politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Obama appears to be winning the battle for public opinion o
Comments
-
I think consoling yourself that the RM ,shares that have been bought by public sector pension funds are protected from being bought by private sector pension funds is a bit rich and smug given private sector pension holders would love to have a pension scheme that comes remotely close to being as generous as a public sector one!Polruan said:
Doesn't matter (in the sense of this discussion). In general they're DB not DC so that means that the liability for asset performance shortfall doesn't impact employees and they don't get any upside benefit.state_go_away said:
I think you will find most public sector pensions are asset backed (the civil service being the exception rather than the rule)
In the sense that any shares bought into the portfolio of public sector pension portfolios are effectively still government assets (whether technically on or off balance sheet) then at least it's not a gratuitous transfer to private sector, so that's something...0 -
SDA are a kind of McUKIP, Independent Scotland, BOO, fiscally right (not sure about social position); must admit I'm surprised how badly they've done in their couple of electoral forays. Still, I don't think UKIP broke 2% last night, so it's a pretty tiny pool they're bobbing for apples in.NickPalmer said:
I see the Christ is King chap (channelling SeanT and the Soon We Will All Be Religious view) got 60, 1% or so. But he did trounce the Scottish Democratic Alliance (vote tally: 1). Who are they? Or rather, who is he?CarlottaVance said:0 -
Public sector pensions are mostly paid out of revenue - there are no "funds." Only universities and local government have funded schemes - NHS, teachers, armed forces, police & civil service do not.state_go_away said:
I think consoling yourself that the RM ,shares that have been bought by public sector pension funds are protected from being bought by private sector pension funds is a bit rich and smug given private sector pension holders would love to have a pension scheme that comes remotely close to being as generous as a public sector one!Polruan said:
Doesn't matter (in the sense of this discussion). In general they're DB not DC so that means that the liability for asset performance shortfall doesn't impact employees and they don't get any upside benefit.state_go_away said:
I think you will find most public sector pensions are asset backed (the civil service being the exception rather than the rule)
In the sense that any shares bought into the portfolio of public sector pension portfolios are effectively still government assets (whether technically on or off balance sheet) then at least it's not a gratuitous transfer to private sector, so that's something...
0 -
As will shops, cafes and restaurants as many punters go out and spend their £250.steve_garner said:Chances are that many investors in stocks and shares ISAs will also benefit from gains on the RM privatisations. It's not just the pension funds.
The revenue streams are many - despite what the single data point whiners suggest.
0 -
Breaking News @BreakingNews 28s
Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons - @nobelprize_org
Wow... that's exciting.. not.0 -
I work in the private sector and would love it if my employer offered any form of contribution to pensions so I'm not quite sure what's smug about me adopting that position. I don't understand why the public sector chasing the private sector in a race to the bottom is the preferred option; there have been times in the past when ambitions exceeded short-term shareholder value and as a result there was more chance of a race to the top.state_go_away said:
I think consoling yourself that the RM ,shares that have been bought by public sector pension funds are protected from being bought by private sector pension funds is a bit rich and smug given private sector pension holders would love to have a pension scheme that comes remotely close to being as generous as a public sector one!Polruan said:
Doesn't matter (in the sense of this discussion). In general they're DB not DC so that means that the liability for asset performance shortfall doesn't impact employees and they don't get any upside benefit.state_go_away said:
I think you will find most public sector pensions are asset backed (the civil service being the exception rather than the rule)
In the sense that any shares bought into the portfolio of public sector pension portfolios are effectively still government assets (whether technically on or off balance sheet) then at least it's not a gratuitous transfer to private sector, so that's something...
In particular I don't think the move to asset-linked DC pensions is a good one for employees. I think it's a good move for fund managers, financial institutions and their shareholders, and by and large there's not much overlap between the two.0 -
Wait didn't Ed Snowden win ?Slackbladder said:Breaking News @BreakingNews 28s
Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons - @nobelprize_org
Wow... that's exciting.. not.
Poor show...
Slightly ironic that they win the year 100s get gassed to death - suggests their job is far from over.0 -
well I cannot be sure of the percentage splits but either way to want to deny private sector pension funds a chance to improve private pensions is highly unfair given how much more generous and guaranteed by the taxpayer (includes private sector workers of course) public pensions are!anothernick said:
Public sector pensions are mostly paid out of revenue - there are no "funds." Only universities and local government have funded schemes - NHS, teachers, armed forces, police & civil service do not.state_go_away said:
I think consoling yourself that the RM ,shares that have been bought by public sector pension funds are protected from being bought by private sector pension funds is a bit rich and smug given private sector pension holders would love to have a pension scheme that comes remotely close to being as generous as a public sector one!Polruan said:
Doesn't matter (in the sense of this discussion). In general they're DB not DC so that means that the liability for asset performance shortfall doesn't impact employees and they don't get any upside benefit.state_go_away said:
I think you will find most public sector pensions are asset backed (the civil service being the exception rather than the rule)
In the sense that any shares bought into the portfolio of public sector pension portfolios are effectively still government assets (whether technically on or off balance sheet) then at least it's not a gratuitous transfer to private sector, so that's something...0 -
A win for both the Lib Dems "look we stopped the beastly Tories" and the Tories "see how we are hamstrung by the Lib Dems?"
"Landlord immigration checks restricted after Lib Dem concerns
Theresa May's scheme for landlords to check on tenants' immigration status will run in just one area before 2015"
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/11/landlord-immigration-checks-restricted-lib-dems0 -
How STV would help the Tories. Leeds is a good example.
Across the five Leeds seats the Tories received a total of 51,237 votes, 25% of the total, but won no seats. They came closest in Leeds North East, where they were still 9.6% behind.
With a five-member STV constituency for Leeds the Conservatives would easily win one seat, and they would only be a few thousand votes away from clinching a second seat - taking it from the Lib Dems, while Labour would take two seats rather than four. The voters would decide which of the current Labour MPs [Hilary Benn, Rachel Reeves, George Mudie and Fabian Hamilton] would stay in Parliament, and which of the Conservative/Lib Dem candidates they preferred.
