politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How George Osborne is hoping to raid pension pots without y

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

I did peer to peer via Ratesetter. Given that the ISA hadn't come in (even though I only pay basic rate tax) my return wasn't really worth it for a marginal extra return. I forget exactly, something like 2.5% pa v easy access (~2% at the time), 3.5% v traditional savings (~2.75% at the time).

This will make some difference from April...

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/personal-savings-allowance

Yes. The other problem was voids, i.e. time on the market not earning. Compared to the gross percentage it wasn't huge, but vis-a-vis the margin over a traditional savings product it was a significant eroding factor.

That's interesting that you suffered significant time without earning.

Pulpstar said:

@Thewhiterabbit There's a whole bunch of traditional bank accounts to game and clear before sticking a penny in P2P tbh - though with Ratesetter you should be able to get 5-6%.

Well these two points are both the result of only committing my money on a short-term basis (a mix of 1-year and monthly access) which suited me at the time. 5-6% was achievable on longer terms, with a different risk profile. For those able to tie their money up for longer (as started this discussion) Ratesetter is probably quite a different proposition.

@GeorgeTrefgarne: @FT is reporting Merkel has cancelled Davos appearance over Cologne crisis. Leaders don't do that lightly.

chestnut said:

Pong said:

Very few people in their 20's/30's care about pensions when housing costs are so crazy.

We've been mugged by the baby boomers.

The cost of a private flat in the place in London where I first rented privately in 1988 is the same today, when adjusted for inflation.

My interest rate today is under 3%. It was over 15% when I first bought property.

High purchase prices are being sustained by interest rates that have been kept too low for too long.

I'm trying to think of an area of London where house prices might not have increased since 1988. Ealing perhaps?

Pension pots are way above my paygrade so TL;DR for me -

However I come bearing #news -

https://twitter.com/SusanLove2314/status/686242245180321792

CornishBlue said:

(Snip)
It's actually incredibly cheap considering that it guarantees our security against the great powers. For a thousandth of our economic output we can guarantee it on an on-going basis against other nuclear powers.

I would imagine that it is cheaper than the dreadnought race v. Germany et al. circa 1910.

Your last line intrigued me. Because it's the sort of thing I enjoy doing, I've been throwing some figures around for the last hour or two.

Over the FY 1905 to 1914 when the Dreadnoughts and Battlecruisers were built, 9.4% of the total defence budget was spent just on constructing the new ships.

Given the current estimated cost of the successor Trident replacement, and the period over which they will be built, and the projected construction costs, then it comes to 2.7% of the total defence budget on building the new vessels.

Hence, as a proportion of the total defence budgets, the new Trident replacement construction project will cost between a quarter and a third what the entire Dreadnought construction project costs. That gave them around 33 dreadnoughts or battlecruisers, whilst we will get four Trident boats. Although the Tridents contain far more destructive power.

This shows just how technically advanced the new Dreadnought-style warships were.

The former of these figures (for the pre-WW1 dreadnoughts) should be more reliable than the one for the Trident replacement, which is all estimates for future costs and spending.

I'll have to check my sums in the morning when I have had some sleep. But it smells right.

Thanks for the feedback for pensions!!appreciated.

the information provided as much as it's interesting is wAy above my risk level. Not sure what it all means either so would not have the time really to keep up with it.

What I was basically looking for was someone I could sit down in front of and say here's a pile of paperwork from the last 40 years..... What does it all mean and do I do next for the best?

Said person / company I was hoping to be known already as trustworthy and not full of fee rip offs for no good advice.

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Thanks, Osborne.

He and Brown are two peas in a pod.

Osbrowne...wasn't that one of Mick Pork's favourite words.

chestnut said:

viewcode said:

chestnut said:

The cost of a private flat in the place in London where I first rented privately in 1988 is the same today, when adjusted for inflation

That's a tautology

Illuminate me - and then explain what difference it makes. It appears to be fuck all where I'm sitting.

If you adjust a price by inflation, it brings it back to its original number.

