|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Jeremy Corbyn out?
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Because we only recently got one member, one vote ?
Interesting. That implies you define "the levers of power" as being "power in the Labour party" rather than "power in the country". In parliamentary elections we've had one member one vote since about 1928.
I would have said that you have to win a general election to have power.
I define getting someone with his views into the shadow cabinet / or cabinet as requiring a one member one vote system in the labour party, to be at all likely.
If labour was in government under Ed Milliband, Brown or Blair, prior to the one member one vote system - Corbyn would not have been in cabinet.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Because we only recently got one member, one vote ?
Interesting. That implies you define "the levers of power" as being "power in the Labour party" rather than "power in the country". In parliamentary elections we've had one member one vote since about 1928.
I would have said that you have to win a general election to have power.
I define getting someone with his views into the shadow cabinet / or cabinet as requiring a one member one vote system in the labour party, to be at all likely.
If labour was in government under Ed Milliband, Brown or Blair, prior to the one member one vote system - Corbyn would not have been in cabinet.
I agree with you that without the current Labour Party electoral system Jeremy Corbyn would not have been elected.
But does what you say mean that you consider "being in the shadow cabinet" to be the definition of having the levers of power?
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
While on the one hand Labour abolished dividend tax relief, which reduced the rate at which pension pots would grow, but on the other they introduced pension tax credits, which are available to all pensioners.
"Steal our pensions" is hyperbole.
He took Ł5 billion from private pension funds, which directly led to the mass closure of final-salary schemes and a dramatic reduction in the value of a lot of people's pensions. Creating a new scheme that tops up pensions if they're below a certain threshold is hardly compensation for that.
If the Conservatives had done something with such a deleterious effect on pensions you'd be screaming from the rooftops about how evil they were.
The Conservatives allowed "Pension holidays" to permit companies to reduce and sometimes raid the pension funds of their employees and existing pensioners. When so many companies went tits up in more difficult times (eg, ever since the 1990 recession) the depleted fund went with it leaving a lot of people with much smaller pensions if anything at all.
Better state pensions, which the additional tax received by abolishing dividend tax relief has done, are a way out of this mess, and to be honest, annuity rates have fallen so far that private pension pots are rarely worth much to any other than high earners (Ł100,000+ pa).
As far as I can tell the Tories haven't reintroduced dividend tax relief.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Because we only recently got one member, one vote ?
Interesting. That implies you define "the levers of power" as being "power in the Labour party" rather than "power in the country". In parliamentary elections we've had one member one vote since about 1928.
I would have said that you have to win a general election to have power.
I define getting someone with his views into the shadow cabinet / or cabinet as requiring a one member one vote system in the labour party, to be at all likely.
If labour was in government under Ed Milliband, Brown or Blair, prior to the one member one vote system - Corbyn would not have been in cabinet.
I agree with you that without the current Labour Party electoral system Jeremy Corbyn would not have been elected.
But does what you say mean that you consider "being in the shadow cabinet" to be the definition of having the levers of power?
I mean that if the opposition win an election, it's the shadow cabinet who end up in government. If you can't get into your party's leadership in opposition, you are unlikely to have a role in its leadership in government.
The fact that the membership have been to the left of new labour, means that Corbyn did not have a chance of being positioned in such a way as to hold a government position prior to one member one vote within the labour party.
In other words, I think it is his political ideas that have kept him out of the labour leadership (including when it actually was the government) no one has been in any position to make judgements about his leadership competence prior to 2015 - it has been about his political position. (Which is one of the reasons those who voted for him have been so sceptical about the competence claims.)
[ 29. July 2016, 12:54: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If the Conservatives had done something with such a deleterious effect on pensions you'd be screaming from the rooftops about how evil they were.
Under Nigel Lawson's spell as Chancellor the Tories originally introduced legislation to tax 'surpluses' in pension pots (the surpluses generally only existed because people had yet to draw down pensions, and the figures used for growth in actuarial calculations were optimistic to say the least). The legislation around Minimum Funding (also introduced by the tories) allowed employers to boost profits by underfunding pension schemes (to the estimated value of around Ł18bn).