At the moment there is little point in the Conservatives campaigning in Leeds, one of the largest cities in Yorkshire, and therefore the UK, because if they were to achieve the 4.8% national swing required to take a single seat in Leeds, they would have a landslide majority of about 102.
STV would provide a motivation for the Conservatives to campaign in places like Leeds, and similarly a motivation for Labour and the Lib Dems to campaign in, say, a five member STV constituency of rural North Yorkshire, comprising the seats of Richmond (Yorks), Scarborough and Whitby, Skipton and Ripon, Thirsk and Malton and Harrogate and Knaresborough. At the moment, the first four of those are pretty safe Conservative seats, with only one of them falling to Labour even in the landslide years of 1997 and 2001.
I'm sure Hague would keep his seat, but it would be nice for the voters to choose him from among the Conservative candidates, than to have him guaranteed a place in the Commons on account of holding a safe seat.0 -
Tom Chivers @TomChivers 3m
so wait we're giving the peace prize to the prohibition of chemical weapons dudes the ONE YEAR they fail to prohibit chemical weapons
Up there with giving it to Obama...0 -
Don't want a race to the bottom as you say , a race to the middle might be a good start. ie by lowering public sector pension entitlement a bit you could restart tax credits on private pensions that were taken away unfairly by Gordon Brown.Polruan said:
I work in the private sector and would love it if my employer offered any form of contribution to pensions so I'm not quite sure what's smug about me adopting that position. I don't understand why the public sector chasing the private sector in a race to the bottom is the preferred option; there have been times in the past when ambitions exceeded short-term shareholder value and as a result there was more chance of a race to the top.state_go_away said:
I think consoling yourself that the RM ,shares that have been bought by public sector pension funds are protected from being bought by private sector pension funds is a bit rich and smug given private sector pension holders would love to have a pension scheme that comes remotely close to being as generous as a public sector one!Polruan said:
Doesn't matter (in the sense of this discussion). In general they're DB not DC so that means that the liability for asset performance shortfall doesn't impact employees and they don't get any upside benefit.state_go_away said:
I think you will find most public sector pensions are asset backed (the civil service being the exception rather than the rule)
In the sense that any shares bought into the portfolio of public sector pension portfolios are effectively still government assets (whether technically on or off balance sheet) then at least it's not a gratuitous transfer to private sector, so that's something...
In particular I don't think the move to asset-linked DC pensions is a good one for employees. I think it's a good move for fund managers, financial institutions and their shareholders, and by and large there's not much overlap between the two.0 -
-
Twas I - thank you!CarlottaVance said:Someone was asking yesterday about differences in VI between the public & private sectors (today's Populus);
OA/Public/Private:
Con: 34 / 24 / 36
Lab: 39 / 47 / 37
LibD: 12 / 11 / 14
UKIP: 8 / 7 / 7
0 -
Well after Obama and the EU you thought that the Nobel committee could not surpass that but giving it to an organisation that wanst to ban chemical weapons in a year when they have been used for the first time in dacades is pretty impressiveSlackbladder said:Breaking News @BreakingNews 28s
Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons - @nobelprize_org
Wow... that's exciting.. not.0 -
You have to admire Simon Cowell. The live shows for X Factor start with an 80s night. With a north-south divide, high unemployment, boom in the City and the main parties abandoning the centre ground, the whole country feels like an 80s revival.
Incidentally, X Factor looks quite wide open this year. Tamera looks like a sell on SPIN to me (she's got a great voice but is clearly going to be the subject of numerous unflattering tabloid stories in the coming weeks). I wouldn't bet against Nicholas, who looks like this year's Eoghan. It's probably safest for the moment to be selling the roadkill.0 -
Just as much of a disgrace as Blair's parading of the Bulger case when he was in opposition to make exactly the same point, I'm sure you'll agree .tim said:@Cyclefree
Thankfully so far we've not seen opposition politicians trying to milk every crime against children as proof of a Broken Britain.
Camerons sick parading before the last election was a disgrace
0 -
Trust me, you really don't want to get me started on the technicalities and merits of advance corporation tax and synthetic tax credits on a Friday.... it was a stupid system and needed simplifying. Whether the simplification was the correct one and created the right winners abd losers, of course, that's a different question.state_go_away said:Don't want a race to the bottom as you say , a race to the middle might be a good start. ie by lowering public sector pension entitlement a bit you could restart tax credits on private pensions that were taken away unfairly by Gordon Brown.
The cuts in corporation tax since 1997 should have offset the removal of ACT several times over in terms of funds available for distribution to shareholders, so I'm not sure that this would be the best solution to the problems of private pensions tbh. The problem is more the defined contribution nature than anything else.0 -
Now come on, a-r. You're a sensible chap.another_richard said:We saw another example of this with Royal Mail shares - private investors get 30% while business investors get 70%. So it looks like the government have given the wealth gain all those private investors were expecting to the 'bankers' or dubious foreign financial institutions. So 'people like me' will make a gain of maybe a couple of hundred pounds while 'people like them' will make millions.
Is it really the case that even you, let alone the average man is the street, are so ignorant that you don't understand what a 'financial institution' is? That you think it's some cabal of the rich?
If so, we really are f*cked.0 -
Another strike date announced. I think it's going to be a long campaign.
Check out @BBCBreaking's Tweet:
BBC Breaking News ✔ @BBCBreaking
Firefighters in England and Wales to strike for five hours on 19 October amid pensions row, Fire Brigades Union says
http://bbc.in/1g4YsPL
9:25 AM - 11 Oct 2013
0 -
Its funny how socialists are weary of all financial institutions except the biggest of the lot , the state!!RichardNabavi said:
Now come on, a-r. You're a sensible chap.another_richard said:We saw another example of this with Royal Mail shares - private investors get 30% while business investors get 70%. So it looks like the government have given the wealth gain all those private investors were expecting to the 'bankers' or dubious foreign financial institutions. So 'people like me' will make a gain of maybe a couple of hundred pounds while 'people like them' will make millions.
Is it really the case that even you, let alone the average man is the street, are so ignorant that you don't understand what a 'financial institution' is? That you think it's some cabal of the rich?
