I am not sure that there is room for a radical right of centre party (to quote the article -some would use less complimentary terms) in Britain under First Past the Post). UKIP was fundamentally an anti Freedom of Movement immigration party, which had a charismatic and articulate leader for a while to exploit (to an extent) and express (to an extent) people's fears and concerns about immigration levels in the UK. it has become a victim of its own success and the only way it can revive is if Remoaners succeed either in frustrating Brexit altogether, or as is more likely they succeed in keeping us under the control of the EU via the Single market so that we are OUT on the same terms that we are in. If freedom of movement does not cease then UKIP will revive, providing it finds a good leader.
If you truly want to put an end to UKIP, Remoaners have to accept that total freedom of movement is not a good idea.
They are proposing ending guaranteed pensions in retirement linked to your final or average salary for lecturers with defined contribution schemes where you have no guaranteed and predictable pension and what you get depends on stock market performance when you retire.
That is quite a significant change!
When MPs of course vote for such a change to their own pensions they can lecture the rest of the public sector!
It is instructive to compare the influence that a third party has on policy in the UK under FPTP with Germany under modified PR.
UKIP’s share of the vote in 2010 was just 3.1% and it took no seats. Nevertheless it forced David Cameron’s hand to promise a referendum in the Conservative manifesto for the 2015 general election in which UKIP took 12.6% of the vote but just the Carswell seat in Parliament. Since then we have had the seismic Brexit referendum.
Compare that with the AfD in Germany, which achieved 4.7% in 2013 but, falling short of the 5% threshold, got no seats in the Bundestag. Then in 2017 the AfD coincidentally also got 12.6% of the vote, yielding 94 seats in the Bundestag. So much greater representation than UKIP in the UK for the same share of the vote.
However, though the horse-trading between the CDU and the SPD is not yet resolved, it is clear that the AfD’s policy agenda is nowhere near what will emerge if there is a grand coalition, and still less so if the “Jamaica” outcome with the CDU, Greens and the FDP is resurrected.
Whereas UKIP has essentially achieved its goal under FPTP in the UK, in Germany under PR the AfD has been contained as a side show.
You're making the mistake of assuming only UKIP wanted a referendum, that only UKIP forced Cameron's hand and that only UKIP wanted Brexit to win the referendum.
Except the Leave campaign was headed by Conservatives.
When Cameron conceded the referendum it wasn't just due to UKIP rising up in the polls but because nearly a hundred of his own MPs had rebelled against him and demanded one. Then during the referendum a significant amount including many Cabinet ministers campaigned to Leave.
This was not just UKIP's doing. Yours is not a reasonable comparison unless you pick an issue where upto a hundred CDU MPs had rebelled against Merkel on that issue.
I am saying that FPTP was not an obstacle to a third party achieving its goals despite lack of Parliamentary representation. Of course there is no exact analogy between the situations of UKIP in the UK and AfD in Germany, but PR is not the panacea for small parties that many think.
Just seen the text of the tax question asked by YouGov about the SNP plans:
It was "Last month the Scottish government announced changes to income tax. The effect of the change will be that compared to people in England and Wales taxpayers earning less than £26,000 will pay less tax, and those earning more than £26,000 will pay more tax. From what you have seen or heard, do you support or oppose these changes to income tax in Scotland?"
Even with that phrasing only 27% of people were opposed.
Compared to 99% of the right wing fruitcakes on here
Presumably given those figures a substantial proportion of those earning over 26k are in favour of the changes.
I would tend to say they accept it for better public services. I don't like it but do realise I am very lucky to be paying the extra so just have to suck it up, it is not impacting my life for sure. I used to have to pay more for regular prescriptions.
This change though is at least partly motivated by concerns about fairness/redistribution? OR am I mistaken?
It is instructive to compare the influence that a third party has on policy in the UK under FPTP with Germany under modified PR.
UKIP’s share of the vote in 2010 was just 3.1% and it took no seats. Nevertheless it forced David Cameron’s hand to promise a referendum in the Conservative manifesto for the 2015 general election in which UKIP took 12.6% of the vote but just the Carswell seat in Parliament. Since then we have had the seismic Brexit referendum.
Compare that with the AfD in Germany, which achieved 4.7% in 2013 but, falling short of the 5% threshold, got no seats in the Bundestag. Then in 2017 the AfD coincidentally also got 12.6% of the vote, yielding 94 seats in the Bundestag. So much greater representation than UKIP in the UK for the same share of the vote.