Note:
The sentence does not specify which inflation rate is used to adjust, and some people have correctly pointed out that the house price inflation rate is not necessarily the same as the general inflation rate. Fair enough, they are different things. But since they feed into each other, over a long enough period of time they are the same number. I assume that 38 yrs (2016-1988) is long enough for that to be approximately true, and if that assumption is correct then the statement becomes a tautology. Examples of tautologies are "the bear is a bear" "I am not you". "We're older now than we were in the past" - the sentence is correctly formatted but it contains no new information.

SouthamObserver said:

One thing is sure, though: Catalonian independence is not going to happen.

Is that more or less sure than Mitt becoming US president?

Scott_P said:

It appears Jezza's Twitter account has been hacked...

that or he's car bonnett

Speedy said:

New N.H. and Iowa poll, from NBC/WSJ:

N.H.
Trump 30% +9
Rubio 14% +4
Christie 12% +5
Cruz 10% +4
Bush 9% -2
Kasich 9% +3
Paul 5% 0
Carson 4% -6
Fiorina 3% -13


GE Matchups

Rubio – 52%
Clinton – 40%

Cruz – 48%
Clinton – 44%

Clinton – 45%
Trump – 44%

Iowa

Cruz 28% +22
Trump 24% 0
Rubio 13% +7
Carson 11% -8
Paul 5% +1
Bush 4% -1
Christie 3% -1
Fiorina 3% -5
Huckabee 2% -3
Kasich 2% -1

GE Matchups

Rubio 47%
Clinton 42%

Cruz 47%
Clinton 43%

Clinton 48%
Trump 40%

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/poll-neck-neck-2016-races-iowa-new-hampshire-n493361

You forgot the Democratic figures and the Sanders general election figures which I posted earlier and are, in some respects, even more significant.

New Hampshire Democrats

Clinton 46%
Sanders 50%

Iowa Democrats

Clinton 48%
Sanders 45%

Iowa General Election

Sanders 51% Trump 38%
Sanders 47% Cruz 42%
Sanders 44% Rubio 44%

New Hampshire General Election

Sanders 56% Trump 37%
Sanders 55% Cruz 36%
Sanders 50% Rubio 41%
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/110-cruz-and-trump-vie-in-ia-trump-nh-favorite-clinton-and-sanders-competitive/

Theuniondivvie said:

SouthamObserver said:

One thing is sure, though: Catalonian independence is not going to happen.

Is that more or less sure than Mitt becoming US president?

At the Spanish election last month, pro independence parties got 38% of the vote. They got under 50% of the vote at the last Catalan elections too. And all Catalonia polls have shown majorities in favour of remaining part of Spain. (By at least 10%)

However, pro independence parties have more than 50% (just) of the seats in the Catalonian parliament.

It will be interesting to see how this develops.

Scott_P said:

@NCPoliticsUK: It would appear that @jeremycorbyn has been hacked... https://t.co/0WlnaUPZk9

'davey cameron is a pie' is pure Glesga.

kle4 said:

Totally off topic, but as I've not left the island for about 15 years, I've been thinking I might take an overseas holiday at some point this year, and a little further afield than our european neighbours - any suggestions for good locations for those on a modest budget and who will melt if the temperature is above 30C?

Russia. It's ridiculously cheap - 4* hotel in Moscow for £20-odd per night, good meals for a few quid, and some of the most spectacular range of interesting places in Europe, if you're interested in art or opera or ballet or history, with the three periods - pre-revolutionary, Soviet and modern - jumbled together. In Moscow and St Petersburg you can get by with English. Don't expect a slick tourist industry but it's perfectly adequate. Obviously the politics are hard to fathom and if you want to invest you may run into corruption, but for a holiday, who cares? And it's sufficiently exotic to be memorable and intrigue your friends.

What was it Cameron said about twitter?

JosiasJessop said:

CornishBlue said:

(Snip)
It's actually incredibly cheap considering that it guarantees our security against the great powers. For a thousandth of our economic output we can guarantee it on an on-going basis against other nuclear powers.

I would imagine that it is cheaper than the dreadnought race v. Germany et al. circa 1910.

