is clearly much much better for me as would have been a winner last time even with 82.4% and there are not many overall majorities available sub 60%.
> @IanB2 said: > > @rottenborough said: > > > @Nigel_Foremain said: > > > > @rottenborough said: > > > > I was also wondering this: > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1134399525169315840 > > > > > > Not really. Vince Cable is not a very good leader and has had his time. The difficulty for them is that they have a very small number of MPs. They perhaps should look outside parliament. > > > > A mate asked in the pub last night whatever happened to the idea of a leader who was not MP? > > > > I said I thought conference had rejected the idea, but I'm not 100% > > Yep. The constitutional changes were watered down leaving only the idea of a supporters club. __________________
Sandy Toksvig used to be a Lib.Dem. How did they manage to lose her? At the protest in London on 23 March, she and Heseltine gave the two best speeches. Caroline Lucas's was also pretty good.
> It must be doing horrendous things to their final salary pension funds. How do you fund a pension when the return on gilts is actually negative?
I doubt the Germans use the same accounting assumptions as UK pension funds - many people would argue the UK system overreacted to the Maxwell and other scandals and imposed an excessively cautious regime on pension schemes.
It does strike me as strange that we are obliged to value our liabilities by reference to gilt yields when we have a relatively small proportion of our assets in gilts. If we assumed that returns would match what we get on corporate bonds, where we have a lot more of our money, we would be in a significant surplus situation. We are also obliged to produce a figure to members of how we would stand if we got no return at all on our money. I frankly don't see the point of that at all.
> @DavidL said: > > @DavidL said: > > > Berlin is effectively charging investors an ever larger premium for the privilege of parking their money safely in bunds. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/05/30/german-bond-yields-plumb-700-year-lows-deflation-stalks-eurozone/ > > > > > > It must be doing horrendous things to their final salary pension funds. How do you fund a pension when the return on gilts is actually negative? > > > > I doubt the Germans use the same accounting assumptions as UK pension funds - many people would argue the UK system overreacted to the Maxwell and other scandals and imposed an excessively cautious regime on pension schemes. > > It does strike me as strange that we are obliged to value our liabilities by reference to gilt yields when we have a relatively small proportion of our assets in gilts. If we assumed that returns would match what we get on corporate bonds, where we have a lot more of our money, we would be in a significant surplus situation. We are also obliged to produce a figure to members of how we would stand if we got no return at all on our money. I frankly don't see the point of that at all.
Yes. This. The USS (Uni scheme) is one example of this issue: worrying signs of strain but only because (as I understand it) they are forced to assume everything is marked to gilt yields.
We have effectively been in the grip of deflation since the "funny money" went up in smoke in 2008. QE has just kept us on the inflationary side of the line but only just. That suggests to me that the underlying pressure on prices has been downwards. Whether that will continue to be the case remains to be seen but the enthusiasm for deficit reduction seems to have waned markedly suggesting we might have reached either the end or the beginning of the end of that cycle.
> @Pulpstar said: > Final salary is an abomination in this day and age, 10+10 defined contribution superannuation along the lines of Oz is the way to go.
I think for the vast majority of people, DC is correct.
But it isn't a dichotomy between that and final salary. The move to average salary in the civil service, for example, effectively renders the DB scheme similar to a nil-contribution DC scheme (save the risk of over/under performance rests with the Government).
Final salary is an abomination in this day and age, 10+10 defined contribution superannuation along the lines of Oz is the way to go.
I tend to agree with @anothernick that the reason it is an abomination is that we have an overly cautious and restrictive pensions regime. FS pensions would still have been affordable if it was permitted to value the liabilities by reference to the returns that pension funds routinely achieve. The consequences of this "protection" for pension members have proven to be truly horrendous dumping most of the uncertainty onto them rather than the employer. The law of good intentions strikes again.
