Well for a lot of people in their 30s/40s, they are banking on their parents dosh to retire on, so wouldn't suprise me. There's a risk that GenX become forgotten between the babyboomers and the Millenials.
I'd actually argue that generation has done very well over the last decade. They're the ones who have benefited the most from the very low interest rates.
Well for a lot of people in their 30s/40s, they are banking on their parents dosh to retire on, so wouldn't suprise me. There's a risk that GenX become forgotten between the babyboomers and the Millenials.
I'd actually argue that generation has done very well over the last decade. They're the ones who have benefited the most from the very low interest rates.
And maybe it was not dementia tax that cost Theresa May her majority but the appalling non-campaign masterminded by Lynton Crosby. Maybe Nick and Fiona were thrown under the bus by expensive election consultants with reputations and fees to maintain, and not least by a PM running scared of debate or even real voters.
Piecing things together - and this is a mixture of gossip, speculation and rumour:
GW and the woman in question got drunk and snogged at a staff party
He took it to mean more than it did and began sending her flowers. Lots of flowers.
She was very upset and complained to her managers
He chose to resign (sorry “part amicably”) rather than be fired
How is that not stalking?
So why has he refused to answer the Guardian's question if it was all straightforward.
I don’t know what the Guardian’s question was.
But the way he told it, it’s the tragic but ultimately redemptive story of a hero who strays from the path of righteousness but is forgiven by his pregnant wife.
Sorry forgot: he didn’t mention his wife was pregnant when he cheated on her did he?
A drunken kiss at a party is cheating now? Blimey.
The pursuit afterwards is cheating not the drunken kiss.
Whether or not he achieved his objective is immaterial. He’d broken his pledge of fidelity
If you are not being entirely serious you are hiding it quite well. The man behaved stupidly. He paid the price. Any other considerations are really a matter for his wife to whom he is still married. Not much thought being given to her though.
It’s not a sacking offence.
But how can you trust a man that cheats on his wife to lead the country?
Lloyd George did ok. So did Clinton. And FDR. Even Major did alright. Not sure the correlation you are referring to is made out.
Piecing things together - and this is a mixture of gossip, speculation and rumour:
GW and the woman in question got drunk and snogged at a staff party
He took it to mean more than it did and began sending her flowers. Lots of flowers.
She was very upset and complained to her managers
He chose to resign (sorry “part amicably”) rather than be fired
How is that not stalking?
So why has he refused to answer the Guardian's question if it was all straightforward.
I don’t know what the Guardian’s question was.
But the way he told it, it’s the tragic but ultimately redemptive story of a hero who strays from the path of righteousness but is forgiven by his pregnant wife.
Sorry forgot: he didn’t mention his wife was pregnant when he cheated on her did he?
A drunken kiss at a party is cheating now? Blimey.
The pursuit afterwards is cheating not the drunken kiss.
Whether or not he achieved his objective is immaterial. He’d broken his pledge of fidelity
If you are not being entirely serious you are hiding it quite well. The man behaved stupidly. He paid the price. Any other considerations are really a matter for his wife to whom he is still married. Not much thought being given to her though.
It’s not a sacking offence.
But how can you trust a man that cheats on his wife to lead the country?
Hmm! Well that's Boris' chances gone, not just once but many, many times over, under, sideways.... Allegedly!.... On second thoughts, didn't he and Ken Livingston have a bonk boasting competition once?
Mr Johnson is exempt from this and many other codes of practice.'Boris will be Boris' is an undisputed defence.
Thought he was supposed to be Foreign Secretary, not licensed court jester ?
Piecing things together - and this is a mixture of gossip, speculation and rumour:
GW and the woman in question got drunk and snogged at a staff party
He took it to mean more than it did and began sending her flowers. Lots of flowers.
She was very upset and complained to her managers
He chose to resign (sorry “part amicably”) rather than be fired
How is that not stalking?
So why has he refused to answer the Guardian's question if it was all straightforward.
I don’t know what the Guardian’s question was.
But the way he told it, it’s the tragic but ultimately redemptive story of a hero who strays from the path of righteousness but is forgiven by his pregnant wife.
Sorry forgot: he didn’t mention his wife was pregnant when he cheated on her did he?
A drunken kiss at a party is cheating now? Blimey.
The pursuit afterwards is cheating not the drunken kiss.
Whether or not he achieved his objective is immaterial. He’d broken his pledge of fidelity
If you are not being entirely serious you are hiding it quite well. The man behaved stupidly. He paid the price. Any other considerations are really a matter for his wife to whom he is still married. Not much thought being given to her though.
It’s not a sacking offence.
But how can you trust a man that cheats on his wife to lead the country?
Lloyd George did ok. So did Clinton. And FDR. Even Major did alright. Not sure the correlation you are referring to is made out.
Plus JFK and LBJ of course
We live in different times.
Do we? See Bill Clinton and Donald Trump
It's a decade and a half since Clinton was president. And not all of us think Trump is 'doing OK'...
Piecing things together - and this is a mixture of gossip, speculation and rumour:
GW and the woman in question got drunk and snogged at a staff party
He took it to mean more than it did and began sending her flowers. Lots of flowers.
She was very upset and complained to her managers
He chose to resign (sorry “part amicably”) rather than be fired
How is that not stalking?
So why has he refused to answer the Guardian's question if it was all straightforward.
I don’t know what the Guardian’s question was.
But the way he told it, it’s the tragic but ultimately redemptive story of a hero who strays from the path of righteousness but is forgiven by his pregnant wife.
Sorry forgot: he didn’t mention his wife was pregnant when he cheated on her did he?
A drunken kiss at a party is cheating now? Blimey.
The pursuit afterwards is cheating not the drunken kiss.
Whether or not he achieved his objective is immaterial. He’d broken his pledge of fidelity
If you are not being entirely serious you are hiding it quite well. The man behaved stupidly. He paid the price. Any other considerations are really a matter for his wife to whom he is still married. Not much thought being given to her though.
It’s not a sacking offence.
But how can you trust a man that cheats on his wife to lead the country?
Lloyd George did ok. So did Clinton. And FDR. Even Major did alright. Not sure the correlation you are referring to is made out.
Plus JFK and LBJ of course
We live in different times.
Do we? See Bill Clinton and Donald Trump
It's a decade and a half since Clinton was president. And not all of us think Trump is 'doing OK'...
Nonetheless 2 out of the last 4 presidents have been confirmed adulterers
Yes the swing to Labour post dementia tax was in the 35 to 65 age bracket, over 65s swung to the Tories
Of course, the tax could have been weighing heavily on over 65s, but they reasoned that on balance stopping Corbyn was more important.
Perhaps we shall never know.
Perhaps but losing their home after their death was not an immediate concern for them beyond helping their children, for their children losing much of their inheritance was
Yes the swing to Labour post dementia tax was in the 35 to 65 age bracket, over 65s swung to the Tories
Over 65 saw it as a solution to their worries regarding care, those younger saw it as their pensions / nest eggs disappearing.
In reality I suspect the money isn't actually there as house prices are too high based on fundamentals and when reality returns (remember markets can stay irrational for longer than people have money) the problem will still exist.
Piecing things together - and this is a mixture of gossip, speculation and rumour:
So why has he refused to answer the Guardian's question if it was all straightforward.
I don’t know what the Guardian’s question was.
But the way he told it, it’s the tragic but ultimately redemptive story of a hero who strays from the path of righteousness but is forgiven by his pregnant wife.
Sorry forgot: he didn’t mention his wife was pregnant when he cheated on her did he?
If he can betray his wife, then he can betray his country.
He needs to quit as Defence Secretary.
Well I suppose we could get rid of Boris in a job lot.
Bonus.