However, though the horse-trading between the CDU and the SPD is not yet resolved, it is clear that the AfD’s policy agenda is nowhere near what will emerge if there is a grand coalition, and still less so if the “Jamaica” outcome with the CDU, Greens and the FDP is resurrected.
Whereas UKIP has essentially achieved its goal under FPTP in the UK, in Germany under PR the AfD has been contained as a side show.
You're making the mistake of assuming only UKIP wanted a referendum, that only UKIP forced Cameron's hand and that only UKIP wanted Brexit to win the referendum.
Except the Leave campaign was headed by Conservatives.
When Cameron conceded the referendum it wasn't just due to UKIP rising up in the polls but because nearly a hundred of his own MPs had rebelled against him and demanded one. Then during the referendum a significant amount including many Cabinet ministers campaigned to Leave.
This was not just UKIP's doing. Yours is not a reasonable comparison unless you pick an issue where upto a hundred CDU MPs had rebelled against Merkel on that issue.
I am saying that FPTP was not an obstacle to a third party achieving its goals despite lack of Parliamentary representation. Of course there is no exact analogy between the situations of UKIP in the UK and AfD in Germany, but PR is not the panacea for small parties that many think.
The correct comparison here, however, is as a single issue pressure group rather than mainstream political party. That UKIP was never the latter is now becoming obvious as it collapses once its single issue fades away.
I think that is the mood in the Country but there are those who would like our Country to crash and burn to prove their obsession with the EU and that is sad
BigG we are in agreement For all its faults , I have been privileged to live in this country and this lovely city.
York is a wonderful city with it's Minster and jewel in the crown, the National Railway Museum.
We love having breaks in York and off course Yorkshire.
We live in a wonderful Country that we can all be proud off, warts and all
I love York too.The Ebor and city.This disturbs me a great deal.
When I was in Vancouver last year
It's happening in so many cities worldwide as the cost of renting let alone buying housing is extortionate - and the availability of social housing and support for single people is very limited. You would be hard pressed to get a decent house in Vancouver for less than a million Canadian $ But those in charge have done very well out of the property asset boom - so neither they, banks and central bankers and developers are going to do much about it.
Mrs May seems to have forgotten her comments about cheap credit, money printing, excessive lending and the generational divide it has caused in terms of housing. But until young people are able to put a secure roof over their heads in their 20s and 30s the promise of inheriting a third of a house from their parents when they are in their mid 60s - assuming it doesn't go first on social care - they probably won't be overly happy about their lot.
There is housing benefit too if you can get a landlord to take it even if you can't get social housing and many of the homeless suffer problems with alcohol and mental health issues which need to be tackled first, some will even refuse a hostel place. Of course in the North and much of the Midlands you can still get on the property ladder in your 20s and 30s on an average salary, it is London and the South where it is almost impossible to buy a property now on an average salary, hence over 52% of first time buyers get parental support with a deposit and to get on the housing ladder ie they in effect get much of their inheritance early (though of course the average number of children per family is now 1.9 in the UK not 3)
They are proposing ending guaranteed pensions in retirement linked to your final or average salary for lecturers with defined contribution schemes where you have no guaranteed and predictable pension and what you get depends on stock market performance when you retire.
That is quite a significant change!
When MPs of course vote for such a change to their own pensions they can lecture the rest of the public sector!
They are proposing ending guaranteed pensions in retirement linked to your final or average salary for lecturers with defined contribution schemes where you have no guaranteed and predictable pension and what you get depends on stock market performance when you retire.
That is quite a significant change!
When MPs of course vote for such a change to their own pensions they can lecture the rest of the public sector!
This has nothing to do with contributing to your pensions - pretty much everyone does that including all public sector employees now.
This is about moving from a defined benefit to a defined contribution scheme. The former guarantees a particular annual sum in retirement linked directly to your final or average salary which is paid for the rest of your life, is fixed and rises by inflation irrespective of stock market performance or annuity rates. The latter provides no guarantees at all - if the stock market crashes the day before you draw your pension you get less money in retirement.
It is a huge change if you are affected by it. Most people in the private sector have defined contributions - for the public sector its a new risk.
They are measured, balanced, nuanced, and absolutely fair comment.
He accepts the existing EU and our full membership wasn't working for the UK. He says the decision has been made and can't be unmade. But he also says it's dangerous to say never say never in politics, and, if the EU, or other European institutions, were to radically change in the next 20 years, more in the UK's image, then who knows how the relationships might evolve?
The Telegraph has done what so many newspapers are now prone to do, in order to boost sales: simplify and then exaggerate to generate a controversial headline.