Brown changed the regulation around Advanced Corporation Tax, but relief had already been reduced by Tory governments during the 1990s.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
He took Ł5 billion from private pension funds, which directly led to the mass closure of final-salary schemes and a dramatic reduction in the value of a lot of people's pensions.
The primary cause of the mass closure of final salary pension schemes was the significant improvement in both pre-retirement and post-retirement mortality rates. Put simply, more people were living to retirement age than expected, and then after retirement were living longer than expected. The Ł5 billion was an additional blow, but it was a drop in the bucket compared with the long term cost effect of these changes on funded pension schemes. Final salary pension schemes could no longer be afforded without massively increasing employees' and employers' contributions percentages.
[ 29. July 2016, 14:12: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
My thanks to chris stiles and Barnabas62 for clarifying the pension contribution situation. I was going from simple recollection.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Jeremy hasn't had his hands on the levers of power so that's meaningless.
I wonder why that might be?
Your tacit acknowledgement of your mineralogical comparison of chalk and oranges is noted.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Jeremy hasn't had his hands on the levers of power so that's meaningless.
I wonder why that might be?
Your tacit acknowledgement of your mineralogical comparison of chalk and oranges is noted.
I was going to say "in the Kingdom of the blind", then realised the unfortunate implications. "Hyperion to a satyr" is probably over doing it. Perhaps the nearest analogy might be some Senator, towards the end of the Roman Empire, elevated to the purple by a barbarian conspiracy, whose power was a mere shadow, fancying himself, because of his title of Augustus, to be, in some way, comparable to the original holder of the office.
Jeremy Corbyn, the Glycerius, de nos jours. I'm not sure who that makes Brown. Probably Majorian, although a case could be made for Julian the Apostate.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
So well educated. Us comprehensive types are more interested in free school dinners and not bombing Syria, rather than Corbyno fucking delenda est.
[ETA got the expletive after the predicative adjective in first draft]
[ 29. July 2016, 17:40: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Because we only recently got one member, one vote ?
Interesting. That implies you define "the levers of power" as being "power in the Labour party" rather than "power in the country". In parliamentary elections we've had one member one vote since about 1928.
I would have said that you have to win a general election to have power.
That's one of the many big reasons why I've got not time for Jeremy Corbyn or his ilk. His claquist understanding of democracy and where a legitimate mandate comes from is 100% at variance with mine.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I think you are missing the point, which was explained over the course of the exchange after the quoted post.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think you are missing the point, which was explained over the course of the exchange after the quoted post.
I don't think I am.
I accept that there's a subsidiary point about how a political party arranges its internal affairs. But the deeper one is that it appears fairly clear to many of us that Jeremy Corbyn does regard his primary accountability as leader of the Labour Party as to his supporters in the party rather than the electors of Islington North, or the national electorate in respect of his role as Leader of the Opposition.
It is very difficult for those of us who are not totally sold on him already, to believe other than that if he were to become PM, he would still regard himself and his party as primarily there to implement the wishes of his own claque group.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
...
about how a political party arranges its internal affairs. But the deeper one is that it appears fairly clear to many of us that Jeremy Corbyn does regard his primary accountability as leader of the Labour Party as to his supporters in the party rather than the electors of Islington North, or the national electorate in respect of his role as Leader of the Opposition. ...[/QB]
Surely his accountability to the electors of Islington North is (almost totally) in his capacity of a local MP, rather than as leader. And conversely in his capacity of a local MP he has (almost no) authority from the labour party members. (with a little bit of a fudge, as there will be some consequences of having two hats). And I'm not aware of him having done anything to suggest that he's put not aware of that, on the contrary he's been in trouble a few times for attending his constituency duties.
If he became PM, presumably that would be on an election, that would include the entire population.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
So well educated. Us comprehensive types are more interested in free school dinners and not bombing Syria, rather than Corbyno fucking delenda est.
[ETA got the expletive after the predicative adjective in first draft]
I can quote Hamlet because the local comprehensive made me study it at 'A' Level and I acquired an interest in Roman history from watching 'I, Claudius' on the telly and reading the books on the subject in the school library in my free periods.