Your last line intrigued me. Because it's the sort of thing I enjoy doing, I've been throwing some figures around for the last hour or two.

Over the FY 1905 to 1914 when the Dreadnoughts and Battlecruisers were built, 9.4% of the total defence budget was spent just on constructing the new ships.

Given the current estimated cost of the successor Trident replacement, and the period over which they will be built, and the projected construction costs, then it comes to 2.7% of the total defence budget on building the new vessels.

Hence, as a proportion of the total defence budgets, the new Trident replacement construction project will cost between a quarter and a third what the entire Dreadnought construction project costs. That gave them around 33 dreadnoughts or battlecruisers, whilst we will get four Trident boats. Although the Tridents contain far more destructive power.

This shows just how technically advanced the new Dreadnought-style warships were.

The former of these figures (for the pre-WW1 dreadnoughts) should be more reliable than the one for the Trident replacement, which is all estimates for future costs and spending.

I'll have to check my sums in the morning when I have had some sleep. But it smells right.

That is a very interesting post.

I'm now wondering what the cost of state-of-the-art warships, relative to economic output, has been since, say, 1500.

@thhamilton: Very angry that Squeeze were persuaded to hack Jeremy Corbyn's Twitter account by Laura Kuenssberg.

Wanderer said:

JosiasJessop said:

CornishBlue said:

(Snip)
It's actually incredibly cheap considering that it guarantees our security against the great powers. For a thousandth of our economic output we can guarantee it on an on-going basis against other nuclear powers.

I would imagine that it is cheaper than the dreadnought race v. Germany et al. circa 1910.

Your last line intrigued me. Because it's the sort of thing I enjoy doing, I've been throwing some figures around for the last hour or two.

Over the FY 1905 to 1914 when the Dreadnoughts and Battlecruisers were built, 9.4% of the total defence budget was spent just on constructing the new ships.

Given the current estimated cost of the successor Trident replacement, and the period over which they will be built, and the projected construction costs, then it comes to 2.7% of the total defence budget on building the new vessels.

Hence, as a proportion of the total defence budgets, the new Trident replacement construction project will cost between a quarter and a third what the entire Dreadnought construction project costs. That gave them around 33 dreadnoughts or battlecruisers, whilst we will get four Trident boats. Although the Tridents contain far more destructive power.

This shows just how technically advanced the new Dreadnought-style warships were.

The former of these figures (for the pre-WW1 dreadnoughts) should be more reliable than the one for the Trident replacement, which is all estimates for future costs and spending.

I'll have to check my sums in the morning when I have had some sleep. But it smells right.

That is a very interesting post.

I'm now wondering what the cost of state-of-the-art warships, relative to economic output, has been since, say, 1500.

The problems would probably be getting the construction costs for ships before 1800, along with defence 'budget'. It would require knowledge and skills I don't have.

However I might do the same calculations for the existing Vanguard class against the defence budget over the years they were constructed as a validator.

His password was probably jeremyc

JosiasJessop said:

Wanderer said:

JosiasJessop said:

CornishBlue said:

(Snip)
It's actually incredibly cheap considering that it guarantees our security against the great powers. For a thousandth of our economic output we can guarantee it on an on-going basis against other nuclear powers.

I would imagine that it is cheaper than the dreadnought race v. Germany et al. circa 1910.

Your last line intrigued me. Because it's the sort of thing I enjoy doing, I've been throwing some figures around for the last hour or two.

Over the FY 1905 to 1914 when the Dreadnoughts and Battlecruisers were built, 9.4% of the total defence budget was spent just on constructing the new ships.

Given the current estimated cost of the successor Trident replacement, and the period over which they will be built, and the projected construction costs, then it comes to 2.7% of the total defence budget on building the new vessels.

Hence, as a proportion of the total defence budgets, the new Trident replacement construction project will cost between a quarter and a third what the entire Dreadnought construction project costs. That gave them around 33 dreadnoughts or battlecruisers, whilst we will get four Trident boats. Although the Tridents contain far more destructive power.

This shows just how technically advanced the new Dreadnought-style warships were.