Plus Boris went to Oxford, that place is a nest of traitors.
Unlike the other place ? Which even has its own Wikipedia page.....
The Five were always working for The UK.
They duped the KGB.
Which is why some of them ran away to Moscow?
All part of the act.
Citation required......
It is known that the KGB never fully trusted the Cambridge spies, who supplied literally incredible amounts of high-grade material. Apparently most of it was never even translated. After Burgess and Maclean fled, they were kept under more-or-less house arrest in an obscure resort for years before being moved to Moscow, and even there their flats were bugged and they were followed, and under curfew.
Btw, on Youtube there are a couple of clips of Guy Burgess being interviewed and his strangulated vowels seem remarkable even for those decades. He sounds posher than the Queen.
Yes. Tom Driberg was sent by Beaverbrook to Moscow in the late 50s to get a scoop interview with Burgess for the Express. A whole chapter of Driberg's biography is devoted to the trip. Burgess was utterly depressed and miserable in Russia according to Driberg, partly because it was far more difficult for him to have any homosexual encounters.
Yes the swing to Labour post dementia tax was in the 35 to 65 age bracket, over 65s swung to the Tories
Over 65 saw it as a solution to their worries regarding care, those younger saw it as their pensions / nest eggs disappearing.
In reality I suspect the money isn't actually there as house prices are too high based on fundamentals and when reality returns (remember markets can stay irrational for longer than people have money) the problem will still exist.
Yes plus if you need residential care the home already needs to be sold to pay for it now anyway down to the last £23k of assets. (Though I doubt many over 65s voted for the dementia tax, they were voting to deliver Brexit and to stop Corbyn)
Yes the swing to Labour post dementia tax was in the 35 to 65 age bracket, over 65s swung to the Tories
Over 65 saw it as a solution to their worries regarding care, those younger saw it as their pensions / nest eggs disappearing.
In reality I suspect the money isn't actually there as house prices are too high based on fundamentals and when reality returns (remember markets can stay irrational for longer than people have money) the problem will still exist.
A s an (almost) 80 year old I can promise you that ‘care’, dementia or otherwise, is a concern. Even
Apparently the company deferred pension contributions because of "cash flow restraints". Which would be understandable if they weren't paying out dividends and substantial bonuses to senior staff at the same time. Frank Field is on their case. Surely director disqualification proceedings are not going to be long delayed.
What were the pension trustees doing while this was going on? This is their job. They too have questions to answer.
And maybe it was not dementia tax that cost Theresa May her majority but the appalling non-campaign masterminded by Lynton Crosby. Maybe Nick and Fiona were thrown under the bus by expensive election consultants with reputations and fees to maintain, and not least by a PM running scared of debate or even real voters.
I thought at the time that the dementia tax narrative was suspect as an explanation. It was too complicated for your typical voter. It was just a slogan.
I suspect the actual policies (even student fees) played only a small part in the surprising result. I think it was the qualities of the respective leaders (against expectations) that swung it. And the strategic decision of the Tories to make it presidential, focused on strong and stable Theresa May, who was weak and too frit to debate, was fatal.
This puts into perspective discussions of a few billion here and there and free trade agreements:
' •the largest UK-US asymmetries exist in trade in services (not goods) for which both countries are reporting a trade surplus with the other. In 2016 the UK reported a trade in services surplus with the US of £22.5 billion, while the US reported a trade in services surplus of £10.4 billion with the UK
•the total UK-US absolute asymmetry in trade in services was £30.6 billion in 2014, £34.0 billion in 2015 and £32.8 billion in 2016 '
Lots of interesting differences between how much countries think they are importing and exporting and what their trading partner thinks it is importing and exporting.
For example Luxemburg records £14.5bn services exports to the UK but the ONS records only £2.5bn imports from Luxemburg.
Apparently the company deferred pension contributions because of "cash flow restraints". Which would be understandable if they weren't paying out dividends and substantial bonuses to senior staff at the same time. Frank Field is on their case. Surely director disqualification proceedings are not going to be long delayed.
What were the pension trustees doing while this was going on? This is their job. They too have questions to answer.
What do they ever do, while this sort of thing goes on?
If they wanted to cut the company some slack, they could have insisted that dividend payments be suspended, and the money be paid into the pension fund?
Carlotta I am delighted you seem to be seeing sense this morning. Earlier, you praised Justine Greening for pointing out that negotiating Brexit is impossible, and now you are correctly pointing out that the government is split on Brexit.
Which is all that matters. What you, I, the opposition, or the RAC think about it couldn't matter less, right now.
This puts into perspective discussions of a few billion here and there and free trade agreements:
' •the largest UK-US asymmetries exist in trade in services (not goods) for which both countries are reporting a trade surplus with the other. In 2016 the UK reported a trade in services surplus with the US of £22.5 billion, while the US reported a trade in services surplus of £10.4 billion with the UK
•the total UK-US absolute asymmetry in trade in services was £30.6 billion in 2014, £34.0 billion in 2015 and £32.8 billion in 2016 '
Lots of interesting differences between how much countries think they are importing and exporting and what their trading partner thinks it is importing and exporting.
For example Luxemburg records £14.5bn services exports to the UK but the ONS records only £2.5bn imports from Luxemburg.
Isn’t that Luxembourg difference explained by the likes of Apple’s iTunes/App store services being based there.
Why people got 'Youthquake' wrong based on Constituency turnout:
Turnout did go up in constituencies with more young voters: for every percentage point increase in 18 to 29 year olds living in a constituency according to the 2011 census, turnout went up by 0.1 percentage points compared to 2015.
However it is easy to show why drawing conclusions about the behaviour of young voters from this sort of analysis is a bad idea. For every percentage point increase in 0 to 4 year olds living in a constituency, turnout went up by 0.9 percentage points!
Few people, it is probably safe to say, think that turnout went up in 2017 because of a sudden surge in the number of British toddlers voting in elections. 2017 was not the toddlerquake election.
What this relationship is showing, of course, is not that turnout went up amongst toddlers but that turnout went up in sorts of places with lots of toddlers. The same is true of the relationship between the number of young adults and turnout. Turnout did go up slightly in the sorts of places with lots of young adults. That does not necessarily mean it was those young adults doing the extra turning out.
Apparently the company deferred pension contributions because of "cash flow restraints". Which would be understandable if they weren't paying out dividends and substantial bonuses to senior staff at the same time. Frank Field is on their case. Surely director disqualification proceedings are not going to be long delayed.
What were the pension trustees doing while this was going on? This is their job. They too have questions to answer.
What do they ever do, while this sort of thing goes on?
If they wanted to cut the company some slack, they could have insisted that dividend payments be suspended, and the money be paid into the pension fund?
So we entered a period of low interest rates and inflation, low returns on investments and increasing longevity. Surely every company pension scheme in the country is under threat. The only solution is to increase the pension age and increase contribution rates. Or am I missing something?
As smears go, this attack on Gavin Williamson is a very thin one. The main complaint seems to be that his lawyers didn't answer the Guardian's impertinent questions.
Having said that, I really don't see why anyone thinks Gavin Williamson is important in terms of the succession. He has zero support in the party at large, and negative support amongst MPs. He's competent enough, but he's not liked, he's not respected, he is (not to put too fine a point on it) regarded as an over-promoted jerk. Nor does he have any charisma or potential electoral appeal which might cause MPs to swallow their distaste; he's a dull speaker. His only supporter is Theresa May, and that is a negative, not a positive.