So a cabinet minister talks to a major newspaper on a contentious subject, and we are supposed to take what he says literally? Even if the rebuttal didn't come out suspiciously quickly we'd be entitled to read between the lines.
But if you prefer to think he's honest but naive be my guest.
I don't think he's remotely naive. It's part of our constitution that no Parliament can bind its successors which is precisely why we're leaving now despite prior Parliaments choosing to join and stay in.
The future can do what it pleases. Nobody denies that.
It is instructive to compare the influence that a third party has on policy in the UK under FPTP with Germany under modified PR.
UKIP’s share of the vote in 2010 was just 3.1% and it took no seats. Nevertheless it forced David Cameron’s hand to promise a referendum in the Conservative manifesto for the 2015 general election in which UKIP took 12.6% of the vote but just the Carswell seat in Parliament. Since then we have had the seismic Brexit referendum.
Compare that with the AfD in Germany, which achieved 4.7% in 2013 but, falling short of the 5% threshold, got no seats in the Bundestag. Then in 2017 the AfD coincidentally also got 12.6% of the vote, yielding 94 seats in the Bundestag. So much greater representation than UKIP in the UK for the same share of the vote.
However, though the horse-trading between the CDU and the SPD is not yet resolved, it is clear that the AfD’s policy agenda is nowhere near what will emerge if there is a grand coalition, and still less so if the “Jamaica” outcome with the CDU, Greens and the FDP is resurrected.
Whereas UKIP has essentially achieved its goal under FPTP in the UK, in Germany under PR the AfD has been contained as a side show.
You're making the mistake of assuming only UKIP wanted a referendum, that only UKIP forced Cameron's hand and that only UKIP wanted Brexit to win the referendum.
Except the Leave campaign was headed by Conservatives.
When Cameron conceded the referendum it wasn't just due to UKIP rising up in the polls but because nearly a hundred of his own MPs had rebelled against him and demanded one. Then during the referendum a significant amount including many Cabinet ministers campaigned to Leave.
This was not just UKIP's doing. Yours is not a reasonable comparison unless you pick an issue where upto a hundred CDU MPs had rebelled against Merkel on that issue.
I am saying that FPTP was not an obstacle to a third party achieving its goals despite lack of Parliamentary representation. Of course there is no exact analogy between the situations of UKIP in the UK and AfD in Germany, but PR is not the panacea for small parties that many think.
Indeed for achieving a single issue where the governing party has a significant proportion of itself wanting that issue too.
The difference for PR is it doesn't address a single issue it boosts the minor parties themselves. So the minor party politicians have a greater chance of power themselves not seeing other politicians implement their ideas.
They are measured, balanced, nuanced, and absolutely fair comment.
He accepts the existing EU and our full membership wasn't working for the UK. He says the decision has been made and can't be unmade. But he also says it's dangerous to say never say never in politics, and, if the EU, or other European institutions, were to radically change in the next 20 years, more in the UK's image, then who knows how the relationships might evolve?
The Telegraph has done what so many newspapers are now prone to do, in order to boost sales: simplify and then exaggerate to generate a controversial headline.
So a cabinet minister talks to a major newspaper on a contentious subject, and we are supposed to take what he says literally? Even if the rebuttal didn't come out suspiciously quickly we'd be entitled to read between the lines.
But if you prefer to think he's honest but naive be my guest.
I don't think he's remotely naive. It's part of our constitution that no Parliament can bind its successors which is precisely why we're leaving now despite prior Parliaments choosing to join and stay in.
The future can do what it pleases. Nobody denies that.
Nobody can deny it, but many people are in denial about it. If you’re a firm Brexiteer, the thought that it all could be for nothing is painful to imagine.
They are proposing ending guaranteed pensions in retirement linked to your final or average salary for lecturers with defined contribution schemes where you have no guaranteed and predictable pension and what you get depends on stock market performance when you retire.
That is quite a significant change!
When MPs of course vote for such a change to their own pensions they can lecture the rest of the public sector!
Most organisations now have contributory and not defined benefit schemes
That's right. I'm not affected as I left before the change, but in general the DB system seems to me fairer - it puts the risk on the employer, who can even in out over the years when the markets move up and down, anrather than the individual, who is at risk of a market downturn at the moment of retirement.
They are measured, balanced, nuanced, and absolutely fair comment.
He accepts the existing EU and our full membership wasn't working for the UK. He says the decision has been made and can't be unmade. But he also says it's dangerous to say never say never in politics, and, if the EU, or other European institutions, were to radically change in the next 20 years, more in the UK's image, then who knows how the relationships might evolve?
