Could the 1997 pensions raid come to haunt Gordon?
March 31st, 2007
Times wins two year battle to force the Treasury to hand over papers
With Labour’s leadership changes only weeks away the main lead in the Times this morning has the potential to cause bother for Brown as his team try to orchestrate a succession without a real challenge.
For the “quality” paper that has become NuLab’s most loyal supporter has just won a Freedom of Information act fight to get details of the advice ahead of Gordon’s famous “pensions raid” only weeks after moving in to Number 11 in 1997.
This was a hugely controversial measure at the time and has been blamed for much of the major deterioration in pension provision over the past decade - an issue that the opposition parties could use to hurt Labour.
According to the paper “Experts claim that the move has deprived the country’s savers of at least £100 billion over the past decade, during which Britain’s private and occupational pension system has struggled to stay afloat. The changes affected the 11 million people in Britain with company pensions and the 7 million with personal pensions.”
What the Times has acquired under the act is the advice that Brown was given before moving forward. This shows that he went ahead in spite of being warned of some of the consequences. It also reinforces the “Brown acting like Stalin” comments from his former top civil servant, Lord Turnbull.
The fact that the Treasury fiercely resisted handing over material and had to be forced to do so does not help the government’s position.
This could be dangerous because the one area of many people’s finances where they are worse off then a decade ago is in relation to their pensions.
One defined benefit scheme after another has been closed or the benefits diluted and, rightly or wrongly, much of the blame is heaped on what Gordon did in the weeks after coming into office.
The standard Labour defence on this has been to attack the Tories for the pension misselling scandals that occurred when they were in power. The trouble is that that is now a long time ago. Whatever this story will run.
Gordon’s “next Labour leader” betting price has eased a touch to 0.25/1.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
This story is actually reflects extremely well on Gordon Brown. It’s no surprise that, when Labour came to office, the Tory-minded establishment that composes the Civil Service had their collective noises put out of joint. They would have sneered at and criticised everything ‘oiks’ like Gordon suggested or did. Ten years on we’ve had the British economic miracle and pensioners are better off than at any time in history. I’m glad Gordon had the guts and determination to stand by his own impeccable judgement and to ignore those stuffy old Whitehall mandarins who, with their gentlemen’s clubs and glasses of port, are about as far removed from the real world as is possible to be. This is a silly, outdated tale from a decade ago and should be returned to the dusty shelf of history never to see the light of day again.
1. “pensioners are better off than at any time in history”
You’re kidding right?
I work in the industry and daily meet the victims of what was done to pensions. If public awareness of Brown’s conduct emerges the level of anger will know no bounds. He will be not just a lame duck, but politically ‘dead man walking’.
Pensions for people who have graduated during the Labour years are something that has just gotten worse and worse. Brown’s tax change certainly can’t have helped, but it should also be remembered that most company schemes were starved of investment during the long stock market boom, when companies took payment holidays. When the market inevitably returned to the long term trend, this created the huge shortfalls.
Back to the GCSEs…
Timothy @ 4 — not just pension holidays: raiding pension funds was a driver of takeovers under Mrs T.
It is not possible for a firm to take a ‘payment holiday’ when payments are made automatically in fixed contributions by employees and pension contributors.
The market only went up above trend for a couple of years - and this did not cause people to take ‘payment holidays’!
The main reason reason stocks collapsed was because of Brown’s actions - this is acknowledged by all authorities on stockmarkets. The raid on pensions funds is probably the most controversial economic action of the government in the last 100 years.
It is interesting that there is not yet a bandwagon to sue the government and Brown personally for his actions. Could what he did amount to ‘criminal negligence’? It’s no wonder they want to strip the police of independence. With such blatant criminality in government what can we expect but the unending suffering of the people.
Will L @ 6 — pension holidays are real, Gordon Brown did not cause the stock market to crash here or abroad, and you can’t sue the government. Hmm. Yours is a spoof post, right?
Will this affect the succession? Only if the Conservatives want it to. Osborne has attacked along these lines in the past without noticeable success.
ISTR that one of the reasons for the contributions holiday, (allied with the self-seeking greed of employers, that is), was that some beneficiaries’ representatives argued repeatedly that the surplus should not be treated as a reserve against nad times, but as the property of the existing beneficiaries that should be distributed in improved benefits. The consequence of this would have been increased funding needs in any market downturn. I also ATR that there was a court case supporting the beneficiaries’ view. Does anyone else realll any such thing.
This reminds me of “Margaret Thatcher - Milk Snatcher” following her move to abolish school milk when she was Education secretary in the early 70s. Taking milk from children and cutting pensions have similar emotional pulls.
But it didn’t harm Maggie’s career - I wonder what it will do to Gordon’s?
The problem for Brown is that there is a pipeline of stories about his time at the Treasury that will come to the fore the closer he gets to Number 10.
On its own it’s not a bombshell, confirms what we knew, but it is part of the steady drip drip drip of bad news. A snappy Milk Snatcher type phrase might be a good idea to use to fix it in people’s minds, how about Pensions Pirate.
An ageing population share two things: a greater inclination to vote Tory the older they get - and a disproportionate interest in their economic well-being.
If they can be convinced that Gordon Brown has lowered their standard of living for the rest of their lives by this move in 1997, then it could be very painful for Labour. It has not really ignited as a capaign issue before - pensions? B-O-R-I-N-G! - but the risk for Brown is that it becomes coupled with a general uneasiness that folk are not as well-off as they expected to be. That unease is a much more powerful card for the Tories to play if the economy starts to slow - it wouldn’t even need to be recession, just a slow-down.
10 - there is a major difference though Mike. Thatcher wasn’t particulaly harmed for the simple reason that nobody effected by it, cared - children didn’t like the milk anyway! The big problem for Gordon is that enormous numbers of people have been affected, and worse, the numbers are growing exponentially every year. To say that pensioners are better off than ever is missing the point - it is the future pensioners who are the problem. And it doesn’t matter whether it really is his fault or not, all that matters is that large numbers blame him. Contrary to what is said above, the polls suggest that Osborne’s attacks have been extremely effective, and I would suggest that this is an issue far more damaging than views on his ‘likeability’ or general character.