My objection to Corbynism is not based on education - plenty of people are better educated than me, and plenty of the people who are worse educated than me are better people - or even intelligence, apparently I'm one of the cleverer members of the clergy, based on my scores at ABM, but I think that is more of a terrible indictment of the Church of England rather than anything else - but about intellectual curiosity.
Frankly, I have no particular interest in becoming a Councillor or Member of Parliament, let alone Prime Minister but I am sufficiently intellectually curious to take some interest in how the country is run and how politics actually works. It's actually embarrassing that we now have an opposition led by a man who thinks his saloon bar prejudices, because we cannot dignify them with any better description than that, are any substitute for understanding how the country is governed or how the world works, supported by people who think that expressing their saloon bar prejudices makes one remotely plausible as a candidate to govern the country. You simply cannot fucking turn up, announce 'behold my superior virtue, Oh muggles and bow down before me' and expect the British electorate to think, 'oh, good point, we didn't vote for your predecessor because we thought he was too left wing and wasn't up to it, but we'll vote for you because you're even more left wing and even less up to it".
If you are concerned about free school meals then, Nick Clegg, frankly is your go to guy. I'm not sure what, if anything, Corbyn has achieved on this score. If you are concerned about not bombing Syria, then I seem to recall that Ed Miliband persuaded the PLP to vote against and Corbyn couldn't. But by all means share your indignation about what the Tories are actually doing, whilst making it possible for them to keep doing it for the next decade or so.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
...
about how a political party arranges its internal affairs. But the deeper one is that it appears fairly clear to many of us that Jeremy Corbyn does regard his primary accountability as leader of the Labour Party as to his supporters in the party rather than the electors of Islington North, or the national electorate in respect of his role as Leader of the Opposition. ...
Surely his accountability to the electors of Islington North is (almost totally) in his capacity of a local MP, rather than as leader. And conversely in his capacity of a local MP he has (almost no) authority from the labour party members. (with a little bit of a fudge, as there will be some consequences of having two hats). And I'm not aware of him having done anything to suggest that he's put not aware of that, on the contrary he's been in trouble a few times for attending his constituency duties.
If he became PM, presumably that would be on an election, that would include the entire population. [/QB]
Well, no. As Orfeo often points out, in a system of parliamentary democracy, you cast your vote for the candidates in your electorate. Of course that vote will normally be for a candidate who is a member of a political party and your choice may well be influenced by your opinion of the present leader of that party. But it may not - at our recent federal elections, there would have been quite a few voters for a Liberal Party candidate who, for a variety of reasons, find it difficult to stomach the present leader of that party. They did so because they preferred the overall policies of that party. They also knew that Malcolm Turnbull had had substantial experience in ministerial roles as well as in private enterprise
With Corbyn as leader, OTOH, they would have to vote for a candidate whose party is led by someone whose experience has been as an organiser for a couple of unions and a member of a local health authority. The sum total of this part of his background looks to be 7 or 8 years at the most in what are pretty minor roles. He has sat on 2 or 3 committees. Not a promising start. Then they would have to vote for a platform of policies which introduce a substantial move away from the overall trend of Labour policies for well over 2 decades. Indeed, if you ignore the difficulties Labour had in the 1980s, a Corbyn led party would go to the electorate with a more radical platform than had any previous Labour campaign.
While Corbyn will probably obtain a high vote in this leadership battle, that simply will not translate into a vote for Labour candidates in the next few general elections. Indeed Corbyn will have to finish his political career with an entrenched Tory govt on his conscience.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I would be interested in knowing what, in either Smith's or Corbyn's platform is consider 'hard left', 'unelectable' or especially radical:
Here's an analysis of Smith's 20 pledges: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/owen-smith-makes-20-pledges-8502852
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Without even looking Doublethink, nothing. Jeremy's policies are entirely reasonable, democratic, utilitarian, realistic, empowering, liberating, achievable, just, fair, equitable, peaceful, irenic, good, honest, decent, inclusive. Christian. Christ-like. How that can be characterized as 'extreme' is beyond me. Although it always was.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chamois
Shipmate
# 16204
|
Posted
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
I accept that there's a subsidiary point about how a political party arranges its internal affairs. But the deeper one is that it appears fairly clear to many of us that Jeremy Corbyn does regard his primary accountability as leader of the Labour Party as to his supporters in the party rather than the electors of Islington North, or the national electorate in respect of his role as Leader of the Opposition.