> @Richard_Nabavi said: > We have effectively been in the grip of deflation since the "funny money" went up in smoke in 2008. QE has just kept us on the inflationary side of the line but only just. That suggests to me that the underlying pressure on prices has been downwards. Whether that will continue to be the case remains to be seen but the enthusiasm for deficit reduction seems to have waned markedly suggesting we might have reached either the end or the beginning of the end of that cycle. > > David - did you see this article? > > https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/24/how-the-amazon-google-uber-effect-dictates-low-inflation
> @TheWhiteRabbit said: > > @Pulpstar said: > > Final salary is an abomination in this day and age, 10+10 defined contribution superannuation along the lines of Oz is the way to go. > > I think for the vast majority of people, DC is correct. > > But it isn't a dichotomy between that and final salary. The move to average salary in the civil service, for example, effectively renders the DB scheme similar to a nil-contribution DC scheme (save the risk of over/under performance rests with the Government).
Exactly. And I'd argue that most people would rather the risk remained with their employer for under/over performance.
Final salary is an abomination in this day and age, 10+10 defined contribution superannuation along the lines of Oz is the way to go.
I tend to agree with @anothernick that the reason it is an abomination is that we have an overly cautious and restrictive pensions regime. FS pensions would still have been affordable if it was permitted to value the liabilities by reference to the returns that pension funds routinely achieve. The consequences of this "protection" for pension members have proven to be truly horrendous dumping most of the uncertainty onto them rather than the employer. The law of good intentions strikes again.
We have effectively been in the grip of deflation since the "funny money" went up in smoke in 2008. QE has just kept us on the inflationary side of the line but only just. That suggests to me that the underlying pressure on prices has been downwards. Whether that will continue to be the case remains to be seen but the enthusiasm for deficit reduction seems to have waned markedly suggesting we might have reached either the end or the beginning of the end of that cycle.
> @rural_voter said: > > @IanB2 said: > > > @rottenborough said: > > > > @Nigel_Foremain said: > > > > > @rottenborough said: > > > > > I was also wondering this: > > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1134399525169315840 > > > > > > > > Not really. Vince Cable is not a very good leader and has had his time. The difficulty for them is that they have a very small number of MPs. They perhaps should look outside parliament. > > > > > > A mate asked in the pub last night whatever happened to the idea of a leader who was not MP? > > > > > > I said I thought conference had rejected the idea, but I'm not 100% > > > > Yep. The constitutional changes were watered down leaving only the idea of a supporters club. > __________________ > > Sandy Toksvig used to be a Lib.Dem. How did they manage to lose her? At the protest in London on 23 March, she and Heseltine gave the two best speeches. Caroline Lucas's was also pretty good. > > Trying to fit what might soon be 7-10 parties into a two-party FPTP system is getting silly > https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/pol3d_main.html > We need PR.
And the odds on Tory and Labour understanding that while they have the power to change things are.....?
> > It must be doing horrendous things to their final salary pension funds. How do you fund a pension when the return on gilts is actually negative?
>
>
>
> I doubt the Germans use the same accounting assumptions as UK pension funds - many people would argue the UK system overreacted to the Maxwell and other scandals and imposed an excessively cautious regime on pension schemes.
>
> It does strike me as strange that we are obliged to value our liabilities by reference to gilt yields when we have a relatively small proportion of our assets in gilts. If we assumed that returns would match what we get on corporate bonds, where we have a lot more of our money, we would be in a significant surplus situation. We are also obliged to produce a figure to members of how we would stand if we got no return at all on our money. I frankly don't see the point of that at all.
Yes. This. The USS (Uni scheme) is one example of this issue: worrying signs of strain but only because (as I understand it) they are forced to assume everything is marked to gilt yields.
The (probably) excessive pension contributions required to meet those criteria have not only resulted in the closure of FS schemes but have also reduced the funds available for investment (which, ironically, has probably also reduced the return that pension funds get from equities as well as contributing to the productivity problem).
> @DavidL said: > Who? Elaine Murray? She's not even an MSP anymore. I like Jenny Marra but she is perhaps a bit powderpuff to get heard at the moment. > > I met and talked with Sarwar during the Better Together campaign. He did not impress. The epitomy of an empty (rather expensive) suit.
Ian Murray I presume, though the precedent for a Westminster mp taking the SLab reins are not propitious. No doubt there will still be numpties telling us that he's the man the EssEnnPee fear, though.