11 “A snappy Milk Snatcher type phrase might be a good idea to use…”
“Gordon Brown cuts pensions down”
or the more personal
“Gordon Brown cut your pension down”
or the downright combative
“Gordon Brown - pensions clown”
Like the last one!
I just can’t wait for GB to become PM - the next GE will be the biggest stuffing ever for Labour. Oh I just can’t wait.
Some of the night creatures have insomnia this morning it would seem. How much does CCHQ pay you to come on here and spout this drivel?
All these old whingers moaning about their pensions - what about the young people who are handing over piles of their cash to the older generation in the form of massively inflated property prices?
OK we’ll hate him for that instead (although we have some hope of inheriting that some day…)
re 17 .
Harry, Wait till you reach pension age, if you have a pension…., of if your firm had a final salary pension scheme it will probably have closed by then if it hasn’t already, you will be left with a stakeholder or matched contributions of prob a max 5% , and by the time you retire , your weekly pension will just about buy you a loaf of bread.
The raid on pensions IMHO was an utter disgrace, it might not have been the only reason, but if you take half the bricks out at the bottom, the wall is going to collapse!!!.
But what about demographics in all this? How on earth are pensions supposed to cope when you go from 5 workers for every pensioner to one worker for every pensionser?
GB’s macro-economic success has always had more impact on the voters than his micro-economic failures. The tories couldn’t make this point stick at the last GE, and they won’t be able to at the next. Tories have decided instead to criticise GB on the basis that there is a recession ‘just around the corner’. Exactly.
GB doesn’t mind storing up problems for the future—-look at off-balance sheet financings, as well as pensions. These are not vote losers for him. But they do demonstrate clearly the danger of having the same man as chancellor for so long.
20 - the extent to which it is Gordon Brown’s fault is irrelevant if people think that it is his fault. And the arguments blaming him are far easier to present than those in his favour.
People forget now, but in 1997 one of the most often used bullet arguments against Britain joining the Euro was that European countries hadn’t made provision for their aging population and we’d be mad to hitch ourselves to other countries liabilities considering the healthy state of our pensions situation. You’d be laughed at if you made that claim now.
Aging populations are an argument for why pensions will be a problem in 20-30 years time. They are not an explanation for why the real value of private pensions has collapsed in the last five years. We haven’t gone from a 1:1 ratio to a 1:5 ratio since 1997!
If I was George Osborne or the Lib Dems’ Vince Cable this morning I would be launching a scathing attack on the attempt to cover this up by for two years fighting the newspaper’s FOIA application and even resisting when the Information commissioner had issued a ruling.
Why was government money being used to protect Gordon? In the current context the more personal the opposition can make their attacks the more damaging
re 22 Alex, you beat me to it ! The weakening of Companies requirements over minimum funding rate was also a mistake IMHO
23 - maybe they’re holding back out of fear that there’s an outside chance that Gordon might not get the job…?
I really dont think it will make any difference who becomes PM.. The echoes of what happened 92-97 play largely the same tune as in 2005-2010, except New Labour have brought sleaze to a much higher plateau. Reinvention of New Lab is still be mutton in a wolf’s clothing. When the low paid realise in 2008-9 that ther tax rate has doubled from 10% to 20% it will just reinforce the fact that Labour has had it.
Compared with a time when the Maxwells of this world could use company pensions as their own little piggy banks this is a different world.
Nonetheless and slightly off topic I am warming fast to young Milliband! The idea of choosing a leader who would compete with Cameron on age alone was never a sensible idea. But having seen and heard and read him all in the last few days I’m becoming a convert……
He’s both modest and thoughtful. A much more intersting contrast to the Tory leader than age. The more Milliband shows of himself in an election campaign the more interesting he will become.
I am still confident that the castle built on sand which is Cameron will implode before the next election so either will do the job but Milliband is certainly worth a bet.
27 Any hints that he might run for deputy?
re 27. I agree with you Roger (makes a change) and I think that Miliband could also help Labour win back many of the lost voters who went to the Lib Dems in 2005.
It would be much easier for Labour to combat the inevitable mood of “it’s time for a change” with someone like Miliband.
If this does go to a ballot then there would be massive media support for him if only because journalists hate foregone conclusions.
People like Nick Palmer tend to look at this exclusively through the eyes of the PLP. The electorate is much broader than that and in the recent YouGov poll of unions members paying the political levy Gordon did not have good approval ratings.
29 Labour likes dream tickets. Any chance of Brown-Milliband?
“This could be dangerous because the one area of many people’s finances where they are worse off then a decade ago is in relation to their pensions.”
There are quite a few more than that, mostly related to debt and debt service, and others to do with savings of which pensions are a kind I suppose.
Talking about Cameron imploding….Ed Balls on the Today program points out that the dividend tax credit was first cut by Norman Lamont in 1993 and his advisor at the time was David Cameron! They also made the interesting point that if the Tories had objected to this policy why didn’t they say they would reverse it in their 2000 and 2005 manifestos?
I will be very surprisded if Milliband runs. His best chanceIMHO of becoming leader would be to pick up the pieces after the doom and gloom of 3 yrs of Broon (and an election defeat). Running now would be a huge gamble by Milliband.
29: I mainly report on PLP mood as that’s what I know about - I can’t truthfully say I have a clear view of most CLPs members’s opinions, and still less of most union members’. Note though that the poll was taken of all union members paying the levy, without the rider that they will have to sign a statement in support of the Labour Party to be allowed to vote. We all know that non-Labour voters are on average much more critical of GB than Labour voters, so the poll overstates hostility by an unknown margin (unless they’re all prepared to lie and pretend to be Labour voters, which I doubt - not least as it would give us a useful propaganda argument to be able to point to N million signed-up supporters).
