Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After what’s been described as Trump’s worst week yet the bett

13»

Comments

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    It seems stupid for Campbell to sue over what is simply an opinion expressed by Dugdale.

    Campbell's was funny but nasty, and he should expect criticism.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:


    The Cons have taken 20 seats that voted Labour in 2010, and 36 have gone the other way, suggesting there's truth in both viewpoints.

    snip

    I think they have a point.
    Yet we had the BBC news leading on 'student tuition fees will have to rise to fund pensions'.

    The end game of twenty years of over consumption might finally be arriving.
    Apparently, the pensions deficit went up from £8.5bn to £17.5bn only in the last year ! What exactly happened in the last year to make that happen, I am not sure.
    I'm a USS pensioner and remained alive for another year
    They could give a portion of their funds for you to gamble with.

    I reckon you might do better than the highly paid 'experts' who have done so badly.
    snip

    https://www.uss.co.uk/how-uss-is-run/running-uss/annual-reports-and-accounts
    How are the liabilities rising faster than 20% per year ?

    Someone, somewhere has fecked up.
    I don't follow the technicalities of it all, but it

    They also argue that there is a full triennial valuation due at end of this year which will give a more complete picture.

    from the report:

    "Since 31 March 2014 there has been a great deal of volatility in financial markets, which has been reflected in the volatility of the scheme’s deficit and funding ratio. The real yield on government bonds has continued to decline with the result that the value placed on the scheme’s liabilities have increased."
    Yet they are already angling for an another increase in tuition fees.

    If interest rates go up - thus increasing bond yields - will they then reverse any tuition fees increase ? We all know the answer to that is no.

    And of course declining bond yields mean increasing bond prices which should mean the pension fund assets have increased. Likewise the increase in the share prices and their overseas funds should also have boosted the pension fund assets.
    The artificially low interest and gilt rates have not only shredded pensions but have also pushed up the value of other investments, and property in particular.

    We have had these emergency rates for nearly a decade. Surely it is time to move back to normality, albeit slowly?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Chameleon said:

    ydoethur said:


    We need a few UEAs and Wolverhampton Polys to go bust and close. It will then be possible to go to university only if it's worth your doing so.

    Those are bad examples, as it happens. Wolverhampton sells itself as a local university and is particularly good at part-time degrees for those in work (it seems to be modelling itself on Birkbeck). I am told, although I don't know for sure, that it didn't even take part in the last RAE/REF (whatever the incompetent clown in charge of it called it at the moment of publication). Salford has a similar approach. UEA is a good university in several key disciplines including meteorology and even history.

    Most of the really bad universities - off the top of my head, Thames Valley, Westminster, London Met - are in London, which I believe has around 50 universities in total (including the old colleges of the University of London). Some of those could certainly be removed without any loss at all. There are others elsewhere that should either be closed (South Wales) or ordered to become (again) specialist colleges in key disciplines (Gloucestershire, Harper Adams). But the pruning might throw up some surprises.
    Which is the one that does Waste Management with Dance? I struggle to see what career that leads to. Media Studies is often laughed but does unexpectedly well on getting people into jobs.

    Northampton. It's probably a decent degree in that they get to do part of a degree that they want to do, and part of a degree which is employable.
    It sounds more like a theoretical possibility in a dual honours degree, where any subjects can be combined.

    Has anyone ever graduated with such a degree?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967

    surbiton said:


    Apparently, the pensions deficit went up from £8.5bn to £17.5bn only in the last year ! What exactly happened in the last year to make that happen, I am not sure.

    I'm a USS pensioner and remained alive for another year
    They could give a portion of their funds for you to gamble with.

    I reckon you might do better than the highly paid 'experts' who have done so badly.
    snip

    https://www.uss.co.uk/how-uss-is-run/running-uss/annual-reports-and-accounts
    How are the liabilities rising faster than 20% per year ?

    Someone, somewhere has fecked up.
    I don't follow the technicalities of it all, but it

    They also argue that there is a full triennial valuation due at end of this year which will give a more complete picture.

    from the report:

    "Since 31 March 2014 there has been a great deal of volatility in financial markets, which has been reflected in the volatility of the scheme’s deficit and funding ratio. The real yield on government bonds has continued to decline with the result that the value placed on the scheme’s liabilities have increased."
    Yet they are already angling for an another increase in tuition fees.

    If interest rates go up - thus increasing bond yields - will they then reverse any tuition fees increase ? We all know the answer to that is no.

    And of course declining bond yields mean increasing bond prices which should mean the pension fund assets have increased. Likewise the increase in the share prices and their overseas funds should also have boosted the pension fund assets.
    The artificially low interest and gilt rates have not only shredded pensions but have also pushed up the value of other investments, and property in particular.

    We have had these emergency rates for nearly a decade. Surely it is time to move back to normality, albeit slowly?
    Low interest rates might have had a negative effect on defined benefit schemes but not defined contribution schemes.

    The casual assumption in the news reports about the USS pensions that someone else, ie the young, need to pay more so that older, richer people get the benefits they were promised is one which is no longer going to be accepted.

    And it may well be that low growth and low interest rates become a permanent feature of the economy.

    ' Only in the golden age after WW2 did average growth top 2%. We must prepare for low growth and the fight for who benefits from its meagre spoils '

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/30/slow-economic-growth-gdp-old-norm
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787
    Chameleon said:

    ydoethur said:


    We need a few UEAs and Wolverhampton Polys to go bust and close. It will then be possible to go to university only if it's worth your doing so.

    Those are bad examples, as it happens. Wolverhampton sells itself as a local university and is particularly good at part-time degrees for those in work (it seems to be modelling itself on Birkbeck). I am told, although I don't know for sure, that it didn't even take part in the last RAE/REF (whatever the incompetent clown in charge of it called it at the moment of publication). Salford has a similar approach. UEA is a good university in several key disciplines including meteorology and even history.