This puts into perspective discussions of a few billion here and there and free trade agreements:
' •the largest UK-US asymmetries exist in trade in services (not goods) for which both countries are reporting a trade surplus with the other. In 2016 the UK reported a trade in services surplus with the US of £22.5 billion, while the US reported a trade in services surplus of £10.4 billion with the UK
•the total UK-US absolute asymmetry in trade in services was £30.6 billion in 2014, £34.0 billion in 2015 and £32.8 billion in 2016 '
Lots of interesting differences between how much countries think they are importing and exporting and what their trading partner thinks it is importing and exporting.
For example Luxemburg records £14.5bn services exports to the UK but the ONS records only £2.5bn imports from Luxemburg.
Isn’t that Luxembourg difference explained by the likes of Apple’s iTunes/App store services being based there.
Possibly.
Tax havens and accounting differences seem to be involved according to the ONS research (I've not properly read through the report yet).
Why people got 'Youthquake' wrong based on Constituency turnout:
Turnout did go up in constituencies with more young voters: for every percentage point increase in 18 to 29 year olds living in a constituency according to the 2011 census, turnout went up by 0.1 percentage points compared to 2015.
However it is easy to show why drawing conclusions about the behaviour of young voters from this sort of analysis is a bad idea. For every percentage point increase in 0 to 4 year olds living in a constituency, turnout went up by 0.9 percentage points!
Few people, it is probably safe to say, think that turnout went up in 2017 because of a sudden surge in the number of British toddlers voting in elections. 2017 was not the toddlerquake election.
What this relationship is showing, of course, is not that turnout went up amongst toddlers but that turnout went up in sorts of places with lots of toddlers. The same is true of the relationship between the number of young adults and turnout. Turnout did go up slightly in the sorts of places with lots of young adults. That does not necessarily mean it was those young adults doing the extra turning out.
Apparently the company deferred pension contributions because of "cash flow restraints". Which would be understandable if they weren't paying out dividends and substantial bonuses to senior staff at the same time. Frank Field is on their case. Surely director disqualification proceedings are not going to be long delayed.
What were the pension trustees doing while this was going on? This is their job. They too have questions to answer.
What do they ever do, while this sort of thing goes on?
If they wanted to cut the company some slack, they could have insisted that dividend payments be suspended, and the money be paid into the pension fund?
So we entered a period of low interest rates and inflation, low returns on investments and increasing longevity. Surely every company pension scheme in the country is under threat. The only solution is to increase the pension age and increase contribution rates. Or am I missing something?
Shares have offered reasonable dividends in recent times, and a good deal of capital growth over the past 18 months.
As smears go, this attack on Gavin Williamson is a very thin one. The main complaint seems to be that his lawyers didn't answer the Guardian's impertinent questions.
Having said that, I really don't see why anyone thinks Gavin Williamson is important in terms of the succession. He has zero support in the party at large, and negative support amongst MPs. He's competent enough, but he's not liked, he's not respected, he is (not to put too fine a point on it) regarded as an over-promoted jerk. Nor does he have any charisma or potential electoral appeal which might cause MPs to swallow their distaste; he's a dull speaker. His only supporter is Theresa May, and that is a negative, not a positive.
More comments like that please Richard! I think it is fair to say that you do not consider Mr Williamson to be a near-perfect Defence Secretary.
Apparently the company deferred pension contributions because of "cash flow restraints". Which would be understandable if they weren't paying out dividends and substantial bonuses to senior staff at the same time. Frank Field is on their case. Surely director disqualification proceedings are not going to be long delayed.
What were the pension trustees doing while this was going on? This is their job. They too have questions to answer.
What do they ever do, while this sort of thing goes on?
If they wanted to cut the company some slack, they could have insisted that dividend payments be suspended, and the money be paid into the pension fund?
I’m sure Mr Meeks will correct me if I’m wrong but their job is not to cut the company slack but to protect the interests of the members of the pension fund. If they failed in their duty they too need to be taken to task.
Being a pension trustee is an important job not some sort of sinecure.
Apparently the company deferred pension contributions because of "cash flow restraints". Which would be understandable if they weren't paying out dividends and substantial bonuses to senior staff at the same time. Frank Field is on their case. Surely director disqualification proceedings are not going to be long delayed.
What were the pension trustees doing while this was going on? This is their job. They too have questions to answer.
What do they ever do, while this sort of thing goes on?
If they wanted to cut the company some slack, they could have insisted that dividend payments be suspended, and the money be paid into the pension fund?
I’m sure Mr Meeks will correct me if I’m wrong but their job is not to cut the company slack but to protect the interests of the members of the pension fund. If they failed in their duty they too need to be taken to task.
Being a pension trustee is an important job not some sort of sinecure.
Although, if the company collapses (and the pension fund with it) because it's putting too much money into the pension fund then they have also failed in their duty.
Trump and Piers did a modest 3 million viewers. Clearly the British public are nowhere near as interested in the man as the media would like to think we are
Carlotta I am delighted you seem to be seeing sense this morning. Earlier, you praised Justine Greening for pointing out that negotiating Brexit is impossible, and now you are correctly pointing out that the government is split on Brexit.
Which is all that matters. What you, I, the opposition, or the RAC think about it couldn't matter less, right now.
Correct. It doesn’t matter right now.
But it will do when/if Labour become the government and Brexit isnt’t yet done - and it won’t be even by the next election. The next government will be consumed - just as much as this one - by working out all the consequences of Brexit for every aspect of British life, even assuming that a new trade relationship with the EU has been sorted out by then.
So what Labour thinks - and whether it is split - will increasingly matter as the next election comes closer.
Given the way the Tories seem to be imploding, the next election could be a lot sooner than we think.
As smears go, this attack on Gavin Williamson is a very thin one. The main complaint seems to be that his lawyers didn't answer the Guardian's impertinent questions.
Having said that, I really don't see why anyone thinks Gavin Williamson is important in terms of the succession. He has zero support in the party at large, and negative support amongst MPs. He's competent enough, but he's not liked, he's not respected, he is (not to put too fine a point on it) regarded as an over-promoted jerk. Nor does he have any charisma or potential electoral appeal which might cause MPs to swallow their distaste; he's a dull speaker. His only supporter is Theresa May, and that is a negative, not a positive.
What makes Private Pike interesting is that relationship with TMay. That she is a backer speaks volumes about her judgement.
Trump is reportedly considering nationalising the US 5G Network... It feels to me that if we are going to get these driverless cars and all that futuristic stuff then it will need to be extremely secure...
As smears go, this attack on Gavin Williamson is a very thin one. The main complaint seems to be that his lawyers didn't answer the Guardian's impertinent questions.
Having said that, I really don't see why anyone thinks Gavin Williamson is important in terms of the succession. He has zero support in the party at large, and negative support amongst MPs. He's competent enough, but he's not liked, he's not respected, he is (not to put too fine a point on it) regarded as an over-promoted jerk. Nor does he have any charisma or potential electoral appeal which might cause MPs to swallow their distaste; he's a dull speaker. His only supporter is Theresa May, and that is a negative, not a positive.
What makes Private Pike interesting is that relationship with TMay. That she is a backer speaks volumes about her judgement.
Yes, and the attacks on him are actually proxy attacks on her; no-one would bother otherwise.
Apparently the company deferred pension contributions because of "cash flow restraints". Which would be understandable if they weren't paying out dividends and substantial bonuses to senior staff at the same time. Frank Field is on their case. Surely director disqualification proceedings are not going to be long delayed.
What were the pension trustees doing while this was going on? This is their job. They too have questions to answer.
What do they ever do, while this sort of thing goes on?
If they wanted to cut the company some slack, they could have insisted that dividend payments be suspended, and the money be paid into the pension fund?
I’m sure Mr Meeks will correct me if I’m wrong but their job is not to cut the company slack but to protect the interests of the members of the pension fund. If they failed in their duty they too need to be taken to task.