The Telegraph has done what so many newspapers are now prone to do, in order to boost sales: simplify and then exaggerate to generate a controversial headline.
So a cabinet minister talks to a major newspaper on a contentious subject, and we are supposed to take what he says literally? Even if the rebuttal didn't come out suspiciously quickly we'd be entitled to read between the lines.
But if you prefer to think he's honest but naive be my guest.
I don't think he's remotely naive. It's part of our constitution that no Parliament can bind its successors which is precisely why we're leaving now despite prior Parliaments choosing to join and stay in.
The future can do what it pleases. Nobody denies that.
Nobody can deny it, but many people are in denial about it. If you’re a firm Brexiteer, the thought that it all could be for nothing is painful to imagine.
Erm, no. Democracy uber alles. If the referendum result were to be overturned, that's one thing. The electorate deciding (in n years) that the EU, it's what's for dinner, whole other thing.
Life will go on. Perhaps you are right and our destiny is as part of some 21st century Austro-Hungarian empire. If I could be certain of anything, I'd be quite the wise creature, sadly I am a fallible mortal.
Cooking question (as this is not a politics site):
I am preparing spinnich: I have built the base upon 3-cloves of Garlic; three-quarters of a standard English-White onion; a finely sliced spring-onion; half a standard, finely sliced carrot; and some mushrooms (all basted in Pork-lard). I still have some more spring-onions and mushrooms to add.
It is currently a flavour-some base: I wish to add a pepper - not disturbed about which Jamican colour it is - before adding the, finally, finely-sliced spinnach and a quarter point of milk (and some more of the bits mentioned above).
Myself and the missus like it hot-n-spicy: So, finally, here is the question. Should I purchase a packet of hot-chillies (or let the onions and flavours do their business)?
They are proposing ending guaranteed pensions in retirement linked to your final or average salary for lecturers with defined contribution schemes where you have no guaranteed and predictable pension and what you get depends on stock market performance when you retire.
That is quite a significant change!
When MPs of course vote for such a change to their own pensions they can lecture the rest of the public sector!
This has nothing to do with contributing to your pensions - pretty much everyone does that including all public sector employees now.
This is about moving from a defined benefit to a defined contribution scheme. The former guarantees a particular annual sum in retirement linked directly to your final or average salary which is paid for the rest of your life, is fixed and rises by inflation irrespective of stock market performance or annuity rates. The latter provides no guarantees at all - if the stock market crashes the day before you draw your pension you get less money in retirement.
It is a huge change if you are affected by it. Most people in the private sector have defined contributions - for the public sector its a new risk.
I work for a third sector organisation and we are on defined contribution schemes too, almost all the private sector pension schemes are now defined contribution schemes.
The argument for the public sector having defined benefit rather than defined contribution schemes used to be that public sector workers got paid less than private sector workers so deserved a higher pension, now the average public sector salary is often more than the average private sector salary (albeit partly because of outsourcing and contracting out) that argument no longer really apples and it would be private sector taxpayers funding those defined benefit schemes while receiving defined contribution pension schemes themselves.
They are proposing ending guaranteed pensions in retirement linked to your final or average salary for lecturers with defined contribution schemes where you have no guaranteed and predictable pension and what you get depends on stock market performance when you retire.
That is quite a significant change!
When MPs of course vote for such a change to their own pensions they can lecture the rest of the public sector!
Most organisations now have contributory and not defined benefit schemes
That's right. I'm not affected as I left before the change, but in general the DB system seems to me fairer - it puts the risk on the employer, who can even in out over the years when the markets move up and down, anrather than the individual, who is at risk of a market downturn at the moment of retirement.
It is certainly more beneficial for the claimant than the employer, whether that is fair or not depends on your perspective, it certainly adds to costs for the employer especially if it is a large organisation
That's right. I'm not affected as I left before the change, but in general the DB system seems to me fairer - it puts the risk on the employer, who can even in out over the years when the markets move up and down, anrather than the individual, who is at risk of a market downturn at the moment of retirement.
Sorry Sven; one thought that MPs where self-employed? So, if not, whom are their employees and whom should fund their 'gold-plated' pensions. [NOTE: Given what I know I would not employ you (and have not promoted that others should do so).]
That's right. I'm not affected as I left before the change, but in general the DB system seems to me fairer - it puts the risk on the employer, who can even in out over the years when the markets move up and down, anrather than the individual, who is at risk of a market downturn at the moment of retirement.