On the main theme, I suggest we don’t get into the substantive argument, which has been around for years. On the political impact, I think the story only has legs if the Tories offer to reverse the changes - which IMO they have not the slightest intention of doing. I’ve been in many debates when the subject came up - as soon as people discovered that all the parties were going to leave it unchanged, they lost interest.
This is typical of apartheid Labour. Those of us who work in the private sector get shafted if we need to provide for our old age but millions of those working in the public sector (including Brown and Balls) will get super annuated pensions paid for by us suckers in the private sector.
27
‘Nonetheless and slightly off topic I am warming fast to young Milliband!’
Roger,was it the picking and then eating the contents of his nose that finally put you off Gordon Brown?
34
….tell that to all those whose pensions have been either lost or seriously damaged. It might have less resonance in Parliament, as you rightly say, No Govt could afford to reinstate as a result of Brown’s already massive borrowing 150 billion over the next 5 yrs.
I can assure you that there are countless pensioners who have lost heavily and will continue to so so, and any partial reinstatement as a result of the FAS/PPF is not inflation proofed. As far as I know as it remains a fixed payment.
Pensions are an issue and as time goes on they will become more of an issue as a result of what has happened, if only because final salary schemes are closing at a rate of knots , and money purchase and stakeholder haven’t a hope of giving employees what whey might have hoped to enjoy.
Just because it’s not being debated in the Chamber of the House of Commons doesn’t mean it isn’t an issue out there in the real world.
27 etc. One thing that hasn’t been commented on this morning but which I do think is a highly significant sign is Margaret Beckett’s article.
Beckett’s performance as a weather vane for opinion within the Labour Party has been exceptional over the more than 30 years she’s been in parliament or on the NEC. That she should now come out and so robustly defend Brown against Miliband shows that she has decided which way she thinks the wind is blowing. Were it likely to be close, she would be hedging her bets for the time being, as she has up until now.
27. Oh dear, Roger backs Milliband. The poor sod is done for now.
27 - Do please remind us which political party Maxwell served for so long. In case you have forgotten it was Labour, of course they and Woger like to forget that now. Just before he took his final dip he had spent thousnads of pounds of stolen money pouring champagne into the mouths of Labour hacks and hackettes at the party conference.
30. Johnathon. I doubt that would make much difference.
Cameron has chosen to promote himself via a set of PR stunts with one promotion quickly followed by another….
Gordon seems to want to follow but I fear his stunts will fall flat. Instead of building on his strengths he’s trying to reverse his weaknesses which isn’t wise at all.
A contest between him and Milliband will be a win win situation for Labour. Milliband will show whether he has what it takes and Brown win or lose will realize that aping Cameron is not the way to go.
27 BTW and in the interests of accuracy (something alien to Woger) Young Miliband will be Ed, who is four years the junior of David
Mike, you’ve turned Political betting into BASH THE GOVERNMENT.com and advertising your friendship with Ian Dale is circumspect in this view. Sorry, as a punter (A Labour one I would add), I won’t be coming back to this site as it has deterioriated from what it once was.
The money woes for the Lib Dems are mounting:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,2046762,00.html
38 - surely Margaret Beckett’s only hope of any future would be under Brown? Not much point in waiting before deciding which way to jump if only one result is any good for you.
39 He He - Jokes about Roger’s tipping ability died the death when he forecast the outcome of the Oscars with close to unerring accuracy, including some in categories I’d never heard of.
Btw I don’t recognise the name. New poster, or Tarquin?
Alex at 13: “Thatcher wasn’t particulaly harmed for the simple reason that nobody effected by it, cared - children didn’t like the milk anyway!”
Absolutely correct. I’m only sorry that she didn’t go further and get rid of milk for infant school children too because I absolutely used to dread having to drink the stuff when I was in infant school (1979-1981).
I’d always put myself to the back of the queue in the hope that one too few bottles had been delivered and there’d not be enough to go round. Once or twice I did get lucky and was given orange squash instead. Mostly though, I did have to drink the milk and it was utterly revolting - having been stood in a bottle outside the school door for several hours…
I say this as someone who grew up on a dairy farm, btw.
29. Mike. “re 27. I agree with you Roger (makes a change)”
Before you became a ‘Cameroon’ we often agreed!!!
38. David. I thought the article significant for the opposite reason. If it didn’t look likely that he would stand why would Beckett do something so extreme as to publically advise him against?
40. Pot and Kettle. I thought you’d gone into ’stalker’ retirement?
There are few with clean hands in the whole pensions debacle - the Life Insurance Companies in pensions misselling, the unintended consequences of the Major Government’s attempts to protect funds after Maxwell, companies taking contribution holidays - but fact remains that when Brown took over there were 12- to 13 million people in final salary schemes. There are now around 4 milion. His policies and those of Darling in the first Labour Government severely weakened the ability of the funds to survive a stock market crash and removed the equivalent of £100 billion from their funds.
The move to money purchase schemes has been used by firms to cut their level of contributions overall and in addition people don’t prioritise pension saving in their 20’s and thirties. So with an aging population the costs will fall on the taxpayer. Simple arithmetic says that for his £5bn p.a windfall he has put a much higher burden on the future tax payers - as well people having to work until they are 69 for a state pension, so probably surving on benefits and tax credits. If it means the state having to pay benefits of £25 a week to half those no loger in pension schemes that’s the £5bn gone.
It’s part of a whole - with pensions he’s made larger numbers dependent on the state for benefits, in his budget last week he did the same for the lower paid.
43. I don’t really think that’s fair. What Labour supporters have to accept is that when you’re behind in the polls, you get more (from your point of view) bad-news stories. I know this sounds obvious, but given that Mike’s leaders tend to follow the general trends in the news or elections - because that is what impacts on voters minds or is indicative of trends - and that means it won’t be as comfortable to read for Labourites.
Today’s leader, for example, is based on the lead story in The Times - which IIRC is the best selling quality paper by some way. It’s hardly a story picked out of nowhere. And given that Brown is likely to become the next PM - and will certainly be contesting the leadership election, it’s a story that could impact on the political scene and the betting markets.
