santoeusebio…….. I would imagine that tribunal would decide on the methodology for calculating compensation (not ex-gratia payments) and perhaps calculate the total compensation due. It would then be up to the Government of the day to decide how much of that total they are prepared to pay having regard to the public purse - zero, a proportion or the lot This to me is the nub of the matter.Frankly I’m tired of the exchanges seeking others to quantify the amount of ‘compensation’ as if a low total figure is in some way more deserving of compensation being paid and a high figure somehow isn’t. And I’m also fed up with the requests to publish methods of calculation on the TMF Board. Publishing such calculations simply isn’t a professional or indeed reasonable way to conduct discussions – negotiations – a debate with The Treasury or anyone else for that matter. While the methodology and the calculations are clearly of interest to us all, you can bet your bottom dollar that such information would suit those who wish to take pot-shots - and there is no shortage of them.Without any preconditions as to whether any payments in due course would be ex-gratia or compensation or whatever name is put on them - all interested parties – obviously including representatives from ELAS as they are in possession of the base information - should sit down [as a tribunal as santo suggests or under some other guise] and hammer out reasonable methods of calculation of compensation for the various classes of policyholders and annuitants. Having agreed the methodology the calculations could be done on a policy by policy, annuity by annuity basis and the total cost comes out to what it comes out to. As santo suggests, it is then for the Government of the day to decide how much they are prepared to pay, to whom and how. The process could be totally transparent.Moreover, it should be borne in mind that whatever the cost all of it doesn’t have to be paid immediately – it could be paid over a period of years by way of top-up. This debate arose mainly as a result of the submissions to the PASC. Tony Wright and his committee were very interested in having an idea of ‘How much?’ Indeed, I remember thinking at the time that they were pretty insistent in pressing for this. At that time EMAG came out with one number – ELTA another – and VT & CT refused to give any sort of idea adding something along the lines; ‘give us the assumptions and we can provide an idea of the total cost’. At the time I thought that ELAS were continuing to be members of ’the awkward squad’ but with hindsight perhaps that was the right way to go especially as they were the only party with all the necessary information.Anyway please let’s give EMAG and ELTA a rest on these matters. We are where we are. Let the JR take its course for the result of the JR appears to me to be the next important milestone. There is no point in banging on about methodology and total cost at this time.AFO
And I’m also fed up with the requests to publish methods of calculation on the TMF Board. Publishing such calculations simply isn’t a professional or indeed reasonable way to conduct discussions – negotiations – a debate with The Treasury or anyone else for that matter.Absolutely 100% WRONG!The position we are at now is that some payments have been conceeded and Chadwick has been asked to calculate what and how. Even if the JR results in a change to Chadwick's brief or even someone deemed more independent to work out the what and how it is still the fundamental issue.What is being campaigned for? What is fair compensation? Aposition of we can't tell you because that hinders negotiation or is unprofessional is a nonsense - ask for what you want! That's the basis of a campaign!What is unprofessional is demanding an undefined level of compensation and then attacking the government (or anyone else ie ELTA) for daring to say this is how we believe it should be calculated.The only rationale for not outlining compensation is a fear that it would alienate members,the public or MPs etc by either being seen as below policyholders expectations (often too high as they do not look at relative loss) or the public asked for something they see as unreasonable.Come clean - ask for what you want - define fair in your view. Otherwise just what is the campaign for?
Richas #78448What is unprofessional is demanding an undefined level of compensation and then attacking the government (or anyone else ie ELTA) for daring to say this is how we believe it should be calculated. **************************************Absolutely 100% WRONG (To coin richas' phrase)EMAG is demanding adherence to the PO's recommendations.Apart from the rejection of most of the PO's recommendations the PO advocated an independent tribunal to determine the level of compensation.As Chadwick is a hired front man for the Treasury and the Treasury is up to its grubby neck in the failure of regulation and subsequent plan to avoid any responsibility for that failure Chadwick does not come close to being an 'independent tribunal', hence the JR.As stated it is the independent tribunals responsibility to determine the methodology of calculating losses and compensation due, not EMAG's or anyone else's.Hopefully the JR will be successful and an independent tribunal formed, in which case I have no doubt EMAG will be making representations then.EMAG's current position is entirely credible and certainly not as claimed by richas 'unprofessional'.Roy
richas: “100% WRONG” I don’t normally reply to your posts as they are not worthy of a response with them typically being half-liners of Brown-speak half-truths. Your response to hector’s latest post is a classic. You are trying to make it appear i.e. spin that Brown and Co. are willingly compensating the OPs. They are not and have not. As santo has written: “A vile performance from NuLabour”. Your shabby Government has behaved despicably throughout the whole OP process. It has taken years of action – legal and other - to get the OPs to where they are today and their job still isn’t done yet. So please don’t attempt to spin this in favour of Brown and his cohorts in crime. It was the likes of Hain [surprisingly] and O’Brien who found a little bit of their morality and consciences – after years of campaigning by Altmann and others - that finally broke the log-jam. Not Brown. Not Darling. That was nearly two years or so ago and the Government is still nickleing and dimming around the edges and thereby continuing to lose whatever goodwill that might have flowed to it from the compensation exercise. And it is a lesson for all ELAS sufferers to bear in mind. When one thinks of all the other money spilling around the system, I just don’t know how those pathetic third raters in The Treasury and their advisers – legal and other - sleep at night.However, I didn’t expect you of all people to agree with the post. And I know that nothing will change your view at the end of this post because you have been banging the same drum – very tediously – as nauseum in fact - for months, if not years, now. The short answer is that until all the appropriate parties sit down and hammer out methodologies, how