> @Pulpstar said: > Final salary is an abomination in this day and age, 10+10 defined contribution superannuation along the lines of Oz is the way to go.
Don't even get me started on public sector pensions. People talk about unfairness. How can in be fair that "The Few" can retire in their mid 50s while "The Many" have to carry on working until they are in their 70s. Why won't it change? Because the powers that be (including the Union Barons) like their own arrangements too much. This includes Nigel-man-o-the-people-Farridge
> @Theuniondivvie said: > > @DavidL said: > > Who? Elaine Murray? She's not even an MSP anymore. I like Jenny Marra but she is perhaps a bit powderpuff to get heard at the moment. > > > > I met and talked with Sarwar during the Better Together campaign. He did not impress. The epitomy of an empty (rather expensive) suit. > > > Ian Murray I presume, though the precedent for a Westminster mp taking the SLab reins are not propitious. No doubt there will still be numpties telling us that he's the man the EssEnnPee fear, though.
There are far more laughs to be had from a Paul Sweeney or James Kelly leadership bid, though.
> Who? Elaine Murray? She's not even an MSP anymore. I like Jenny Marra but she is perhaps a bit powderpuff to get heard at the moment.
>
> I met and talked with Sarwar during the Better Together campaign. He did not impress. The epitomy of an empty (rather expensive) suit.
Ian Murray I presume, though the precedent for a Westminster mp taking the SLab reins are not propitious. No doubt there will still be numpties telling us that he's the man the EssEnnPee fear, though.
I suppose that makes slightly more sense but I think even Labour have worked out that the Scottish leader needs to be in the Scottish Parliament. My understanding (and to be honest he does not impinge on my consciousness much) is that his relationship with the Corbynites is little short of poisonous so it also seems unlikely.
Back in the 2010 GE campaign when the LDs were polling at a similar level their support was 25% of ABC1 and 23% of C2DE. It’s now 29% ABC1 and 16% C2DE.
Comments
> > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> > On tuition fees, Layla has written a good article on these yesterday.
> >
> >
> > A good article? Are you mad? For a start, she seems to think that Phillip Augar is a Conservative politician. And what's with this 'I am angry' nonsense? The Augur proposals are a serious attempt to improve things, but it's a complex set of trade-offs. Shouting 'Tory con-tricks' just shows how unserious she is.
> >
> > If you want to read a good article on the subject, here it is:
> >
> > https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2019/05/editorial-comment--the-augar-report-heralds-the-end-of-student--/
>
> Watch out when Layla gets angry fists fly
Martin Lewis would be an excellent leader of a radical centre party, I guess LDs and CUK have tried to get him onboard but he wants to remain neutral (partly for obvious commercial reasons but partly he seems to have a healthy disdain for political parties).
>
> Nah, he'd have just been even more determined to keep us in the ERM which would have meant interest rates would have gone even higher, more families would have been thrown to the wolves in their mad desire to peg us to the ERM and Black Wednesday would have turned into Black Thursday and Black Friday etc
They’d have just changed the bands so the pound could devalue within the ERM.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/1993/aug/02/euro.eu
> Wouldn't it be interesting for pollsters to do a poll without prompting for parties at all?
tbf the parties are listed on the ballot paper, and the polling is supposed to get close to that experience, rather than being a memory game.
> Given The Brexit Party was hidden behind "other" in the who would you vote for question, what would the result have been with the 4 leading parties presented as equal options? I guess we'll find out soon enough.
>
> Any negative effect of this on the BP polling figures was almost certainly dwarfed by the positive delta on their real vote as a consequence of that 'in your face' right facing arrow in their logo on the Euro ballot paper. It steered large numbers of the undecideds and the unwary towards voting for Farage's party, in many cases accidentally.
>
> What was the net effect of this? Did it impact on MEP seat numbers? We will never know.
Where are you getting "It steered large numbers of the undecideds and the unwary towards voting for Farage's party, in many cases accidentally"? A "not even an anecdote" warning would be appropriate.
I am entirely confident that BP will be allowed to keep their logo unchanged in future elections.
> France under FPTP with scores very similiar to the latest UK Yougov:
>
> https://twitter.com/Pulpstar/status/1134394972910825472
What's with this blue NE yellow SW theme?