If there’s one thing I do regret in the way the site’s developed, it’s that there’s more shouting these days. That and the fact that threads don’t go off on the very interesting meanderings they once did, which might have had virtually nothing to do with the main piece but were what I personally found to be a joy of the website.
The Brownite intimidation of Mike Smithson has started. This site is not anti-Labour. Mike merely points out what we know already - that Gordon Brown is very far from being the ideal person to lead the Labour Party to victory.
One reason why many of us have reached that conclusion is that Brown and his supporters are somewhat intolerant of dissent.
43. anti ‘Labour Haters’, pro serious discussion “I won’t be coming back to this site as it has deterioriated from what it once was”.
If that’s true the fault lies with people using silly multiple identities
51. “The Brownite intimidation of Mike Smithson has started….One reason why many of us have reached that conclusion is that Brown and his supporters are somewhat intolerant of dissent.”
No-one mentioned Brown in the post you were replying to, but just Labour in general
52.”If that’s true the fault lies with people using silly multiple identities ”
I loved the poster who once posted the same opinion 3 times in the same thread changing his name everytime but keeping the link to the same blog in its signature.
45. I’m not sure about that - what does Brown have to gain from keeping Beckett? Not a huge amount I’d say, other than that she’d be a vociferous backer, but then that’s true of others as well.
Were Miliband and Brown starting from scratch, I’d say that she’d be better with the younger man. It’s been apparent for some time that Blair hasn’t promoted new blood to high office; if Brown becomes PM he has to reward Straw, needs to keep Reid at the Home Office if he plans to go ahead with the reorganisation there (and Reid would be foolish to announce it without some agreement from Gordon at it’s planned for his watch) and has someone like Johnson or Benn as deputy, there are a lot of 50/60-somethings already and not much call for an old warhorse whose day might be said to have passed by some.
On the other hand, Miliband is young and inexperienced. Were he to win, Brown may well leave the government as well as Blair; that creates a massive gap in experience and he would need the old hands on board.
Under Miliband, she might have a shot at keeping her current job; under Brown, the best she can probably hope for is Leader of the House. That’s why I think the article’s significant.
Andrea. Can you remember the three names? They weren’t variations on Will Herbert or Herbert Will or Proper Herbert or Herbert Proper by any chance???
48 - After what Brown has done to pensions Woger, retirement is not an option. That is particularly so for those of us whose parents could not afford to send us to schools such as Millfield or who can afford to visit the south of France so frequently as to be able to discuss world affairs with the owner of a favourite restaurant.
In the interests of consistency what happened to your postings that always concluded “The futures bright, the futures Brown”?
As a pensioner, (although a reasonably well off one) I took early retirement 10 years ago aged 50. The reason I got out when I did, it was obvious the system would be under strain. The decision by companys to give pension holidays during the 80’s/90’s was a big mistake, the share market was bouyant at the time, that would not last forever. Final year salary schemes, obviously would be come more and more difficult to maintain. The last Conservative governments attempts to encourage people out of occupational schemes into private ones, was a mistake, the present government continued a tradition of government interference which has made things worse.
56. Nah, Roger, it wasn’t Herbert Will and family. It was something like “psichologist”, “horrified” and “disturbed”….
55 One thought prompted by “Reid at the Home Office” is that the split into Ministry of Security & Ministry of Justice reflects the devolution settlement. Many of the Home Office’s reserved matters will go into the Security ministry, most of the Justice Ministry’s remit will be to England (& Wales in some matters). I’ve thought before that a sensible re-organisation of Cabinet would be to separate UK & English affairs into ministries and this is a step along that path.
Talking about pensions, do MPs still have the 60+20 rule? Or is it going to be abolished?
I have just received an offer of £100,000 for my late Uncles complaint about mis-selling by Equitable (I am his executor, not the beneficiary!). Apparently £100,000 is the maximum that the Financial Services Ombudsman can insist is paid.
A lot of pensions went wrong because of “costs” milked from our savings by “the city” - their bonuses are paid by us.
Oh, and the £100,000 , plus the costs of the Ombudsman -also paid by us!
“In the interests of consistency what happened to your postings that always concluded “The futures bright, the futures Brown”?”
‘Milliband-Just Do It!!
57 P&K - You could singlehandedly make a major contribution to the quality of the site by dropping your silly and rather spooky preoccupation with Roger when giving your views, which on the whole you articulate pretty well.
Andrea - although the poster didn’t mention Brown by name I have little doubt that his ire was aroused by a number of PB stories in recent weeks that have highlighted his hero’s shortcomings. It suits Brownite zealots to conflate ‘anti-Brown’ with ‘anti-Labour’ and we shouldn’t let them get away with it.
65 You make a number of very good points, Herman. Although I don’t always agree with them, I enjoy reading them. I’d like to take issue with you on a couple of them, but later. Saturday is a busy racing day, and I have much to do.
Catch you later.
Oh btw, the dog runs tonite at Waltshamstow - 7.43 Trap 5. It has every chance at should be a decent price - about 4/1. I’m hoping it will put the knockers in their place.
As its obvious we are going to have a ‘coronation’ of Brown, there will be no election. The election therefore will be conducted by the media, the media is now the ‘Devil’s Advocate’. There will be anti-Brown stories galore over the next few weeks, the Labour posters will have to grit their teeth and bear it!! As for whether Brown will win or lose the next GE for Labour, we’ll need at least a year before any real judgement can be made.
65. Harman, “Brownite zealots” are easily matched by “Brown basher”, so there’s nothing to worry about
Peter the Punter Roger did well on the Oscars but his political tips have been universally dodgy. Mystic Meg and the Random Chance Card Shuffle would have done better.
When he say he is “still confident that the castle built on sand which is Cameron will implode before the next election” I am left in no doubt that Cameron will triumph.
Mike Smithson
Can’t Pot and Kettle be banned from commenting, you asked him to stop harassing Roger and he’s right back at it today, his rudeness turns my stomach.
Good article Mike and yes if the press make something of it,then it will cause Brown problems. If they don’t it won’t.