It is certainly more beneficial for the claimant than the employer, whether that is fair or not depends on your perspective, it certainly adds to costs for the employer especially if it is a large organisation
Well, I've been both, but in general the larger the organisation, the better it should be able to spread risk. If the scheme is operated fairly (without the employer taking pension holidays in good times etc., then the impact for the employer ought to be neutral in the long term unless the stock market goes into permanent decline in real terms. The employee might do better with DC if the stock market soars, but most people would probably rather know what they're getting.
Has Casino told us yet which countries will be worse off than the UK from a no deal Brexit? Ireland I can believe. Any others? Maybe there are particular factors for, I don't know, Luxembourg.
That's right. I'm not affected as I left before the change, but in general the DB system seems to me fairer - it puts the risk on the employer, who can even in out over the years when the markets move up and down, anrather than the individual, who is at risk of a market downturn at the moment of retirement.
It is certainly more beneficial for the claimant than the employer, whether that is fair or not depends on your perspective, it certainly adds to costs for the employer especially if it is a large organisation
Well, I've been both, but in general the larger the organisation, the better it should be able to spread risk. If the scheme is operated fairly (without the employer taking pension holidays in good times etc., then the impact for the employer ought to be neutral in the long term unless the stock market goes into permanent decline in real terms. The employee might do better with DC if the stock market soars, but most people would probably rather know what they're getting.
I agree with you (for once) on the 'pension holidays' point. However employers were allowed to get away with that scam, seems a failure by the regulator.
They are proposing ending guaranteed pensions in retirement linked to your final or average salary for lecturers with defined contribution schemes where you have no guaranteed and predictable pension and what you get depends on stock market performance when you retire.
That is quite a significant change!
When MPs of course vote for such a change to their own pensions they can lecture the rest of the public sector!
Most organisations now have contributory and not defined benefit schemes
That's right. I'm not affected as I left before the change, but in general the DB system seems to me fairer - it puts the risk on the employer, who can even in out over the years when the markets move up and down, anrather than the individual, who is at risk of a market downturn at the moment of retirement.
It has destroyed investment in this country: with longevity and low interest rates plus the requirement to invest in gilts and to fill pension deficits it has massively shifted resources from productive investment to meeting historcal liabilities
Fundamentally pensions are a form of compensation: workers should get a contribution from their employers and then do what they want with it. If they can negotiate a defined benefit that is incredibly valuable - but then don’t whinge about low wages without correctly accounting for this value (you should look at total comp)
They are proposing ending guaranteed pensions in retirement linked to your final or average salary for lecturers with defined contribution schemes where you have no guaranteed and predictable pension and what you get depends on stock market performance when you retire.
That is quite a significant change!
When MPs of course vote for such a change to their own pensions they can lecture the rest of the public sector!
Most organisations now have contributory and not defined benefit schemes
A career average scheme is still a defined benefit scheme. It's still linked to your salary - and for some MPs (backbenchers who never reach ministerial office) who just get paid the basic MPs salary rising by inflation (or civil servants who are the top of their pay scales in the rest of the public sector with no likelihood of promotion) it makes little or no difference and can actually get you a higher pension than a final salary scheme as its inflated every year by CPI which in recent years has exceeded public sector pay rises.
How about MPs passing a new law - they can't remove defined benefit pensions from anyone else unless they end it for themselves?!
That's right. I'm not affected as I left before the change, but in general the DB system seems to me fairer - it puts the risk on the employer, who can even in out over the years when the markets move up and down, anrather than the individual, who is at risk of a market downturn at the moment of retirement.
It is certainly more beneficial for the claimant than the employer, whether that is fair or not depends on your perspective, it certainly adds to costs for the employer especially if it is a large organisation
Well, I've been both, but in general the larger the organisation, the better it should be able to spread risk. If the scheme is operated fairly (without the employer taking pension holidays in good times etc., then the impact for the employer ought to be neutral in the long term unless the stock market goes into permanent decline in real terms. The employee might do better with DC if the stock market soars, but most people would probably rather know what they're getting.
I think the biggest costs of DB schemes have been for the former nationalised industries like BA and BT and Royal Mail and Centrica (as a legacy of British Gas Corporation). BA used to be called 'a pension fund with wings' hence why they have all either moved towards or are trying to move towards DC schemes. You may be right that if the employer ensures it is always keeping to its obligations it should be able to manage it, clearly many of them think they cannot though if Corbyn renationalises half of them maybe they will have to try and do so again
They are proposing ending guaranteed pensions in retirement linked to your final or average salary for lecturers with defined contribution schemes where you have no guaranteed and predictable pension and what you get depends on stock market performance when you retire.