    Most of the really bad universities - off the top of my head, Thames Valley, Westminster, London Met - are in London, which I believe has around 50 universities in total (including the old colleges of the University of London). Some of those could certainly be removed without any loss at all. There are others elsewhere that should either be closed (South Wales) or ordered to become (again) specialist colleges in key disciplines (Gloucestershire, Harper Adams). But the pruning might throw up some surprises.
    Which is the one that does Waste Management with Dance? I struggle to see what career that leads to. Media Studies is often laughed but does unexpectedly well on getting people into jobs.

    Northampton. It's probably a decent degree in that they get to do part of a degree that they want to do, and part of a degree which is employable.
    Northampton should have been another Cambridge or Oxford. Sad.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    rcs1000 said:

    @Alice

    I googled for Delingpole UAE grades, and got no useful hits.

    I'm pretty sure it was in his Telegraph blog - tho' I Googled that as well and can't find any of those blogs.

    Thinking harder about this I think what he may actually noted what that in the subjects they accepted something like 70% got an A or a B, in which case the majority of UEA types would be in the bottom half of the class.
    UEA is a pretty good university, and has a decent medical school too. In some areas such as Creative Writing it has an exceptional reputation. Student satisfaction with teaching has been very good. I know it via Fox jr and his girlfriend. It seems that your beef is via its climate change reseach, which has made it the focus of alt. right ire.

    It is worth also noting that minimum course requirements are often exceeded. My offer for medical school was BBC in 1983, I got AAAB. That was fairly typical.

    There may well be a purpose to removing accreditation from some courses at some Universities, but UEA is not one of them.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880

    Sean_F said:

    Mortimer said:

    An Aussie friend posted this on fb yesterday - could well apply to the left in this country:

    https://meanjin.com.au/essays/in-defence-of-the-bad-white-working-class/

    Corbyn doesn't speak the language of Labour's Old base, as well as scaring the Tory horses. It is what gives me confidence he will never be PM.

    The swings in the June election would suggest that Corbyn can get the old Labour base out.

    Con take Bolsover? Or Lab take Canterbury and Kensington? Which was the truth?
    The Cons have taken 20 seats that voted Labour in 2010, and 36 have gone the other way, suggesting there's truth in both viewpoints.
    Those Con gain seats were mostly from the SNP if I am right.

    Comparing with 2010 is comparing to the pre Corbyn era.

    Mortimer's Australian article is well worth reading. It touches on many of the class and race interplay issues that I was discussing with Islam yesterday afternoon. It also shows how Australia is changing. There is no going back to the Anglosphere so beloved of the PB league of Empire Loyalists.
    Hmm

    the Empire Loyalists are long gone

    today the largest self deception is the those Europhiles who think they can just walk back in and take up from where they left.

    The UK is damaged goods, suspect in every way, and can never be at the heart of Europe.

    stop kidding yourself
    Australian attitudes to immigration in parts of Australia can be about half-way between South Africans and the UK. Much firmer than, say, in New Zealand, yet alone Canada.

    I don't see how the article Mortimer linked to has got anything to do with the Anglosphere and the future of Australia.

    But, I am very worried they will go for a Republic now.
    Why are you worried. How would it affect you?


    The ALP will have a good majority in the HoR in 2019 so it will all depend if they can get the enabling legislation for the referendum past the crossbench in the Senate.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506

    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:


    The Cons have taken 20 seats that voted Labour in 2010, and 36 have gone the other way, suggesting there's truth in both viewpoints.

    snip

    I think they have a point.
    Yet we had the BBC news leading on 'student tuition fees will have to rise to fund pensions'.

    The end game of twenty years of over consumption might finally be arriving.
    Apparently, the pensions deficit went up from £8.5bn to £17.5bn only in the last year ! What exactly happened in the last year to make that happen, I am not sure.
    I'm a USS pensioner and remained alive for another year
    They could give a portion of their funds for you to gamble with.

    I reckon you might do better than the highly paid 'experts' who have done so badly.
    snip

    https://www.uss.co.uk/how-uss-is-run/running-uss/annual-reports-and-accounts
    How are the liabilities rising faster than 20% per year ?

    Someone, somewhere has fecked up.
    I don't follow the technicalities of it all, but it seems that this is to do with how liabilities are tied up with the yield on gilts. If I understand it correct, if hazily, it will cost more to provide in the long term each £1 of pension because this provision is so closely tied up with the situation with gilts.

    Reading the USS report they say there are various ways of doing a valuation.

    They also argue that there is a full triennial valuation due at end of this year which will give a more complete picture.

    from the report:

    "Since 31 March 2014 there has been a great deal of volatility in financial markets, which has been reflected in the volatility of the scheme’s deficit and funding ratio. The real yield on government bonds has continued to decline with the result that the value placed on the scheme’s liabilities have increased."
    Yet they are already angling for an another increase in tuition fees.

    If interest rates go up - thus increasing bond yields - will they then reverse any tuition fees increase ? We all know the answer to that is no.

    And of course declining bond yields mean increasing bond prices which should mean the pension fund assets have increased. Likewise the increase in the share prices and their overseas funds should also have boosted the pension fund assets.
    With low bond yields you need more bonds to generate the dividends necessary to meet the liabilities of pension payments.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    Universities UK headquarters hosted Islamic extremist group, despite national student union ban

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/30/university-headquarters-offered-host-islamic-extremist-speakers/
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880

    rcs1000 said:

    Went to see Dunkirk last night - glad I saw it, a remarkably convincing, unsentimental, pictures of people under extreme stress with a dramatic national backdrop (there's very little about the battle per se, and I suspect some young people will struggle to work out the context). The plot is minimal, though, and the characters not really explored in great depth. I must admit to preferring the sentimental, propagandist Mrs Miniver (would be interested in Casino's view?), but that was about rallying spirits and this is about individuals at a moment of extreme crisis.