can anyone really know? The only party that has all/most/enough information is ELAS and they declined to cost the exercise. At best EMAG & ELTA can only give guestimates based on the limited information they have. They have done that.You say that some payments have been conceded but you appear to be alone in who is included in those concessions? So far as I am aware nobody from ‘Government’ has disputed EMAG’s views on the limits of the “concessions” – and there aren’t that many included. But I’m sure you are happy to stick to your delusion in this respect. Having started by indicating that I am 100% wrong you go on to write: “to work out the what and how it is still the fundamental issue”. If I am liberal with my interpretation of what I think you are trying to write here, I think that nobody would disagree with that. Indeed, it was the nub of my post and hence we may quite unexpectedly be at one albeit that you begin with 100% wrong.What do we want: yes, fair compensation but the form and the amount of that compensation have to determined i.e. ‘the what and how’. Starting position are rarely – never? – end positions. There would have to be give and take. The methods and levels of compensation would be determined during any discussions. So why do you keep insisting that you want to know up-front? So you can say: ‘I told you so! Life just isn’t like that. And it would be idiotic [unprofessional] to start negotiating and defining what is ‘fair’ on this Board for your benefit. You appear to just want others to make the AGs further hostages to fortune. Please enlighten me as to where the Government has indicated how levels of compensation should be calculated? And please also enlighten me as to where anyone has attacked the Government in this regard.Please enlighten me where there has been an attack on ELTA for “daring to say this is how we [sic] believe it should be calculated”. To help you in this regard the so-called ‘attacks’ on ELTA have been because ELTA met with Chadwick not because of any calculations. Others have alluded that this could be a reason for the attack.But I’m perplexed at to what your underlying motive is for continually demanding a definition of fair compensation? Are saying a} that if the figure is low enough to suit you, that you are content for it to be made available? b} that if it is too high, that you are not content for it to be paid? Or c} that if you are happy with the methodology that you are content for it to be paid whatever the number? From your posts I deduce that you fall under b}.But so as to be clear, I would like fair compensation for all for” A decade of regulatory failure” – mainly but not solely under Brown’s flawed tri-partite system of financial regulation – based on all the parties sitting down and hammering out methodologies that will inevitably involve give and take from both sides. It goes without saying that ‘fair’ will be defined as part of that process. That is what the campaign is for. But no doubt you will keep posing the question and no doubt the AGs will continue to ignore it. AFO
AFO: What do we want: yes, fair compensation but the form and the amount of that compensation have to determined i.e. ‘the what and how’. Starting position are rarely – never? – end positions. There would have to be give and take.Great post AFO but I disagree with you on the above point. Compensation is not a subject for "give and take". Compensation claims merely flow from losses incurred. These are simply statistics derivable from EL databases, the PO's specific findings of maladministration and reference points relating to how EL victims' funds would have performed with another company(s). They are not negotiation stances; they are simply statistics. An independent tribunal is the correct body to establish losses and hence compensation due (Spare us Rich, before you start, that rules out Gordon's poodle Chadwick immediately, much as you apparently revere your spiritual leader). Compensation may be subject to whatever reduction factor the government of the day may wish to apply.
Xermes: Thank you. Philosophically I agree with you but in practice I think that there would still need to be some give and take even while determining the methods of compensation and how the calculations are to be undertaken. Some compensation methods may be as you describe. But others may not. For example, I suspect that some will require a view on interest rates/discount rates. Whose rate? What period? And rates have been all over the place especially in the last couple of years. And a quarter per cent can make a lot of difference over an extended period. Taking your example – which companies are to be used as reference points? The best – the worst – the middle of the road – or an average of two/three/four/how many? And might life-expectancy/annuity rates come into the consideration?It is only when the parties sit down to hammer out the methodologies that the pertinent issues will come out of the wood-work – depending upon the ways compensation is to be made available. And I do think that some give and take will be required even through the initial stages.AFO
Sorry Roy but whoever they selected to look at compensation is their hired man. Independent tru=ibunal (undefined) to call for an undefined compensation that the PO sats the gov can cap. The JR wins - the PO report stands for every word and still - compensation is entirely a matter for gov and parliament - not the tribunal you have such inflated views of despite no clear remit given the other things the PO said.
Fantastic, we are back to the juvenile name calling and rewriting of history.For years in the PO case the gov said they wanted to do more and needed to work out how to cap future liabilities (for ELAS read precedent), then how to fund it. After each round I was villified on the pensions board for saying wait, there will be more the Labour lobby is working on it. Each time I was right. First they capped future liabilities, then a scheme for those closest to retirement, then a general one and now additional reforms for the sick,Yes it has been a long fight but some of us did it fro within Labour and knew that the party was looking at more at each stage.With ELAS it was different. It was No, now it is some payments. Trouble is how to fight for fair when noone will say what is fair and for some reason the Holy Authority is now the PO despite what she said on public purse and it being solely a matter for government not the independent tribunal to administer payments she calls for.Ask for what you want - put the cae - shoot you may get it, you will certainly have allies the trouble now is that whenever you talk to Labour MPs and ministers off the record (or even on it) they are concerned at the unreasonable expectations of loss - the loss to vbe compensated for is not what you hoped for, it is not top end projections, it is certainly not a top up on the LIES ELAS said werepolicy values it has to be based on relative loss not expectations set by this failed instituton.As for INDEPEDENT - just who do you deem independent? Just how wide do you want their remit (it is already far wider than the PO)?