Please don't drag the electors of Islington North into this discussion. We've been electing Jeremy Corbyn as our MP continuously for what is it, about 35 years now. The evidence of Corbyn's continuing substantial majority indicates that, no doubt for a variety of individual reasons, we are very happy with his performance as our MP.
Corbyn's election as party leader is a separate issue. Nobody should be in any doubt about his continuing, long-term record of competence in representing his constituency to the satisfaction of the vast majority of his voters.
--------------------
The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases
Posts: 978 | From: Hill of roses | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
A recent thing that Corbyn said that made me sit up was medical research should be "funded through the Medical Research Council (MRC) and not farmed out to big pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer."
McDonnell said this has been misinterpreted (although I can't think of any interpretation that makes sense) and that research could be better coordinated through the MRC.
This is an area I know something about and it makes no sense. It sounds like sounding-off without really having a plan or knowing the facts. I expect it was prompted by having a dig at Owen Smith with his Pfizer links but without really thinking it through.
The MRC and Pfizer do different research. MRC funds research that would never be commercially viable, and is probably one of the leading funders of such research in the world. The UK should be very proud of the MRC and it is pretty well funded.
Companies bring very much greater resources to bear on developing products that might make them money. The MRC doesn't have the resources to do this, and most academics don't have the regulatory and manufacturing expertise to be in the same game. I can't imagine how the MRC could take on elements of this, why it would be desirable, and how they could coordinate it. Companies will make decisions based on commercial interest and this can't be coordinated by government.
This happens to be the one area I know about. I know it is a tiny part of government but it does seem to be consistent with what others have said about Corbyn and team's technical competence in developing policy.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Without even looking Doublethink, nothing. Jeremy's policies are entirely reasonable, democratic, utilitarian, realistic, empowering, liberating, achievable, just, fair, equitable, peaceful, irenic, good, honest, decent, inclusive. Christian. Christ-like. How that can be characterized as 'extreme' is beyond me. Although it always was.
I note "realistic". Policies guide strategies and implementation plans. The journey between ends and means requires both craft and competence in leadership. I think that is the real centre of the dispute between Jeremy and the PLP.
As noted earlier, there were indeed some New Labour policies which were, or could be argued to be, at variance with or compromised away from Labour policies and principles. There were two reasons for those. "Third Way" synthesism between capitalism and socialism, and practical electability.
But in the present situation, those areas of policy aren't the real issue.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
(Crosspost replying to major)
It is certainly a complex area, but things like the scandal over sertraline suggest to me that some additional oversight would be useful. Also a fair number of drugs are still used off label because it has never been commercially viable to put them through the processes to recommend wider prescribing.
I was astonished that the epilepsy society guidelines mention in passing that using buccal* midazolam as a rescue medication is an off label use.
(Originally auto correct gave this as buccaneer's midazolam which I rather like.)
[ 31. July 2016, 08:54: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
And the MRC does currently fund trials of "off-label" uses of drugs, particularly when they are off-patent and therefore there is no financial incentive to companies.
But the MRC has nothing to do with oversight of the use of drugs. There is a regulator that does that. There are failures of regulation and I wouldn't like to pretend there is anything other than a massive problem with drug companies developing drugs. But what Corbyn said doesn't make logical sense or address that problem.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Without even looking Doublethink, nothing. Jeremy's policies are entirely reasonable, democratic, utilitarian, realistic, empowering, liberating, achievable, just, fair, equitable, peaceful, irenic, good, honest, decent, inclusive. Christian. Christ-like. How that can be characterized as 'extreme' is beyond me. Although it always was.
I note "realistic". Policies guide strategies and implementation plans. The journey between ends and means requires both craft and competence in leadership. I think that is the real centre of the dispute between Jeremy and the PLP.
As noted earlier, there were indeed some New Labour policies which were, or could be argued to be, at variance with or compromised away from Labour policies and principles. There were two reasons for those. "Third Way" synthesism between capitalism and socialism, and practical electability.
But in the present situation, those areas of policy aren't the real issue.