    There's a very interesting discussion of the soundtrack here:

    http://uk.businessinsider.com/dunkirk-music-christopher-nolan-hans-zimmer-2017-7

    - I noticed something going on with the music, but didn't grasp the exact intention (which is probably intended to be subconscious).

    I enjoyed it but was left a little unsatisfied. Some great images (I particularly liked the fuelless Spitfire seemingly floating over the Dunkirk plage in the afternoon sun, prop slowly turning) but something lacking.

    Not sure what supposed complaints for some on the right were about, seemed to be enough stiff upper lip-ism for those who like that sort of thing. As the film reached its conclusion, I whispered to a friend, half seriously, that Elgar's Nimrod was about to kick in, and lo, moments later..

    Plenty for the hardware pedant (i.e. me) to get stuck into. Some very strange looking warships, and the Me 109s (as in the Battle of Britain film 50 years ago) were actually ex Spanish air force Buchons - I guess it was a pretty reductive choice between that & CGI. The air combat scenes were very convincingly done though, probably the best I've seen.
    Mmmm there aren't that many airworthy Me 109s but enough, you would have thought, to have used one or two real ones. Got to say though, they fooled me well enough.

    A brilliant, moving, thought-provoking film!
    The Buchons are 99% Me109s, just built in Spain in the 1950s.
    They had Hispano then Merlin engines; that isn't 1%, and the nose of a single seater fighter is visually its most defining feature. The later Buchons look more like P40 Warhawks than Me 109s imo.
    It's Bf not Me. WM did not get eponymous rights over designations until late 1941.
  • PAWPAW Posts: 1,074
    I think George Osborne had the idea of state guaranteed returns on investment in infrastructure renewal for pension providers. I am not sure what happened to it.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:


    The Cons have taken 20 seats that voted Labour in 2010, and 36 have gone the other way, suggesting there's truth in both viewpoints.

    snip

    I think they have a point.
    .
    e.
    I'm a USS pensioner and remained alive for another year
    They could give a portion of their funds for you to gamble with.

    I reckon you might do better than the highly paid 'experts' who have done so badly.
    snip

    https://www.uss.co.uk/how-uss-is-run/running-uss/annual-reports-and-accounts
    up.
    I don't follow the technicalities of it all, but it seems that this is to do with how liabilities are tied up with the yield on gilts. If I understand it correct, if hazily, it will cost more to provide in the long term each £1 of pension because this provision is so closely tied up with the situation with gilts.

    Reading the USS report they say there are various ways of doing a valuation.

    They also argue that there is a full triennial valuation due at end of this year which will give a more complete picture.

    from the report:

    "Since 31 March 2014 there has been a great deal of volatility in financial markets, which has been reflected in the volatility of the scheme’s deficit and funding ratio. The real yield on government bonds has continued to decline with the result that the value placed on the scheme’s liabilities have increased."
    Yet they are already angling for an another increase in tuition fees.

    If interest rates go up - thus increasing bond yields - will they then reverse any tuition fees increase ? We all know the answer to that is no.

    And of course declining bond yields mean increasing bond prices which should mean the pension fund assets have increased. Likewise the increase in the share prices and their overseas funds should also have boosted the pension fund assets.
    With low bond yields you need more bonds to generate the dividends necessary to meet the liabilities of pension payments.
    Not really. The bond yields, say 3%. Because yields are currently low the capital value of the bond may well be 150% of its nominal value reducing the yield on purchase to 2% but if the trustees hold that bond they have a 3% income flow to meet the pension. The market value of the bond is much less important than the yield. This is the point the article linked to is making.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967

    surbiton said:


    Yet we had the BBC news leading on 'student tuition fees will have to rise to fund pensions'.

    The end game of twenty years of over consumption might finally be arriving.

    Apparently, the pensions deficit went up from £8.5bn to £17.5bn only in the last year ! What exactly happened in the last year to make that happen, I am not sure.
    I'm a USS pensioner and remained alive for another year
    They could give a portion of their funds for you to gamble with.

    I reckon you might do better than the highly paid 'experts' who have done so badly.
    snip

    https://www.uss.co.uk/how-uss-is-run/running-uss/annual-reports-and-accounts
    How are the liabilities rising faster than 20% per year ?

    Someone, somewhere has fecked up.
    I don't follow the technicalities of it all, but it seems that this is to do with how liabilities are tied up with the yield on gilts. If I understand it correct, if hazily, it will cost more to provide in the long term each £1 of pension because this provision is so closely tied up with the situation with gilts.

    Reading the USS report they say there are various ways of doing a valuation.

    They also argue that there is a full triennial valuation due at end of this year which will give a more complete picture.

    from the report:

    "Since 31 March 2014 there has been a great deal of volatility in financial markets, which has been reflected in the volatility of the scheme’s deficit and funding ratio. The real yield on government bonds has continued to decline with the result that the value placed on the scheme’s liabilities have increased."
    Yet they are already angling for an another increase in tuition fees.

    If interest rates go up - thus increasing bond yields - will they then reverse any tuition fees increase ? We all know the answer to that is no.

    And of course declining bond yields mean increasing bond prices which should mean the pension fund assets have increased. Likewise the increase in the share prices and their overseas funds should also have boosted the pension fund assets.
    With low bond yields you need more bonds to generate the dividends necessary to meet the liabilities of pension payments.
    Which would you rather have:

    a) £2000 which paid 1% interest a year
    b) £1000 which paid 2% interest a year
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    AndyJS said:

    O/T

    Iraqi gunman opens fire at German nightclub, killing one, injuring several.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/30/gunman-kills-one-injures-three-in-shooting-at-german-nightclub

    The statement from the German authorities is again bizarre. The motive is totally unclear but isnt terrorist related...