Being a pension trustee is an important job not some sort of sinecure.
Although, if the company collapses (and the pension fund with it) because it's putting too much money into the pension fund then they have also failed in their duty.
Possibly. But when has that ever happened? Or even been a realistic possibility?
“Cash flow restraint” is just a polite way of saying “we’re running out of money” and should have been a bloody great red flag.
Maybe the trustees are not at fault here. But their actions and lack of actions should also be scrutinised carefully. Not ignored in the rush to go after the directors and auditors.
As smears go, this attack on Gavin Williamson is a very thin one. The main complaint seems to be that his lawyers didn't answer the Guardian's impertinent questions.
Having said that, I really don't see why anyone thinks Gavin Williamson is important in terms of the succession. He has zero support in the party at large, and negative support amongst MPs. He's competent enough, but he's not liked, he's not respected, he is (not to put too fine a point on it) regarded as an over-promoted jerk. Nor does he have any charisma or potential electoral appeal which might cause MPs to swallow their distaste; he's a dull speaker. His only supporter is Theresa May, and that is a negative, not a positive.
He's also a Remainer - which is a crowded field for potential leadership candidates.
Apparently the company deferred pension contributions because of "cash flow restraints". Which would be understandable if they weren't paying out dividends and substantial bonuses to senior staff at the same time. Frank Field is on their case. Surely director disqualification proceedings are not going to be long delayed.
What were the pension trustees doing while this was going on? This is their job. They too have questions to answer.
What do they ever do, while this sort of thing goes on?
If they wanted to cut the company some slack, they could have insisted that dividend payments be suspended, and the money be paid into the pension fund?
I’m sure Mr Meeks will correct me if I’m wrong but their job is not to cut the company slack but to protect the interests of the members of the pension fund. If they failed in their duty they too need to be taken to task.
Being a pension trustee is an important job not some sort of sinecure.
Although, if the company collapses (and the pension fund with it) because it's putting too much money into the pension fund then they have also failed in their duty.
By definition in a world of rising life expectancy and variable interest rates, final salary schemes are simply not fit for purpose. There will either be too much cash or not enough in the scheme... the "corridor method/IAS 19" of accounting I learnt for these seemed a proper fudge with long term variable interest rates (An issue when they both fall and rise) I was quite shocked to find out they were still running final salary to the bitter end, I'd have thought it'd be a legacy scheme. DC schemes by definition can't be in deficit, unless the payments are not transferred over to Aegon or whoever, and it is illegal for the directors to withhold those payments (They are known because it is 16.04% of salary for instance on a salary sacrifice 7.5/7.5 scheme), and regular !
Trump is reportedly considering nationalising the US 5G Network... It feels to me that if we are going to get these driverless cars and all that futuristic stuff then it will need to be extremely secure...
If we have the entire Western economy dependent on driverless cars and trucks, we are going to be incredibly dependent on GPS. Just imagine what would happen if somehow the GPS satellite system got compromised.
Trump is reportedly considering nationalising the US 5G Network... It feels to me that if we are going to get these driverless cars and all that futuristic stuff then it will need to be extremely secure...
If we have the entire Western economy dependent on driverless cars and trucks, we are going to be incredibly dependent on GPS. Just imagine what would happen if somehow the GPS satellite system got compromised.
With all the developments in electronics, some good inertial navigation systems ought to be possible.
Trump is reportedly considering nationalising the US 5G Network... It feels to me that if we are going to get these driverless cars and all that futuristic stuff then it will need to be extremely secure...
Fascinating. Although I wonder why a centralized network is considered of paramount importance for security. The original premise of the Internet's forerunner was that it was decentralised so that an attack on one part could be by-passed.
Carlotta I am delighted you seem to be seeing sense this morning. Earlier, you praised Justine Greening for pointing out that negotiating Brexit is impossible, and now you are correctly pointing out that the government is split on Brexit.
Which is all that matters. What you, I, the opposition, or the RAC think about it couldn't matter less, right now.
Correct. It doesn’t matter right now.
But it will do when/if Labour become the government and Brexit isnt’t yet done - and it won’t be even by the next election. The next government will be consumed - just as much as this one - by working out all the consequences of Brexit for every aspect of British life, even assuming that a new trade relationship with the EU has been sorted out by then.
So what Labour thinks - and whether it is split - will increasingly matter as the next election comes closer.
Given the way the Tories seem to be imploding, the next election could be a lot sooner than we think.
Well we will see how much their supposed famed discipline will break down to the point of another election being a blessed relief.
As for Lab, well of course they will need some kind of policy but if I were them I'd just announce a wide-ranging review of whatever it is they are set to inherit (whether that is next week or in 2022) and take it from there. And tbf, if they don't know what the current state of play is, it would be very difficult for them to outline any concrete policies.
Trump and Piers did a modest 3 million viewers. Clearly the British public are nowhere near as interested in the man as the media would like to think we are
Two fatuous overinflated egos talking to each other ? I'm surprised the viewing figures were so high.
Apparently the company deferred pension contributions because of "cash flow restraints". Which would be understandable if they weren't paying out dividends and substantial bonuses to senior staff at the same time. Frank Field is on their case. Surely director disqualification proceedings are not going to be long delayed.
What were the pension trustees doing while this was going on? This is their job. They too have questions to answer.
What do they ever do, while this sort of thing goes on?
If they wanted to cut the company some slack, they could have insisted that dividend payments be suspended, and the money be paid into the pension fund?
I’m sure Mr Meeks will correct me if I’m wrong but their job is not to cut the company slack but to protect the interests of the members of the pension fund. If they failed in their duty they too need to be taken to task.
Being a pension trustee is an important job not some sort of sinecure.
I'm afraid I can't talk about this specific case, though I'd love to. Robin Ellison, chair of the trustees, is a colleague of mine.
As a general observation, I will note that trustees look to get the pension scheme to full funding over time and if that is not immediately possible to maximise the support the employer offers to the pension scheme. That does not always (or usually) mean getting the maximum contribution at the earliest moment or preventing dividends being paid. A pension scheme with a substantial deficit that the sponsor company cannot immediately fill is unlikely to be best served by impairing the normal functioning of the sponsor company, making it unattractive to investors or sending it into insolvency. (Nor is that likely to be seen as a desirable outcome in the round by policymakers, though from the trustees' viewpoint that's by the by.)
It can be a difficult balancing act, particularly if the company's finances aren't wonderful. Naturally, it's a lot easier to get right in hindsight than it is to make the right judgement call at the time.
This puts into perspective discussions of a few billion here and there and free trade agreements:
' •the largest UK-US asymmetries exist in trade in services (not goods) for which both countries are reporting a trade surplus with the other. In 2016 the UK reported a trade in services surplus with the US of £22.5 billion, while the US reported a trade in services surplus of £10.4 billion with the UK
....
Isn't that excellent news, as it makes it slightly less likely Trump will direct his obsession with not being screwed on trade in our direction ?
Apparently the company deferred pension contributions because of "cash flow restraints". Which would be understandable if they weren't paying out dividends and substantial bonuses to senior staff at the same time. Frank Field is on their case. Surely director disqualification proceedings are not going to be long delayed.
What were the pension trustees doing while this was going on? This is their job. They too have questions to answer.
What do they ever do, while this sort of thing goes on?
If they wanted to cut the company some slack, they could have insisted that dividend payments be suspended, and the money be paid into the pension fund?
I’m sure Mr Meeks will correct me if I’m wrong but their job is not to cut the company slack but to protect the interests of the members of the pension fund. If they failed in their duty they too need to be taken to task.
Being a pension trustee is an important job not some sort of sinecure.
