For politics' sake
The editor of Vanity Fair magazine made the following comment this month: “It can fairly be said that politics brings out the worst in people, and at times simply the worst people”.
A few individuals aside, I am not sure that this statement is true. However, it made me wonder how much politics adds to our working lives? Does it in fact cause people to take their eye off the ball and do things that defeat the objective of obtaining a balance between professionalism and commercialism?
Anyone who watched The Apprentice’s Jenny Celerier being given her long-overdue marching orders by Alan Sugar will have seen first-hand how far playing politics gets you in the boardroom. But neither is being ignorant of office politics a viable option. Can you be aware of the politics without being involved? Or is the knowledge of it enough to deem you to be playing the game?
There is currently a large amount of energy, emotion and expense being dedicated to the potential merger of the Institute and Faculty. I suspect that this game is detracting from the day job, and so may not be beneficial, unless of course the merger goes ahead, and then we can view this investment as justly made.
Now democracy only works if a large enough number of people, with a cross-section of views, put a cross on the ballot paper. As a general rule, people vote if they feel that there is something to be gained from registering their view. In the case of the merger, the majority of people that I have spoken to (and I have spoken to many) have been members of the Faculty who are passionately against the merger. In fact, only 53% of the 137 Faculty members attending a special meeting on 16 April voted to cancel the proposed in-principle election. Everyone else who has expressed a view to me has said that they don’t care whether the Institute and Faculty merge or not.
On this basis, and subject to the usual caveats that I apply to my actuarial predictions, I think that the merger proposals will not reach a vote. The Profession is sensible in its decision to gauge members’ feelings towards a merger before holding an election. This way, it will save the cost and administrative time of running an election that results in absolutely no action.
Issue themes
Our technical theme for this edition is insurance. Phil Vermeulen and Jeev Muthulingam update us on the Solvency II quantitative impact studies; David Forfar discusses with-profits estates in the light of FSA principles; and Matthew Little looks at how recent changes to CGT could impact the life assurance industry.
Elsewhere, Andrew Slater and Con Keating assess the risks, costs and security of voluntary defined benefit pensions, and our cover feature is Chris Lewin’s fascinating review of Thomas Gataker’s writings, which challenged divine intervention in the outcome of events and helped to pave the way for probability theory.
Online this month, there are exclusive features from Mike Brockman, reviewing the fourth UK Bodily Injury Awards Study, and Simon Sheaf, who discusses best practice for insurance company rate monitoring systems.
Reader survey
Thank you to all those who completed our online reader survey. We have had an excellent response and a review of your feedback and results is due for publication in the July issue.
The stylish actuary
Finally, thank you to everyone who contacted us about actuaries and their style. Matt and Finn continue the fashion theme this month with some light-hearted advice for gentlemen actuaries dressing for the office. They are also due to attend a special event at the London Fashion and Textile Museum to celebrate style in the city. Surely this makes them two of the most stylish actuaries in the UK? Photos to follow, I promise.
Margaret de Valois
Editor
editor@the-actuary.org.uk
Margaret de Valois, Editor
