Govt plans to sell off RM scheme assets absollutely wrong

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Government plans to sell off Royal Mail scheme assets ‘absolutely wrong’

http://www.professionalpensions.com/856634" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Government plans to sell off Royal Mail pension scheme assets is "absolutely the wrong thing to do", a former Downing Street pensions adviser says.

Ros Altmann said plans to sell off Royal Mail Pension Plan assets while taking on the liabilities of the scheme was "throwing away assets already set aside for that purpose".

She said: "We have enough unfunded liabilities without adding still more. The Treasury's temptation to take the assets now is understandable, but the future taxpayers will then have to pick up the bill.

"It seems to me that a big part of our problem is that pensions are inadequately funded - here we are throwing away assets already set aside for that purpose which is absolutely the wrong thing to be doing."

Independent pensions consultant John Ralfe said the plans were "outrageous".

Last week Professional Pensions reported the government is set to partially nationalise the assets of the Royal Mail Pension scheme - in a move that would see it pocket up to £23.5bn of assets.

The Postal Services Bill will mean the government will transfer around £29.5bn of existing RMPP pensioner liabilities to the new public scheme and receive £23.5bn of the scheme's assets in order to "partially offset" the cost of the move.

But it said, rather than using these assets to create a funded public sector scheme to pay the pensions, it would sell the assets off over a few years and pay pensions on a "pay-as-you-go" basis.

Department for work and pensions undersecretary Lord McKenzie told the House of Lords a transfer of assets would not affect the qualifying accrued rights transferred to the public scheme.

He said: "These will be protected in law and paid on a pay-as-you-go basis, as with many other public service pension schemes. The government are conscious that these changes could entail a significant transfer of assets out of the scheme.

"I stress that any such transfer of assets can take place only if the government have also taken responsibility for the relevant liabilities - the qualifying accrued rights."
He said added at the point that the assets are transferred, the government will also have taken on responsibility for the payment of past-service benefits to which those assets relate, as well as the responsibility for the shortfall in funding "that will almost certainly be the case".

McKenzie made the statement during a Lords debate on the Bill which will go into the report stage today

[Shrek]

I still think it strange that meddleson comes back so does privatisation. As if his first attempt at screwing up RM was not enough. Liebour 1st gave us the open postal market(before most of Europe) then gave us postcom just to make sure we did not stand a chance. Good new socialist values.

[belle smith]

I still think it strange that meddleson comes back so does privatisation. As if his first attempt at screwing up RM was not enough. Liebour 1st gave us the open postal market(before most of Europe) then gave us postcom just to make sure we did not stand a chance. Good new socialist values.

Don't think that the privitisation came back just because of Mandaleson. Might be the only member of this site that thinks that but, if their liking privitisation to the pension legislation then they are not in charge of the time table! in the letter that :mfo published it states when the last possable date that the next actuarial review can take place legally (June 2010). it also states that this was due to take place in 2009 (doesn't say so in the letter but should have been March, thats when it took place in 2003 & 2006) I absolutly gaurentee 100% that Mandaleson asked for this date to be put back, because whatever they say they need the pension legislation more than the privitisation! Thier options without it are

1. Pay up the full deficit on the FRS 17 basis at the time of the next actuarial review that could be around £9 Billion in addition to the current assets (which they couldn't then take onto the goverment books) £20 Billion. they can't afford this.

2. Let Royal Mail go bust and explain to the public why they no longer have a postal service. I think not!

[norbert]

I still think it strange that meddleson comes back so does privatisation. As if his first attempt at screwing up RM was not enough. Liebour 1st gave us the open postal market(before most of Europe) then gave us postcom just to make sure we did not stand a chance. Good new socialist values.

Don't think that the privitisation came back just because of Mandaleson. Might be the only member of this site that thinks that but, if their liking privitisation to the pension legislation then they are not in charge of the time table! in the letter that :mfo published it states when the last possable date that the next actuarial review can take place legally (June 2010). it also states that this was due to take place in 2009 (doesn't say so in the letter but should have been March, thats when it took place in 2003 & 2006) I absolutly gaurentee 100% that Mandaleson asked for this date to be put back, because whatever they say they need the pension legislation more than the privitisation! Thier options without it are

1. Pay up the full deficit on the FRS 17 basis at the time of the next actuarial review that could be around £9 Billion in addition to the current assets (which they couldn't then take onto the goverment books) £20 Billion. they can't afford this.

2. Let Royal Mail go bust and explain to the public why they no longer have a postal service. I think not!

http://www.no2eu.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's more of a bigger picture and it boils down to the undemocratic and unelected European Commission , AFAIK there is to be strict rules on National Debt or debt as a percentage of for member states . There can be " creative accounting " i.e. Network Rail is £20 million in debt but it's classed as a private company so it stays off the books . PFI ( Private Finance Initiative ) for building
schools , hospitals is another example which will probably bankrupt this country in later years . Ironically this arrangement was used by Mussolini in bankrupt Fascist Italy during WW2 to pay for vital infrastructure and the EEC itself was founded by former fascists .

However it won't show up until then due to complicated leasing & leasing back arrangements .

Basically there's a lot of sums that don't really add up but it's got to look good .

It's true that Mandy is a complete Europhile but the reality is that he's just a effective ? wheeler dealer , more of a political Arthur Daley than the Prince of Darkness .

What the EC want is a right wing neo - liberal agenda constitution , basically it's a EC with big business cartels having a influence i.e . snouts in the trough + privatization , massive spending cuts for the great unwashed etc AND countries giving up their sovereignty so the EC can ride roughshod over them .

I think ? it's the same game that the Major Government wanted to play in the 90's with Maastricht , they'd the Social Chapter stopped with National Minimum wage etc . Where it went wrong for the Tories was the ERM ( Exchange Rate Mechanism ) and Black Tuesday , it was a sort of Thatcherism by the back door . The other problem was the splits over Europe in the party that they couldn't keep a lid on .

Cameron is the first time they've got their act together and a effective leader , a true blue Blair if you will .

Mandy is fearful of back bench rebellions and civil war breaking out in the PLP , he's been very clever in blaming the CWU for everything to try and deflect things but it won't really wash and the buck stops with him and Brown .

With RM , it was a Dutch Freemarketeer on the EC that issued the original directive , the USO was " conveniently " not ring fenced , New Labour rushed into it too quickly . It's the usual problem with New Labour with conflicting and contradictory agendas that it falls on & fudging things i.e. a Postcon full of free market ideologues on one side , but some ! concessions given to back benchers and the CWU which means a mess that has to be unraveled and yes ! Mandy had a lot to do with it at the time .