Corbyn and his movement are so anti war that it cleaned that slate for Labour. LDs cannot, on the other hand, do that with Swinson or Davey, who were at the heart of the coalition.
> > @Scott_P said:
> > https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1134386332451704832
>
> My first thought was oh no, Sarwar is not the right person to lead SLab.
> But then, who?
Murray
> https://twitter.com/yougov/status/1134373516252471296
>
>
>
> Not prompting for minor parties makes sense, the bigger issue I would say is that prompting for the LDs right now in this febrile atmosphere may be contributing to their inflated VI.
Well, it makes sense if you want BXP supporters to hate you. I think it was v naive of YouGov to do this. What is presented to poll panellists should approximate to a generic ballot paper, and given that Farage has said that BXP will stand in the election, it shouldn't currently be hidden with the also-rans.
> > @Scott_P said:
> > https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1134386332451704832
>
> My first thought was oh no, Sarwar is not the right person to lead SLab.
> But then, who?
Just let the voters narrow it down to their last surviving MSP?
> To those asking why Lab has been forgiven for Iraq whilst LDs still have tuition fees / coalition as an albatross around its neck, the answer is Corbyn.
>
> Corbyn and his movement are so anti war that it cleaned that slate for Labour. LDs cannot, on the other hand, do that with Swinson or Davey, who were at the heart of the coalition.
Corbyn isn't anti-war. He seems OK with it if it is waged by HAMAS or the IRA.
As to the effect who knows? Certainly I was very conscious of it when I was in there.
> To those asking why Lab has been forgiven for Iraq whilst LDs still have tuition fees / coalition as an albatross around its neck, the answer is Corbyn.
>
> Corbyn and his movement are so anti war that it cleaned that slate for Labour. LDs cannot, on the other hand, do that with Swinson or Davey, who were at the heart of the coalition.
Tuition fees is also much more recent than Iraq.
But last weeks results suggests that the Lib Dems are beginning to emerge from the shadows, and Corbyn seems determined to do everything he can to help them further.
As regards the two new front-runners, the LibDems have the big advantage of an established infrastructure and a fairly wide pool of at least somewhat experienced politicians beyond their immediate small pool of MPs. They have a large presence in the Lords, and a large pool of current and ex-councillors, and former parliamentary candidates, with campaigning and debating experience. The Brexit Party is going to have to create an organisation and structure from scratch, relying presumably on ex-Conservatives to fill the gaps. They have been very professional and slick so far, but the party is structured very much as a one-band band and I have no doubt that very soon the strains will start to show as they did to some extent with UKIP.
In addition, you can see how the LibDems could build up a credible GE manifesto and a reasonably coherent centre-left platform, provided they resist the temptation to stay too much in their comfort zone. The Brexit Party, on the other hand, is going to start putting supporters off as soon as it starts being explicit on policy.
On the response of the two main established parties, it's hard to see the hard left relinquishing control of Labour. Indeed, perhaps more likely is further defections - but this time to the LibDems. Overall, I think the surge to the LibDems looks pretty durable.
The Tories look well set to make a major blunder by trying to deal with Farage by imitating him, which can't work because he can always find more rocks to throw at them, and because it destroys what's left of the the Tories' USP of being the sensible, pragmatic, financially responsible party. The Brexit Party will collapse of its own contradictions if the Conservatives keep their nerve, but will prosper at least for a while if they don't.
> To those asking why Lab has been forgiven for Iraq whilst LDs still have tuition fees / coalition as an albatross around its neck, the answer is Corbyn.
>
> Corbyn and his movement are so anti war that it cleaned that slate for Labour. LDs cannot, on the other hand, do that with Swinson or Davey, who were at the heart of the coalition.
To be honest I find all this forgiveness malarky very childish. We have a very limited set of options, none of which are great. To restrict that choice further because of something that happened in the past is very restrictive.
I find the current Tory party incompetent, many of their MPs borderline stupid and they have caused the country great harm with the Brexit obsession yet I would have little problem voting for a different Tory leader with a better manifesto than the alternatives in the future.
