Plan to change private pension inflation link

Andy_L

tomterm8 wrote: »

Um... you do understand that in the UK, the government gets to change the law*? That they intend, by fiat, to change the law? That, once they have changed the law this won't be illegal?

Unless, of course, its overruled by the courts, the Lords or the EU

A._Badger

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

No, the reason Gove screwed up is because he rushed through a decision too quickly without proper consultation. Were he competent, he would have spent more time making the decision and consulted with the affected schools to bring in alternative funding methods for those schools in the most need.

What evdence is there to support your claim? Gove's error lay in the quality of the information he offered. There was one source for that infiomation.

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Trying to blame other people...reminds me of someone...

Gordon Brown, or Peter Madelson, perhaps?

I've no fondness for Gove - in fact I consider him an obnoxious little twerp.

Then again, I've even less fondness for our politicised civil service.

tincans

A._Badger wrote: »

Well there are always new games for our 'impartial' civil servants to play. Like feeding Michael Gove duff information...

Well instead of Tory politicians rushing around like headless chickens trying to do 5-10 years work in 3 months, they could slow down and have a bit more scrutiny.
The Building Schools programme is about 8 years old & they have access to civil servants since before the election, so no real excuse - but of course it always someone else's fault.

Pinko liberals in the civil service or BBC no doubt.

tincans

A._Badger wrote: »

Then again, I've even less fondness for our politicised civil service.

Is there any part of Britain where you don't see "reds under the bed".

A._Badger

tincans wrote: »

Is there any part of Britain where you don't see "reds under the bed".

Certainly not here, that's for sure. You're out in plain daylight for all to see. A wholly unsurprising number of the Leftist views being posted by civil servants, too.

Sir_Humphrey

Malcolm. wrote: »

How's things in the civil service Humphrey?

Is it stressful with a new government alongside proposed cuts?

It is likely that the headcount in the civil service will be reduced by 20-25% before the end of the current financial year.

It is unlikely I would be one of them (for several reasons), but if it did happen to me, I would be sitting on about two years net pay based on my current savings and what I would get from the CSCS. Not what I would choose, but not exactly a hole in the head.

Despite all that, private sector workers should be far more worried - according to figures from the budget, the total job losses in the private sector will be the same (in numbers, not %), and I do not think that includes second-round losses and assumes there is no new recession.

Remember - divide and rule!

vivatifosi

Finally we have some detail on pensions from the FT:
Experts relieved on pension indexing

By Norma Cohen, Economics Correspondent
Published: July 9 2010 20:17

But on Friday the Department for Work and Pensions was at pains to explain the limits of its new rules. Most significantly, they do not affect most private sector occupational schemes, which offer inflation protection above the statutory minimum. They also apply only to benefits that accrue from next April; anything earned to date is protected.....

....Section 67 of the 1995 act says employers cannot re-duce accrued benefits without the permission of the scheme member. “There are a lot of schemes out there with more generous uplifts than the statutory minimum,” Mr Simmons said. “This stuff won’t change. I’d be gobsmacked if it did.”

Shame they didn't have the good sense to put this on the Pension Regulator's website yesterday morning.

Spartacus_Mills

A._Badger wrote: »

What evdence is there to support your claim? Gove's error lay in the quality of the information he offered. There was one source for that infiomation.




Gordon Brown, or Peter Madelson, perhaps?

I've no fondness for Gove - in fact I consider him an obnoxious little twerp.

Then again, I've even less fondness for our politicised civil service.

The source for that information being a Quango set up by Labour.

I agree with your sentiment on the civil service.

This is a decent article on the schools building issue.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/matthewd_ancona/7883408/It-is-easier-to-promise-shiny-schools-than-better-teaching.html

For me the scrapping of PFI schemes where possible is a good thing.

Sir_Humphrey

All incoming governments have this paranoia about the civil service.

Whatever we personally think of governments, we still serve them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7883298/Michael-Gove-ignored-official-advice-in-school-building-row.html

The Sunday Telegraph has learnt that at a series of meetings last weekend Mr Gove was repeatedly warned by top officials that the £55 billion Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme was a minefield which could not simply be abandoned at a stroke.
The minister was advised he should simply announce his intention to axe the programme – and should also say he was launching a consultation exercise with local education authorities.

Gove should have trusted his officials.

A._Badger

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

All incoming governments have this paranoia about the civil service.

Whatever we personally think of governments, we still serve them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7883298/Michael-Gove-ignored-official-advice-in-school-building-row.html



Gove should have trusted his officials.

No, Gove should have trusted no one.

The immortal words of the Telepgraph's article say it all: "The Sunday Telegraph has learnt that...."

From whom? A 'Sir Humphry'? One of Ed Balls' henchmen? One of Ed Balls' henchmen tipped-off by a 'Sir Humphry'? A Tory with a brain, who dislikes Gove?

The 'still we serve' line is filed away under 'humour - black'.