    It is like the knife attack, not jahadi just an islamist, not terrorist, motivated by hate. That is what the authorities actually said.
    It is not bizarre, it just depends what you mean by terrorist. In particular, how you classify lone wolf attacks, whether carefully prepared or some self-radicalised lunatic snapping and grabbing a knife out of his kitchen drawer.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274

    AndyJS said:

    O/T

    Iraqi gunman opens fire at German nightclub, killing one, injuring several.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/30/gunman-kills-one-injures-three-in-shooting-at-german-nightclub

    The statement from the German authorities is again bizarre. The motive is totally unclear but isnt terrorist related...

    It is like the knife attack, not jahadi just an islamist, not terrorist, motivated by hate. That is what the authorities actually said.
    It is not bizarre, it just depends what you mean by terrorist. In particular, how you classify lone wolf attacks, whether carefully prepared or some self-radicalised lunatic snapping and grabbing a knife out of his kitchen drawer.
    Keep dancing on that pinhead.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    edited July 2017

    surbiton said:


    Yet we had the BBC news leading on 'student tuition fees will have to rise to fund pensions'.

    The end game of twenty years of over consumption might finally be arriving.

    Apparently, the pensions deficit went up from £8.5bn to £17.5bn only in the last year ! What exactly happened in the last year to make that happen, I am not sure.
    I'm a USS pensioner and remained alive for another year
    They could give a portion of their funds for you to gamble with.

    I reckon you might do better than the highly paid 'experts' who have done so badly.
    snip

    https://www.uss.co.uk/how-uss-is-run/running-uss/annual-reports-and-accounts
    How are the liabilities rising faster than 20% per year ?

    Someone, somewhere has fecked up.


    Reading the USS report they say there are various ways of doing a valuation.from the report:

    "Since 31 March 2014 there has been a great deal of volatility in financial markets, which has been reflected in the volatility of the scheme’s deficit and funding ratio. The real yield on government bonds has continued to decline with the result that the value placed on the scheme’s liabilities have increased."
    Yet they are already angling for an another increase in tuition fees.

    If interest rates go up - thus increasing bond yields - will they then reverse any tuition fees increase ? We all know the answer to that is no.

    And of course declining bond yields mean increasing bond prices which should mean the pension fund assets have increased. Likewise the increase in the share prices and their overseas funds should also have boosted the pension fund assets.
    With low bond yields you need more bonds to generate the dividends necessary to meet the liabilities of pension payments.
    Which would you rather have:

    a) £2000 which paid 1% interest a year
    b) £1000 which paid 2% interest a year
    A pension fund should not rely on speculative capital gains from which to pay out pensions already in payment.

    Pension fund payments to those already retired should be made from the dividends earned from reasonably safe investments, like gilts. Even if the capital value of gilts changes, once you buy a gilt the dividend payment should be safe regardless of the capital value.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    AndyJS said:

    O/T

    Iraqi gunman opens fire at German nightclub, killing one, injuring several.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/30/gunman-kills-one-injures-three-in-shooting-at-german-nightclub

    The statement from the German authorities is again bizarre. The motive is totally unclear but isnt terrorist related...

    It is like the knife attack, not jahadi just an islamist, not terrorist, motivated by hate. That is what the authorities actually said.
    It is not bizarre, it just depends what you mean by terrorist. In particular, how you classify lone wolf attacks, whether carefully prepared or some self-radicalised lunatic snapping and grabbing a knife out of his kitchen drawer.
    Keep dancing on that pinhead.
    Keep it civil. I'm not dancing on a pinhead, just pointing out the Germans are using a tighter definition of terrorist or jihadist.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited July 2017

    AndyJS said:

    O/T

    Iraqi gunman opens fire at German nightclub, killing one, injuring several.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/30/gunman-kills-one-injures-three-in-shooting-at-german-nightclub

    The statement from the German authorities is again bizarre. The motive is totally unclear but isnt terrorist related...

    It is like the knife attack, not jahadi just an islamist, not terrorist, motivated by hate. That is what the authorities actually said.
    It is not bizarre, it just depends what you mean by terrorist. In particular, how you classify lone wolf attacks, whether carefully prepared or some self-radicalised lunatic snapping and grabbing a knife out of his kitchen drawer.
    Keep dancing on that pinhead.
    Keep it civil. I'm not dancing on a pinhead, just pointing out the Germans are using a tighter definition of terrorist or jihadist.
    By tighter you mean they take the BBC policy. And it is pinhead dancing.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited July 2017

    Universities UK headquarters hosted Islamic extremist group, despite national student union ban

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/30/university-headquarters-offered-host-islamic-extremist-speakers/

    What is the Telegraph's point? I've let my subscription lapse. Is it a news story about a recent event? An attack on NUS no-platforming various organisations? Or is it about the Conservative leadership?

    Home Secretary Theresa May decided not to ban HuT despite it having been in the Conservative 2010 manifesto: A Conservative government will ban any organisations which advocate hate or the violent overthrow of our society, such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    F1: tense race. Enjoyable to watch... but not for the wallet.

    Writing the post-race tosh now. May contain some grumpiness.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967


    They could give a portion of their funds for you to gamble with.

    I reckon you might do better than the highly paid 'experts' who have done so badly.

    snip

    https://www.uss.co.uk/how-uss-is-run/running-uss/annual-reports-and-accounts
    How are the liabilities rising faster than 20% per year ?

    Someone, somewhere has fecked up.


