Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Alastair Meeks gives his thoughts on university pensions

13»

Comments

  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005
    Is there any point investing in a pension scheme that has a deficit. Not sure I would fancy it. I suppose if that is what your employer offers you and there is no alternative so be it.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,723

    Cyclefree said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Pong said:
    Why? The story seems to be substantially true, given the weakness of the non-denial denials of it. Leveson was triggered by improper interference with communications. What evidence is there in this case of similar misconduct?
    True stories can upset even more if they're inconvenient true stories.
    If those allegations are true it would appear that fraud is being committed.

    And yet the reaction of some is to want to stop the story being reported.

    Telling.
    I remember the reaction by some quarters to the times investigation into Rochdale abuse scandal.
    Nothing is happening in Rotherham (ditto others)
    Stafford hospital is safe (ditto others)
    Jimmy Savile is a great person (ditto others)
    Kids Company is a well run charity (ditto others)
    Elections in Tower Hamlets are fair
    The banks are well run

    I'm sure there are many other examples.
    Just wait for when jezza gets in and implements his supreme leader reforms of the free press...it will be a choice between thesqwawkbox and thecanary to tell us the truth...
    Are they the only ones not run by tax avoiding billionaires you can think of.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    Is there any point investing in a pension scheme that has a deficit. Not sure I would fancy it. I suppose if that is what your employer offers you and there is no alternative so be it.

    There's every point, since if schem has a deficit it must be a defined benefit scheme, in which case the employer is taking the risk*, not the employee.

    (*With the proviso that if the employer goes bust, and cannot meet its pension commitments, the employee would fall back on the Pension Protection Fund.)
  • Cyclefree said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Pong said:
    Why? The story seems to be substantially true, given the weakness of the non-denial denials of it. Leveson was triggered by improper interference with communications. What evidence is there in this case of similar misconduct?
    True stories can upset even more if they're inconvenient true stories.
    If those allegations are true it would appear that fraud is being committed.

    And yet the reaction of some is to want to stop the story being reported.

    Telling.
    I remember the reaction by some quarters to the times investigation into Rochdale abuse scandal.
    Nothing is happening in Rotherham (ditto others)
    Stafford hospital is safe (ditto others)
    Jimmy Savile is a great person (ditto others)
    Kids Company is a well run charity (ditto others)
    Elections in Tower Hamlets are fair
    The banks are well run

    I'm sure there are many other examples.
    Just wait for when jezza gets in and implements his supreme leader reforms of the free press...it will be a choice between thesqwawkbox and thecanary to tell us the truth...
    Are they the only ones not run by tax avoiding billionaires you can think of.
    Is there a daily National that does not indulge in tax 'mitigation'?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Pong said:



    Leveson2. Now.

    Why? The story seems to be substantially true, given the weakness of the non-denial denials of it. Leveson was triggered by improper interference with communications. What evidence is there in this case of similar misconduct?
    True stories can upset even more if they're inconvenient true stories.
    If those allegations are true it would appear that fraud is being committed.

    And yet the reaction of some is to want to stop the story being reported.

    Telling.
    I remember the reaction by some quarters to the times investigation into Rochdale abuse scandal.
    Just wait for when jezza gets in and implements his supreme leader reforms of the free press...it will be a choice between thesqwawkbox and thecanary to tell us the truth...
    Any newspaper would only need to put its HQ in the US at which point it is beyond the reach of whatever illiberal anti-free speech policies are enacted in the UK.
    brendan16 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/24/jobs-immigration-eu-italian-fury-palpable-ahead-general-election/

    "Since the last election in 2014, the migration issue has transformed Italian politics, fueling anger with both Brussels and the Italian government. Four years ago only 4% of Italians put immigration top of their electoral concerns, today that figure is over 33%, according to surveys.

    The issue is never far from the news, as last month when an Italian woman was found dismembered in a suitcase and several Nigerian immigrants were arrested for the crime. A former Lega supporter then shot and injured six migrants in retaliation.

    “Nigerian pushers like that one who hacked an Italian girl into pieces are going to be sent home with a kick up the ass,” Mr Salvini tells a crowd in the pretty, pink central piazza of Sassuolo, a tile-making town in the hills above Parma and Bologna.

    Above a placard proclaiming “STOP Invasione”, Mr Salvini rails against globalisation and promises Muslims will not be able to build mosques as long as they discriminate against women."

    A staggering statistic.