Leadership is in the eye of the beholder. I behold it in Jeremy. Capitalism is the path to socialism, so I'm all in favour of rent to buy.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Leadership is in the eye of the beholder. I behold it in Jeremy.
You and at least a quarter of a million others. But what is it that you behold which convinces you of his leadership abilities?
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Capitalism is the path to socialism, so I'm all in favour of rent to buy.
That sounds like socialism as the path to capitalism!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Phantom Flan Flinger
Shipmate
# 8891
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
He took Ł5 billion from private pension funds, which directly led to the mass closure of final-salary schemes and a dramatic reduction in the value of a lot of people's pensions.
The primary cause of the mass closure of final salary pension schemes was the significant improvement in both pre-retirement and post-retirement mortality rates. Put simply, more people were living to retirement age than expected, and then after retirement were living longer than expected. The Ł5 billion was an additional blow, but it was a drop in the bucket compared with the long term cost effect of these changes on funded pension schemes. Final salary pension schemes could no longer be afforded without massively increasing employees' and employers' contributions percentages.
Or they could have been afforded by not paying multi-million pound bonuses to the few at the top, or by making less profit...
--------------------
http://www.faith-hope-and-confusion.com/
Posts: 1020 | From: Leicester, England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
The Phantom Flan Finger
This is a bit long in the tooth.
Nevertheless it provides the following startling information
quote:
An extra year of life for a retired person typically means a pension scheme must increase its stock of assets by 3% to 4% to generate the necessary extra income.
The actuarial firm Aon Hewitt said that the latest data would add another Ł5bn to the cost of funding occupational pension schemes in the UK.
.
What was that latest data? That men aged 65 were now expected on average to live 0.4 years longer and women 0.8 years more than previously expected. Such marginal changes added another Ł5 billion to costs.
The article also gives you some idea of the longer term trends. In the last 9 years, male mortality rates have improved by 29%, female mortality rates by 20%.
And you can see more detailed information here.
A man who survived to 65 in 1982 could expect to live 13 years. By 2013 that figure was 18 years. For a woman aged 65 the figures were 17 and 21.
That means that the cost of paying out pensioners has increased by a quarter in 30 years. Plus the chances of making it to 65 have increased from about 80% to over 90%. That's a lot more survivors making it to about pensionable age. That will add a hefty additional liability to the pension funds.
The pension costs of mortality improvements in the last quarter of a century or so are absolutely huge and any alleviation by knocking down top executive salaries or profits would have made only a marginal difference. And the effect is ongoing.
The demographic time bomb is still ticking ..
[ 01. August 2016, 11:57: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Leadership is in the eye of the beholder. I behold it in Jeremy.
You and at least a quarter of a million others. But what is it that you behold which convinces you of his leadership abilities?
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Capitalism is the path to socialism, so I'm all in favour of rent to buy.
That sounds like socialism as the path to capitalism!
I was wondering who'd spot that. It's a spiralling cycle B. You sell socialism NOW with capitalism tomorrow. One day it won't be capitalism you're selling, but post-scarcity economics. As Marx said. The Sixth Stage. Pure stateless, classless, property-less communism.
[ 01. August 2016, 23:44: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
That's the underpants gnomes version of the Communist Manifesto.
1/ Elect Corbyn 2/ umm? 3/ Onwards to full communism comrades!
Meanwhile, an economist from the reality based community would like a word.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Corbyn is not a communist.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
I suspect you are in a minority in the country as a whole. Sadly.
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Sorry B! Didn't answer on Jeremy's leadership. PMQT. Is there any other criterion? What do you bring to the party B? I see him as a breath of fresh air, courageous, consistent, coherent. That's psychoenergetic leadership that. I can't see any failure of leadership at all. I like his style, the cut of his jib and that of John McDonnell, Andy Burnham, Richard Burgon.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
I suspect you are in a minority in the country as a whole. Sadly.