    Reading the USS report they say there are various ways of doing a valuation.from the report:

    "Since 31 March 2014 there has been a great deal of volatility in financial markets, which has been reflected in the volatility of the scheme’s deficit and funding ratio. The real yield on government bonds has continued to decline with the result that the value placed on the scheme’s liabilities have increased."
    Yet they are already angling for an another increase in tuition fees.

    If interest rates go up - thus increasing bond yields - will they then reverse any tuition fees increase ? We all know the answer to that is no.

    And of course declining bond yields mean increasing bond prices which should mean the pension fund assets have increased. Likewise the increase in the share prices and their overseas funds should also have boosted the pension fund assets.
    With low bond yields you need more bonds to generate the dividends necessary to meet the liabilities of pension payments.
    Which would you rather have:

    a) £2000 which paid 1% interest a year
    b) £1000 which paid 2% interest a year
    A pension fund should not rely on speculative capital gains from which to pay out pensions already in payment.

    Pension fund payments to those already retired should be made from the dividends earned from reasonably safe investments, like gilts. Even if the capital value of gilts changes, once you buy a gilt the dividend payment should be safe regardless of the capital value.
    If the government bonds have already been purchased then their interest payments are already known.

    In this case the pension funds have that guaranteed income plus the capital gain if they chose to take it.

    With a defined contribution pension fund which has been closed to new entrants there will come a point when obligations start to decrease and a point when they become zero.

    At that process happens the income producing assets can be steadily sold and the proceeds used to pay the pension obligations.

    The increase in asset prices should therefore be regarded as a good thing.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669

    rcs1000 said:

    @Alice

    I googled for Delingpole UAE grades, and got no useful hits.

    I'm pretty sure it was in his Telegraph blog - tho' I Googled that as well and can't find any of those blogs.

    Thinking harder about this I think what he may actually noted what that in the subjects they accepted something like 70% got an A or a B, in which case the majority of UEA types would be in the bottom half of the class.
    UEA is a pretty good university, and has a decent medical school too. In some areas such as Creative Writing it has an exceptional reputation. Student satisfaction with teaching has been very good. I know it via Fox jr and his girlfriend. It seems that your beef is via its climate change reseach, which has made it the focus of alt. right ire.

    It is worth also noting that minimum course requirements are often exceeded. My offer for medical school was BBC in 1983, I got AAAB. That was fairly typical.

    There may well be a purpose to removing accreditation from some courses at some Universities, but UEA is not one of them.
    As regards University of East Anglia and the hacked emails:

    "Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests.[16] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[17]"
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    F1: tense race. Enjoyable to watch... but not for the wallet.

    Writing the post-race tosh now. May contain some grumpiness.

    My sympathies Mr Dancer - I think you were a bit unlucky on the safety car as it's rare for such a collision to leave a car stranded like that.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. 86, cheers, although I was more miffed by everyone except the one driver I wanted to get a penalty getting one :p
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460

    Pension discussion up thread

    It's not whether the portfolio is in gilts (some surely will be - and on that side of the equation their value would've risen as yields dropped) it's that the whole liability is discounted back using a relationship to the gilt yield. There are other factors of course like assumed future inflation, longevity, assumed future investment return and the "covenant" used (i.e. how pessimistic a filter do we put on the maths once we've done the maths once), but bottom line is low yields/interest rates are a killer.

    If you have promised to pay £5k and the interest rate is 5% you need a £100k fund, if the interest rate is 2% you need £250k so once you get down to the sort of yields we are at now (approx 1.80% on 20 year gilt) even small absolute changes result in huge increases in deficits. The current law doesn't allow for any smoothing out over years so we have massive volatility and weekly headlines of "X fund plunges y squillion pounds into deficit", and Joe Public assumes there's a scandal and people are wrong doing. 99% of them aren't of course, they're dealing with idiotic legislation that cannot cope, and has destroyed the concept of defined benefit schemes (outside the public sector). The last rites will take decades as it all tapers off but DB is dead.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    DECLARE ALREADY!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Surely this is enough.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    F1: Hungary: post-race analysis. Sometimes Satan urinates in your kettle:

    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/hungary-post-race-analysis-2017.html
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    491.

    England could be in trouble here.

    (More likely, rain robs them of victory.)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited July 2017
    rcs1000 said:

    DECLARE ALREADY!

    At last....perhaps Joe forgot he was now the big boss man and was waiting for Alastair to call them in.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    Elections off to a horrific start in Jezza's socialist paradise....

    A leading candidate in Sunday's assembly elections and an opposition activist have been killed in Venezuela.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-40769737
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    rcs1000 said:

    @Alice

    I googled for Delingpole UAE grades, and got no useful hits.

    I'm pretty sure it was in his Telegraph blog - tho' I Googled that as well and can't find any of those blogs.

    Thinking harder about this I think what he may actually noted what that in the subjects they accepted something like 70% got an A or a B, in which case the majority of UEA types would be in the bottom half of the class.
    UEA is a pretty good university, and has a decent medical school too. In some areas such as Creative Writing it has an exceptional reputation. Student satisfaction with teaching has been very good. I know it via Fox jr and his girlfriend. It seems that your beef is via its climate change reseach, which has made it the focus of alt. right ire.

    It is worth also noting that minimum course requirements are often exceeded. My offer for medical school was BBC in 1983, I got AAAB. That was fairly typical.

    There may well be a purpose to removing accreditation from some courses at some Universities, but UEA is not one of them.
    As regards University of East Anglia and the hacked emails:

    "Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests.[16] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[17]"
    I have issues with that: the way the people involved hid data and processes, and generally behaved, amounted to scientific misconduct IMO. They behaved like petulant children when faced by queries, not all of which were stupid.

    They did climate science no favours.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981



    As regards University of East Anglia and the hacked emails:

    "Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests.[16] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[17]"

    And none of that sounds at all fishy to you? 97% of scientists, eight committees - because science is done by head count, isn't it? And does that conclusion not sound at all to you like "not guilty, but don't do it again"?