    The Merkel effect.
    More like the Mediterranean and being the closest European nation to Libya which has turned into a basket case.
    And France closing its border with Italy to prevent migrants getting through.

    What was that? No cherry-picking? Ah mon ami: that is a rule only for the British.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Pong said:



    Leveson2. Now.

    I remember the reaction by some quarters to the times investigation into Rochdale abuse scandal.
    Just wait for when jezza gets in and implements his supreme leader reforms of the free press...it will be a choice between thesqwawkbox and thecanary to tell us the truth...
    Any newspaper would only need to put its HQ in the US at which point it is beyond the reach of whatever illiberal anti-free speech policies are enacted in the UK.
    brendan16 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/24/jobs-immigration-eu-italian-fury-palpable-ahead-general-election/

    "Since the last election in 2014, the migration issue has transformed Italian politics, fueling anger with both Brussels and the Italian government. Four years ago only 4% of Italians put immigration top of their electoral concerns, today that figure is over 33%, according to surveys.

    The issue is never far from the news, as last month when an Italian woman was found dismembered in a suitcase and several Nigerian immigrants were arrested for the crime. A former Lega supporter then shot and injured six migrants in retaliation.

    “Nigerian pushers like that one who hacked an Italian girl into pieces are going to be sent home with a kick up the ass,” Mr Salvini tells a crowd in the pretty, pink central piazza of Sassuolo, a tile-making town in the hills above Parma and Bologna.

    Above a placard proclaiming “STOP Invasione”, Mr Salvini rails against globalisation and promises Muslims will not be able to build mosques as long as they discriminate against women."

    A staggering statistic.

    The Merkel effect.
    More like the Mediterranean and being the closest European nation to Libya which has turned into a basket case.
    And France closing its border with Italy to prevent migrants getting through.

    What was that? No cherry-picking? Ah mon ami: that is a rule only for the British.
    Oh really? I can't see how having an HQ elsewhere allows any publication selling in the UK to bypass UK law. For example, would an extreme right-wing publication headquartered overseas be able to publish overtly racist material in the UK today, under current laws?

  • Oh really? I can't see how having an HQ elsewhere allows any publication selling in the UK to bypass UK law. For example, would an extreme right-wing publication headquartered overseas be able to publish overtly racist material in the UK today, under current laws?

    It would online which is where most papers seem to be heading these days.

    That is not in any way an endorsement by the way, just a comment on the facts of life.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,723
    There is nothing free about so few tax avoiding billionaires owning our press. It is not in the interests of the many. Change is coming.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Pong said:



    Leveson2. Now.

    I remember the reaction by some quarters to the times investigation into Rochdale abuse scandal.
    Just wait for when jezza gets in and implements his supreme leader reforms of the free press...it will be a choice between thesqwawkbox and thecanary to tell us the truth...
    Any newspaper would only need to put its HQ in the US at which point it is beyond the reach of whatever illiberal anti-free speech policies are enacted in the UK.

    Oh really? I can't see how having an HQ elsewhere allows any publication selling in the UK to bypass UK law. For example, would an extreme right-wing publication headquartered overseas be able to publish overtly racist material in the UK today, under current laws?
    It’s a question of enforcement. The US courts will not enforce libel awards by UK courts because UK libel law is not compatible with the free speech provisions of the US Constitution. So if you can’t enforce laws imposing damages on newspapers and magazines then what are you left with? Anyone can access the internet to read what they like wherever it comes from. It’s the Spycatcher injunction issue or having an injunction enforceable in England and Wales but not in Scotland issue writ large.

    Now there may be a PR issue with having a paper like the Guardian based outside UK jurisdiction but if that’s the difference between being subject to frivolous and malicious lawsuits (and remember that if s.40 is enacted papers will be liable for all the costs, even if they win) and the risk of being closed down or financially ruined and taking the PR hit of basing yourself in a country which really values free speech, how hard will that decision be?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    There is nothing free about so few tax avoiding billionaires owning our press. It is not in the interests of the many. Change is coming.

    It is not in the interests of rich men like Mosley and politicians who don’t want their actions scrutinised. That is why there is an unholy alliance between Labour and the son of our only Fascist leader to stop us finding out the truth about them.

    You must be so proud.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315

    Is there any point investing in a pension scheme that has a deficit. Not sure I would fancy it. I suppose if that is what your employer offers you and there is no alternative so be it.

    It is in deficit not insolvent. A bit like the UK!

    Legally accrued benefits must be paid and if a scheme defaults there is an insurance scheme in place which guarantees 90 per cent payouts.