Although, if the company collapses (and the pension fund with it) because it's putting too much money into the pension fund then they have also failed in their duty.
By definition in a world of rising life expectancy and variable interest rates, final salary schemes are simply not fit for purpose. There will either be too much cash or not enough in the scheme... the "corridor method/IAS 19" of accounting I learnt for these seemed a proper fudge with long term variable interest rates (An issue when they both fall and rise) I was quite shocked to find out they were still running final salary to the bitter end, I'd have thought it'd be a legacy scheme. DC schemes by definition can't be in deficit, unless the payments are not transferred over to Aegon or whoever, and it is illegal for the directors to withhold those payments (They are known because it is 16.04% of salary for instance on a salary sacrifice 7.5/7.5 scheme), and regular !
Yes, agree with you that all pension schemes should be DC only rather than DB and that a company is being reckless by not making that change. UK Universities are about to do that however and there is going to be a lot of complaining...
Trump is reportedly considering nationalising the US 5G Network... It feels to me that if we are going to get these driverless cars and all that futuristic stuff then it will need to be extremely secure...
If we have the entire Western economy dependent on driverless cars and trucks, we are going to be incredibly dependent on GPS. Just imagine what would happen if somehow the GPS satellite system got compromised.
You would fall back on Glonass, BeiDou or (in a couple of years) Galileo. Lots of lovely redundancy.
The negotiation appears to be based on Spice Girls lyrics.
Except that May won't tell Merkel what she wants, what she really, really wants.
Which is why we are being offered a choice of two, Norway or Canada. Classic sales psychology: if you offer just one thing, the customer is having to make a big yes/no decision. If you offer two alternatives people forget yes/no and focus on which they prefer out of A and B. Three or more options confuses them so much that they walk out without buying anything.
As I said at the beginning of this thread, Labour is not news. No-one cares that Labour is in as big a muddle as the Conservatives just as no-one cares that the SNP or LibDems are united.
Trump is reportedly considering nationalising the US 5G Network... It feels to me that if we are going to get these driverless cars and all that futuristic stuff then it will need to be extremely secure...
At least America has one to nationalise, or at least Verizon has in a few cities. Where is ours? We talk a good game but almost every innovation is American or otherwise foreign.
It sounds like the situation with the pension fund had been a lot worse in previous years.
Interesting
"As an example of the downside of increased transparency, Ellison cites skyrocketing executive salaries. The fact that CEOs get paid 400 or 500 times the median salary does not feel right, he says, when in the past the ratio was about twenty to one. “Why did that happen? There are several reasons, but one was the requirement to disclose salaries in company accounts. That meant that everyone was looking at everybody else, and if you were getting more money, I wanted more money. "
Trump is reportedly considering nationalising the US 5G Network... It feels to me that if we are going to get these driverless cars and all that futuristic stuff then it will need to be extremely secure...
If we have the entire Western economy dependent on driverless cars and trucks, we are going to be incredibly dependent on GPS. Just imagine what would happen if somehow the GPS satellite system got compromised.
With all the developments in electronics, some good inertial navigation systems ought to be possible.
Modern INS use GPS to establish the datum before they can be used. Unless the INS is made by Ferranti in which case, and in my bitter experience, they use a random number generator.
The previous generation of NAVHARS, which I never had the pleasure being led to my watery death by, had to have its datum established by plugging an improbably thick cable into the carrier's systems or to some mobile Ferranti contraption that looked like a shopping cart and also didn't work.
Trump is reportedly considering nationalising the US 5G Network... It feels to me that if we are going to get these driverless cars and all that futuristic stuff then it will need to be extremely secure...
At least America has one to nationalise, or at least Verizon has in a few cities. Where is ours? We talk a good game but almost every innovation is American or otherwise foreign.
The SPD have seen their vote share fall to 17%, yet they're haggling for more immigration. Is Shulz actually trying to destroy his own party?
Their point is that having their families with them will moderate the behaviour of the young men, and promote integration. It makes sense, but politically it's a hard sell.
Why people got 'Youthquake' wrong based on Constituency turnout:
Turnout did go up in constituencies with more young voters: for every percentage point increase in 18 to 29 year olds living in a constituency according to the 2011 census, turnout went up by 0.1 percentage points compared to 2015.
However it is easy to show why drawing conclusions about the behaviour of young voters from this sort of analysis is a bad idea. For every percentage point increase in 0 to 4 year olds living in a constituency, turnout went up by 0.9 percentage points!
Few people, it is probably safe to say, think that turnout went up in 2017 because of a sudden surge in the number of British toddlers voting in elections. 2017 was not the toddlerquake election.
What this relationship is showing, of course, is not that turnout went up amongst toddlers but that turnout went up in sorts of places with lots of toddlers. The same is true of the relationship between the number of young adults and turnout. Turnout did go up slightly in the sorts of places with lots of young adults. That does not necessarily mean it was those young adults doing the extra turning out.
BiB - Actually, that information could indicate that the parents of toddlers were more likely to vote in 2017 compared with 2015.
I think there's a lot in that. I have 2 small kids and my wife is very plugged in to all the local mums groups. A few weeks ahead of the election she told me about all the Corbyn enthusiasm on the Facebook group for local mums and that most of them were going to vote Labour, and that the easy win for May wasn't going to happen. Given that our town was in a seat with a 24000 Tory majority I told her not to be so bloody stupid. But I should have listened and it's clear to me that concerns about NHS and school funding from the young parent demographic probably played a key role in May's landslip.
Apparently the company deferred pension contributions because of "cash flow restraints". Which would be understandable if they weren't paying out dividends and substantial bonuses to senior staff at the same time. Frank Field is on their case. Surely director disqualification proceedings are not going to be long delayed.
What were the pension trustees doing while this was going on? This is their job. They too have questions to answer.
What do they ever do, while this sort of thing goes on?
If they wanted to cut the company some slack, they could have insisted that dividend payments be suspended, and the money be paid into the pension fund?
I’m sure Mr Meeks will correct me if I’m wrong but their job is not to cut the company slack but to protect the interests of the members of the pension fund. If they failed in their duty they too need to be taken to task.
Being a pension trustee is an important job not some sort of sinecure.
I'm afraid I can't talk about this specific case, though I'd love to. Robin Ellison, chair of the trustees, is a colleague of mine.
As a general observation, I will note that trustees look to get the pension scheme to full funding over time and if that is not immediately possible to maximise the support the employer offers to the pension scheme. That does not always (or usually) mean getting the maximum contribution at the earliest moment or preventing dividends being paid. A pension scheme with a substantial deficit that the sponsor company cannot immediately fill is unlikely to be best served by impairing the normal functioning of the sponsor company, making it unattractive to investors or sending it into insolvency. (Nor is that likely to be seen as a desirable outcome in the round by policymakers, though from the trustees' viewpoint that's by the by.)
It can be a difficult balancing act, particularly if the company's finances aren't wonderful. Naturally, it's a lot easier to get right in hindsight than it is to make the right judgement call at the time.
It sounds like the situation with the pension fund had been a lot worse in previous years.
Interesting
"As an example of the downside of increased transparency, Ellison cites skyrocketing executive salaries. The fact that CEOs get paid 400 or 500 times the median salary does not feel right, he says, when in the past the ratio was about twenty to one. “Why did that happen? There are several reasons, but one was the requirement to disclose salaries in company accounts. That meant that everyone was looking at everybody else, and if you were getting more money, I wanted more money. "
You need to look at the detail of the BES survey to appreciate just how striking the rise in turnout was amongst the 25-40 year old age range - something north of 10%, while the average turnout amongst those 65+ was unchanged. The Labour share of the vote also increased fairly uniformly by in excess of 10% across all age groups up to around 65, slightly more than that amongst under 25 year olds.
