Ed Miliband and the Labour Party

[CheltenhamHacker]

Final Salary pensions destroyed by Gordon Brown.
Presided over the biggest banking crash ever.

I really cba to argue with most of those, but these two are so ridiculous that they have to be jumped on.

Destroyed the final salary pension? The scheme that could NEVER work long term? The scheme that was perfect for baby boomers to have a brilliant retirement but would bankrupt future generations? Yeh, damn him for stopping that. What a fool.

And the GLOBAL banking crash? You really believe that any person or party in power in the UK would have been able to stop that? If you do, then you've truly fallen for propaganda. Badly.

 

[delc]

J

I really cba to argue with most of those, but these two are so ridiculous that they have to be jumped on.

Destroyed the final salary pension? The scheme that could NEVER work long term? The scheme that was perfect for baby boomers to have a brilliant retirement but would bankrupt future generations? Yeh, damn him for stopping that. What a fool.

And the GLOBAL banking crash? You really believe that any person or party in power in the UK would have been able to stop that? If you do, then you've truly fallen for propaganda. Badly.

The final straw for final salary pensions was Gordon Brown abolishing Advanced Corporation Taxes, which meant that pension funds could no longer claim back tax paid on dividend income. Pensions to a large extent depend on compound interest, so even a small loss of income makes a huge difference over 40 years! Agree that pension fund management fees are also too high. :angry:

 

[Foxholer]

I don't think that Ed Miliband is the best leader that the Labour Party could have chosen, but even with a decent leader you have to consider their past record:

Final Salary pensions destroyed by Gordon Brown.
Involved us in two unnecessary, expensive and unwinnable wars.
Ran up a huge fiscal deficit.
Presided over the biggest banking crash ever.
Uncontrolled immigration.
...

Not in a position to comment on the 'previously', so won't - though Thatcher's role, by confrontation, in the destruction of British Industry shouldn't be neglected either.

As for the ones listed..

I believe the 1st 4 would have been foisted on whoever was in charge of the country. It was not so much the Final Salary destruction - which was inevitable and many Pension Funds are still 'in deficit' from unaffordable payouts - but the underhand removal of tax savings from both contributors and companies!

Keep taking the pills btw - not the Red ones of course! :rofl:

 

[delc]

O

Not in a position to comment on the 'previously', so won't - though Thatcher's role, by confrontation, in the destruction of British Industry shouldn't be neglected either.

As for the ones listed..

I believe the 1st 4 would have been foisted on whoever was in charge of the country. It was not so much the Final Salary destruction - which was inevitable and many Pension Funds are still 'in deficit' from unaffordable payouts - but the underhand removal of tax savings from both contributors and companies!

Keep taking the pills btw - not the Red ones of course! :rofl:

I was pensioned off from the privatised Water Industry at the age of 50 1/2, because as a senior employee I counted against their bottom line, whereas at the time the pension fund was allegedly bulging with money. (Nearly every over 50 was thrown out at about the same time, because the company thought it could employ keen young graduates much more cheaply). At the time that was a big drop in income for me, but I managed to get another job, so actually did quite nicely out of it. Having said that I would have much preferred to keep my original job as a Water Scientist because it was interesting, whereas most of the work I did afterwards wasn't. I have already drawn out in pension several times what my pension fund was worth at the time, so I did OK out of it, but I would have much happier if Mrs T hadn't privatised the industry and I could have continued my career up to the normal retirement age!

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

O

I have already drawn out in pension several times what my pension fund was worth at the time, so I did OK out of it,

Sounds like a really good scheme, that couldn't possible have a negative impact on future generations. Damn them for stopping final salary pensions

 

[delc]

Sounds like a really good scheme, that couldn't possible have a negative impact on future generations. Damn them for stopping final salary pensions

As I said, the pension fund had a large surplus at the time and indeed the company had taken a several year 'pension holiday' to reduce this and to make more profit. Unfortunately this didn't apply to us employees, who still had to pay in at 6% of salary.

 

[Foxholer]

Whooosh!! :rofl:

 

[Ethan]

I really cba to argue with most of those, but these two are so ridiculous that they have to be jumped on.

Destroyed the final salary pension? The scheme that could NEVER work long term? The scheme that was perfect for baby boomers to have a brilliant retirement but would bankrupt future generations? Yeh, damn him for stopping that. What a fool.

And the GLOBAL banking crash? You really believe that any person or party in power in the UK would have been able to stop that? If you do, then you've truly fallen for propaganda. Badly.