If so, we really are f*cked.0 -
0
-
Yes, that would be because the benefit of the state isn't (necessarily) skewed towards those who can afford to buy the biggest interest in it. Co-operatives, credit societies and so on are also good examples.state_go_away said:
Its funny how socialists are weary of all financial institutions except the biggest of the lot , the state!!RichardNabavi said:
Now come on, a-r. You're a sensible chap.another_richard said:We saw another example of this with Royal Mail shares - private investors get 30% while business investors get 70%. So it looks like the government have given the wealth gain all those private investors were expecting to the 'bankers' or dubious foreign financial institutions. So 'people like me' will make a gain of maybe a couple of hundred pounds while 'people like them' will make millions.
Is it really the case that even you, let alone the average man is the street, are so ignorant that you don't understand what a 'financial institution' is? That you think it's some cabal of the rich?
If so, we really are f*cked.0 -
Brilliant story if a bit weird
"A talented amputee has refused to let losing his arm to cancer prevent him from doing his job by attaching the tools of his trade to his stump. Jon Chapman, 43, was left devastated when he was told his arm would have to be amputated after he developed a cancerous lump in his right hand.
But instead of ending his career, Mr Chapman's engineer neighbour John Freestone developed a solution - interchangeable tools that fitted onto his prosthetic right arm. Mr Champman is now able to fit a hammer, pliers and a Stanley knife to his arm, allowing him to continue cutting keys and mending shoes at his shop in Derby. Customers at his shop, which he has run for 30 years, have even affectionately nicknamed him ‘The human Swiss army knife’.
He has now been awarded the prestigious Craftsman of the Year award after beating hundreds of nominations from across the country.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2453900/The-human-Swiss-Army-Knife-Cobbler-lost-arm-cancer-continues-work-prosthetic-arm-fitted-interchangeable-tools.html#ixzz2hP6ThCYG
0 -
Richard, what percentage of the benefit of institutional funds would have to go to the richest 20% of society before you would think it was fair to call it a "cabal of the rich"? 50%? 80%? What if, for example, the poorest half of society derived no material direct benefit from gains of such funds? Would that qualify?RichardNabavi said:
Now come on, a-r. You're a sensible chap.another_richard said:We saw another example of this with Royal Mail shares - private investors get 30% while business investors get 70%. So it looks like the government have given the wealth gain all those private investors were expecting to the 'bankers' or dubious foreign financial institutions. So 'people like me' will make a gain of maybe a couple of hundred pounds while 'people like them' will make millions.
Is it really the case that even you, let alone the average man is the street, are so ignorant that you don't understand what a 'financial institution' is? That you think it's some cabal of the rich?
If so, we really are f*cked.0 -
"the New Labour victory recipe of flipping large numbers of Conservatives is not open to Ed so a different plan is needed..."
http://labourlist.org/2013/10/dear-labours-new-election-team/
Quite......
"Labour's Right is in Retreat
.....In the end, though, it goes back to Bevan and Gaitskell and the dispute, between the Left and the Right of the party, about where elections are won. Labour’s soft Left has got its party back and its Right is in retreat. These are now the terms we should once again use. Since the time of Bevan and Gaitskell Labour’s centre of gravity has shifted to the right. It will find out soon enough that Gaitskell was right and so, whisper it, was Blair.
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/10/11/labour-right-in-retreat/
0 -
well cooperatives and mutuals are not actually the state are they ? I am all in favour of co-ops like John Lewis and the Co-op precisely becasue they are not run by the state. Things that are run by the state or in their favour (like the BBC) seem to have fairly dubious priorities though . One of which is giving employees of the state far better pensions than non state employees or giving big pay offs for failure (ie BBC) .Polruan said:
Yes, that would be because the benefit of the state isn't (necessarily) skewed towards those who can afford to buy the biggest interest in it. Co-operatives, credit societies and so on are also good examples.state_go_away said:
Its funny how socialists are weary of all financial institutions except the biggest of the lot , the state!!RichardNabavi said:
Now come on, a-r. You're a sensible chap.another_richard said:We saw another example of this with Royal Mail shares - private investors get 30% while business investors get 70%. So it looks like the government have given the wealth gain all those private investors were expecting to the 'bankers' or dubious foreign financial institutions. So 'people like me' will make a gain of maybe a couple of hundred pounds while 'people like them' will make millions.
Is it really the case that even you, let alone the average man is the street, are so ignorant that you don't understand what a 'financial institution' is? That you think it's some cabal of the rich?
If so, we really are f*cked.0 -
"Demand from first-time house buyers is continuing to rise, according to lenders, with a 33% increase in home loans in August from a year earlier."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24488985
Born out by the Tory lead vs Labour on 'help to get on the housing ladder....'0 -
Well, a-r was making a distinction between retail investors - the little guys - and institutions, perecieved as Cameron's rich mates in the City. As a distinction, it's not only total garbage - those little guys buying shares in their own name are unlikely to include many of the bottom 50% by household wealth - but shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what financial institutions are.Polruan said:
Richard, what percentage of the benefit of institutional funds would have to go to the richest 20% of society before you would think it was fair to call it a "cabal of the rich"? 50%? 80%? What if, for example, the poorest half of society derived no material direct benefit from gains of such funds? Would that qualify?
We saw the same thing with the banks.
There seems to be some kind of collective madness (actually disturbingly similar to the collective madness of the Thirties) whereby people think banks and institutional funds represent the personal wealth of some small and shadowy group of plutocrats. Quite where these plutocrats are to be found is never explained.0 -
No, of course they're not the state. I was suggesting that socialist-types aren't suspicious of institutions constituted in the way, i.e. it's not only the state that's considered acceptable.state_go_away said:
well cooperatives and mutuals are not actually the state are they ? I am all in favour of co-ops like John Lewis and the Co-op precisely becasue they are not run by the state. Things that are run by the state or in their favour (like the BBC) seem to have fairly dubious priorities though . One of which is giving employees of the state far better pensions than non state employees or giving big pay offs for failure (ie BBC) .