Like Doublethink, I'd rather be in the minority than mistaken. Like on June 23rd.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
This is the problem with current political discourse, everything is treated as pure opinion - infinitely contestable. There are clear definitions of what a communist manifesto would be - I believe there's a rather famous book of that name - Corbyn's policy positions, voting history, rhetoric etc have never been communist. He is a democratic socialist. I am equally confident in saying he is not a nazi, or an English nationalist.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I think Callan's post was in response to Martin's immediately above it, which does appear to imply that Martin sees electing Corbyn as a step towards Communism.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Sorry B! Didn't answer on Jeremy's leadership. PMQT. Is there any other criterion? What do you bring to the party B? I see him as a breath of fresh air, courageous, consistent, coherent. That's psychoenergetic leadership that. I can't see any failure of leadership at all. I like his style, the cut of his jib and that of John McDonnell, Andy Burnham, Richard Burgon.
Ah yes, Mr Burnham, the only Health Secretary to have actually privatised a hospital. The man for whom 'These are my principles; if you don't like them I have others' could have been coined.
But that doesn't matter; sticking to your principles is the absolute supreme virtue only if your principles match Jeremy's. If you stick to any other principles you're a Blairite traitor.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Personally I think Corbyn has a lot of interesting stuff to say and on some really big policy issues (like not bombing Syria or going to war in Iraq) he is part of the only group in politics to say what I want to hear. I'd like to believe but unfortunately I found it increasingly difficult to, and now impossible.
What worries me are stories like this, this, this, and this.
It does point to a pattern of disorganization, a failure to engage and follow through on developing policy, and an inability to think in terms of a party structure rather than individuals.
When taken together with the fact that there was a period when he could appoint a shadow cabinet, and now a period where he's clearly struggling, it worries me that he just can't do political negotiation and organization. He can be right on some of the big issues but just not execute on the details of running the show.
What do those who remain thoroughly supportive make of this? Are these stories just put-up jobs to make him look bad or just irrelevant? Help thou my unbelief.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I don't particularly want to vote for Corbyn, but I do want to vote with those hundreds of thousands of people who got him elected, who went to hear him speak, who represent the most hopeful thing to have happened in UK politics for fifty years.
Why is the PLP obsessed with finding the one true leader? Everyone has deficiencies, but if there is a will, then a collegiate approach can make them good. There needs to be a will on both sides, of course, and I see no evidence of it on either. Judgement is hard, though, when we're peering through the distortions of the media.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Martin60
mdijon's links and indeed his post represent my views re leadership. I also agree in principle with hatless's post. There is no such thing as a perfect leader and the collegiate approach enables the best use of the strengths and weaknesses of any leader.
Unfortunately, Jeremy's whole parliamentary career and to some extent his life outside parliament mark him out as a non-dominant loner. IME loners have as much difficulty with collegiate leadership as dominant types.
I don't like dominant leader types either BTW. Mrs Thatcher's claim to be able to sum people up in 15 seconds is a classic example of the kind of delusion to which they are prone.
Although it is cynical, there is something in the view that isolate leadership types are either controlled paranoiacs or controlled psychopaths. The fearful and the fearsome who control by fear. Collegiate approaches are much easier for non-isolates.
I use this quote a lot to illustrate the dangers of isolate leadership. "If you put away those who seek to tell you the truth those who remain will know what you want to hear". Another one is this. "First class people appoint first class people. Second class people appoint third class people". Non-isolate leaders are not afraid of divergent opinions powerfully expressed by team members. The resulting debates leads to better thought out policies. And creates precisely the sort of give and take which makes teams work well. People will walk through fire for leaders who generate that kind of working environment, are not afraid of it.
Does Jeremy have what it takes to be a successful isolate leader or a successful collegiate leader? I really don't think so. This isn't all about the media and the PLP MPs gunning for him.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
If this is true it points to incredibly poor leadership.
It rings true to me, as whenever I've seen him on TV he seems to have a 'pretend it's not happening and it'll go away' attitude.
[fixed link]
[ 03. August 2016, 07:18: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
"Some people have said that I’m lying. That I’ve made it up.” She gives a weary laugh. “But you couldn’t make it up, could you?”
Perhaps one person could be making it up but I doubt they all are and it fits with those in the party who tried to work with him all giving up as well.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless;
Why is the PLP obsessed with finding the one true leader?
Perhaps it's not the perfect leader the PLP wants, just someone who's got some hope of winning a general election! Last week's opinion poll makes grim reading for Labour. OK so the Tories ended their leadership contest quite bloodlessly, while Labour is hemorrhaging, but these figures suggest a repetition of 1983. A woman in 10 Downing Street and a Marxist numpty in charge of the opposition. This can only have the same result. A Tory landslide.