That is quite a significant change!
When MPs of course vote for such a change to their own pensions they can lecture the rest of the public sector!
Most organisations now have contributory and not defined benefit schemes
A career average scheme is still a defined benefit scheme. It's still linked to your salary - and for some MPs (backbenchers who never reach ministerial office) who just get paid the basic MPs salary rising by inflation (or civil servants who are the top of their pay scales in the rest of the public sector with no likelihood of promotion) it makes little or no difference and can actually get you a higher pension than a final salary scheme as its inflated every year by CPI which in recent years has exceeded public sector pay rises.
How about MPs passing a new law - they can't remove defined benefit pensions from anyone else unless they end it for themselves?!
That's right. I'm not affected as I left before the change, but in general the DB system seems to me fairer - it puts the risk on the employer, who can even in out over the years when the markets move up and down, anrather than the individual, who is at risk of a market downturn at the moment of retirement.
It is certainly more beneficial for the claimant than the employer, whether that is fair or not depends on your perspective, it certainly adds to costs for the employer especially if it is a large organisation
Well, I've been both, but in general the larger the organisation, the better it should be able to spread risk. If the scheme is operated fairly (without the employer taking pension holidays in good times etc., then the impact for the employer ought to be neutral in the long term unless the stock market goes into permanent decline in real terms. The employee might do better with DC if the stock market soars, but most people would probably rather know what they're getting.
I agree with you (for once) on the 'pension holidays' point. However employers were allowed to get away with that scam, seems a failure by the regulator.
I thought part of the whole problem was that employers in the 80s/90s were forced by law to effectively take pension holidays, because they were banned from running their Pension funds at an 'excessive' surplus (the Govt claimed they were doing so to avoid tax).
One of the points being missed in this discussion is whether the defined benefits promised under the schemes are excessive compared to the contributions put in (by employer/employee). A big problem for final salary schemes was that systems of contribution had to make assumptions about future earnings that were perhaps under-estimated. CARE schemes shouldn't suffer from the same problem to the same extent.
ndividual, who is at risk of a market downturn at the moment of retirement.
It has destroyed investment in this country: with longevity and low interest rates plus the requirement to invest in gilts and to fill pension deficits it has massively shifted resources from productive investment to meeting historcal liabilities
Fundamentally pensions are a form of compensation: workers should get a contribution from their employers and then do what they want with it. If they can negotiate a defined benefit that is incredibly valuable - but then don’t whinge about low wages without correctly accounting for this value (you should look at total comp)
What you describe is simply bad planning - rising longevity has been obvious throughout my lifetime to even lay observers, and organisations who didn't allow for it were negligent. Overoptimistic assumptions of returns have been endemic in both DB and DC schemes - it was not uncommon to find funds cheerfully predicting growth rates in the 5-8% per year range. Restricting investment to gilts is probably a bad rule - better to offer a Government insurance scheme, perhaps, since again it should be revenue=neutral over time unless the stock market goes into permanent decline.
That's right. I'm not affected as I left before the change, but in general the DB system seems to me fairer - it puts the risk on the employer, who can even in out over the years when the markets move up and down, anrather than the individual, who is at risk of a market downturn at the moment of retirement.
It is certainly more beneficial for the claimant than the employer, whether that is fair or not depends on your perspective, it certainly adds to costs for the employer especially if it is a large organisation
Well, I've been both, but in general the larger the organisation, the better it should be able to spread risk. If the scheme is operated fairly (without the employer taking pension holidays in good times etc., then the impact for the employer ought to be neutral in the long term unless the stock market goes into permanent decline in real terms. The employee might do better with DC if the stock market soars, but most people would probably rather know what they're getting.
I agree with you (for once) on the 'pension holidays' point. However employers were allowed to get away with that scam, seems a failure by the regulator.
I thought part of the whole problem was that employers in the 80s/90s were forced by law to effectively take pension holidays, because they were banned from running their Pension funds at an 'excessive' surplus (the Govt claimed they were doing so to avoid tax).
One of the points being missed in this discussion is whether the defined benefits promised under the schemes are excessive compared to the contributions put in (by employer/employee). A big problem for final salary schemes was that systems of contribution had to make assumptions about future earnings that were perhaps under-estimated. CARE schemes shouldn't suffer from the same problem to the same extent.
"In the 1990s many companies took the seemingly painless decision of stopping contributions to occupational schemes. The stock market was riding high and companies thought they could take "pension holidays" and still meet their obligations to pensioners."