Having worked my entire career in the private sector (mostly banking) I've seen every public sector vice manifested equally in the private sector. Large institutions tend to take on many of the same kinds of problems regardless of whether they are listed or part of the state. As regards pension provision, private companies used to have the same priorities. In the two banks I've worked for, members of the legacy schemes (typically closed to new entrants between 1985 and 1995) enjoy defined benefits that are roughly as generous as public sector schemes of that vintage, and better than the schemes open to new public sector employees today. It's easier for private companies to cut back provision leaving the state to pick up the slack when its pensioners end up impoverished; it's less sensible for state employers to do the same only to face the bill in a different line in its accounts further down the line.0 -
Can you give us a 3 bullet point summary of what the beef is this time ?TwistedFireStopper said:Another strike date announced. I think it's going to be a long campaign.
Check out @BBCBreaking's Tweet:
BBC Breaking News ✔ @BBCBreaking
Firefighters in England and Wales to strike for five hours on 19 October amid pensions row, Fire Brigades Union says
http://bbc.in/1g4YsPL
9:25 AM - 11 Oct 2013
0 -
It cannot be for as bad a reason as the Royal Mail striking (being given £2,500 each is pretty impressive to strike about)TGOHF said:
Can you give us a 3 bullet point summary of what the beef is this time ?TwistedFireStopper said:Another strike date announced. I think it's going to be a long campaign.
Check out @BBCBreaking's Tweet:
BBC Breaking News ✔ @BBCBreaking
Firefighters in England and Wales to strike for five hours on 19 October amid pensions row, Fire Brigades Union says
http://bbc.in/1g4YsPL
9:25 AM - 11 Oct 20130 -
Excuse my ignorance, but wouldn't Scottish independence lead to the Labour Party being in trouble? or would independent Scotland still be part of uk general elections?0
-
Presumably they are striking out of sympathy with workers in the private sector whose pensions are only a fraction of what they get.TGOHF said:Can you give us a 3 bullet point summary of what the beef is this time ?
0 -
@Polruan Unfortunately, most employees simply have no idea how costly pension provision is, so do not value what their employers used to provide for them. Employers got sick of paying huge sums for something that their staff didn't value, so drew the obvious short term conclusion.
However, private sector employers that cut back on pension provision too far are behaving unwisely. Pensions are a useful management tool to incentivise older employees to leave the business when their powers are waning without having to perfomance-manage a very long-serving employee out, with all the impact on morale and potential damage to reputation that entails. That has been forgotten for now. It will be remembered again in about 10 years' time.
0 -
Perhaps there is a chance of more betting markets on the 2015GE appearing once we know which way Scotland has voted in the independence referendum, and what the transitional arrangements regarding Scottish seats in the House of Commons would be, in the event of a vote to leave.isam said:Excuse my ignorance, but wouldn't Scottish independence lead to the Labour Party being in trouble? or would independent Scotland still be part of uk general elections?
0 -
''We could all be underestimating what's coming next in London. ''
As usual a highly perceptive post from Antifrank. And here's the thing. If the City takes off again, so will government revenues.
And we all know what that means....0 -
An election winning cut to a 35p rate ?taffys said:''We could all be underestimating what's coming next in London. ''
As usual a highly perceptive post from Antifrank. And here's the thing. If the City takes off again, so will government revenues.
And we all know what that means....
0 -
CarlottaVance said:
New Populus Voting Intention figures: Lab 39 (-1); Cons 34 (+1); LD 12 (+2); UKIP 8 (-2); Oth 7 (=)
http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Online_VI_11-10-2013_BPC.pdf
So Populus shows Labour down and the Tories up but no comments at all from the usual suspects who were so keen on today's YouGov. Why am I unsurprised. no doubt they'll all be on to criticise it as outlier/wrong sample wrong weighting blah, blah, blah.
0 -
How *would* you define the beneficiaries of financial institutions? I'm sure there are many (wilful and genuine) misunderstandings of what they are, just as there are many (wilful and genuine) misunderstandings of what unions are.RichardNabavi said:
Well, a-r was making a distinction between retail investors - the little guys - and institutions, perecieved as Cameron's rich mates in the City. As a distinction, it's not only total garbage - those little guys buying shares in their own name are unlikely to include many of the bottom 50% by household wealth - but shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what financial institutions are.Polruan said:
Richard, what percentage of the benefit of institutional funds would have to go to the richest 20% of society before you would think it was fair to call it a "cabal of the rich"? 50%? 80%? What if, for example, the poorest half of society derived no material direct benefit from gains of such funds? Would that qualify?
We saw the same thing with the banks.
There seems to be some kind of collective madness (actually disturbingly similar to the collective madness of the Thirties) whereby people think banks and institutional funds represent the personal wealth of some small and shadowy group of plutocrats. Quite where these plutocrats are to be found is never explained.
The ONS household wealth data for 2008/10 (the most recent I can find) shows that mean household net financial assets [excluding real estate, I think] were around £5k for the poorest 88.3% and over £275k for the richest 11.7%. Many of those toward the bottom of this don't have any financial assets, meaning that the skew of institutional money is even more strongly towards the top 10% than this suggests.0 -
An election winning cut to a 35p rate ? ;
If Osborne goes for tax cuts he will target the basic rate to avoid 'tax cuts for your rich friends' targets.
Imagine if he slashed the basic rate to 18bp....0 -
I was kidding - I think the key is not to stop people on the 40p rate benefitting as has happened with the tax cuts so far from raising the allowance.taffys said:An election winning cut to a 35p rate ? ;
If Osborne goes for tax cuts he will target the basic rate to avoid 'tax cuts for your rich friends' targets.
Imagine if he slashed the basic rate to 18bp....
0 -
Basically, it's paying more(substantially), working longer, and getting a lot less. On the whole, the paying more and getting less can be thrashed out with the government, although the proposed scheme is unaffordable and unsustainable (to us).I feel there is a compromise to be made, along with a longer protection timescale for current firefighters within 10-15 years of retiring.TGOHF said:
Can you give us a 3 bullet point summary of what the beef is this time ?TwistedFireStopper said:Another strike date announced. I think it's going to be a long campaign.
Check out @BBCBreaking's Tweet:
BBC Breaking News ✔ @BBCBreaking
Firefighters in England and Wales to strike for five hours on 19 October amid pensions row, Fire Brigades Union says
http://bbc.in/1g4YsPL
9:25 AM - 11 Oct 2013
The biggest issue is the raising of the retirement age, coupled with dismissal and subsequent degradation of pension if you fail fitness tests, and are unable to work until 60.