Blair and Brown continued measures started by Thatcher which allowed the banks to do stuff in the UK that they couldn't do in the US. Hence Lehman Bros and all the others set up offices here. Burgeoning financial services sector, big bonus (most of which evaded tax), booming property prices (likewise) etc. How did that work out?

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

Blair and Brown continued measures started by Thatcher which allowed the banks to do stuff in the UK that they couldn't do in the US. Hence Lehman Bros and all the others set up offices here. Burgeoning financial services sector, big bonus (most of which evaded tax), booming property prices (likewise) etc. How did that work out?

To be picky, I would argue a lot of it avoided tax, rather than evaded but I wasn't around so that is subjective.

If I'm being really picky, your second sentence in no way proves or disproves your first sentence, in that you can't say why they opened offices here.

I'm not defending either Labour or Tories, all I'm saying is you can't blame them for the entire global crash!

 

[Ethan]

To be picky, I would argue a lot of it avoided tax, rather than evaded but I wasn't around so that is subjective.

If I'm being really picky, your second sentence in no way proves or disproves your first sentence, in that you can't say why they opened offices here.

I'm not defending either Labour or Tories, all I'm saying is you can't blame them for the entire global crash!

I don't blame them for the entire crash. The crash was basically due to dodgy banking practices. I blame the politicians for failing to provide adequate safeguards that individual bank failures or bad bets wouldn't have a contagious effect.

 

[Foxholer]

Blair and Brown continued measures started by Thatcher which allowed the banks to do stuff in the UK that they couldn't do in the US. Hence Lehman Bros and all the others set up offices here. Burgeoning financial services sector, big bonus (most of which evaded tax), booming property prices (likewise) etc. How did that work out?

Evaded...No! Avoided? Maybe, but that's legitimate or encouraged even! Bonuses were certainly not 'tax free'! 45% is the current rate, which matches top rate of tax on Salary.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

As a retired Employee Benefits Director I really do not want to get into a debate surrounding the demise of Defined Benefits Pension Schemes.

However, I will say that no one involved so far has come close to the truth. There are and were myriad reasons for their decline and to lay the blame at the door of only one political party is bunkum but then so is the claim that they could not ever be sustained.

Nearly as wide of the mark as suggesting that Lehmans were subject to much less regulation in the UK compared with USA. Again, utter tosh.

 

[Ethan]

As a retired Employee Benefits Director I really do not want to get into a debate surrounding the demise of Defined Benefits Pension Schemes.

However, I will say that no one involved so far has come close to the truth. There are and were myriad reasons for their decline and to lay the blame at the door of only one political party is bunkum but then so is the claim that they could not ever be sustained.

Nearly as wide of the mark as suggesting that Lehmans were subject to much less regulation in the UK compared with USA. Again, utter tosh.

OK, so you know all the answers but can't say? Heard that one before.

Saying things like tosh is not the same was actually providing coherent arguments. Could I suggest balderdash as your next step?

Since you know it all, could you explain why the Big Bang, the creation of the (as Private Eye calls them) Fundamentally Supine Authority and other deregulation did not lead to problems, and what instead did? Nigel Lawson and Gordon Brown both seems to believe this set of changes to empower the UK finance sector were important parts of the economic crisis. Do they not know as much about it as you?

As for Lehmans and UK versus US, it was precisely because of differences between UK and US that they set up here, namely removal of regulations similar to the US Glass-Stagall Act separating investment and deposit/retail banking.

It is utter tosh and delusional to think otherwise, whether or not you are a retired employee benefits director.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

OK, so you know all the answers but can't say? Heard that one before.

Saying things like tosh is not the same was actually providing coherent arguments. Could I suggest balderdash as your next step?

Since you know it all, could you explain why the Big Bang, the creation of the (as Private Eye calls them) Fundamentally Supine Authority and other deregulation did not lead to problems, and what instead did? Nigel Lawson and Gordon Brown both seems to believe this set of changes to empower the UK finance sector were important parts of the economic crisis. Do they not know as much about it as you?

As for Lehmans and UK versus US, it was precisely because of differences between UK and US that they set up here, namely removal of regulations similar to the US Glass-Stagall Act separating investment and deposit/retail banking.

It is utter tosh and delusional to think otherwise, whether or not you are a retired employee benefits director.