    So yes it is - particularly if its a defined benefit scheme.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    University pensions appear to be that tribe in the Amazon with no concept of the modern world that get found occasionally. Defined benefits are no longer viable.

    Meanwhile Albania trying hard to join the EU.

    https://twitter.com/ditmirbushati/status/967806781736005632
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315

    Talking of Rotherham...

    Rotherham child abuse scandal is so big that police need another 100 officers to work on investigation which has already cost £10million

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5433053/Police-need-100-officers-tackle-Rotherham-abuse.html

    And pretty much all the senior officers who were in charge in the Rotherham children's services department at the time have been promoted.

    Does make you wonder how they could have missed up to 1400 girls getting abused in one Borough. But I suppose no one will ever truly be held accountable.
  • I sympathise with the 80 senior Labour figures who signed a statement issued to the Observer urging him [Corbyn] to go further and to back membership of the single market......But they misinterpret what Corbyn is doing, and why. His conversion is not to soft Brexit, but to a hard knock on the door of No 10.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/25/jeremy-corbyn-soft-brexit-customs-union-commons-rebellion?CMP=share_btn_tw
  • The Office for Budget Responsibility is set for an embarrassing U-turn as it prepares to dramatically hike forecasts for UK growth just months after they were suddenly downgraded.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/02/25/hammond-set-15bn-windfall-economic-forecasts-upgraded/

    OBR about as good at predictions as the MET office....
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    Foxy said:

    Autocracy is surprisingly acceptable to Britons, so hope for TSE yet:

    http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/10/16/globally-broad-support-for-representative-and-direct-democracy/

    I realised this when so many of my fellow social democrats started excusing Corbyn's long history of sympathy for autocrats. It turns out the left's support for democracy and human rights, which I thought was inviolable, really was a second or third priority long behind Tory hate.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    edited February 2018
    Pritti gets stuck in:

    FORMER foreign aid chief Priti Patel blasted The Guardian yesterday over claims it covered up sex abuse at a charity.

    The MP accused the left-wing newspaper of a “callous lack of responsibility” for allegedly ignoring pleas from Save the Children workers desperate for protection from sex pests.

    It comes after an aid expert claimed in a blog that female staff approached The Guardian in 2015 with complaints on senior execs, but it “sat on the story”.

    Later the expert, writing under the pseudonym Leslie Francis, claims she was told the paper’s “powers that be” decided not to run it.


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5669469/priti-patel-slams-charity-cover-up/
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    edited February 2018
    Liberation running quite a lot on Selmayr's meteoric rise:

    Deux promotions en moins d’une minute, un record mondial. Le tout à la stupéfaction des commissaires, qui n’avaient pas été mis dans la confidence. Mais avec une dose de courage qui frôle le niveau zéro, nul n’a moufté. Pas mal pour une Commission censée être la gardienne du respect des règles.

    http://www.liberation.fr/planete/2018/02/25/ue-martin-selmayr-et-les-comploteurs_1632280
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575

    There is nothing free about so few tax avoiding billionaires owning our press. It is not in the interests of the many. Change is coming.

    And just what change is that ?
    Or is 'change is coming' another idea free slogan like Brexit means Brexit ?
  • https://twitter.com/drjennings/status/967915040975261696

    Minor health warning, Dr Cunningham used to work for Labour.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Nigelb said:

    There is nothing free about so few tax avoiding billionaires owning our press. It is not in the interests of the many. Change is coming.

    And just what change is that ?
    Or is 'change is coming' another idea free slogan like Brexit means Brexit ?
    Sounds like a threat - or it could be meaningless crap like "change you can believe in"
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Cyclefree said:

    There is nothing free about so few tax avoiding billionaires owning our press. It is not in the interests of the many. Change is coming.

    It is not in the interests of rich men like Mosley and politicians who don’t want their actions scrutinised. That is why there is an unholy alliance between Labour and the son of our only Fascist leader to stop us finding out the truth about them.

    You must be so proud.
    You seem to be working under the idea that John cares about anything other than Labour getting and retaining power.

  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    There is nothing free about so few tax avoiding billionaires owning our press. It is not in the interests of the many. Change is coming.

    What about the Guardian, or are they somehow different?

    You know, you support a party that told donors how to give money in a "tax efficient" fashion.

    Principles?

    And it looks likely Liivngstone will soon be back in Labour

    A good home for him nowadays.
  • Floater said:

    There is nothing free about so few tax avoiding billionaires owning our press. It is not in the interests of the many. Change is coming.