If anything has been disproved, it is a myth that no-one engaged in practical work in elections believed in anyway. The 18-24 year old electorate is too small to have more than a marginal bearing on the outcome of elections - only a tenth of the electorate and an even smaller proportion of the voting electorate. It was always plain to see that they could not have been the primary driver of the shift in voting at the 2017 election.
Labour made an extraordinary strides amongst the 25-40 age group, thanks to both turnout and vote share, and a much smaller if still above average strides amongst the under 25s due only to vote share. Together that's the youngest third of the electorate. So the BES study supports the view that the younger part of the electorate was the reason Labour made up ground in 2017, but reminds us not to focus only on the very youngest electors.
PM at present is an impossible job for anyone. TM is tethered by both sides of her party as indeed would Corbyn and, despite her faults which I accept are frustrating and afford her no long term future, she is doing a good a job as anyone could on Brexit and that seems to be the general opinion of the public outside the bubble.
I have no set position on TM, if she soldiers on so be it, if she is challenged we would need to see if she stands firm, and if she goes a leadership contest will take place with no one in pole position, but Williamson will not get my vote
It sounds like the situation with the pension fund had been a lot worse in previous years.
Interesting
"As an example of the downside of increased transparency, Ellison cites skyrocketing executive salaries. The fact that CEOs get paid 400 or 500 times the median salary does not feel right, he says, when in the past the ratio was about twenty to one. “Why did that happen? There are several reasons, but one was the requirement to disclose salaries in company accounts. That meant that everyone was looking at everybody else, and if you were getting more money, I wanted more money. "
An example of the law of unintended consequences.
Yes, and similar to what happened when Universities set their tuition fee levels - no-one wanted to be the University whose courses were 'only' worth £6000 a year.
Piecing things together - and this is a mixture of gossip, speculation and rumour:
GW and the woman in question got drunk and snogged at a staff party
He took it to mean more than it did and began sending her flowers. Lots of flowers.
She was very upset and complained to her managers
He chose to resign (sorry “part amicably”) rather than be fired
How is that not stalking?
So why has he refused to answer the Guardian's question if it was all straightforward.
I don’t know what the Guardian’s question was.
But the way he told it, it’s the tragic but ultimately redemptive story of a hero who strays from the path of righteousness but is forgiven by his pregnant wife.
Sorry forgot: he didn’t mention his wife was pregnant when he cheated on her did he?
A drunken kiss at a party is cheating now? Blimey.
The pursuit afterwards is cheating not the drunken kiss.
Whether or not he achieved his objective is immaterial. He’d broken his pledge of fidelity
If you are not being entirely serious you are hiding it quite well. The man behaved stupidly. He paid the price. Any other considerations are really a matter for his wife to whom he is still married. Not much thought being given to her though.
It’s not a sacking offence.
But how can you trust a man that cheats on his wife to lead the country?
Hmm! Well that's Boris' chances gone, not just once but many, many times over, under, sideways.... Allegedly!.... On second thoughts, didn't he and Ken Livingston have a bonk boasting competition once?
Mr Johnson is exempt from this and many other codes of practice.'Boris will be Boris' is an undisputed defence.
Thought he was supposed to be Foreign Secretary, not licensed court jester ?
No other politician would have survived the Darius Guppy recordings, however historical they may be. The litany of other bad behaviour and incompetence in office just seem to pass the great man by.
Apparently the company deferred pension contributions because of "cash flow restraints". Which would be understandable if they weren't paying out dividends and substantial bonuses to senior staff at the same time. Frank Field is on their case. Surely director disqualification proceedings are not going to be long delayed.
What were the pension trustees doing while this was going on? This is their job. They too have questions to answer.
What do they ever do, while this sort of thing goes on?
If they wanted to cut the company some slack, they could have insisted that dividend payments be suspended, and the money be paid into the pension fund?
I’m sure Mr Meeks will correct me if I’m wrong but their job is not to cut the company slack but to protect the interests of the members of the pension fund. If they failed in their duty they too need to be taken to task.
Being a pension trustee is an important job not some sort of sinecure.
I'm afraid I can't talk about this specific case, though I'd love to. Robin Ellison, chair of the trustees, is a colleague of mine.
As a general observation, I will note that trustees look to get the pension scheme to full funding over time and if that is not immediately possible to maximise the support the employer offers to the pension scheme. That does not always (or usually) mean getting the maximum contribution at the earliest moment or preventing dividends being paid. A pension scheme with a substantial deficit that the sponsor company cannot immediately fill is unlikely to be best served by impairing the normal functioning of the sponsor company, making it unattractive to investors or sending it into insolvency. (Nor is that likely to be seen as a desirable outcome in the round by policymakers, though from the trustees' viewpoint that's by the by.)
It can be a difficult balancing act, particularly if the company's finances aren't wonderful. Naturally, it's a lot easier to get right in hindsight than it is to make the right judgement call at the time.
Thank you.
This exchange between a well-known pensions journalist and our most eminent former pensions minister illustrates the point at issue:
Trump is reportedly considering nationalising the US 5G Network... It feels to me that if we are going to get these driverless cars and all that futuristic stuff then it will need to be extremely secure...
If we have the entire Western economy dependent on driverless cars and trucks, we are going to be incredibly dependent on GPS. Just imagine what would happen if somehow the GPS satellite system got compromised.
You would fall back on Glonass, BeiDou or (in a couple of years) Galileo. Lots of lovely redundancy.
You can't do carrier phase enhancement on Glonass so it's only really accurate to 5-10m CEP. Dunno about BeiDou.
David Davis will renegotiate, with his characteristic diligence and aplomb, our frictionless re-entry to Galileo.
Piecing things together - and this is a mixture of gossip, speculation and rumour:
He chose to resign (sorry “part amicably”) rather than be fired
How is that not stalking?
So why has he refused to answer the Guardian's question if it was all straightforward.
I don’t know what the Guardian’s question was.
But the way he told it, it’s the tragic but ultimately redemptive story of a hero who strays from the path of righteousness but is forgiven by his pregnant wife.
Sorry forgot: he didn’t mention his wife was pregnant when he cheated on her did he?
A drunken kiss at a party is cheating now? Blimey.
The pursuit afterwards is cheating not the drunken kiss.
Whether or not he achieved his objective is immaterial. He’d broken his pledge of fidelity
If you are not being entirely serious you are hiding it quite well. The man behaved stupidly. He paid the price. Any other considerations are really a matter for his wife to whom he is still married. Not much thought being given to her though.
It’s not a sacking offence.
But how can you trust a man that cheats on his wife to lead the country?
Hmm! Well that's Boris' chances gone, not just once but many, many times over, under, sideways.... Allegedly!.... On second thoughts, didn't he and Ken Livingston have a bonk boasting competition once?
Mr Johnson is exempt from this and many other codes of practice.'Boris will be Boris' is an undisputed defence.
Thought he was supposed to be Foreign Secretary, not licensed court jester ?
No other politician would have survived the Darius Guppy recordings, however historical they may be. The litany of other bad behaviour and incompetence in office just seem to pass the great man by.
Only because it’s been baked in. There’s no new news. Also, in the London mayoral election of 2008 the left wing press went overboard claiming Boris was somehow far right. It made the real problems with Boris seem somehow excusable.
(Similar, in reverse, to the risible claims against Sadiq Khan in 2016).
In Johnson’s case, his own compadre - Gove - consciously faced utter ignominy because he couldn’t in all conscience support a Johnson premiership. Should be all anyone needs to know.
The dementia tax affects younger people actually - they are the ones getting the inheritances. An elderly person with dementia probably isn't overly concerned about finances or houses - their relatives or the state worry about that for them.