> > @ah009 said:
> > > @Scott_P said:
> > > https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1134386332451704832
> >
> > My first thought was oh no, Sarwar is not the right person to lead SLab.
> > But then, who?
>
> Murray
Who? Elaine Murray? She's not even an MSP anymore. I like Jenny Marra but she is perhaps a bit powderpuff to get heard at the moment.
I met and talked with Sarwar during the Better Together campaign. He did not impress. The epitomy of an empty (rather expensive) suit.
https://twitter.com/JamesJo42157556/status/1134402242591825921
Scrapping High Speed 2, possible nationalisation and definitely investment in the railways for instance.
> https://twitter.com/Maomentum_/status/1134401206988824577
>
>
>
> https://twitter.com/JamesJo42157556/status/1134402242591825921
That handle looks a bit bot to me.
> @Richard_Nabavi The Brexit party's platform will be small c conservative, with a few sprinkles of some of the more popular left wing policies chucked in.
>
> Scrapping High Speed 2, possible nationalisation and definitely investment in the railways for instance.
I think small f fascism may be a better description
> > @Foxy said:
> > For me, the biggest risk is the reunification of Ireland and independence of Scotland, as both are clearly moving very strongly against the political mood in England and Wales. Good for the Scots and Irish, but it would be a backward step for England, leaving us in the hands of the swivel eyes loons, at least for the near future.
>
>
> Tbh I'm not really sure that you (and therefore we) aren't already in the hands of the swivel eyed loons.
I don’t really see that it is the job of the Irish and the Scots to save the English from their own swivel eyed loons. They really need to learn how to govern their own country.
https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1134399525169315840
https://twitter.com/tom_watson/status/1134403061319970816
How many hours until Jezza finally issues a mealy mouthed platitude about "due process"?
> > @Theuniondivvie said:
> > > @Foxy said:
> > > For me, the biggest risk is the reunification of Ireland and independence of Scotland, as both are clearly moving very strongly against the political mood in England and Wales. Good for the Scots and Irish, but it would be a backward step for England, leaving us in the hands of the swivel eyes loons, at least for the near future.
> >
> >
> > Tbh I'm not really sure that you (and therefore we) aren't already in the hands of the swivel eyed loons.
>
> I don’t really see that it is the job of the Irish and the Scots to save the English from their own swivel eyed loons. They really need to learn how to govern their own country.
>
The Scots will only save us from our swivel-eyed loons by ignoring their own versions. Scottish nationalism and English nationalism are two cheeks of the same foul smelling arse
It is a known phenomenon that prompting for minor parties can inflate their VI, and given that Yougov DID prompt for TBP in the euros and overshot their VI it might give credence to this being an issue.
We live in interesting times and things have obviously changed. But that much?
> So how's the anti-semitism training that Pete Willsman received working out?
Paging shameless Shami
Surely that isn't required.
> On topic it is worth remembering that only 2 years ago what used to be the 2 major parties got 82.4% of the vote in a GE, something, IIRC, of a record, in at least recent times. They got this on a high turnout of 68.8%.
>
> We live in interesting times and things have obviously changed. But that much?
>
>
The reason for 82.4% was Brexit. May wanted support for a Brexit deal so Brexiteers flocked to her, and remainers/soft Brexiteers went to Labour. Unfortunately both parties, especially Labour, have assumed that it was because they were popular when they clearly are not.
Dropping to sub 60% seems likely, sub 50% possible and sub 40% not impossible. Again the reason will be Brexit.
> I was also wondering this:
>
> https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1134399525169315840
Not really. Vince Cable is not a very good leader and has had his time. The difficulty for them is that they have a very small number of MPs. They perhaps should look outside parliament.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/05/30/german-bond-yields-plumb-700-year-lows-deflation-stalks-eurozone/
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1134394131978039296
Deflation + National Populism? What could possibly go wrong.
> Mr. Borough, anti-Semitism training?
>
> Surely that isn't required.
I think that like many in the Momentum Party he is autodidactic in that regard.
> > @rottenborough said:
> > I was also wondering this:
> >
> > https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1134399525169315840
>
> Not really. Vince Cable is not a very good leader and has had his time. The difficulty for them is that they have a very small number of MPs. They perhaps should look outside parliament.