    What about the Guardian, or are they somehow different?

    You know, you support a party that told donors how to give money in a "tax efficient" fashion.

    Principles?

    And it looks likely Liivngstone will soon be back in Labour

    A good home for him nowadays.
    Jezza doesn't trust the Guardian either...Morning Star will be the only paper of record.
  • “Britain will need a bespoke relationship of its own. Labour would negotiate a new and strong relationship with the single market that includes full tariff-free access and a floor under existing rights, standards and protections. That new relationship would need to ensure we can deliver our ambitious economic programme.

    “So we would also seek to negotiate protections, clarifications or exemptions, where necessary, in relation to privatisation and public service competition directives, state aid and procurement rules and the posted workers directive.

    “We cannot be held back, inside or outside the EU, from taking the steps we need to support cutting-edge industries and local business, stop the tide of privatisation and outsourcing or prevent employers being able to import cheap agency labour


    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/26/jeremy-corbyn-to-confirm-labour-wants-a-customs-union-with-eu?__twitter_impression=true

    Cake? Cherries?
  • http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5433831/Archbishop-slammed-second-home-France.html

    Its like these newspapers who always bang on about organizations who deploy tax efficiency strategies...
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315

    “Britain will need a bespoke relationship of its own. Labour would negotiate a new and strong relationship with the single market that includes full tariff-free access and a floor under existing rights, standards and protections. That new relationship would need to ensure we can deliver our ambitious economic programme.

    “So we would also seek to negotiate protections, clarifications or exemptions, where necessary, in relation to privatisation and public service competition directives, state aid and procurement rules and the posted workers directive.

    “We cannot be held back, inside or outside the EU, from taking the steps we need to support cutting-edge industries and local business, stop the tide of privatisation and outsourcing or prevent employers being able to import cheap agency labour


    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/26/jeremy-corbyn-to-confirm-labour-wants-a-customs-union-with-eu?__twitter_impression=true

    Cake? Cherries?

    Will he be specifying what protections, clarifications and exemptions he will be seeking?

    I expect every EU member state would like that arrangement - we abide by the rules of the single market except those rules we don't like.

    Not so much cake - as motherhood and apple pie.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited February 2018
    brendan16 said:

    “Britain will need a bespoke relationship of its own. Labour would negotiate a new and strong relationship with the single market that includes full tariff-free access and a floor under existing rights, standards and protections. That new relationship would need to ensure we can deliver our ambitious economic programme.

    “So we would also seek to negotiate protections, clarifications or exemptions, where necessary, in relation to privatisation and public service competition directives, state aid and procurement rules and the posted workers directive.

    “We cannot be held back, inside or outside the EU, from taking the steps we need to support cutting-edge industries and local business, stop the tide of privatisation and outsourcing or prevent employers being able to import cheap agency labour


    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/26/jeremy-corbyn-to-confirm-labour-wants-a-customs-union-with-eu?__twitter_impression=true

    Cake? Cherries?

    Will he be specifying what protections, clarifications and exemptions he will be seeking?

    I expect every EU member state would like that arrangement - we abide by the rules of the single market except those rules we don't like.

    Not so much cake - as motherhood and apple pie.
    We all know it is just cynical positioning, knowing that May will have to try and agree something. If there is no agreement or it is really crap, Labour will go into a General Election saying to both Leavers and Remainers look we would have done something much more reasonable.

    The fact the EU would never agree to what a lot of people will think is being suggested by Labour (all the "a" customs union vs "the" customs unions etc), a bit like agreeing to staying in the EU but without wanting freedom of movement, is irrelevant.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315

    The Office for Budget Responsibility is set for an embarrassing U-turn as it prepares to dramatically hike forecasts for UK growth just months after they were suddenly downgraded.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/02/25/hammond-set-15bn-windfall-economic-forecasts-upgraded/

    OBR about as good at predictions as the MET office....

    But their and the Treasury's 15 year projections about the impact of Brexit are of course still robust. They just aren't so good at the here and now.
  • brendan16 said:

    The Office for Budget Responsibility is set for an embarrassing U-turn as it prepares to dramatically hike forecasts for UK growth just months after they were suddenly downgraded.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/02/25/hammond-set-15bn-windfall-economic-forecasts-upgraded/

    OBR about as good at predictions as the MET office....