0 -
TwistedFireStopper said:
Basically, it's paying more(substantially), working longer, and getting a lot less. On the whole, the paying more and getting less can be thrashed out with the government, although the proposed scheme is unaffordable and unsustainable (to us).I feel there is a compromise to be made, along with a longer protection timescale for current firefighters within 10-15 years of retiring.TGOHF said:
Can you give us a 3 bullet point summary of what the beef is this time ?TwistedFireStopper said:Another strike date announced. I think it's going to be a long campaign.
Check out @BBCBreaking's Tweet:
BBC Breaking News ✔ @BBCBreaking
Firefighters in England and Wales to strike for five hours on 19 October amid pensions row, Fire Brigades Union says
http://bbc.in/1g4YsPL
9:25 AM - 11 Oct 2013
The biggest issue is the raising of the retirement age, coupled with dismissal and subsequent degradation of pension if you fail fitness tests, and are unable to work until 60.
I think that some workers (see teachers) are going to have to come to terms with the reality that they need to be seeking out an interim career to fill the gap between 55-60 and the date they will pick up their pension (67-68).
0 -
-
I doubt it. You're just going to have older teachers trying to control young classes. The political decision to insist on a pension age of 68 / 69 / 70 rather than going for 65 on a cost neutral basis was a stupid mistake from Osborne / Alexander.TGOHF said:
I think that some workers (see teachers) are going to have to come to terms with the reality that they need to be seeking out an interim career to fill the gap between 55-60 and the date they will pick up their pension (67-68).0 -
"If a company got through 14 chief executives in 20 years, it might be fair to ask whether it was in crisis. In any case, it would appear a miserable, dysfunctional place to work. So pity the newest housing minister, Kris Hopkins, who this week became the 14th one since 1993; the third Conservative minister in as many years, while Labour had nine in 13 years."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/planning/10369535/Giving-a-backbencher-the-housing-brief-is-unlikely-to-end-the-crisis.html
quite.....0 -
Some workers will manage up to 68 - some wont. Some would be better off doing something else.Neil said:
I doubt it. You're just going to have older teachers trying to control young classes. The political decision to insist on a pension age of 68 / 69 / 70 rather than going for 65 on a cost neutral basis was a stupid mistake from Osborne / Alexander.TGOHF said:
I think that some workers (see teachers) are going to have to come to terms with the reality that they need to be seeking out an interim career to fill the gap between 55-60 and the date they will pick up their pension (67-68).
Your inflexible thinking is not surprising.
0 -
Where do tax cuts of that magnitude fit into this plan?
I know the sums don't add up and am doing it to wind up the left a bit.
I do know, however, that the City has the capacity to turn very rapidly, and has the ability to produce huge revenues for the government very quickly.
Revenues that, as antifrank points out, aren't expected or budgeted for and would come as a very, very pleasant surprise.
Osborne would be crazy not to share some of the love around.
0 -
Crikey.
The richest MP in Parliament has spoken of a £1million wrecking spree which saw a Jeep smash into three aircraft and demolish buildings on his country estate – just hours after he was sacked as a minister.
Two planes were destroyed and a third was rammed into buildings at the airstrip, causing horses to bolt from their paddock and charge along a busy road. Richard Benyon, 53, said: ‘The horses were running up and down the A4 – the vehicle had smashed into the aircraft, pushing one into the buildings, and it then crashed through gates and across fields.’
Mr Benyon, the Conservative MP for West Berkshire who is worth £200million, said his vast Englefield estate between Newbury and Reading had been ‘plagued for years’ by gangs staging illegal hare coursing events.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2453772/Vandals-1million-wrecking-spree-richest-MPs-country-estate.html#ixzz2hPG2s5vi
0 -
F1: Hamilton's latest column is up. It's pretty interesting, as most of his pieces are (and Webber's were before him):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/24487478
Mr. Stopper, my mum came up with an interesting proposal to square the circle of firemen either having to work when they're too old to be fit or getting a ridiculously long retirement. Why not have an opt-in early phase of pension?
So, when you're 50 or 55, or whatever, you get the option to retire early, but because you're still young enough to do work (just not strenuous physical stuff) it's at a lower rate than your full pension which would kick in when you reach the standard retirement age. Of course, if you prefer to keep working and are fit enough you can.
I'll put the pre-qualifying piece up in the next couple of hours.0 -
The richest 10% have more assets than the poorest 10%. That's a statement of the obvious. But even the poorest 10% buy insurance, or go to a supermarket which needs insurance, or buy food imported on ships which need insurance. Many of them will be members of some pension scheme (and many more once auto-enrolment is operating). Those insurance policies and pensions are supplied by financial institutions which hold investments. Are we supposed to believe that the assets of an institutional investor - say a Lloyds underwriter or Munich Re or the John Lewis Partnership pension fund or Aviva - are nonetheless owned by some wicked plutocrat?Polruan said:The ONS household wealth data for 2008/10 (the most recent I can find) shows that mean household net financial assets [excluding real estate, I think] were around £5k for the poorest 88.3% and over £275k for the richest 11.7%. Many of those toward the bottom of this don't have any financial assets, meaning that the skew of institutional money is even more strongly towards the top 10% than this suggests.
0 -
The reason the Tories didn't have enough votes to pass the boundary changes is because they were denied a majority by the unfair boundaries. Nothing to do with chins or what school anyone went to.tim said:
Is the penny dropping that Cameron cocked up the boundary changes very badly?DavidL said:
It is not so much because of FPTP Edmund as opposed to unequal and gerrymandered seats rigged in their favour.edmundintokyo said:
Even now the Republicans would have a good chance of holding the House, thanks to the magic of FPTP.RobD said:Bet Obama wishes he could call a snap election right now.
Thankfully none of the UK parties would be so anti-democratic as to seek to have their MPs elected by smaller constituencies, out of date registers and thereby effectively deprive many of their fellow citizens of a meaningful vote. Even Labour would not go that far, let alone those paragons of constitutional virtue, the Lib Dems. Would they?
Oh.