As for the general policy - didn't the proposal actually mean people whose relatives were going into residential care would actually be able to keep £77k more of their inheritance given the change in the cap from £23k to £100k. When it comes to home care many if not most people with any savings or even modest pensions pay full cost anyway! My dad had to pay the full cost of his home care and he was living on £15k a year but had modest savings.
It would also have addressed the idiocy whereby someone who owns a £3m house on a state pension but with only £20k in savings (even if they have wealthy kids too who could help out) gets free home care but an equivalent person whose only income is also a state pension who rents a council flat but got left £40k by a friend has to pay 100 per cent of their home care. If that isn't a wicked evil system that needs reform I don't know what is - worth £3m it's free worth £40k you must pay for your home care in full just because an asset is a house (which could have a charge placed on it) rather than cash.
Shows how rubbish the Tory campaign was - their plan was actually more socialist than Labour's policy to keep the status quo and let the very rich keep their £3m homes while the poor pay through the nose.
You need to look at the detail of the BES survey to appreciate just how striking the rise in turnout was amongst the 25-40 year old age range - something north of 10%, while the average turnout amongst those 65+ was unchanged. The Labour share of the vote also increased fairly uniformly by in excess of 10% across all age groups up to around 65, slightly more than that amongst under 25 year olds.
If anything has been disproved, it is a myth that no-one engaged in practical work in elections believed in anyway. The 18-24 year old electorate is too small to have more than a marginal bearing on the outcome of elections - only a tenth of the electorate and an even smaller proportion of the voting electorate. It was always plain to see that they could not have been the primary driver of the shift in voting at the 2017 election.
Labour made an extraordinary strides amongst the 25-40 age group, thanks to both turnout and vote share, and a much smaller if still above average strides amongst the under 25s due only to vote share. Together that's the youngest third of the electorate. So the BES study supports the view that the younger part of the electorate was the reason Labour made up ground in 2017, but reminds us not to focus only on the very youngest electors.
A promise to stop university fees worked for the Lib Dems in 2010 and for Labour in 2017.
However, Labour's failure to follow up on their promise will impact them in due course but not as much as it did the Lib Dems because Labour duplicity on this has not been hit with as much publicity.
Apparently the company deferred pension contributions because of "cash flow restraints". Which would be understandable if they weren't paying out dividends and substantial bonuses to senior staff at the same time. Frank Field is on their case. Surely director disqualification proceedings are not going to be long delayed.
What were the pension trustees doing while this was going on? This is their job. They too have questions to answer.
What do they ever do, while this sort of thing goes on?
If they wanted to cut the company some slack, they could have insisted that dividend payments be suspended, and the money be paid into the pension fund?
I’m sure Mr Meeks will correct me if I’m wrong but their job is not to cut the company slack but to protect the interests of the members of the pension fund. If they failed in their duty they too need to be taken to task.
Being a pension trustee is an important job not some sort of sinecure.
I'm afraid I can't talk about this specific case, though I'd love to. Robin Ellison, chair of the trustees, is a colleague of mine.
As a general observation, I will note that trustees look to get the pension scheme to full funding over time and if that is not immediately possible to maximise the support the employer offers to the pension scheme. That does not always (or usually) mean getting the maximum contribution at the earliest moment or preventing dividends being paid. A pension scheme with a substantial deficit that the sponsor company cannot immediately fill is unlikely to be best served by impairing the normal functioning of the sponsor company, making it unattractive to investors or sending it into insolvency. (Nor is that likely to be seen as a desirable outcome in the round by policymakers, though from the trustees' viewpoint that's by the by.)
It can be a difficult balancing act, particularly if the company's finances aren't wonderful. Naturally, it's a lot easier to get right in hindsight than it is to make the right judgement call at the time.
Lloyds Bank trustess obtained a charge over the bank's assets for the 10 year period over which the pension deficit is to be made good, a good way of avoiding bringing a company to its knees whilst protecting the pensioner rights.
Of course Carillion seems to have had few assets and these were mostly already secured against bank loans. Pension trustees need to make such arrangemnets as soon as a deficit appears and get in ahead of other creditors.
It sounds like the situation with the pension fund had been a lot worse in previous years.
Interesting
"As an example of the downside of increased transparency, Ellison cites skyrocketing executive salaries. The fact that CEOs get paid 400 or 500 times the median salary does not feel right, he says, when in the past the ratio was about twenty to one. “Why did that happen? There are several reasons, but one was the requirement to disclose salaries in company accounts. That meant that everyone was looking at everybody else, and if you were getting more money, I wanted more money. "
An example of the law of unintended consequences.
But nonsense - because transparency is completely innocent here. It is the spread of American style 'executive remuneration consultants' - who collect senior pay data and then sell it to other companies in a market where their vested interest is in providing data that supports an increase in remuneration for the incumbent executives - and a culture where every board is fooled into aiming for 'upper quartile pay for (supposed) upper quartile performance' - when mathematics dictates that everyone cannot be upper quartile - that are to blame for the explosion in senior pay. Transparency is a good thing and the guy who says not is an idiot.
Comments
When Mark Reckless lost his seat she tweeted
‘Hallelujah. Mark Reckless out. Don't let the door hit your fat arse as you leave.’
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/957899838615584768
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42747342
Just the not really a newspaper anymore Telegraph playing games.
Plenty of other Tories could go before Willliamson...
Perhaps we shall never know.
Congrats to MD on winning the raffle.
Thanks for the GW tip. just put a whole fiver on with my local Paddy's in Cheshunt.
In reality I suspect the money isn't actually there as house prices are too high based on fundamentals and when reality returns (remember markets can stay irrational for longer than people have money) the problem will still exist.
THE husband of the woman Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson had a fling with attempted to wreck his political career.
Sources say the man went to Tory chiefs to try to ruin his chances of being an MP.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5441675/husband-of-woman-defence-secretary-gavin-williamson-had-fling-with-attempted-to-wreck-his-political-career/
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/92395/labour-brexit-splits-trigger-bitter-exchange
I suspect the actual policies (even student fees) played only a small part in the surprising result. I think it was the qualities of the respective leaders (against expectations) that swung it. And the strategic decision of the Tories to make it presidential, focused on strong and stable Theresa May, who was weak and too frit to debate, was fatal.
' •the largest UK-US asymmetries exist in trade in services (not goods) for which both countries are reporting a trade surplus with the other. In 2016 the UK reported a trade in services surplus with the US of £22.5 billion, while the US reported a trade in services surplus of £10.4 billion with the UK
•the total UK-US absolute asymmetry in trade in services was £30.6 billion in 2014, £34.0 billion in 2015 and £32.8 billion in 2016 '
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/articles/asymmetriesintradedatadivingdeeperintoukbilateraltradedata/2018-01-29
Lots of interesting differences between how much countries think they are importing and exporting and what their trading partner thinks it is importing and exporting.
For example Luxemburg records £14.5bn services exports to the UK but the ONS records only £2.5bn imports from Luxemburg.
If they wanted to cut the company some slack, they could have insisted that dividend payments be suspended, and the money be paid into the pension fund?
Which is all that matters. What you, I, the opposition, or the RAC think about it couldn't matter less, right now.
Turnout did go up in constituencies with more young voters: for every percentage point increase in 18 to 29 year olds living in a constituency according to the 2011 census, turnout went up by 0.1 percentage points compared to 2015.
However it is easy to show why drawing conclusions about the behaviour of young voters from this sort of analysis is a bad idea. For every percentage point increase in 0 to 4 year olds living in a constituency, turnout went up by 0.9 percentage points!
Few people, it is probably safe to say, think that turnout went up in 2017 because of a sudden surge in the number of British toddlers voting in elections. 2017 was not the toddlerquake election.