I have of course covered this on my blog linking to tho FOI documents.
70. Pot and Kettle has stalked Roger unduly these last weeks, but he makes a fair point about Robert Maxwell. And let’s face it, Millfield-educated Woger with his private health plan IS the kind of hypocritical Latte Leftie that sticks in many a craw.
Personally I find Woger more entertaining than emetic, but I can see why others may differ.
The three ages of a nulabour blogger:
1. The Conservatives are useless, providing no opposition at all.
2. Cameron is a shameless opportunist in opposing the government
3. This used to be a good betting blog.
Note that Brown’s trip to Afghanistan - arranged at the last minute - coincides with the pensions news (which the Treasury will have known about in time for the Macavity act). Increasingly Brown looks to me like the political equivalent of Ming - a good record on their brief (from a macro point of view) but the wrong choice for their party as leader.
To answer the suggestion above that Miliband should wait to stand until after the general election and pick up the pieces - it must be obvious that by then he will not be seen as the only serious contender from his generation and therefore this is his best chance.
Even though I very much doubt that last Sunday’s Observer was a Blair briefing, I am now convinced that Miliband `will win’ if he stands, and the Straw/Beckett/Hain stuff, plus last Sundays phone around,(when they thought they would be basking in the good news of the budget) just reinforces the concern in the Brown camp.
60 Ted I thought they might do that but my reading (and I am no expert so stand to be corrected) the Justice bit has no powers over Scottish judges and Scottish law or prisons as far as I know, but deals with constitutional issues such as UK legal matters and devolution itself of course.
In Security the police is a devolved issue but not internal intelligence or immigration. But that will not be clear cut any more as Labour plans to make devolution even more asymmetrical by giving considerable new powers to the Scottish parliament for immigration and asylum ( as one comment on this is in the Scotsman suggested, that guarantees a border post with England to stop the rush from New Sangatte on Tweed).
It seems the usual badly thought out mess, in other words.
43. Either a fabulous spoof or the worst ‘diddums’ post yet on this site.
PtP - I am hearing good things about prime defender in the 2.55 at Kempton.
Brown is a shoe in. Milliband does not have the cajones.
75. Talking of Scotland, the polls in the last two days look increasingly bad for Labour Oop North. Indeed its astonishing how calmly everyone is taking this potential constitutional earthquake: if the SNP get in they might easily find enough small party partners to call a referendum on independence, they might easily win that plebiscite if they word the question cleverly enough (and they will choose the words). Bingo - the end of the UK.
Nice one, Tony B and New Labour, you not only fought the most disastrous war in modern British history, you will have finished off Britain as a country, partly as a consequence of that same war, and of course you stupidly botched Devolution.
What was that Legacy of yours again? Oh yes, free bus rides for pensioners.
66 “I’m hoping it will put the knockers in their place.”
If not, trade it in for a sports bra….!
78 - and what will Scotland do when the oil runs out?
80. Beg for bigger EU subsidies of course.
Re:80 Very simple, it will wave goodbye to the standard of living presently enjoyed there which is entirely subsidised by the English economy.
Presuming that post 43 was not a spoof (although a regular poster would have used their regular name, otherwise what’s the point?)
The electoral system makes a minority into a majority and government supporters (of whatever government) miss the fact that under FPTP they are always outnumbered by those who don’t support them.
At a time like this when turnout is falling and the government can’t even get the support of one in three of those left, they’re going to be outgunned from all political sides. If that isn’t taken on board then any hissy fit about the anti-government slant are missing the point that less than 20% of the voting population (on current polling figures) actively *support* the government.
On the main thread my parents have felt the full force of Brown’s assault and, as I’ve said before, they will not vote for him although they have generally supported Blair. Like roger I have also been impressed by Miliband recently as a politician, although I disagree with much of the content of his articles/interviews. Why should opposition parties hold back on the pensions issue? Simple, Brown should be allowed to become leader without the attendant furore and then it can be used against hi in a subsequent election. The time is not ripe.
61 - I don’t think MPs have ever had (or required) a “60+20″ rule have they? Could be completely wrong though.
Civil servants have it, and local govt workers do if they’re over a certain age (50?)
Yup, “Gordon Brown - pensions down” sounds good until, as has been pointed out, you realise that no one else is going to do anything about it. Many people will be able to deal with it by “trading down” in the property market.
Indeed, there’s a strong case for abolishing the single person’s discount on Council Tax where that person is under-occupying: the cute way to do that would be to give Councils discretion to do so, and set their block grants on the assumption that they did!
“Milliband does not have the cajones.”
Miliband doesn’t any drawers?
Or did you mean cojones?
Bugger - doesn’t *have* any drawers……
80. I think Scotland could manage perfectly well economically… in the long run. But there would surely be quite a few years of painful readjustment, as they learned to do without subsidy, and when they would be very dependent on oil prices. Eventually they would be forced down the Irish road of low taxes and low public spending (without the EU largesse that enabled Ireland to do this) and that should work. Though it would be tough.
The more imponderable question, as I see it, is what they would lose and gain spiritually, culturally, socially and politically - rather than the economics. I think the Scots might find themselves still culturally and politically dominated by London and the English, yet without the striking role in the British Establishment they have now, which counterbalances that domination. e.g. They would keep the pound but have no say in interest rates. They would keep the Queen but she might seem even more of a foreign monarch.
Secession would cause painful dismemberment of common institutions - the NHS, the BBC - and to what purpose?
More autonomy is a much better deal for the Scots, rather than outright independence. But Wee Eck might get his chance to turn this into full seperation, thanks to bleedin’ Labour and the Iraq War.
In the end the price Labour will pay for Iraq might be: never governing in England again. A rich irony.
The real problem for Labour and Brown from these released documents is probably not he pensions crisis itself, although that will give it legs and power..
Rather it is that Brown was warned of the effect and the Treasury people got it right in 1997 money at a loss of 75 billion whereas it is probably currently at 100 billion.