From a Guardian article (2004), where they blame lots of things - including Gordon Brown's tax raid.
It has destroyed investment in this country: with longevity and low interest rates plus the requirement to invest in gilts and to fill pension deficits it has massively shifted resources from productive investment to meeting historcal liabilities
Fundamentally pensions are a form of compensation: workers should get a contribution from their employers and then do what they want with it. If they can negotiate a defined benefit that is incredibly valuable - but then don’t whinge about low wages without correctly accounting for this value (you should look at total comp)
What you describe is simply bad planning - rising longevity has been obvious throughout my lifetime to even lay observers, and organisations who didn't allow for it were negligent. Overoptimistic assumptions of returns have been endemic in both DB and DC schemes - it was not uncommon to find funds cheerfully predicting growth rates in the 5-8% per year range. Restricting investment to gilts is probably a bad rule - better to offer a Government insurance scheme, perhaps, since again it should be revenue=neutral over time unless the stock market goes into permanent decline.
You claimed DB was “fairer”. It’s not - it just transfers risk to someone else. I would argue that it is “fairer” to have agreed compensation for agreed work. Then everyone knows where they stand.
The incompetence has been from governments not changing to DC as the private sector started to do 25 years ago (I don’t blame the unions for standing up for their members, although I do think they are unrealistic at times).
MPs behaviour disgusts me. They should take a stand off what is right for taxpayers but are more interested in themselves
That's right. I'm not affected as I left before the change, but in general the DB system seems to me fairer - it puts the risk on the employer, who can even in out over the years when the markets move up and down, anrather than the individual, who is at risk of a market downturn at the moment of retirement.
It is certainly more beneficial for the claimant than the employer, whether that is fair or not depends on your perspective, it certainly adds to costs for the employer especially if it is a large organisation
Well, I've been both, but in general the larger the organisation, the better it should be able to spread risk. If the scheme is operated fairly (without the employer taking pension holidays in good times etc., then the impact for the employer ought to be neutral in the long term unless the stock market goes into permanent decline in real terms. The employee might do better with DC if the stock market soars, but most people would probably rather know what they're getting.
I think the biggest costs of DB schemes have been for the former nationalised industries like BA and BT and Royal Mail and Centrica (as a legacy of British Gas Corporation). BA used to be called 'a pension fund with wings' hence why they have all either moved towards or are trying to move towards DC schemes. You may be right that if the employer ensures it is always keeping to its obligations it should be able to manage it, clearly many of them think they cannot though if Corbyn renationalises half of them maybe they will have to try and do so again
BA are still very much a pension fund with wings, not helped by flight crew being mandated to retire at 60. They’ll soon reach the point where they have more living retires than current staff.
They are proposing ending guaranteed pensions in retirement linked to your final or average salary for lecturers with defined contribution schemes where you have no guaranteed and predictable pension and what you get depends on stock market performance when you retire.
That is quite a significant change!
When MPs of course vote for such a change to their own pensions they can lecture the rest of the public sector!
Almost every private company did this years ago and people just had to suck it up. Time they entered the real world.
Had a look at the University pension scheme when my daughter asked my advice on the strike ballot - she has started teaching at her Uni to fund her PhD and has been enrolled in the scheme.
Like Carrillion, perhaps, it has been catastrophically managed and the proposed changes are about coping with a massive deficit rather than curtailing the cost/risk of benefits earned in the future (although it will do that too). All frustrating enough, but the bit that really irritates is the fees earned by the scheme trustees: e.g. £50,000 paid to Dame Glynis Breakwell on top of her near £500,000 remuneration in a full time post from Bath University.
OK luv, take the £50,000 by all means but do it in your own time and don’t screw up. A lifelong Tory voter, I find it increasingly easy to understand why my daughter is now firmly in the Corbyn camp. The sickening greed of those like Breakwell and others, private and public sector, has to be confronted. If May doesn’t want to, she should let someone else get stuck in. I’m happy to help draw up a list!
Comments
If you truly want to put an end to UKIP, Remoaners have to accept that total freedom of movement is not a good idea.
That is quite a significant change!
When MPs of course vote for such a change to their own pensions they can lecture the rest of the public sector!
OR am I mistaken?
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06283
Most organisations now have contributory and not defined benefit schemes
This is about moving from a defined benefit to a defined contribution scheme. The former guarantees a particular annual sum in retirement linked directly to your final or average salary which is paid for the rest of your life, is fixed and rises by inflation irrespective of stock market performance or annuity rates. The latter provides no guarantees at all - if the stock market crashes the day before you draw your pension you get less money in retirement.
