The point was made several weeks ago to the DWP’s Julian Barker and Julian replied that Torsten Bell knew about the problem and wasn’t very pleased.
We have this from the Observer that tells of Torsten Bell when Torsten took control at the Treasury Budget team.
On 23 September, the budget board – the joint No 10 and Treasury committee set up to shape last week’s make-or-break financial statement – met for the first time in Downing Street.
Minouche Shafik, the prime minister’s newly appointed chief economic adviser, turned to Torsten Bell, the Treasury minister, and asked him to set the scene.
Speaking fast and furiously, Bell embarked on a foul-mouthed tirade, laying bare the scale of the economic and political challenges facing the government. “It was ‘fuck this, fuck that, we’ve got to fuck them all and then we’ve got to fuck them some more’,” one source said.
Lady Shafik, the courteous, well-spoken former deputy governor of the Bank of England and ex-president of the London School of Economics, looked “completely shocked”, according to another senior figure who was present.
“It was Torsten at his most excitable and pumped up. In the end, you did think: ‘Please, just stop talking.’”
I suspect that if Torsten Bell reads that the industry is as one pointing out that there is a difference in delivery dates between the Pension Schemes Bill and the delivery timetable of Retirement CDC, he will be a little put out. I suspect that the above will be repeated.
I do not know why we have all these organisations with acronyms as names speaking as one but if you would like to know a little more, here are the links
Here is the ACA’s response
ACA stands for Association of consulting Actuaries and if you want the edited highlights, here they are.
As with the SPP, they are pretty keen on cohorting. This is not what my favorite veteran actuary who designed the PPF thinks right and it’s not what I and my team think either. Here’s my correspondent
On UMES, does a “works employee” scheme pay less than a “managers” scheme for the same target benefit? (Think Mineworkers and BCSPS). And by age (or not)? And as longevity is a guess, a separate section to allow for separate experience?
It is a minefield once you start risk based premiums.And so to r-CDC. Do we have daily or monthly or annual pricing and cohorts? Do we allow for annual updates from the CMI model to adjust pricing as well as valuations? Do we postcode? Allow for health rating (for all/some). Even if like NEST there is a simple sensible default, do they guide some where health suggests they could get a better outcome elsewhere?The whole “fairness” agenda feels fraught.I also suspect we are looking at old fashioned solutions and AI will drive a cart and horse through this. A bit like genetic testing and life/health insurance. How far do we go and not go into trying to create “fairness” when we may get better outcomes by more cost sharing.This feels like a huge question once we start to grapple with the implications of serious population ageing and financing care in a world of limited resources and vastly different risk profiles.
And in case you aren’t up to date with your acronyms, here’s the response of the APPT on this link
Hers are the highlights.
Well it does give jobs for Pension Trustees, even if I didn’t sense the APPT got much beyond compliance. I don’t think most Professional Trustees get much beyond the c-word anymore.
James Wild MP also said this to the Minister (Bell) in yesterday’s Bill “debate” in the House of Commons:
“We know from media reports that he feels passionately about the Budget—he used industrial language that is perhaps more expected from industry than from a think-tanker, and it is certainly not for the Chamber.”