Ignoring the damage he was doing to the poorer parts of the population (and the documents particularly warn about damage to this section of the pension population) will certainly be linked to his recent removal of he 10% income tax band and the effect - now not seriously challenged by tax people- which will also make the lower earners worse off.
Whether this is ‘Stalinist’ (people have to suffer for the common good) doesn’t matter, the millions who have a lost or have a damaged pension, and the further millions that worry about the security of their current pensions, are increasingly alienated by this apparent callous disregard of good advice. The lower end earners doubly so. The public sector pay award and the moves to amend their pension provision ( still a hot issue) are no more trusting of the government.
That is serious of itself but together they might generate the most perfect storm.
80 Probably what Ireland, New Zealand, Denmark etc do without oil. I’m a unionist but when will New Labour realise it’s not all about economics? The Union may have been born because of Scots economic failures but even then there was a joint history and other ties that bound the countries together.
It’s shared history, common values, patriotism to Britain not £s and pence. If it has become just that then we might as well accept the Union is finished.
50/51: Mike has never made a secret of being a (sometimes critical) LibDem, and I’ve no problem with that. He has a difficult balance to strike since he’d like to host a dispasionate discussion of betting trends but, being human, he naturally expresses his own views sometimes, and his dislike of GB has been evident for a long time. I think the format works best when he has a series of dispassionate introductions on different parties and topics, and then posts his opinion under his own name in the thread. But ultimately it’s his site.
Like David Herdson and others I think there *is* more of a problem in the tendency to shout at each other over the issues (we’ll never persuade each other so it’s a waste of time) instead of discussing their impact (over which we often agree). On today’s topic, it makes good sense to discuss whether the 1997 Treasury papers will have an impact on people upset about pension trends, but it’s pointless to argue the toss about whether we personally like party X or party Y on pensions.
And there is a pattern of bullying of Labour posters at a personal level - P&K goes on and on about where Roger eats, as if we knew or cared, and snowflake had a pretty nasty going-over a while back. Some of the stuff from anonymous posters is petty and pointlessly unpleasant. I’ve had it too, but I’ve got a thick skin, and that shouldn’t really be a prerequisite for posting here.
Latest IPSOS daily poll on French Presidential elections:
Sarko 32 (+0.5)
Sego 24 (-1 )
Bayrou18.5(+0.5)
Le Pen12 (n/c)
Sarko beats Sego 54 to 46 in the second round. Since the Paris riot the gap between Sarko and Sego has widened in every poll, as far as I can recall, but it’s only fair to point out that the IPSOS rolling poll gives the best results for Sarko of any of the pollsters. One pollster has him at 27%. This may have something to do with the Sarko Le Pen split. One pollster has the latter at 15%. All of them give Sarko the lead in the first round, however, and all having him beating Sego in the second round usually fairly comfortably.
90 - They never had the money from the North Sea oil like scotland currently enjoys… I fail to see your connection.
84: MPs have a retirement age of 65 but can retire early and take an actuarialy-reduced pension. There isn’t a 60+20 rule. The main reason the scheme is seen as generous is that it has a final salary scheme and uses 1/40 as the basis for contributions (typical of managerial pensions but most people have 1/50 or 1/60). The latter improvement was paid for by a higher contributions rate - MPs pay around 10% of salary. (All this is from memory and could be wrong in some details, haven’t checked recently.)
Incidentally (I’m posting an hysterical number of comments so as to put off the moment I have to start work with a hangover) - this hostage crisis has serious potential for major headaches for Blair and Labour.
You can’t help thinking of the Jimmy Carter Iran Hostage crisis, when the mullahs dragged it out to destroy his presidency in its final days, and pointedly handed them over, the moment Reagan was sworn in. How do we know the ayatollahs aren’t planning similar revenge on Blair?
If Blair was hoping to quit in May on something of a “high” - because of Northern Ireland - then he might have to abandon even that rather embarrassing pathetic hope. Iraq was his war, these hostages are there because of that war.
Nasty.
91. Yes, Nick, I agree there has been some silly abuse on this site of late. A lot of it has come from annoying anonymous posters, who we seem to be attracting just now. P&K was stalking Woger in a tediously unwitty way.
But funnily enough, Nick, you only mention the abuse hurled at lefties by Tories.
I’ve been called a Nazi, a racist, an anti-Semite (etc etc) on this site, I’ve been called Tory scum, selfish, mad, hateful (etc etc). I’ve seen similar contumely aimed at many of my right-leaning friends, from people like Woger, Tyson, ColinW, et al.
The difference is I don’t whinge about it, unlike you and the other lefties.
Politics is a tough game, this is a site for adults. When you are arguing about things as serious as illegal wars where half a million people die, you should expect arguments to get quite passionate, even angry. Anything else would be glib.
84/94. http://www.ome.uk.com/downloads/pension.pdf
Page 10. Pension arrangements for members of parliament
in the parliamentary contributory pension fund:
1. Normal Retirement Age (NRA) 65 years. Members may retire at age 60 if they have completed 20 years of service without actuarial reduction.
76 the flat isn’t my preferred subject, Scally, but as it happens I had that one pencilled in anyway. I was surprised to find it was as much as 3.6 on the exhanges, so I’ve had a dabble.
Of course, you know what happens to posters who give out duff tips on the site, don’t you?
93 - I’m sounding like an SNP supporter but exactly what benefit does Scotland currently enjoy from its oil? Gordon Brown gets a nice bit of funding, some of which he re-imburses to Scotland. More probably goes to the North East.
Scotland has a relatively well educated population and other good foundations for economic prosperity and is quite capable of standing on its own two feet with or without oil.
Innocent Abroad The fact that no-one can do anything about winding the clock back on the pensions mess is not particulalrly important. No more so than a divorce can wind the clock back to bachelordom. But the bitterness and recriminations rarely go away.
The British electorate ‘married’ New Labour as they promised to be ‘whiter than white’ and their marriage contract said,
“New Labour is a party of ideas ..What counts is what works. The objectives are radical. The means will be modern….This is our contract with the people’
…we have made it our guiding rule not to promise what we cannot deliver; and to deliver what we promise.