As in the 1980's and 90's, when Labour got fed up of losing elections, it repackaged its image, and the same will happen here unless it dumps Corbyn asap. He is simply not someone who the British public will ever trust to be PM, however much idealogical Labour activists love him. Unless Labour recovers its Scottish support, which at present seems unlikely, it has a mountain to climb in order to win a British election. This isn't goint to happen under Corbyn, and the PLP knows this.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
That worked for Kinnock didn't it?
And thank you B. Nice analysis. And I'm afraid it's happening! The shambles over Thangam Debbonaire is ... shambolic.
[ 03. August 2016, 09:06: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
B62, your description of Corbyn as an non-dominant loner, an isolate, rings true to me. I think that's a weakness in him that does rule him out as an effective leader, because it means he won't work collegiately - as we have seen.
However, it also, I think, explains his appeal. Corbyn came from nowhere, like a newly discovered Dalai Lama. Hardly any of the throngs who voted for him had heard of him before he was nominated. He was not part of the media groomed Westminster world. He was different - as a loner would be.
Crucially, he lacked the anxiety about electability, the revolting desire to please and be loved. As a loner he had a strength without arrogance or manipulation, and people responded.
Trump and Farage are also free of the desire to please and be loved. They will say anything, and this attracts some people, although they are full of arrogance and pride.
Politicians look weak. Most of our problems are international, and our politicians are national. On their own they can do very little about climate change, migration, corporate tax evasion or recessions. They are also in thrall to the media circus, which picks up on anything unusual or different (news), and picks over it, judges it, and generally denounces it. You can't step out of line. The Overton window has shrunk to a porthole.
Only it's all bluff. The media has no real power, and doesn't even understand public opinion. People want change and a change in style.
Corbyn .. yeah, problem, mm, I suppose not. But Owen Smith? Who? Why him? What's that about?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
That worked for Kinnock didn't it?
It didn't work for Kinnock because (a) the process of becoming electable again takes a very, very long time and (b) the Tories recognise when their leader is a liability and dump him/her without sentiment or ceremony. Kinnock might well have beaten Thatcher in 91/92, but under Major the Tories had a new lease of life, or at least a final convulsion.
[ 03. August 2016, 09:16: Message edited by: Rocinante ]
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Kinnock was necessary to get Labour electable again even if it didn't work for him.
Personally though I would not preclude someone like Corbyn reaching out to enough in the PLP and enough middle-ground voters to pull it off. A highly competent negotiator and pragmatist could perhaps have done it, despite all the opposition against him. It's just that he doesn't seem to be doing it and there are stories like the ones quoted above that might demonstrate why he can't do it.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
If this is true it points to incredibly poor leadership.
As someone who has in the past suffered from (and to some extent still does suffer from) a paralysing fear of difficult conversations, particularly on the phone and/or with people I don't know very well, I am starting to wonder if this is part of Corbyn's problem. It is something you can work on, but you have to accept that it is a problem first.
Strangely I, like Corbyn, have no problem at all with public speaking to large groups of people.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Nice one hatless. Owen Smith? NEVER. Revolting creature.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
If this is true it points to incredibly poor leadership.
As someone who has in the past suffered from (and to some extent still does suffer from) a paralysing fear of difficult conversations, particularly on the phone and/or with people I don't know very well, I am starting to wonder if this is part of Corbyn's problem. It is something you can work on, but you have to accept that it is a problem first.
Strangely I, like Corbyn, have no problem at all with public speaking to large groups of people.
My husband is the same. He avoids difficult conversations like the plague, but is an excellent public speaker. The difference is that public speaking can be pre-planned like conversations never can.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I think Owen Smith just represents back to where we were, and misses the moment. There is something trying to happen in politics, and maybe Corbyn can only be a trigger and not the thing itself, but Smith surely is an irrelevance.
We shouldn't be talking about leaders and picking over their personality traits (interesting, though, and I think Rocinante is probably right about Corbyn and fear of picking up the phone). We are not little children who need someone to adore or blame.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