It is a huge change if you are affected by it. Most people in the private sector have defined contributions - for the public sector its a new risk.
The future can do what it pleases. Nobody denies that.
The difference for PR is it doesn't address a single issue it boosts the minor parties themselves. So the minor party politicians have a greater chance of power themselves not seeing other politicians implement their ideas.
Life will go on. Perhaps you are right and our destiny is as part of some 21st century Austro-Hungarian empire. If I could be certain of anything, I'd be quite the wise creature, sadly I am a fallible mortal.
I am preparing spinnich: I have built the base upon 3-cloves of Garlic; three-quarters of a standard English-White onion; a finely sliced spring-onion; half a standard, finely sliced carrot; and some mushrooms (all basted in Pork-lard). I still have some more spring-onions and mushrooms to add.
It is currently a flavour-some base: I wish to add a pepper - not disturbed about which Jamican colour it is - before adding the, finally, finely-sliced spinnach and a quarter point of milk (and some more of the bits mentioned above).
Myself and the missus like it hot-n-spicy: So, finally, here is the question. Should I purchase a packet of hot-chillies (or let the onions and flavours do their business)?
The argument for the public sector having defined benefit rather than defined contribution schemes used to be that public sector workers got paid less than private sector workers so deserved a higher pension, now the average public sector salary is often more than the average private sector salary (albeit partly because of outsourcing and contracting out) that argument no longer really apples and it would be private sector taxpayers funding those defined benefit schemes while receiving defined contribution pension schemes themselves.
I agree with you (for once) on the 'pension holidays' point. However employers were allowed to get away with that scam, seems a failure by the regulator.
Fundamentally pensions are a form of compensation: workers should get a contribution from their employers and then do what they want with it. If they can negotiate a defined benefit that is incredibly valuable - but then don’t whinge about low wages without correctly accounting for this value (you should look at total comp)
How about MPs passing a new law - they can't remove defined benefit pensions from anyone else unless they end it for themselves?!
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/954702833621848065
One of the points being missed in this discussion is whether the defined benefits promised under the schemes are excessive compared to the contributions put in (by employer/employee). A big problem for final salary schemes was that systems of contribution had to make assumptions about future earnings that were perhaps under-estimated. CARE schemes shouldn't suffer from the same problem to the same extent.
Fundamentally pensions are a form of compensation: workers should get a contribution from their employers and then do what they want with it. If they can negotiate a defined benefit that is incredibly valuable - but then don’t whinge about low wages without correctly accounting for this value (you should look at total comp)
What you describe is simply bad planning - rising longevity has been obvious throughout my lifetime to even lay observers, and organisations who didn't allow for it were negligent. Overoptimistic assumptions of returns have been endemic in both DB and DC schemes - it was not uncommon to find funds cheerfully predicting growth rates in the 5-8% per year range. Restricting investment to gilts is probably a bad rule - better to offer a Government insurance scheme, perhaps, since again it should be revenue=neutral over time unless the stock market goes into permanent decline.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/19/nuclear-weapons-uk-defence-review-russia
"In the 1990s many companies took the seemingly painless decision of stopping contributions to occupational schemes. The stock market was riding high and companies thought they could take "pension holidays" and still meet their obligations to pensioners."
From a Guardian article (2004), where they blame lots of things - including Gordon Brown's tax raid.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2004/jul/10/pensions.jobsandmoney
The incompetence has been from governments not changing to DC as the private sector started to do 25 years ago (I don’t blame the unions for standing up for their members, although I do think they are unrealistic at times).
MPs behaviour disgusts me. They should take a stand off what is right for taxpayers but are more interested in themselves
I was also told that the percentage of the US population addicted is remarkably similar to the percentage of Chinese addicted in the opium wars...
Like Carrillion, perhaps, it has been catastrophically managed and the proposed changes are about coping with a massive deficit rather than curtailing the cost/risk of benefits earned in the future (although it will do that too). All frustrating enough, but the bit that really irritates is the fees earned by the scheme trustees: e.g. £50,000 paid to Dame Glynis Breakwell on top of her near £500,000 remuneration in a full time post from Bath University.
OK luv, take the £50,000 by all means but do it in your own time and don’t screw up. A lifelong Tory voter, I find it increasingly easy to understand why my daughter is now firmly in the Corbyn camp. The sickening greed of those like Breakwell and others, private and public sector, has to be confronted. If May doesn’t want to, she should let someone else get stuck in. I’m happy to help draw up a list!