The former of these figures (for the pre-WW1 dreadnoughts) should be more reliable than the one for the Trident replacement, which is all estimates for future costs and spending.

I'll have to check my sums in the morning when I have had some sleep. But it smells right.

That is a very interesting post.

I'm now wondering what the cost of state-of-the-art warships, relative to economic output, has been since, say, 1500.

The problems would probably be getting the construction costs for ships before 1800, along with defence 'budget'. It would require knowledge and skills I don't have.

However I might do the same calculations for the existing Vanguard class against the defence budget over the years they were constructed as a validator.

Oh, it would be a huge amount of work I think. Very interesting subject though.

@DPJHodges: "David Cameron Is A Pie" is the best attack line Labour has come up with in a decade.

TheScreamingEagles said:

This is the best password story ever

For 20 Years the Nuclear Launch Code at US Minuteman Silos Was 00000000

http://gizmodo.com/for-20-years-the-nuclear-launch-code-at-us-minuteman-si-1473483587

There're a few things like that.

There are also bugs, like this recent one:
You just need to hit the backspace key 28 times to hack a Linux operating system.
http://thehackernews.com/2015/12/hack-linux-grub-password.html

(although it requires physical access to the computer)

@SimonNRicketts: Someone will no doubt have to respond to a journalist with a straight face tonight and say “Jeremy does not think Davey Cameron is a pie."

Please can David Cameron get drunk and have fun with his twitter account.

AlastairMeeks said:

I'd have gone for a series of pictures of public utility personhole covers.

There was even a personhole art exhibition:
http://www.freshnessmag.com/2010/11/15/over-the-under-manhole-cover-art-exhabition/

I just realised that I missed a word out. I hope no-one exhibits art of my personhole ...

TheScreamingEagles said:

Please can David Cameron get drunk and have fun with his twitter account.

Regrettably I am sure he has never once logged into it personally, drunk or sober. For shame.

A chance for Tim Farron to shine though with some crazy tweets - wasn't there a company which pretended to be hacked in order to get some publicity.

@Samfr: Next week PMQs - Corbyn stands up:
"Sam from London would like to know if the Prime Minister is, indeed, a pie."

TheScreamingEagles said:

Forget Corbyn's twitter fun, this is the political story of the night

An expected £6m fall in Labour’s annual income as a result of legal changes being proposed by the Conservatives will make it impossible for the party to maintain its current structure, staffing or offices, a confidential party document released to the Guardian reveals.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/10/labour-expecting-6m-loss-in-funding-through-trade-union-bill

Can Labour not crowd-source a whole pile of money?

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Please can David Cameron get drunk and have fun with his twitter account.

Regrettably I am sure he has never once logged into it personally, drunk or sober. For shame.

A chance for Tim Farron to shine though with some crazy tweets - wasn't there a company which pretended to be hacked in order to get some publicity.

I know someone who runs the twitter and social media accounts for a major organisation that is known across the world.

She refuses to have her own personal twitter/social media accounts for exactly that reason.

Interesting

https://twitter.com/Freedland/status/686304390332956673

and here's the translation on the other side

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYY-f-NWQAQIXE6.jpg

https://twitter.com/maomentum_/status/686305011735904258

kle4 said:

watford30 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Forget Corbyn's twitter fun, this is the political story of the night

An expected £6m fall in Labour’s annual income as a result of legal changes being proposed by the Conservatives will make it impossible for the party to maintain its current structure, staffing or offices, a confidential party document released to the Guardian reveals.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/10/labour-expecting-6m-loss-in-funding-through-trade-union-bill

So, what stops union members making voluntary donations? Nothing.
.

That is a key issue for me - I am sure the motivation behind this legislation is vindictive, so I am wary of it and other similar changes, but I don't actually see what is wrong with people opting in to paying something rather than opting out. The former is making a positive choice, the latter may not be

It seens to me that Labour are being defeatist about it. They have a much larger membership than the Tories and it is, well, passionate (to be polite about it). They could raise serious money if they got creative about it. Then, when they get back into power, they have an obvious counter-move of limiting the size of individual donations to £100 or whatever.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Interesting

https://twitter.com/Freedland/status/686304390332956673

and here's the translation on the other side

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYY-f-NWQAQIXE6.jpg

Typical multicultural pandering to minorities.