    But their and the Treasury's 15 year projections about the impact of Brexit are of course still robust. They just aren't so good at the here and now.
    Including of course the regional breakdowns....don't doubt the regional breakdowns...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    brendan16 said:

    The Office for Budget Responsibility is set for an embarrassing U-turn as it prepares to dramatically hike forecasts for UK growth just months after they were suddenly downgraded.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/02/25/hammond-set-15bn-windfall-economic-forecasts-upgraded/

    OBR about as good at predictions as the MET office....

    But their and the Treasury's 15 year projections about the impact of Brexit are of course still robust. They just aren't so good at the here and now.
    Do you think no-one should ever publish any forecasts, ever?

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,960

    Change is coming.

    Labour is about to stop being anti-semitic?
  • brendan16 said:

    “Britain will need a bespoke relationship of its own. Labour would negotiate a new and strong relationship with the single market that includes full tariff-free access and a floor under existing rights, standards and protections. That new relationship would need to ensure we can deliver our ambitious economic programme.

    “So we would also seek to negotiate protections, clarifications or exemptions, where necessary, in relation to privatisation and public service competition directives, state aid and procurement rules and the posted workers directive.

    “We cannot be held back, inside or outside the EU, from taking the steps we need to support cutting-edge industries and local business, stop the tide of privatisation and outsourcing or prevent employers being able to import cheap agency labour


    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/26/jeremy-corbyn-to-confirm-labour-wants-a-customs-union-with-eu?__twitter_impression=true

    Cake? Cherries?

    Will he be specifying what protections, clarifications and exemptions he will be seeking?

    I expect every EU member state would like that arrangement - we abide by the rules of the single market except those rules we don't like.

    Not so much cake - as motherhood and apple pie.
    I wonder if Messrs Barnier, Juncker, Tusk et al will be as quick to rubbish this as they are British government speeches? Or will they be constructively vague?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Ah, the feigned incomprehension defence.

    No, just greatly bemused by your unwarranted tirade.
    Well, review your own posting history, then. You were giving it very large about how this was the worst thing to happen in the history of ever, and how saying that the women involved were mostly fine with it was "victim blaming", and you are still appending it to a list which has Jimmy Savile in it. So the fact that GOSH aren't fussed enough to reject the donation makes your position look a bit weak.

    Unless there are two of you posting under the same name, in which case apologies.
    My position is consistent, and yours is ... well, stupid.

    I never said: "this was the worst thing to happen in the history of ever,". I suggest you review my posting history, as you're making stuff up. I did say that someone claiming that all the non-journalist women were 'escorts' was victim-blaming, as there was no evidence of that, and even if it was true, which it almost certainly was not, it did not make what happened right.

    There are many points I could make about this, but I doubt you'd even give them proper consideration as you seem rather stuck in a rut with your attitudes. But I'll try with one:

    What happened at the President's Club does have a connection with Saville, Rotherham, Weinstein et al. It's about attitudes *we* have towards those less powerful than ourselves, and especially women. True, it's the small end of the scale, but it's the same scale, and the same attitude. It's a scale where others - mostly, but not always women - are placed at a lower, less worthy position than 'us', who are usually men. This 'allows' the men to do stuff like grope and worse.

    We men have known for decades that it's wrong to do this sort of thing. Yet we have continued doing this sh*t, and many of us who have not, have continued making the same tired excuses for those who do. "It was a laugh," "If she dresses like that she was up for it," "get a sense of humour luv," "she was probably a prostitute."

    Well, the Weinstein story has apparently caused a little shift in opinion. Suddenly, it's not alright. This is bad for us men, for instance minor transgressors (such as Green) will get swept up with the real sinners. But perhaps that is what 'we' deserve for so much bad behaviour over the years.

    There is one further point to make: the Presidents' Club story appears to have had a direct connection with the Oxfam story coming out, and it looks as though charities working with vulnerable people may start sorting their acts out instead of sweeping things under the carpet. This is a good thing.

    Here's a TL;DR, just to make it clear to you:
    It's about how we value others, particularly those who have less authority and power than us.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    Elliot said:

    Foxy said:

    Autocracy is surprisingly acceptable to Britons, so hope for TSE yet:

    http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/10/16/globally-broad-support-for-representative-and-direct-democracy/

    I realised this when so many of my fellow social democrats started excusing Corbyn's long history of sympathy for autocrats. It turns out the left's support for democracy and human rights, which I thought was inviolable, really was a second or third priority long behind Tory hate.
    If you read the survey, support for autocracy or military rule was much stronger on the right, not on the left.
This discussion has been closed.