    From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
    "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

    Because science is all about hiding things, isn't it?

    What has happened is that the world's scientists have decided that AGW is probably a thing, but that if you explained to the likes of Donald Trump the strength of the evidence - i.e., not very) you would get no action at all. So overstate the case. This may be a valid decision, though the precedents aren't ideal - it was, after all, so obvious that Hussein had WMDs that Blix's investigations could be ignored - but the cost is enormous in debauching what is meant by science. I am quite confident that you would assert enthusiastically that the earth is banana-shaped and that sheeps bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes, if you were told that 97% of scientists agreed with those propositions. And that is a sad state of affairs.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    welshowl said:


    Pension discussion up thread

    It's not whether the portfolio is in gilts (some surely will be - and on that side of the equation their value would've risen as yields dropped) it's that the whole liability is discounted back using a relationship to the gilt yield. There are other factors of course like assumed future inflation, longevity, assumed future investment return and the "covenant" used (i.e. how pessimistic a filter do we put on the maths once we've done the maths once), but bottom line is low yields/interest rates are a killer.

    If you have promised to pay £5k and the interest rate is 5% you need a £100k fund, if the interest rate is 2% you need £250k so once you get down to the sort of yields we are at now (approx 1.80% on 20 year gilt) even small absolute changes result in huge increases in deficits. The current law doesn't allow for any smoothing out over years so we have massive volatility and weekly headlines of "X fund plunges y squillion pounds into deficit", and Joe Public assumes there's a scandal and people are wrong doing. 99% of them aren't of course, they're dealing with idiotic legislation that cannot cope, and has destroyed the concept of defined benefit schemes (outside the public sector). The last rites will take decades as it all tapers off but DB is dead.

    The opposite too: as soon as a pension fund looks overvalued it stops being funded or an asset stripper grabs it -- or such was the case in the past. Bogus volatility, bad legislation and greed (or human nature) in a perfect storm.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    edited July 2017
    On topic, there is essentially no chance that the Democrats will win the Senate next year.

    Of the 33 Senate seats up for re-election, the Democrats effectively have 25 already (including two Independents who caucus with them).

    According to Wikipedia, the Republicans are ahead in the polls in 14 of the 33, and another two are currently neck-and-neck. Even if we assume that the Dems outperform their poll scores by - say - five points, they would still lose West Virginia, North Dakota, Missouri, Montana and Indiana, with only a solitary pickup (Nevada).

    In other words, it is highly likely the Republicans will cement their hold of the Senate next year.

    The House is a different matter. The Democrats need to pick up 24 seats to take control of the House back from the Republicans. Can they do it?

    Possibly.

    Wikipedia's survey of congressional polls has the Dems picking up about 10 seats from the Republicans. But there another 25 seats where the Republicans have a lead of four points or less. If Republican turnout is low, or the Democrats enthused, then they could do it. History also shows there are regularly large swings against the party of the incumbent President in the first mid-terms. I would reckon the Republicans should be odds on to hold the House, but only just. If you can get more than 3/2 on the Dems, I'd take it.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    Fascinating discussion on Fake News between citizen journalist Tim Pool (if you are not following him, its worthing looking at, lots of interesting stuff) and Mike Schrenk (an expert in social engineering and counter intelligence) at DEFCON on the subject of Fake News

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hpUMvx2HjI
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    rcs1000 said:

    On topic, there is essentially no chance that the Democrats will win the Senate next year.

    Of the 33 Senate seats up for re-election, the Democrats effectively have 25 already (including two Independents who caucus with them).

    According to Wikipedia, the Republicans are ahead in the polls in 14 of the 33, and another two are currently neck-and-neck. Even if we assume that the Dems outperform their poll scores by - say - five points, they would still lose West Virginia, North Dakota, Missouri, Montana and Indiana, with only a solitary pickup (Nevada).

    In other words, it is highly likely the Republicans will cement their hold of the Senate next year.

    The House is a different matter. The Democrats need to pick up 24 seats to take control of the House back from the Republicans. Can they do it?

    Possibly.

    Wikipedia's survey of congressional polls has the Dems picking up about 10 seats from the Republicans. But there another 25 seats where the Republicans have a lead of four points or less. If Republican turnout is low, or the Democrats enthused, then they could do it. History also shows there are regularly large swings against the party of the incumbent President in the first mid-terms. I would reckon the Republicans should be odds on to hold the House, but only just. If you can get more than 3/2 on the Dems, I'd take it.

    I think Heller will lose Nevada.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    rcs1000 said:

    On topic, there is essentially no chance that the Democrats will win the Senate next year.

    Of the 33 Senate seats up for re-election, the Democrats effectively have 25 already (including two Independents who caucus with them).

    According to Wikipedia, the Republicans are ahead in the polls in 14 of the 33, and another two are currently neck-and-neck. Even if we assume that the Dems outperform their poll scores by - say - five points, they would still lose West Virginia, North Dakota, Missouri, Montana and Indiana, with only a solitary pickup (Nevada).

    There is a path I think.

    If McCain dies/resigns, then he will be replaced by a Republican but the seat will be up for election in 2018. Flake will also be running in Arizona meaning there could be 2 potential pickups for the Dems there.

    Heitkamp, McCaskill, Donnelly and Tester are definitely all vulnerable for the Dems and they would need to hold them all.

    I think Heller will lose - the Dems are organized in Nevada and won in 2016 there.

    Trump is currently polling solidly in Arizona, but we are still a long way out.
    The GOP healthcare bill by contrast polled at 6% (!) in Arizona.

    https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2017/07/27/arizona-polltrump-approval-at-47-support-for-gop.html
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Nigelb said:

    It is very troubling to have such a bozo as President of the US at such a difficult time. It is amazing that Trump hasn't worked out that what he does for business doesn't do for politics.

