Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Tamas]

We have reached the stage where the best last hope of Johnson and his cabal is war in Ukraine, which of course isn't going to help:

[garbon]

Mogg was also trying to scare Tories that they'd have to call a general election if Boris falls.

[garbon]

This is going to get so messy:

Sky News
@SkyNews
Sue Gray has received photos of Downing Street parties which include Boris Johnson and others close together with wine bottles, Sky News understands

I never thought the mighty British Empire would fall because of some parties.

Do not let them eat cake.

[Sheilbh]

I never thought the mighty British Empire would fall because of some parties.

Parties just make it easy. The point is that if you make rules, then you have to follow them.

The parties are just great because they make it really clear. Often laws are quite technical, there may be questions of whether it's been breached, if there's enough evidence, whether there's a valid defence etc.  The covid laws had a huge impact on basically everyone in the country and people generally followed them (especially in the first lockdown) and I think had a pretty clear sense of what was and wasn't allowed. Parties are just a really helpful tool for simplifying it because we know that wasn't allowed.

I've got to be honest I didn't really think the birthday party sounded that bad - I thought people might not care because reportedly it was a ten minute thing during the day (like office birthdays can be). But people have been really angry about it and I think a large part of that is what the Sun's old political editor said: if you have a kid with a birthday between March and June it's been almost three years since they've been able to have a birthday party. So every time a new story comes out, it hits home.

Mogg was also trying to scare Tories that they'd have to call a general election if Boris falls.

Which is, of course, nonsense. They have an 80 seat majority and there's no precedent. It's very transparent bullshit. Apparently Tory MPs were angry at that - like his comments on Douglas Ross - because they felt it's a little bit scorched earth from Rees-Mogg.

I also liked Andrew Rosindell (again how bad are things if they're letting him on the national media ) trying to help: "it's not like he robbed a bank".

[Tamas]

I would absolutely expect Johnson to attempt an escalation of the Ukraine situation to a war to save his ass, luckily he doesn't really have the means, short of sending British troops to start shooting across the border.

[Sheilbh]

I would absolutely expect Johnson to attempt an escalation of the Ukraine situation to a war to save his ass, luckily he doesn't really have the means, short of sending British troops to start shooting across the border.

I don't think that's likely at all. Not least because the UK response to Ukraine has been happening despite all of this in the background (again Maggie Thatcher was removed just as British troops were entering Kuwait) and is part of an allied response - I don't see us suddenly going it alone. If anything I think that would speed up his removal.

I mean just yesterday Johnson gave an update on Ukraine - there was broad support including from Starmer who (rightly) didn't mention any of the party stuff because that's separate. There is broad support and consensus on Ukraine - it's being led by the MoD and FCDO, Starmer paid tribute to the good job Ben Wallace is doing at Defence. Any attempt to politicise that would smash that consensus which I think would force many more Tories to move - including those in the cabinet. Not least because, despite Rees-Mogg's musings, we're not a presidential system and I think any attempt by a PM to go against his Foreign and Defence Secretaries - when he's too politically weak to actually replace them - would end badly for him.

As you say I don't see any way for the UK to escalate.

[Sheilbh]

Foreign Affairs Committee have released FCDO emails that make it absolutely clear that it was Downing Street/Johnson that ordered the prioritisation of Pen Farthing and animals:

[The Brain]

Well that's one thing that the voters all support.

[Tamas]

I still get angry when reminded of that episode. Such a world-wide public display of disgusting racism and cluelessness. A major embarrassment.

[Sheilbh]

Well that's one thing that the voters all support.

They were taking credit for it and hinting that the PM/Carrie had intervened when that looked popular. Then when lots of people got angry about the issue they promptly denied that the PM had anything to do with it and rubbished that whistleblower.

Now we know that, as we always knew it was Downing Street that made this happen.

[Sheilbh]

This isn't relevant to any of the ongoing scandals etc.

But the state may have accidentally guaranteed four public pension schemes worth £15 billion back in 2017

State 'unwittingly' backing Universities Superannuation pension scheme
Patrick Hosking,
Wednesday January 26 2022, 12.01am, The Times

The government may inadvertently have signed up to guarantee the country's biggest private sector pension scheme in a move described as "an embarrassing cock-up" by the consultant who unearthed the information.

The Department for Education agreed in 2017 to guarantee the pensions of four members of the Universities Superannuation Scheme when they joined the Office for Students quango, but in so doing it has, hypothetically at least, underwritten the entire scheme, which by one measure has a £15 billion shortfall.

The fund, which is due to pay pensions to 475,000 present and former university employees, is a "last man standing scheme", which means that its sponsoring employers are responsible for the liabilities of other sponsors if they fail. It recently announced a 20-year moratorium preventing any employer leaving the scheme to reduce the risk of further desertions after Trinity College, Cambridge, decided to quit as a scheme sponsor, paying £30 million to extricate itself from future liabilities.

John Ralfe, an independent pensions consultant, has received confirmation from the education department of the guarantee arrangement after a freedom of information request.

He said that the guarantee was "excellent news" for members, but "not such good news for taxpayers", adding that it had other implications. Schemes with a government guarantee are not eligible for the Pension Protection Fund lifeboat, putting USS in the same position as the BT pension scheme, which was given a Crown guarantee when BT was privatised in 1984. "So USS could claim back the £4 million-a-year PPF levy it has paid since 2018," Ralfe suggested.

However, the USS, even with this guarantee, could not ignore The Pensions Regulator. To be excluded from its jurisdiction, a scheme must be set up by legislation, as well as having a government guarantee.