7 (of 10 key pledges) 7 We will help build strong families and strong communities, and lay the foundations of a modern welfare state in pensions and community care
We will : Protect the basic state pension and promote secure second pensions
Labour will promote choice in pension provision. We will support and strengthen the framework for occupational pensions. Personal pensions, appropriately regulated, will remain a good option for many.
We will set up a review of the central areas of insecurity for elderly people: all aspects of the basic pension and its value, second pensions including SERPS, and community care. The review will ensure that the views of pensioners are heard”. …..
How many weeks was it after this document was published when Brown raided the pension funds? Ten? Twelve? I don’t recall any consultation with pensioner, to ensure they were ‘heard’ do you?
A small point about the Scottish elections. At the moment 27% of Scottish voters favour independence whether or not the SNP are in government in Scotland. With a Labour government at Westminster this is likely to be the position in a referendum
But if the Tories become the government in the UK before the referendum vote takes place this is likely to change radically. It is my guess that if we have a Tory government at Westminster there is every chance that the Scots will vote for independence.
99. It’s not Scotland’s oil - it’s Britain’s oil in the same way that ‘London’s financial centre’ raises taxes for Britain, ‘England’s natural gas’ is Britain’s natural gas and the various other taxes which come disproportionately from one part of the UK all go into the general pot.
Whether or not Scotland could go its own way without oil (it could), the fact is that in the meantime it has oil - and the revenues from that would grossly distort the tax take given the size of the Scottish economy with some years seeing boom takes (as at the moment) and others seeing dangerously large deficits (as when oil was below $10 a barrel).
The most stupid mistake of the pro Union camp is to concentrate exclusively on ridiculous scare stories about the effect of independence. That’s what the Serb nationalists tried during the Montenegrin independence referendum and it didn’t work. Could Scotland manage as an independent country? Of course it could just as many small european countries do( Scotland would actually be much bigger than many of them). If Unionists want to make a case it should be a positive case about the benefits of the Union; they display their lack of confidence by the unrelentingly negative and frankly hyperbolic way they conduct the campaign.
99 Fom the 13th century onwards Scotland was not capable of maintaining economic parity with England . The Scottish penny of Alexander III had parity with the English penny of Edward I . It progressively became debased and devalued and by the reign of James VI of Scotland / James I of England there were 10 Scottish pennies to 1 English 1 . Later in the reign it became 12 to 1 . Stability to the Scottish economy did not come until the Union and unifying the currency .
Independence would lead Scotland back into the world of continuous devaluation of the currency compared to England .
Nick Palmer That makes your pension twice as generous as those of your civil servants who are on 1/80 I believe. And there are not many in private industry on 1/50 or 1/60 although the military and police may be still?
101. Every reason then for Brown to call Salmond’s bluff by calling a referndum now. He decides the wording and the timing, and what better way to put what looks like being an absolute car crash in May behind him than by triumphantly re-asserting the Union. It would be devastating for the SNP only months after assuming power to be beaten, they would probably split between those wanting to carry on banging on about independence and pragmatists.
[100] If you expect governments to honour their manifestos, you need a lot more help than you’re going to get on this site…
Perhaps Mike should consider only using polls produced by Opinion Leader Research. Short of that I don’t see how he can invent pro-Brown, pro-Labour stories.
As for people on the site getting picked on I don’t recall any of our moral guardians ever mentioning the abuse that Rik and other Tories frequently get. Particularly ib the lead up to the 2005 general election some of the abuse was very, very unpleasant.
106 I agree , Punter .
69 Witan - My bank account doesn’t know or care whether the winnings came from The Oscars, The Blair Switch Market or the 2.55 at Kempton.
Respect, Roger.
With regards the top question of the thread - and I’m sure we’ve covered loads of stuff between 1 - 107, if this is a usual day - but I haven’t the time to go through it all.
Quite simply “yes” is the answer - there is something in GB that does not put pensions up the list of priorities. If anything he sees the middle class pension holder as someone who can give to the deserving poor. He may have spotted they have little room to negotiate with him. It has to be seen as a real blind spot, because he is such a consistent offender on this issue
108.”As for people on the site getting picked on I don’t recall any of our moral guardians ever mentioning the abuse that Rik and other Tories frequently get”
well, I’ve raised the point of Rik being attacked too much, sometimes in nasty ways. So you simply don’t recall well enough.
104 Mark Didn’t someone say here the other day that an Independent Scotland would be required to adopt the Euro as a condition for EU entry ?
108 Sorry Max but can’t let that pass. I defended Rik when he was the subject of some particularly unpleasant and unjustified abuse on this site and I wasn’t the only one. I am sure he will confirm this.
[112] Yes, you gay guys have got to stick together against us ‘orrible ‘eteros…
The state of our “miracle economy” will also continue to haunt Gord
Job losses continue - we don’t make things anymore!
BBC News: End of 47 years at Treorchy plant
This week alone: Burberry = 309 (Wales) Solectron electronics = 325 (Wales) Ford = 326 (Midlands) Total = 960 jobs = 960 families
IMHO Gord just ain’t gonna make it to No 10
109. Refer you to end Local thread, interested your views on some seats. BTW Is it not possible for the SNP and Lib Dems to govern on this basis that the SNP are free to put forward a referndum bill and the Lib Dems in conjunction with all other Unionist parties will be free to vote against it. Sounds obvious. Both parties then honour their manifestos.
115 Oi you, Icarus. Not so much of the gay guys! I’ll have you know I face both ways.
106. Very clever. Hadn’t thought of that. It does carry the small risk that the voters will actually vote for independence - against all expectations - that’s the nature of referenda. They are wildly unpredictable. Ask Jacques Chirac and the Dutch government.
But yes, that would certainly shoot the SNP fox, and it would also prevent the further risk of secession Roger talks about above - when and if the Tories regain power in London. If one referendum was lost another one couldn’t really be called for ten years at the very least - more like twenty I think. so it would be 2017 before the next chance. By then the oil will be gone.