    There’s none so blind as them as won’t see!

    I’d be a lot more hopeful if the Dems showed any signs of learning from last year, though. At the moment the ‘opposition’ seems to be largely principled Republicans and the discontented on the streets.
    Where’s the successor to the junior Senator from Illinois?
    Early days, but this guy might be worth keeping an eye on:
    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/28/seth-moulton-congressman-run-president-2020-profile-215428
    Seth is a really great guy - I know him pretty well, and have been happy to introduce him to a lot of Democrats that I know out here and in the UK.

    He's burnt a lot of bridges with the DCCC, but if he can prove himself a winner over time - which he is doing - then that should be repairable.

    But way, way too soon. I do think, though, that he has the potential to run one day - and to be a great president.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669
    Ishmael_Z said:



    As regards University of East Anglia and the hacked emails:

    "Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests.[16] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[17]"

    And none of that sounds at all fishy to you? 97% of scientists, eight committees - because science is done by head count, isn't it? And does that conclusion not sound at all to you like "not guilty, but don't do it again"?

    From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
    "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

    Because science is all about hiding things, isn't it?

    What has happened is that the world's scientists have decided that AGW is probably a thing, but that if you explained to the likes of Donald Trump the strength of the evidence - i.e., not very) you would get no action at all. So overstate the case. This may be a valid decision, though the precedents aren't ideal - it was, after all, so obvious that Hussein had WMDs that Blix's investigations could be ignored - but the cost is enormous in debauching what is meant by science. I am quite confident that you would assert enthusiastically that the earth is banana-shaped and that sheeps bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes, if you were told that 97% of scientists agreed with those propositions. And that is a sad state of affairs.
    " I am quite confident that you would assert enthusiastically that the earth is banana-shaped and that sheeps bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes, if you were told that 97% of scientists agreed with those propositions."

    ... in which case you are an idiot.
    Science is about measurements, peer review and such like. It's done by human beings, a very few of whom play politics, the vast majority do not.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    surbiton said:

    rcs1000 said:

    On topic, there is essentially no chance that the Democrats will win the Senate next year.

    Of the 33 Senate seats up for re-election, the Democrats effectively have 25 already (including two Independents who caucus with them).

    According to Wikipedia, the Republicans are ahead in the polls in 14 of the 33, and another two are currently neck-and-neck. Even if we assume that the Dems outperform their poll scores by - say - five points, they would still lose West Virginia, North Dakota, Missouri, Montana and Indiana, with only a solitary pickup (Nevada).

    In other words, it is highly likely the Republicans will cement their hold of the Senate next year.

    The House is a different matter. The Democrats need to pick up 24 seats to take control of the House back from the Republicans. Can they do it?

    Possibly.

    Wikipedia's survey of congressional polls has the Dems picking up about 10 seats from the Republicans. But there another 25 seats where the Republicans have a lead of four points or less. If Republican turnout is low, or the Democrats enthused, then they could do it. History also shows there are regularly large swings against the party of the incumbent President in the first mid-terms. I would reckon the Republicans should be odds on to hold the House, but only just. If you can get more than 3/2 on the Dems, I'd take it.

    I think Heller will lose Nevada.
    As I said, a solitary pickup for the Dems :smile:
  • chrisbchrisb Posts: 101


    Yet they are already angling for an another increase in tuition fees.

    If interest rates go up - thus increasing bond yields - will they then reverse any tuition fees increase ? We all know the answer to that is no.

    And of course declining bond yields mean increasing bond prices which should mean the pension fund assets have increased. Likewise the increase in the share prices and their overseas funds should also have boosted the pension fund assets.

    The artificially low interest and gilt rates have not only shredded pensions but have also pushed up the value of other investments, and property in particular.

    We have had these emergency rates for nearly a decade. Surely it is time to move back to normality, albeit slowly?
    Low interest rates might have had a negative effect on defined benefit schemes but not defined contribution schemes.

    The casual assumption in the news reports about the USS pensions that someone else, ie the young, need to pay more so that older, richer people get the benefits they were promised is one which is no longer going to be accepted.

    And it may well be that low growth and low interest rates become a permanent feature of the economy.

    ' Only in the golden age after WW2 did average growth top 2%. We must prepare for low growth and the fight for who benefits from its meagre spoils '

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/30/slow-economic-growth-gdp-old-norm
    All this talk of the deficit in the USS scheme is misplaced. Cash flow is what's important.

    The USS scheme paid out £1.7bn in pensions last year and it received £1.88bn in contributions from both employees and employers. Investment returns in the form of dividends and interest (i.e. not counting capital gains) brought in another £1.5bn.

    So the scheme is cash flow positive and will probably continue to be cash flow positive for years to come unless they close the scheme to future accrual.

    There is therefore no need for the scheme to sell assets to meet future pension payments, and market movements causing volatility in both asset values, pension liabilities and the deficit are irrelevant. Focusing on those things will probably lead to a lot of wrong decisions being made.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Ishmael_Z said:



    As regards University of East Anglia and the hacked emails:

    "Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests.[16] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[17]"

    And none of that sounds at all fishy to you? 97% of scientists, eight committees - because science is done by head count, isn't it? And does that conclusion not sound at all to you like "not guilty, but don't do it again"?

    From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
    "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

    Because science is all about hiding things, isn't it?