A department spokesman said: "The hypothetical scenario described would require every UK university and other contributing employer in our world-leading universities sector to go bust. This is not something the government expects or intends to let happen."

Universities have been at loggerheads with the University and College Union as they address the deficit by lifting staff contribution rates and reducing pension benefits, leading to a series of strikes.

The spokesman said: "Higher education providers that offer the USS are responsible for the pension provision offered to their staff. The Pensions Regulator is currently working with the USS, Universities UK [the employers' body] and a range of other stakeholders as they work to find a long-term solution to the funding challenges faced by the USS."

The dispute between universities and lecturers goes back to 2017, when universities tried to move from (expensive) defined-benefit to (cheaper) defined-contribution pensions. Strikes followed in 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021. The proposal is to retain a defined-benefit pension up to £40,000 salary, with a lower-cost defined-contribution element on salary above this.

The Universities Superannuation Scheme is Britains largest private sector scheme, with £80.5 billion assets as of March 2021. But its liabilities are £95.5 billion, leaving it with a £15 billion deficit. The lecturers' union argues that cutting future defined-benefit pensions is unnecessary and that the annual cost of new defined-benefit promises, and deficit, are exaggerated. There have been calls for the government to solve the problem by guaranteeing the USS, but my Freedom of Information reply from the Department for Education shows the government is already guaranteeing it, not because of a conspiracy but what looks like an embarrassing cock-up.

How did this happen? The Office for Students was set up in 2018 as a Department for Education quango to regulate higher education in England. Almost all its staff are in the Civil Service Pension Scheme, but four, who previously worked in universities, are in the USS.

It is a requirement "for non-university employers to provide a guarantor", so the department's annual report discloses that it guarantees the Office for Students' USS obligations. I have obtained a copy of the guarantee, dated October 2017.

The USS's "last man standing" rules mean that each employer, however large or small, is on the hook for all USS liabilities, not only its share.

How can the government get out of this mess? It should be easy for the Office for Students to persuade its four active members to stop paying into the USS and to open a personal pension, perhaps with an incentive payment. But there is no magic wand for the USS. The only solution is to go back to the original 2017 plan to move from defined-benefit to defined-contribution, with a generous employer contribution, still leaving employers to plug the deficit over several years.

I've got a friend who's been on these strikes and it sounds quite bad. I think the last time the employers got the fund valued to identify the deficit was in the middle of the first wave of the pandemic and their basic position is that nothing's changed and the value of those assets in April 2020 is still relevant and should be used to force through the changes to the scheme. Needless to say the unions are resisting.

[Tamas]

"accidentallY" right 

[Sheilbh]

"accidentallY" right 

I mean who could possibly get any benefit from that?

Also very good news on that piece Tyr posted about inflation in essentials - the ONS have got in touch with Jack Monroe and are updating their "basket" for inflation which is really worthwhile. And a great result from that piece:

Jack Monroe
@BootstrapCook
Delighted to be able to tell you that the @ONS have just announced that they are going to be changing the way they collect and report on the cost of food prices and inflation to take into consideration a wider range of income levels and household circumstances #VimesBootsIndex

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally thought this take on Robert Shrimsley on how Number 10 would probably ideally try to manage the Gray report was interesting, it might still happen but there's no report that Johnson's received it yet. So more likely it drops tomorrow and we're in the counter-argument with all the hits in one day:

robert shrimsley
@robertshrimsley
If I were devising a press strategy for a really nasty report I'd put it out around 7/8pm after the early evening news and when it is tight for papers to do much more than a quick splash. 
You've still got the web but its still getting late. Then at about 9am  (1/2)
at 9am next morning you start the bloodletting of sacrificial staff - you own the headlines again. By Friday everyone has gone home and you hope that by Monday it all feels very last week. May not work but its the best shot.
It may be some bloodletting can't wait _ i have sadly accepted the resignation of my PPS etc - but there's always room for seconds.
Then for the Sundays you start a policy blitz - preferably around measures on the cost of living.
Of course it may just be so bad that there is nothing to be done but if i was trying to give myself a fighting chance and my MPs reason to hang fire on triggering the ballot - this might be the best shot
All of which is a long winded way of saying these supposed rows that are delaying publication seem terribly handy.
PS should have added - you get the parliamentary apology out tonight too - you want that in the day one story
the counter-argument, I guess is you go early morning,  take all the hits in one day and try to deny it day 2 moment. But my worry would be that the impact of wall-to-wall coverage all day would build momentum for change

Edit: Although maybe on Monday - Sky reporting that Sue Gray is in talks with the lawyers, police and civil service HR over the report - that may just be for the parliamentary bit though because lots of MPs go back to their constituencies on Thursday/Friday and the Speaker is more likely to want as many MPs as possible to participate. Apparently Johnson expected to receive it last night.

[Josquius]

"accidentallY" right 

I mean who could possibly get any benefit from that?

Also very good news on that piece Tyr posted about inflation in essentials - the ONS have got in touch with Jack Monroe and are updating their "basket" for inflation which is really worthwhile. And a great result from that piece:

Jack Monroe
@BootstrapCook
Delighted to be able to tell you that the @ONS have just announced that they are going to be changing the way they collect and report on the cost of food prices and inflation to take into consideration a wider range of income levels and household circumstances #VimesBootsIndex

That was surprisingly quick and easy.
Still sounds like they won't quite do what she asked though. I can understand the reasoning they want to compare like to like but when the cheapest thing no longer exists...