Don't forget that Tory FPTP votes are also skewed by Labours secret army, that group of Tories who vote Tory where the Tory has no hope, helping Labour.
Are you one of the secret army?
So far we have SeanT and TGOHF on here.
They were 7% ahead last time and couldn't get a majority and yet in 2005 Labour got a healthy majority with just a lead of 2.8%.
Next time Labour could well get in without even getting the most votes.0 -
One would hope their employers can encourage them to do something more effective.Neil said:
My point is that people who shouldnt be carrying on until 68 / 69 / 70 will do so.TGOHF said:
Some workers will manage up to 68 - some wont. Some would be better off doing something else.
Your inflexible thinking is not surprising.
0 -
One would have hoped that the Coalition had implemented more sensible pension reforms on a cost neutral basis but that appears to have been beyond them.TGOHF said:
One would hope their employers can encourage them to do something more effective.Neil said:
My point is that people who shouldnt be carrying on until 68 / 69 / 70 will do so.TGOHF said:
Some workers will manage up to 68 - some wont. Some would be better off doing something else.
Your inflexible thinking is not surprising.0 -
No - you claimed that the increase in tax revenue this year (which there is) - is down to just deferred bonuses.Neil said:
You're just making stuff up now. That's no better than tim.TGOHF said:
You think tax revenues will fall next year ? Interesting..
I am not claiming that the increase in tax revenue this year is all down to tax cuts - just that there have been cuts at the top and bottom and revenue is still rising. I'd expect revenue to rise next year too - its not a one off.0 -
On topic, I don't understand how when anyone in the US questions the governments ability to keep borrowing and spending more than they get in taxes indefinitely is considered a complete fruitcake. Eventually spending will need to be cut and the later it is left the more painful it will be.0
-
Did I mention inflexible ? Climb out of your public sector "job for life" silo ...Neil said:
One would have hoped that the Coalition had implemented more sensible pension reforms on a cost neutral basis but that appears to have been beyond them.TGOHF said:
One would hope their employers can encourage them to do something more effective.Neil said:
My point is that people who shouldnt be carrying on until 68 / 69 / 70 will do so.TGOHF said:
Some workers will manage up to 68 - some wont. Some would be better off doing something else.
Your inflexible thinking is not surprising.
0 -
It's much the same as what other countries are doing (apart from France), isn't it?Neil said:One would have hoped that the Coalition had implemented more sensible pension reforms on a cost neutral basis but that appears to have been beyond them.
http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/pensionsraisingretirementagesandexpandingprivatepensioncoverageessentialsaysoecd.htm
0 -
I'm describing how things currently work and how they are likely to work in the future. You may have a fantasy of armies of school teachers, nurses and prison guards staffing the DIY stores of the future but I'm not seeing it myself.TGOHF said:
Did I mention inflexible ? Climb out of your public sector "job for life" silo ...
0 -
Today's Populus Lab 39 Con 34 LD 12 UKIP 80
-
I got a coffee, a kiss and my android tablet handed to me by my Mrs, and an exhortation to "transfer me some money, I've overspent on clothes and shoes".SeanT said:I was woken up this morning by my agent, phoning to say "There's a six way German auction on your book".
This is possibly the nicest way I have ever been awoken, aside from that orally skilled Welsh girl I met once in the mid 90s.
Has any pb-er been stirred from slumber in a more pleasurable manner?
Not as nice as your wakep.
0 -
How STV could banish Balls from the House of Commons.
Suppose you had a 4-member STV seat of Greater Wakefield, comprising the current seats of Morley & Outwood, Normanton, Pontefract & Castleford, Wakefield and Hemsworth. These seats currently elect the four Labour MPs Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper, Jon Trickett and Mary Creagh.
Under STV, Greater Wakefield would probably have elected two Labour MPs and one MP each from the Conservatives and the Lib Dems, though both Labour and the Tories would have been close to taking the single Lib Dem seat.
Labour voters would have been able to combine voting for Labour with voting against Ed Balls, by placing him at the bottom of their preferences for the Labour candidates. Thus it could easily be that the two Labour MPs elected were Yvette Cooper and Jon Trickett [who received more votes than Balls or Creagh]. Labour-leaning voters would not be faced with the invidious choice of voting for Ed Balls, or voting against Labour, that FPTP forces upon them.0 -
That's what you aspire to, Richard? To be like France?!RichardNabavi said:
It's much the same as what other countries are doing (apart from France), isn't it?
Oops ... I obviously completely misread your post! (I'm going to focus on one thing at a time now!)
0 -
Come on, you can do better than that. Some examples of where institutional investment benefits poor people, based on the fact that it's part of an economic system in which everyone participates, don't show anything quantitative.RichardNabavi said:
The richest 10% have more assets than the poorest 10%. That's a statement of the obvious. But even the poorest 10% buy insurance, or go to a supermarket which needs insurance, or buy food imported on ships which need insurance. Many of them will be members of some pension scheme (and many more once auto-enrolment is operating). Those insurance policies and pensions are supplied by financial institutions which hold investments. Are we supposed to believe that the assets of an institutional investor - say a Lloyds underwriter or Munich Re or the John Lewis Partnership pension fund or Aviva - are nonetheless owned by some wicked plutocrat?Polruan said:The ONS household wealth data for 2008/10 (the most recent I can find) shows that mean household net financial assets [excluding real estate, I think] were around £5k for the poorest 88.3% and over £275k for the richest 11.7%. Many of those toward the bottom of this don't have any financial assets, meaning that the skew of institutional money is even more strongly towards the top 10% than this suggests.
The richest 10% each own 55 times the average assets of the poorest 90%. That's not a statement of the obvious. It implies a sharp division of benefit between the many and a small elite (I didn't refer to shadowy plutocrats or whatever the phrase is, but you can see why some, e.g. you, might use the term).
So seriously, if people misunderstand financial institutions, what is the correct understanding? If the net value of institutional investments in the UK doubles, how should one explain to the man on the street where that money goes?0 -
I certainly aspire to be like France in many ways!Neil said:That's what you aspire to, Richard? To be like France?!