    What has happened is that the world's scientists have decided that AGW is probably a thing, but that if you explained to the likes of Donald Trump the strength of the evidence - i.e., not very) you would get no action at all. So overstate the case. This may be a valid decision, though the precedents aren't ideal - it was, after all, so obvious that Hussein had WMDs that Blix's investigations could be ignored - but the cost is enormous in debauching what is meant by science. I am quite confident that you would assert enthusiastically that the earth is banana-shaped and that sheeps bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes, if you were told that 97% of scientists agreed with those propositions. And that is a sad state of affairs.
    " I am quite confident that you would assert enthusiastically that the earth is banana-shaped and that sheeps bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes, if you were told that 97% of scientists agreed with those propositions."

    ... in which case you are an idiot.
    Science is about measurements, peer review and such like. It's done by human beings, a very few of whom play politics, the vast majority do not.
    OK, outline a couple of the commonest reasons why a scientist would use a "trick" to "hide the decline". Take your time.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    rkrkrk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    On topic, there is essentially no chance that the Democrats will win the Senate next year.

    Of the 33 Senate seats up for re-election, the Democrats effectively have 25 already (including two Independents who caucus with them).

    According to Wikipedia, the Republicans are ahead in the polls in 14 of the 33, and another two are currently neck-and-neck. Even if we assume that the Dems outperform their poll scores by - say - five points, they would still lose West Virginia, North Dakota, Missouri, Montana and Indiana, with only a solitary pickup (Nevada).

    There is a path I think.

    If McCain dies/resigns, then he will be replaced by a Republican but the seat will be up for election in 2018. Flake will also be running in Arizona meaning there could be 2 potential pickups for the Dems there.

    Heitkamp, McCaskill, Donnelly and Tester are definitely all vulnerable for the Dems and they would need to hold them all.

    I think Heller will lose - the Dems are organized in Nevada and won in 2016 there.

    Trump is currently polling solidly in Arizona, but we are still a long way out.
    The GOP healthcare bill by contrast polled at 6% (!) in Arizona.

    https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2017/07/27/arizona-polltrump-approval-at-47-support-for-gop.html
    You know, I just quoted Wikipedia, but upon closer inspection, their figures are bullsh*t. They have Manchin 21 points behind in West Virginia. But the latest polling I was able to find - which is admittedly from PPP - had Manchin 9 points ahead of a "generic Republican".

    Still: a lot of the Democrat defences are in very Red states - Montana and North Dakota being the most obvious.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    New thread.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,040
    chrisb said:


    Yet they are already angling for an another increase in tuition fees.

    If interest rates go up - thus increasing bond yields - will they then reverse any tuition fees increase ? We all know the answer to that is no.

    And of course declining bond yields mean increasing bond prices which should mean the pension fund assets have increased. Likewise the increase in the share prices and their overseas funds should also have boosted the pension fund assets.

    The artificially low interest and gilt rates have not only shredded pensions but have also pushed up the value of other investments, and property in particular.

    We have had these emergency rates for nearly a decade. Surely it is time to move back to normality, albeit slowly?
    Low interest rates might have had a negative effect on defined benefit schemes but not defined contribution schemes.

    The casual assumption in the news reports about the USS pensions that someone else, ie the young, need to pay more so that older, richer people get the benefits they were promised is one which is no longer going to be accepted.

    And it may well be that low growth and low interest rates become a permanent feature of the economy.

    ' Only in the golden age after WW2 did average growth top 2%. We must prepare for low growth and the fight for who benefits from its meagre spoils '

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/30/slow-economic-growth-gdp-old-norm
    All this talk of the deficit in the USS scheme is misplaced. Cash flow is what's important.

    The USS scheme paid out £1.7bn in pensions last year and it received £1.88bn in contributions from both employees and employers. Investment returns in the form of dividends and interest (i.e. not counting capital gains) brought in another £1.5bn.

    So the scheme is cash flow positive and will probably continue to be cash flow positive for years to come unless they close the scheme to future accrual.

    There is therefore no need for the scheme to sell assets to meet future pension payments, and market movements causing volatility in both asset values, pension liabilities and the deficit are irrelevant. Focusing on those things will probably lead to a lot of wrong decisions being made.
    Unfortunately, these things are what people are focusing on. Indeed, the Trustees may be under legal obligation to deal with the "deficit" (I don't know - I'm no expert on pensions - trying to learn fast as this hits me). The real action will come when the triennial valuation is done later this year/early next year.

    I suspect we will end up with some kind of haircut for future pensioners and also some extra from existing employees and employers.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Ishmael_Z said:



    As regards University of East Anglia and the hacked emails:

    "Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests.[16] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[17]"

    And none of that sounds at all fishy to you? 97% of scientists, eight committees - because science is done by head count, isn't it? And does that conclusion not sound at all to you like "not guilty, but don't do it again"?

    From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
    "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

    Because science is all about hiding things, isn't it?

    What has happened is that the world's scientists have decided that AGW is probably a thing, but that if you explained to the likes of Donald Trump the strength of the evidence - i.e., not very) you would get no action at all. So overstate the case. This may be a valid decision, though the precedents aren't ideal - it was, after all, so obvious that Hussein had WMDs that Blix's investigations could be ignored - but the cost is enormous in debauching what is meant by science. I am quite confident that you would assert enthusiastically that the earth is banana-shaped and that sheeps bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes, if you were told that 97% of scientists agreed with those propositions. And that is a sad state of affairs.
    " I am quite confident that you would assert enthusiastically that the earth is banana-shaped and that sheeps bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes, if you were told that 97% of scientists agreed with those propositions."

    ... in which case you are an idiot.
    Science is about measurements, peer review and such like. It's done by human beings, a very few of whom play politics, the vast majority do not.
    OK, outline a couple of the commonest reasons why a scientist would use a "trick" to "hide the decline". Take your time.
    I'm always slightly cautious about taking single emails like that and reading too much into them. If you searched through all my emails, might you find me describing having used a "trick"? Quite possibly. But it would need to be seen in context, a single email might be very misleading.
This discussion has been closed.