So in medical matters or on the subject of the NHS we are to defer to your expertise but you do not feel it necessary to extend that courtesy elsewhere,

You are truly the most pompous, self- important man with whom I have ever had contact. You cannot even be bothered to read other's posts before responding by referencing, of all sources, Private Eye.

If Messrs. Lawson & Brown truly believe that then why did they neither act when they had the opportunity. I happen to believe that de-regulation of the financial sector went way too far but that action had very little to do with the demise of Defined Benefits schemes.

As for Lehmans did they not continue to be a US owned and controlled corporation with their HQ in New York until their collapse.

 

[delc]

For many years final salary pension schemes were perfect affordable and even in surplus, until everyone from Robert Maxwell to Gordon Brown started raiding their funds! :angry:

 

[Ethan]

So in medical matters or on the subject of the NHS we are to defer to your expertise but you do not feel it necessary to extend that courtesy elsewhere,

You are truly the most pompous, self- important man with whom I have ever had contact. You cannot even be bothered to read other's posts before responding by referencing, of all sources, Private Eye.

If Messrs. Lawson & Brown truly believe that then why did they neither act when they had the opportunity. I happen to believe that de-regulation of the financial sector went way too far but that action had very little to do with the demise of Defined Benefits schemes.

As for Lehmans did they not continue to be a US owned and controlled corporation with their HQ in New York until their collapse.

Arrogant? Mr Pot, I presume. You swanned on here pontificating that that you were above commenting on deferred benefits but you knew the truth behind the economic collapse. If that isn't arrogance and self-importance, I don't think I have ever seen it. You have yet to show you know anything more than can be gleaned from Wikipedia. Deferring to expertise only occurs when someone offers some. Happy to hear your take on it all.

Lawson and Brown recognised (reluctantly, in Brown's case) these effects after the fact. At the time they were caught up in the same boom.

As you know, the UK Lehmans operation was a different trading entity, so the US operation was not necessarily going to fall over at the same time, but it was so over-leveraged that it was only a matter of time. About a month, as it happened.

 

[delc]

The latest spiffing idea from Red Ed and Co is to remove the tax breaks for private schools. These are allowed on the perfectly reasonable premise that children in such schools are not a drain on the State education budget. This may appeal to their core voters who live in council houses up North somewhere, but it doesn't to me. No current interests in private schools btw, but I was partly privately educated as a boy.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Arrogant? Mr Pot, I presume. You swanned on here pontificating that that you were above commenting on deferred benefits but you knew the truth behind the economic collapse.

Massive difference between "defined" and "deferred".

My point was that the reasons for the demise of these schemes are many and varied, and far too boring to go into in depth. However, a previous post had suggested that it was all attributable to Gordon Brown; not true and another stated that they were completely unsustainable; again not true.

Other reasons include greater life expectancy, falling Gilt Yields, unrealistic actuarial assumptions, financial demands upon schemes arising from preservation of benefits, employers being allowed and, in some cases, obliged to take "contribution holidays" etc; etc;

Having re-read my original post I fail to see where I suggested I knew the secret behind the global financial crash, perhaps you could enlighten me.

 

[Foxholer]

As you know, the UK Lehmans operation was a different trading entity, so the US operation was not necessarily going to fall over at the same time, but it was so over-leveraged that it was only a matter of time. About a month, as it happened.

Er. You have it Arse about Face!

Lehmans US filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy at 1:55 September 15th in New York

Lehmans UK and Europe main 4 operations went into Administration shortly afterward - 7:56 in London.

Here's the timeline http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/6173145/The-collapse-of-Lehman-Brothers.html
I can even remember some of those pics!

Here's some info from the UK Administrators http://www.pwc.co.uk/business-recovery/administrations/lehman/lehman-faq.jhtml

 

[Foxholer]

The latest spiffing idea from Red Ed and Co is to remove the tax breaks for private schools. These are allowed on the perfectly reasonable premise that children in such schools are not a drain on the State education budget. This may appeal to their core voters who live in council houses up North somewhere, but it doesn't to me. No current interests in private schools btw, but I was partly privately educated as a boy.

Another distortion, from what i've read!

The deal also involved by Private Schools assisting State ones, something that has not happened sufficiently, at least not according to Labour's statements. If that's the case, Labour's approach is quite reasonable.

Labour is, of course, obsessed with killing off the Private (or is it 'Public'?!) School system and educating everyone equally (badly?).

Given your previous comments about Labour, I don't believe you are likely to b a convert anyway!