Having just read Sadiq's policies (not the Yiddish), it seems as though he is hankering for rent controls?

TheScreamingEagles said:

rcs1000 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Interesting

https://twitter.com/Freedland/status/686304390332956673

and here's the translation on the other side

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYY-f-NWQAQIXE6.jpg

Typical multicultural pandering to minorities.

If they want to live here they need to integrate.

This is an insult to the heirs of St George.

Did we lose a war?

Lee Scott ex-MP sent us stuff in Tamil in the run-up to GE2015.

Except we're not actually Tamil!

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rcs1000 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Interesting

https://twitter.com/Freedland/status/686304390332956673

and here's the translation on the other side

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYY-f-NWQAQIXE6.jpg

Typical multicultural pandering to minorities.

If they want to live here they need to integrate.

This is an insult to the heirs of St George.

Did we lose a war?

Lee Scott ex-MP sent us stuff in Tamil in the run-up to GE2015.

Except we're not actually Tamil!

Oops. I hope you got the chance to let him or his staff know.

.,

Danny565 said:

Wanderer said:

kle4 said:

watford30 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Forget Corbyn's twitter fun, this is the political story of the night

An expected £6m fall in Labour’s annual income as a result of legal changes being proposed by the Conservatives will make it impossible for the party to maintain its current structure, staffing or offices, a confidential party document released to the Guardian reveals.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/10/labour-expecting-6m-loss-in-funding-through-trade-union-bill

So, what stops union members making voluntary donations? Nothing.
.

That is a key issue for me - I am sure the motivation behind this legislation is vindictive, so I am wary of it and other similar changes, but I don't actually see what is wrong with people opting in to paying something rather than opting out. The former is making a positive choice, the latter may not be

It seens to me that Labour are being defeatist about it. They have a much larger membership than the Tories and it is, well, passionate (to be polite about it). They could raise serious money if they got creative about it. Then, when they get back into power, they have an obvious counter-move of limiting the size of individual donations to £100 or whatever.

To be honest, I suspect one of the reasons they're playing up the supposed scale of their loss in funding is precisely so that they scare supporters into donating.

Thee was a funny piece on the Daily Show a few years back with Jon Stewart reading out the subject lines of what he claimed were genuine Democratic funding emails getting increasingly desperate and dramatic, making it seem all hope was lost and the end was nigh, and then contrasting with the amount requested which would apparently bring them down from the emailer's suicidal tone - $5.

AlastairMeeks said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/686308600508186625

I don't remember him getting so agitated when the government took exactly the same stance in the Scottish independence referendum.

Well quite

It is not just Jezbollah...

Login = Harriet, Password = Harman

Given current politics, the posting could be prescient.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AL93KiCfTc

This will take the focus off Corbyn's problems

Labour's John McDonnell will not kneel before the Queen when he joins Privy Council

Labour shadow chancellor will not kneel before the monarch and is expected to follow the example of Jeremy Corbyn, who says he and the Monarch "shook hands like adults".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12092022/Labours-John-McDonnell-will-not-kneel-before-the-Queen-when-he-joins-Privy-Council.html

ThreeQuidder said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Interesting

https://twitter.com/Freedland/status/686304390332956673

and here's the translation on the other side

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYY-f-NWQAQIXE6.jpg

No mention of his policy to legalise racial discrimination?

I don't think this will help particularly, given Labour's collapsing vote amongst the Jewish community at the GE, and that Ken is establishing himself as svengali.

A controversial critical edition of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf has sold out instantly after going on sale in German bookshops for the first time in 70 years.

Demand for the 2,000-page annotated version of the inflammatory text that hit bookstores on January 8 massively exceeded supply, with 15,000 advance orders for an initial print run of just 4,000 copies.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/12092029/Hitlers-Mein-Kampf-sells-out-instantly-after-being-published-in-Germany-for-first-time-in-70-years.html

Shame the copyright expired on 1st January, as missed the Christmas rush...