I sound like I want to deny Scotland its shot at freedom. I don’t. Good luck to ‘em - if that’s what they want. I’m just very fond of Britain and my Britishness - the most stable and successful union of nations in world history. To throw it away in a fit of family squabbles would, I think, be tragic.
But yes, a very clever idea. Wonder if that’s one of the things Gordo has up his sleeve for his first 100 days.
[118] That’s the second time you’ve called me Icarus…
112 & 114 - Fair enough. But I still think there is very much a tendency for people to portray Tory posters as being uniquely aggresive when in fact we put up with a fair amount of abuse ourselves.
116 Herbert - Yesterday you promised us all something about Milliband ‘reconsidering his position’ or something like that. I don’t remember the exact wording but it was to the effect that he was considering running. Any further news?
I listened eagerly to Any Questions last night but it shed no further light.
119 - Yes, I hope I didn’t seem anti scottish in my post; Im just pro-British. I want them to stay in the union forever
120
Senior moment, IA. Pologies.
106. The May elections are four weeks on Thursday - there isn’t time for Labour, never mind Gordon Brown, to preempt anything that way (which is a good thing as that’s a highly dangerous strategy).
As some have said, there are plenty of examples of viable small north European states, in and out of the EU. The question is not whether Scotland could or could not be successfully independent, but whether it would be to the advantage of Scotland to secede. I suspect that in practice we would find it makes less difference than we might suppose.
Then again England is, perhaps, actually a less naturally unified political entity than Great Britain.
102 - David, I agree that its Britain’s oil today but that isn’t necessarily what it’ll be in 5 years time. An SNP government in Scotland would push for more powers short of independence. It wants fiscal autonomy, less reserved powers. A weakened Scots Labour party might well adopt some of those aims. A minority Conservative or Labour government in the UK in 2010 might well have to offer that.
104 - Mark I generally find your comments well thought through (though sometimes a bit optimistic as regards the LDs) but that post is absolute rubbish. Scotland would either remain in currency union with the UK or join the Euro. Independence is a risk - Scotland could flourish as many other small European nations flourish or it could find that the drain of talent to England (Europe, Australia etc) becomes worse. But now it would have the EU to step in and instead of English taxpayers money going direct it would go via Brussels.
As Blue Moon says the argument for union should be positive not scare stories easily overturned by examples. The United Kingdom has been greater than its parts, it has on the whole been a force for good in the world, it is an institution and nation worth fighting for.
117 - I don’t think that would be acceptable to the SNP.
My politics Clearly I would not be running a site of this nature unless I had strong views. Both Brown and Cameron fail totally in my eyes because they both supported the war. It might have been four years ago but what happened then and which way MPs voted still determines my political views. They were prepared to support an invasion against a country that was not threatening us without UN sanction. This was a criminal act.
Brown is probably more culpable because he could have resigned and that might have led to such pressure on Blair that this catastrophe might not have involved the UK.
If the Tories had elected Ken Clarke or Malcolm Rifkind, or if Labour chooses a leader such as John Denham, the minister who had the guts to resign, then I would take different views of the main parties.
108. Rik was attacked too much and many including Andrea said so. It is difficult if someone doesn’t like you to defend yourself on a site like this without yourself sounding petty. That’s why it’s better done by others. Nonetheless Rik could be pretty robust when he needed to be!
116.”BBC News: End of 47 years at Treorchy plant
This week alone: Burberry = 309 (Wales)”
That somehow produced a 9% swing to Lab in Treorchy byelection yesterday. It must be down to Chris Bryan’t appeal
[124] I get them too…
130 - I agree Rik gets attacked a bit too much (and I plead guilty a bit to that), and I look forward to the day when Rik says Roger gets attacked too much.
121 I should think it would be fair enough, Max. You implied that people like Andrea, me and others are selective in whom we defend against abuse and other displays of ignorance. Bad manners, rudeness and insulting behaviour are completely unjustified whoever they are directed at. There are plenty of posters here he think likewise and act on their beliefs, regardless of political color. You do nobody any favours by implying they choose to defend only those whose politics they favor.
On the topic of independence I do think the death of the Union is a long way off. The current success of the SNP in the polls is IMO largely to do with the unpopularity of the Labour party rather than a groundswell of support for constitutional change.
It may well be that you get a different view from down South but I’m not at all convinced that major change is on the way.
I also have a suspision that Labour will (just) be the largest party at Holyrood after the election due to the large number of constituencies they will still retain.
MPs pension and their retirement age.
As I got something wrong last week, I think I’ve to restore my reputation now.
I seemed to recall the retirement at 60 with 20 years of service opportunity for MPs. And well, from the Leader of the House website
http://www.commonsleader.gov.uk/files/word/Briefing%20Note%20-%20PCPF%20Valuation%20Report%20revised.doc
Go down to page 7. Early retirement on favourable terms: “from age 60, subject to “rule of 80” being satisfied”. Infact after 1991 TSRB reviews it was introduced the following oppurtunity: “Early retirement. Further improved so that pension could be drawn without penalty once the sum of a member’s age and completed years of service totalled 80 or more, subject to a minimum of age 60. This meant, for example, that members could retire at age 62 upon completing 18 years of service”
However I recalled that something has been modified (or at least there were proposals to change the situation) and that’s why I asked if they had it.
And that’s what was changed after 2004:
“Early retirement. Only service up to the later of 1 April 2009 and the next General Election after 5 May 2005 to count towards the qualifying period for favourable early retirement terms. Benefits accrued after the later of 1 April 2009 and the next General Election can generally be drawn before age 65, but only subject to a reduction to reflect the early payment”
134 - Peter I apologise if I caused any offense to you or Andrea. None was intended.
133 Rik’s no shrinking violet, SBS, and can certainly dish it out but I’m sure he would defend others who were subject to excessive abuse and harrassment, just as many defended him, regardless of his political views.
137 No offence taken, Max, but I’m glad the record has been put straight. Apologies not entirely necessary but accepted anyway.