A mate asked in the pub last night whatever happened to the idea of a leader who was not MP?
I said I thought conference had rejected the idea, but I'm not 100%
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/may/31/elton-john-brexit-not-imperialist-english-idiot-verona
Elton John: ‘I am a European – not a stupid, imperialist English idiot’
> So how's the anti-semitism training that Pete Willsman received working out?
>
> Very well, he's learnt a lot more about how the shadowy Jewish organisations work.
Ah anti semite training - easy mistake to make.
> > @Nigel_Foremain said:
> > > @rottenborough said:
> > > I was also wondering this:
> > >
> > > https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1134399525169315840
> >
> > Not really. Vince Cable is not a very good leader and has had his time. The difficulty for them is that they have a very small number of MPs. They perhaps should look outside parliament.
>
> A mate asked in the pub last night whatever happened to the idea of a leader who was not MP?
>
> I said I thought conference had rejected the idea, but I'm not 100%
It is not necessarily a nice thought for them but it works for the Faragist Party and the Scottish Nationalists
> > @Nigel_Foremain said:
> > > @rottenborough said:
> > > I was also wondering this:
> > >
> > > https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1134399525169315840
> >
> > Not really. Vince Cable is not a very good leader and has had his time. The difficulty for them is that they have a very small number of MPs. They perhaps should look outside parliament.
>
> A mate asked in the pub last night whatever happened to the idea of a leader who was not MP?
>
> I said I thought conference had rejected the idea, but I'm not 100%
Yep. The constitutional changes were watered down leaving only the idea of a supporters club.
> > @DavidL said:
>
> > On topic it is worth remembering that only 2 years ago what used to be the 2 major parties got 82.4% of the vote in a GE, something, IIRC, of a record, in at least recent times. They got this on a high turnout of 68.8%.
>
> >
>
> > We live in interesting times and things have obviously changed. But that much?
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> The reason for 82.4% was Brexit. May wanted support for a Brexit deal so Brexiteers flocked to her, and remainers/soft Brexiteers went to Labour. Unfortunately both parties, especially Labour, have assumed that it was because they were popular when they clearly are not.
>
>
>
> Dropping to sub 60% seems likely, sub 50% possible and sub 40% not impossible. Again the reason will be Brexit.
>
> Likely = odds on? What odds are you willing to offer that the combined vote of Labour +Tories will be less than 60% of the GB votes cast at the next GE?
I would think it odds on yes, but happy backing no overall majority at the moment which gives protection well beyond the 60% level (although could lose if Brexit landslide) so unlikely to be odds you find appealing. (And 82.4% was Uk vote share, so I was still talking UK vote share not GB).
> Stranger things have happened.......
>
> https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1134394131978039296
If a clear majority of 60 is required within Parliament for the EU to change things - it's already dead...
> Stranger things have happened.......
>
> https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1134394131978039296
Stranger things have happened than a recent Daily Telegraph article having any close proximity to reality. On the same page it was advertising an article saying that the EU was scared of Dominic Raab's negotiating. Pissed myself!
Which leaves the LDs. And to a lesser extent the Greens.
> Not really. Vince Cable is not a very good leader and has had his time. The difficulty for them is that they have a very small number of MPs. They perhaps should look outside parliament.
They've got exactly the leader they need in Layla Moran. They just need to persuade her that the voters aren't going to care that she went all Amy Klobuchar on her boyfriend for bringing the wrong laptop cable or whatever.
That said, if they need somebody from outside to run the Sane And Non-Corrupt Party, they should draft Michael Woodford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Christopher_Woodford.
> Berlin is effectively charging investors an ever larger premium for the privilege of parking their money safely in bunds.
>
>
>
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/05/30/german-bond-yields-plumb-700-year-lows-deflation-stalks-eurozone/
>
> It must be doing horrendous things to their final salary pension funds. How do you fund a pension when the return on gilts is actually negative?
I doubt the Germans use the same accounting assumptions as UK pension funds - many people would argue the UK system overreacted to the Maxwell and other scandals and imposed an excessively cautious regime on pension schemes.