What this relationship is showing, of course, is not that turnout went up amongst toddlers but that turnout went up in sorts of places with lots of toddlers. The same is true of the relationship between the number of young adults and turnout. Turnout did go up slightly in the sorts of places with lots of young adults. That does not necessarily mean it was those young adults doing the extra turning out.
http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-impact/the-myth-of-the-2017-youthquake-election/#.Wm7uNyOOr64
Having said that, I really don't see why anyone thinks Gavin Williamson is important in terms of the succession. He has zero support in the party at large, and negative support amongst MPs. He's competent enough, but he's not liked, he's not respected, he is (not to put too fine a point on it) regarded as an over-promoted jerk. Nor does he have any charisma or potential electoral appeal which might cause MPs to swallow their distaste; he's a dull speaker. His only supporter is Theresa May, and that is a negative, not a positive.
Tax havens and accounting differences seem to be involved according to the ONS research (I've not properly read through the report yet).
https://twitter.com/polhomeeditor/status/957902689177866240
Being a pension trustee is an important job not some sort of sinecure.
But it will do when/if Labour become the government and Brexit isnt’t yet done - and it won’t be even by the next election. The next government will be consumed - just as much as this one - by working out all the consequences of Brexit for every aspect of British life, even assuming that a new trade relationship with the EU has been sorted out by then.
So what Labour thinks - and whether it is split - will increasingly matter as the next election comes closer.
Given the way the Tories seem to be imploding, the next election could be a lot sooner than we think.
https://www.axios.com/trump-team-debates-nationalizing-5g-network-f1e92a49-60f2-4e3e-acd4-f3eb03d910ff.html
Trump is reportedly considering nationalising the US 5G Network...
It feels to me that if we are going to get these driverless cars and all that futuristic stuff then it will need to be extremely secure...
“Cash flow restraint” is just a polite way of saying “we’re running out of money” and should have been a bloody great red flag.
Maybe the trustees are not at fault here. But their actions and lack of actions should also be scrutinised carefully. Not ignored in the rush to go after the directors and auditors.
I was quite shocked to find out they were still running final salary to the bitter end, I'd have thought it'd be a legacy scheme.
DC schemes by definition can't be in deficit, unless the payments are not transferred over to Aegon or whoever, and it is illegal for the directors to withhold those payments (They are known because it is 16.04% of salary for instance on a salary sacrifice 7.5/7.5 scheme), and regular !
As for Lab, well of course they will need some kind of policy but if I were them I'd just announce a wide-ranging review of whatever it is they are set to inherit (whether that is next week or in 2022) and take it from there. And tbf, if they don't know what the current state of play is, it would be very difficult for them to outline any concrete policies.
I'm surprised the viewing figures were so high.
As a general observation, I will note that trustees look to get the pension scheme to full funding over time and if that is not immediately possible to maximise the support the employer offers to the pension scheme. That does not always (or usually) mean getting the maximum contribution at the earliest moment or preventing dividends being paid. A pension scheme with a substantial deficit that the sponsor company cannot immediately fill is unlikely to be best served by impairing the normal functioning of the sponsor company, making it unattractive to investors or sending it into insolvency. (Nor is that likely to be seen as a desirable outcome in the round by policymakers, though from the trustees' viewpoint that's by the by.)
It can be a difficult balancing act, particularly if the company's finances aren't wonderful. Naturally, it's a lot easier to get right in hindsight than it is to make the right judgement call at the time.
Except that May won't tell Merkel what she wants, what she really, really wants.
https://tinyurl.com/jk9ycvr
It sounds like the situation with the pension fund had been a lot worse in previous years.
"As an example of the downside of increased transparency, Ellison cites skyrocketing executive salaries. The fact that CEOs get paid 400 or 500 times the median salary does not feel right, he says, when in the past the ratio was about twenty to one. “Why did that happen? There are several reasons, but one was the requirement to disclose salaries in company accounts. That meant that everyone was looking at everybody else, and if you were getting more money, I wanted more money. "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-42791299
Why is this accepted ?
(I think there are no legal limits on noise from existing railways.)
The previous generation of NAVHARS, which I never had the pleasure being led to my watery death by, had to have its datum established by plugging an improbably thick cable into the carrier's systems or to some mobile Ferranti contraption that looked like a shopping cart and also didn't work.
https://www.rcrwireless.com/20160531/network-infrastructure/top-5-wireless-infrastructure-makers-tag4-tag99
Bahrain
Azerbaijan
Monaco
Austrian
British
Belgian
Singapore
Japanese
US
Abu Dhabi
You need to look at the detail of the BES survey to appreciate just how striking the rise in turnout was amongst the 25-40 year old age range - something north of 10%, while the average turnout amongst those 65+ was unchanged. The Labour share of the vote also increased fairly uniformly by in excess of 10% across all age groups up to around 65, slightly more than that amongst under 25 year olds.
If anything has been disproved, it is a myth that no-one engaged in practical work in elections believed in anyway. The 18-24 year old electorate is too small to have more than a marginal bearing on the outcome of elections - only a tenth of the electorate and an even smaller proportion of the voting electorate. It was always plain to see that they could not have been the primary driver of the shift in voting at the 2017 election.
Labour made an extraordinary strides amongst the 25-40 age group, thanks to both turnout and vote share, and a much smaller if still above average strides amongst the under 25s due only to vote share. Together that's the youngest third of the electorate. So the BES study supports the view that the younger part of the electorate was the reason Labour made up ground in 2017, but reminds us not to focus only on the very youngest electors.
I have no set position on TM, if she soldiers on so be it, if she is challenged we would need to see if she stands firm, and if she goes a leadership contest will take place with no one in pole position, but Williamson will not get my vote
https://twitter.com/JosephineCumbo/status/957910454965325824
https://twitter.com/stevewebb1/status/957931324081410049
David Davis will renegotiate, with his characteristic diligence and aplomb, our frictionless re-entry to Galileo.
(Similar, in reverse, to the risible claims against Sadiq Khan in 2016).
In Johnson’s case, his own compadre - Gove - consciously faced utter ignominy because he couldn’t in all conscience support a Johnson premiership. Should be all anyone needs to know.
As for the general policy - didn't the proposal actually mean people whose relatives were going into residential care would actually be able to keep £77k more of their inheritance given the change in the cap from £23k to £100k. When it comes to home care many if not most people with any savings or even modest pensions pay full cost anyway! My dad had to pay the full cost of his home care and he was living on £15k a year but had modest savings.
It would also have addressed the idiocy whereby someone who owns a £3m house on a state pension but with only £20k in savings (even if they have wealthy kids too who could help out) gets free home care but an equivalent person whose only income is also a state pension who rents a council flat but got left £40k by a friend has to pay 100 per cent of their home care. If that isn't a wicked evil system that needs reform I don't know what is - worth £3m it's free worth £40k you must pay for your home care in full just because an asset is a house (which could have a charge placed on it) rather than cash.
Shows how rubbish the Tory campaign was - their plan was actually more socialist than Labour's policy to keep the status quo and let the very rich keep their £3m homes while the poor pay through the nose.
https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/957933095939960833
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goulston_Street_graffito
However, Labour's failure to follow up on their promise will impact them in due course but not as much as it did the Lib Dems because Labour duplicity on this has not been hit with as much publicity.
Lloyds Bank trustess obtained a charge over the bank's assets for the 10 year period over which the pension deficit is to be made good, a good way of avoiding bringing a company to its knees whilst protecting the pensioner rights.
Of course Carillion seems to have had few assets and these were mostly already secured against bank loans. Pension trustees need to make such arrangemnets as soon as a deficit appears and get in ahead of other creditors.