Oops ... I obviously completely misread your post! (I'm going to focus on one thing at a time now!)0 -
Anthony Wells: New TNS BMRB, with topline figures for referendum voting intention of YES 25%, NO 44%, Don’t know 31%. Amongst those who say they are certain to vote the figures are YES 28%, NO 50%, Don’t know 22%.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8221
Tables: http://www.tnsglobal.com/sites/default/files/whitepaper/TNS BMRB_SOMDataTables2013Oct10.pdf
0 -
Unless its the gold standard Panelbase we should ignore..CarlottaVance said:Anthony Wells: New TNS BMRB, with topline figures for referendum voting intention of YES 25%, NO 44%, Don’t know 31%. Amongst those who say they are certain to vote the figures are YES 28%, NO 50%, Don’t know 22%.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8221
Tables: http://www.tnsglobal.com/sites/default/files/whitepaper/TNS BMRB_SOMDataTables2013Oct10.pdf
0 -
Much pee taking this morning
Jason Cowan @jason_manc
"Thatcher's Irish Potato Famine... " #tweetlikepolly
#you're Arfur @AhmedTheCat
The bank bailouts were caused by Tory cuts! #TweetlikePolly
Bob Smith @Schmiffy12
#TweetlikePolly King Herod was so obviously a Tory
Mark Sparrow @MarkGSparrow
David Cameron exacerbated the spread of the Great Plague. The cuts of 1665 actually the led to the Great Fire of London #TweetlikePolly
Small Thunder Dog @smallthunderdog
@Skip_Licker a tory shot Archduke Ferdinand to help the arms industry #TweetlikePolly0 -
SeantT: Being woken up by birdsong is pretty nice as is waking up at dawn while sailing down the Adriatic .......0
-
The correct understanding - so basic that it is staggering that one needs to make the point - is that the investments held by financial institutions are not owned by the fund managers personally or by bankers or 'rich mates of Cameron' or City fat cats or whatever idiotic phrase is being used.Polruan said:So seriously, if people misunderstand financial institutions, what is the correct understanding? If the net value of institutional investments in the UK doubles, how should one explain to the man on the street where that money goes?
0 -
I expected to see the LDs being more popular with public sector workers, rather than private sector worker.CarlottaVance said:Someone was asking yesterday about differences in VI between the public & private sectors (today's Populus);
OA/Public/Private:
Con: 34 / 24 / 36
Lab: 39 / 47 / 37
LibD: 12 / 11 / 14
UKIP: 8 / 7 / 7
0 -
I don't have the figures to hand, but if you had written 'The richest 10% on average own 55 times the average assets of the poorest, I could believe you.Polruan said:
The richest 10% each own 55 times the average assets of the poorest 90%.
The way I read your statement, the person in 9.99% position has 55 times the average of the poorest 90%.0 -
It was already posted but none of those who were so keen on today's You Gov have shown any interest in this one. I cannot think why........MarkSenior said:Today's Populus Lab 39 Con 34 LD 12 UKIP 8
0 -
Mr. Me, the best way to eject Balls from the Commons is by space cannon (or possibly trebuchet).0
-
Mr. T, didn't you (or someone else) comment about some hoity-toity fellow jumping the lengthy queue for a taxi in Paris, and everybody else being fine with it because he was part of the 'in' crowd?0
-
I think this will have the reverse effect to what they're hoping as some people actually believe those are serious facts.Plato said:Much pee taking this morning
Jason Cowan @jason_manc
"Thatcher's Irish Potato Famine... " #tweetlikepolly
#you're Arfur @AhmedTheCat
The bank bailouts were caused by Tory cuts! #TweetlikePolly
Bob Smith @Schmiffy12
#TweetlikePolly King Herod was so obviously a Tory
Mark Sparrow @MarkGSparrow
David Cameron exacerbated the spread of the Great Plague. The cuts of 1665 actually the led to the Great Fire of London #TweetlikePolly
Small Thunder Dog @smallthunderdog
@Skip_Licker a tory shot Archduke Ferdinand to help the arms industry #TweetlikePolly
I was being lectured the other day about how Thatcher was evil because she declared war on Africa in the Falklands war. The person in question votes Labour naturally.0 -
UKIP's response on the energy price fandango seems better than the Conservatives talk of increased competition.NickPalmer said:For once the conferences do seem to have changed the weather a bit - probably partly because the energy companies seem determined to shout "Yes, we're price-gougers!" at the moment, so Miliband struck lucky in making it the central theme.
I don't actually think that most people are convinced that a price freeze would transform their situation - it's more that Miliband has again shown he's more in touch about something they see as a problem, whereas the Tories were majoring on stuff that isn't especially salient at present, such as the perceived need to give a bung to some married people.
"Roger Helmer MEP the UKIP Energy spokesman has attacked both Labour and the Conservatives for hypocrisy over energy prices.
He said that here is a way to make energy more affordable without scapegoating the energy companies, but to do so would be to admit an historic mistake.
Helmer said, “It isn’t that complicated, If we remove the green subsidies and charges we can cut bills by 10%."
http://www.ukip.org/newsroom/news/929-cut-energy-bills-by-scrapping-green-subsidies-and-charges-says-helmer
0 -
In case it hasn't been mentioned the Tories won in my home ward of Tweeddale West. No numbers yet I'm afraid.0
-
@Polruan - The Tory explanation for the current financial system seems to be "It's the system we have and there is not a better one; and anyone who tries to find one is a Marxist who wants to take us back to the bad old days of the 70s". They'll also tell you that the top 1% pay 30% of income tax, without telling you too that the top 1% has never been richer and that over the last two or three years the members of that very small elite have enjoyed extraordinary boosts to their wealth, while the vast majority of people have seen their standards of living either go backwards or, at best, stall.
It seems pretty incontrovertible that what we have at the moment is skewed pretty heavily to the wealthy. That is fine as long as everyone else is also seeing standards of living rise. But when that ceases to happen, as it seems to have done across much of Europe, including the UK, we enter very dangerous and uncharted territory. All parties, not just the Tories, have to think about the consequences of that a lot more carefully. As you say, both UKIP and EdM have begun to, and what they are coming up with is sometimes clumsy, often contradictory and possibly deeply flawed. But at least they are thinking about it. This is a conversation that has to take place urgently. What we have currently is not sustainable - for those at the top, as well as at the bottom and in the middle.