> > @DavidL said:
>
> > > @DavidL said:
>
> >
>
> > > On topic it is worth remembering that only 2 years ago what used to be the 2 major parties got 82.4% of the vote in a GE, something, IIRC, of a record, in at least recent times. They got this on a high turnout of 68.8%.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > We live in interesting times and things have obviously changed. But that much?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The reason for 82.4% was Brexit. May wanted support for a Brexit deal so Brexiteers flocked to her, and remainers/soft Brexiteers went to Labour. Unfortunately both parties, especially Labour, have assumed that it was because they were popular when they clearly are not.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Dropping to sub 60% seems likely, sub 50% possible and sub 40% not impossible. Again the reason will be Brexit.
>
> >
>
> > Likely = odds on? What odds are you willing to offer that the combined vote of Labour +Tories will be less than 60% of the GB votes cast at the next GE?
>
>
>
> I would think it odds on yes, but happy backing no overall majority at the moment which gives protection well beyond the 60% level (although could lose if Brexit landslide) so unlikely to be odds you find appealing. (And 82.4% was Uk vote share, so I was still talking UK vote share not GB).
>
> Evens?
Sorry 1.7 no overall majority is clearly much much better for me as would have been a winner last time even with 82.4% and there are not many overall majorities available sub 60%.
> > @rottenborough said:
> > > @Nigel_Foremain said:
> > > > @rottenborough said:
> > > > I was also wondering this:
> > > >
> > > > https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1134399525169315840
> > >
> > > Not really. Vince Cable is not a very good leader and has had his time. The difficulty for them is that they have a very small number of MPs. They perhaps should look outside parliament.
> >
> > A mate asked in the pub last night whatever happened to the idea of a leader who was not MP?
> >
> > I said I thought conference had rejected the idea, but I'm not 100%
>
> Yep. The constitutional changes were watered down leaving only the idea of a supporters club.
__________________
Sandy Toksvig used to be a Lib.Dem. How did they manage to lose her? At the protest in London on 23 March, she and Heseltine gave the two best speeches. Caroline Lucas's was also pretty good.
Trying to fit what might soon be 7-10 parties into a two-party FPTP system is getting silly
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/pol3d_main.html
We need PR.
> https://twitter.com/KateEMcCann/status/1134409086152392705
Sweepstake on when they quietly reinstate?
[Spectacularly ironic name, incidentally].
> > @DavidL said:
>
> > Berlin is effectively charging investors an ever larger premium for the privilege of parking their money safely in bunds.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/05/30/german-bond-yields-plumb-700-year-lows-deflation-stalks-eurozone/
>
> >
>
> > It must be doing horrendous things to their final salary pension funds. How do you fund a pension when the return on gilts is actually negative?
>
>
>
> I doubt the Germans use the same accounting assumptions as UK pension funds - many people would argue the UK system overreacted to the Maxwell and other scandals and imposed an excessively cautious regime on pension schemes.
>
> It does strike me as strange that we are obliged to value our liabilities by reference to gilt yields when we have a relatively small proportion of our assets in gilts. If we assumed that returns would match what we get on corporate bonds, where we have a lot more of our money, we would be in a significant surplus situation. We are also obliged to produce a figure to members of how we would stand if we got no return at all on our money. I frankly don't see the point of that at all.
Yes. This. The USS (Uni scheme) is one example of this issue: worrying signs of strain but only because (as I understand it) they are forced to assume everything is marked to gilt yields.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/24/how-the-amazon-google-uber-effect-dictates-low-inflation
> > @rottenborough said:
> > https://twitter.com/KateEMcCann/status/1134409086152392705
>
> Sweepstake on when they quietly reinstate?
The D Day/Trump event. Journalists will be busy elsewhere and we'll have wall to wall TV of D Day ceremony etc.
> Final salary is an abomination in this day and age, 10+10 defined contribution superannuation along the lines of Oz is the way to go.
I think for the vast majority of people, DC is correct.
But it isn't a dichotomy between that and final salary. The move to average salary in the civil service, for example, effectively renders the DB scheme similar to a nil-contribution DC scheme (save the risk of over/under performance rests with the Government).
500/1 any other party I had. Grrrrrr.
> We have effectively been in the grip of deflation since the "funny money" went up in smoke in 2008. QE has just kept us on the inflationary side of the line but only just. That suggests to me that the underlying pressure on prices has been downwards. Whether that will continue to be the case remains to be seen but the enthusiasm for deficit reduction seems to have waned markedly suggesting we might have reached either the end or the beginning of the end of that cycle.
>
> David - did you see this article?
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/24/how-the-amazon-google-uber-effect-dictates-low-inflation
Deflation and debt is a deadly combination
> > @Pulpstar said:
> > Final salary is an abomination in this day and age, 10+10 defined contribution superannuation along the lines of Oz is the way to go.
>
> I think for the vast majority of people, DC is correct.
>
> But it isn't a dichotomy between that and final salary. The move to average salary in the civil service, for example, effectively renders the DB scheme similar to a nil-contribution DC scheme (save the risk of over/under performance rests with the Government).
Exactly. And I'd argue that most people would rather the risk remained with their employer for under/over performance.
> > @IanB2 said:
> > > @rottenborough said:
> > > > @Nigel_Foremain said:
> > > > > @rottenborough said:
> > > > > I was also wondering this:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1134399525169315840
> > > >
> > > > Not really. Vince Cable is not a very good leader and has had his time. The difficulty for them is that they have a very small number of MPs. They perhaps should look outside parliament.
> > >
> > > A mate asked in the pub last night whatever happened to the idea of a leader who was not MP?
> > >
> > > I said I thought conference had rejected the idea, but I'm not 100%
> >
> > Yep. The constitutional changes were watered down leaving only the idea of a supporters club.
> __________________
>
> Sandy Toksvig used to be a Lib.Dem. How did they manage to lose her? At the protest in London on 23 March, she and Heseltine gave the two best speeches. Caroline Lucas's was also pretty good.
>
> Trying to fit what might soon be 7-10 parties into a two-party FPTP system is getting silly
> https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/pol3d_main.html
> We need PR.
And the odds on Tory and Labour understanding that while they have the power to change things are.....?
> > @Floater said:
> > > @rottenborough said:
> > > https://twitter.com/KateEMcCann/status/1134409086152392705
> >
> > Sweepstake on when they quietly reinstate?
>
> The D Day/Trump event. Journalists will be busy elsewhere and we'll have wall to wall TV of D Day ceremony etc.
Anti-semitism only warrants suspension. Voting LibDem expulsion. Corbyn's Labour/Momentum party has clearly got very warped values.
> Who? Elaine Murray? She's not even an MSP anymore. I like Jenny Marra but she is perhaps a bit powderpuff to get heard at the moment.
>
> I met and talked with Sarwar during the Better Together campaign. He did not impress. The epitomy of an empty (rather expensive) suit.
Ian Murray I presume, though the precedent for a Westminster mp taking the SLab reins are not propitious. No doubt there will still be numpties telling us that he's the man the EssEnnPee fear, though.
> Final salary is an abomination in this day and age, 10+10 defined contribution superannuation along the lines of Oz is the way to go.
Don't even get me started on public sector pensions. People talk about unfairness. How can in be fair that "The Few" can retire in their mid 50s while "The Many" have to carry on working until they are in their 70s. Why won't it change? Because the powers that be (including the Union Barons) like their own arrangements too much. This includes Nigel-man-o-the-people-Farridge
> Is Mordaunt going to stand? What's the deadline for announcing it?
It looks very likely. The contest hasn’t even officially started yet so she has plenty of time.
> > @DavidL said:
> > Who? Elaine Murray? She's not even an MSP anymore. I like Jenny Marra but she is perhaps a bit powderpuff to get heard at the moment.
> >
> > I met and talked with Sarwar during the Better Together campaign. He did not impress. The epitomy of an empty (rather expensive) suit.
>
>
> Ian Murray I presume, though the precedent for a Westminster mp taking the SLab reins are not propitious. No doubt there will still be numpties telling us that he's the man the EssEnnPee fear, though.
There are far more laughs to be had from a Paul Sweeney or James Kelly leadership bid, though.