0 -
More fun! Poll on Scottish Independence in E&W.
Pretty flat across the political spectrum.....with the odd UKIP exception....
OA (UKIP)
Should Scotland be an Independent Country?
Yes: 22 (30)
No: 53 (56)
DK: 25 (14)
Rest of UK better/worse off without Scotland?
Better: 23 (42)
Worse: 26 (19)
Currently has Scotland got too much influence on UK govt:
Yes (def/prob): 34 (57)
No: 42 (30)
http://www.tnsglobal.com/sites/default/files/whitepaper/TNS_OLB_POMDataTablesWeek35.pdf
0 -
Have eBooks taken off in France? I seem to remember reading that Amazon's french website had failed to gain market share the way their US/UK ones have.SeanT said:
Had quite an interesting conversation about French publishing this morning. I was discussing foreign rights with my agent and she was explaining why France is such a uniquely difficult and unpredictable country to sell to (which it is).Neil said:
That's what you aspire to, Richard? To be like France?!RichardNabavi said:
It's much the same as what other countries are doing (apart from France), isn't it?
Oops ... I obviously completely misread your post! (I'm going to focus on one thing at a time now!)
It all depends on who you know. If your French agent in Paris is not part of the Parisian elite (Enarques, etc) and does not socialise at the posh parties with the best editors, then she - it is normally a she - will simply be ignored, and editors will not buy from her. The merits of the book she is trying to sell are almost irrelevant, it's all about "being one of them" as my agent put it this morning.
Isn't that remarkable? France is virtually a feudal society. No wonder the FN are doing so well.
0 -
I was once called a child rapist because I had the temerity to point out to someone who was ranting about Thatcher and the death of Blair Peach that the death happened under a Labour government. I found this rather odd.CopperSulphate said:I was being lectured the other day about how Thatcher was evil because she declared war on Africa in the Falklands war. The person in question votes Labour naturally.
0 -
It's almost exactly the same as the YG and certainly well within the MOE.felix said:
It was already posted but none of those who were so keen on today's You Gov have shown any interest in this one. I cannot think why........MarkSenior said:Today's Populus Lab 39 Con 34 LD 12 UKIP 8
0 -
And even then, only the one with two additional questions before the Indy one.....TGOHF said:
Unless its the gold standard Panelbase we should ignore..CarlottaVance said:Anthony Wells: New TNS BMRB, with topline figures for referendum voting intention of YES 25%, NO 44%, Don’t know 31%. Amongst those who say they are certain to vote the figures are YES 28%, NO 50%, Don’t know 22%.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8221
Tables: http://www.tnsglobal.com/sites/default/files/whitepaper/TNS BMRB_SOMDataTables2013Oct10.pdf
0 -
That doesn't say who does own them. It says who doesn't. It's also possible that many people may use your latter two phrases to refer to the richest few % of society - I agree it's idiotic terminology but it may actual be denoting the right people.RichardNabavi said:
The correct understanding - so basic that it is staggering that one needs to make the point - is that the investments held by financial institutions are not owned by the fund managers personally or by bankers or 'rich mates of Cameron' or City fat cats or whatever idiotic phrase is being used.Polruan said:So seriously, if people misunderstand financial institutions, what is the correct understanding? If the net value of institutional investments in the UK doubles, how should one explain to the man on the street where that money goes?
@gerry_mander sorry that was rather badly written. The mean net financial asset ownership value for members of the top 10% (ish) is about 55 times the equivalent value for all members of the bottom 90% (ish).0 -
SO
Good points lucidly put. The left's point that the filthy rich are too rich is just about the only thing they say that I agree with.
I've yet to come across anyone, either from left or right, who has come anyway close to offering a solution to this problem.
Wealth always seems to elude draconian taxation, and the more draconian the taxation, the more it avoids it.
Then again, 'trickle down' doesn't seem to work that well either.0 -
Given that, if you decide to be a literary agent in France without being in the Paris elite you have to be as thick as two short planks and not worth doing business with.SeanT said:
Had quite an interesting conversation about French publishing this morning. I was discussing foreign rights with my agent and she was explaining why France is such a uniquely difficult and unpredictable country to sell to (which it is).Neil said:
That's what you aspire to, Richard? To be like France?!RichardNabavi said:
It's much the same as what other countries are doing (apart from France), isn't it?
Oops ... I obviously completely misread your post! (I'm going to focus on one thing at a time now!)
It all depends on who you know. If your French agent in Paris is not part of the Parisian elite (Enarques, etc) and does not socialise at the posh parties with the best editors, then she - it is normally a she - will simply be ignored, and editors will not buy from her. The merits of the book she is trying to sell are almost irrelevant, it's all about "being one of them" as my agent put it this morning.
Isn't that remarkable? France is virtually a feudal society. No wonder the FN are doing so well.
0 -
The Scottish Tory surge is underway !!Max_Edinburgh said:In case it hasn't been mentioned the Tories won in my home ward of Tweeddale West. No numbers yet I'm afraid.
0 -
Tree-ophile Copenhagen cry baby Ed may have ensured that his beloved green taxes are cut - oh the irony...
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn 1m
Green subsidies on energy bills are now under review, PM's official spokesman reveals. There is an "across the board" look at living costs.0 -
The Scottish Tory surge is underway !!
If the tories can;t win in a place called 'Tweeddale West', they can't win anywhere!0 -
''Tree-ophile Copenhagen cry baby Ed may have ensured that his beloved green taxes are cut - oh the irony...''
Will Ed support cutting cutting green taxes to give people some respite?
I feel a full judge-led public enquiry coming on0 -
The problem is not that the rich are too rich. The problem is that the poor are too poor. Anyone who doesn't understand the difference is part of the problem, not part of the solution.0
-
Ed's bestest mate Comrade Hollande:
"Tax is a main driver of French people to Britain, with 250,000-300,000 now reckoned to be living in London. “It’s still growing,” said Mr Blanc. “But it is impossible to measure because many people don’t want it to be known that they have left because of taxes.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/825011c6-31a3-11e3-817c-00144feab7de.html#ixzz2hPTqDUTR
0
