Thetownend.com

So, whos likely to be affected by this?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ad3b7622-deb3-11e0-a228-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1YUHTNK6I

Do people think the strike will happen?

Some will strike because they believe they're getting a bad deal. Some will strike because the union tells them they're getting a bad deal.

What they can't seem to comprehend is that their current pensions are unsustainable. All they see is the immediate reduction in pay, rather than being long sighted enough to understand that if they didn't make those contributions now then the likelihood is there will be no money left to pay them much of a (if any) pension in the future.

The unions don't seem to be explaining this either. Strange that.

I am sure the strikes will go ahead, and equally sure they will achieve **** all.  As Samdy says, the current arrangements are not sustainable.  Trying to maintain them simply shifts the cost to later generations...who are not yet able to speak up for themselves.  I find that very disturbing.

I do have some sympathy with public sector workers who are having to face up to a reduction in their pay & conditions.  It's not nice, but no different really to those in the private sector who had to do this years ago.  For that reason, I can't see there being much in the way of public support for the proposed strikes.  It's unpleasant, but we all know how it ends.

Absolutely nobody. The only people that will even realise the public sector is on strike is the news outlets ;)

Meh! I'll vote to strike because I'm a selfish fucker who wants to protect my pension.

The fact is the changes proposed to the public pension scheme in the short and medium term will actually reduce the self sustainability of public sector pensions requiring the taxpayer to foot even more of the bill. If you move from a defined benefit to a defined contribution then less money will be available to pay for all those lazy retired ex public sector fuckers. Bearing in mind that the changes could also result in more people opting out of the scheme (85% of public sector workers belong to the pension scheme compared to 40% in the private sector) then again, the amount of money going in to pay those already retired increases the deficit in the short/medium term, which goes against the short term fiscal objectives we've seen from the coalition to date.

And lets not forget the biggest pensions in the country are claimed by private sector executives not public sector workers.

That's irrelevant.  No one is saying that public sector deals are individually as attractive as those enjoyed by FTSE 100 execs.  But collectively, they cost a whole lot more and - crucially - they are funded by our taxes.

I am quite sure that Vince Cable's call this week to curb executive pay and pensions is, at least in part, prompted by a desire to demonstrate that the government is looking at the very top end of the pay scale as well (something they have been accused of ignoring while going after the benefits of public sector workers).  It's a bit of a bluff.

I hope none of this comes across as a diatribe against public sector workers.  I'm married to one for a start.  Just trying to be pragmatic because I can't see how the present arrangements can carry on in their present form.

As a public sectoe wroker I can see both sides. I won't be striking (Long story, I'm not allowed but wouldn't anyway).

The only thing that rankles me, is that in the private sector I could be earning about £5k a year more but with a worse pension. Maybe it's time to go back to the real world and earn my living :)

How so? There will be more money being paid into the scheme and less benefits being paid out. How does this create short/medium term shortfalls?

And it's not changing to a defined contributions scheme. It's still defined benefit, it'll just be based on a career average rather than final salary.

Fair point, I was referring to one of the proposals offered to reduce the cost of the pension scheme.

The increase in contributions is fair point for discussion between the trade unions and the government but to date the government have shown little interest in discussion. I'm personally happy to pay 3% more each year into my pension but only if I receive a cost of living pay settlement year on year. I haven't seen an inflationary rise in my wages since 2007.

Sorry Cookie I haven't had a pay rise since 2005 - and I have no pension !

The facts are that the current pension system for the Public sector doesn't work anymore - and therefore needs changing

People in the public sector are not going to like that - understandably - however I believe they need to be more pragmatic about this and see the bigger picture

I cannot see any public sympathy for a group of workers going on strike at the moment - at a time when a lot of people are out of work and would gladly trade places

I chose the private sector as it pays me more than the public sector - a lot of people choose the public sector because it is a "safe" job - I guess more money more risk, or (on the whole) less money less risk - but better "perks" overall

The public sector can fist themselves, time to feel like pinch like every other cunt

So what's it like working for the diplomatic corps?   ;D

You're still onto a massive winner though.

I'm generalising, but let's say you earn an average salary of £25,000 that (for simplicity of this calculation) won't increase and you have 30 years until retirement.

You could invest your 3% a year (£750), plus an extra 20% from Boy George, into a personal pension for 30 years and at a modest rate of 4% growth you'd have a pension pot at retirement of around £52,500 having paid in £22,500 yourself. Given current annuity rates of about 5%, you'd get a pension of around £2,625 a year from that.

Or from your public sector pension; for your 3%, and with 30 years service at perhaps 1/60th accrual you will get a pension of £12,500 a year at the same cost. An annuity rate of a whopping 55%.

Not EVERY other cunt. Those at the top, including those forcing through these reforms, are still doing very nicely thank you.

Well said David

A ridiculously small % in the overall scheme of things

I'm sure the strikes will go ahead, quite likely on a massive scale. I'm also sure they will have fuck all support from the rest of the population (who view them as overpaid twats who need to shut the fuck up and get on with it like the rest of us have to) and that they will achieve a grand total of fuck all.

Unfortunately, successive governments have done nothing about the pension problems the whole country is facing and something needs to be done urgently or the shit will really hit the fan down the line. We're all living a lot longer so retiring at 65 and paying the same contributions simply doesn't work.

I'd like to see some stats on life expectancy over the last 100 years compared to retirement age, but can't find any.

It doesn't give corresponding retirement ages, but you get the jist.

http://www.gad.gov.uk/Demography%20Data/Life%20Tables/

Don't agree with striking, never have done and probably never will. Everyone has faced or will face pension pain at some point. The sooner people understand this country is in an awful position financially and we all will have to pay our way out of it the better.

Indeed - how long have you been paying tax now ? :)

On and off since 2004 so back in your box

So I'll assume that you'll have got most of that back then. I am agreeing with your basic sentiments on the subject.

It's only right and proper that cunts like DMR pay back their rightful wack to us older folk, who've lived through 50's austerity, 60's break up of the British Empire, and the value of Stirling becoming worthless, so screwing our savings....70's inflation meaning that public sector pay, only just covered the cost of beer and food....80's mass unemployment, and the 90's when rampant capitalism allowed events like Black Wednesday, when a handful of speculators could plunge millions into negative equity....and then we have to bail out then bankers in the noughties. All so that young tax dodging cunts can avoid  having to go off to some global conflict like my father and grandfather and great grand father before him

Shows my point though. Life expectancy for a 65 year old went up about 4 years from 1980 to 2009.

They should bring in culling

Involuntary euthanasia is definitely the way out of this mess

Haha ironic

When my old company dumped the final pension scheme in 2001 for a stakeholder/defined pension scheme, the representatives for Amicus said that final pensions were going and due to the fact that the company is was going to match the contributions upto 7% it was still a good deal.

Ten years later Unite (Amicus merged with TGWU) tell the public sector workers to strike after being told to pay an extra 3% to keep their final salary pension.

If I was asked to pay an extra 3% to keep my final salary pension, I would've signed up on the spot... and unions are a bunch of hypocrites.

It's difficult to see where the public sector workers really think they're going on this one.
As other posters have said the deal they will have after the changes is at least equal to almost any private sector arrangement and substantially better than most, so they will elicit very little sympathy other than amongst fellow public sector employees.
Are they devoid of other ideas and so resorting to causing disruption in the hope that the government will cave in to avoid conflict?  I can't see that if this was the result that the govt would win much popularity (which seems to be what counts now, rather than what is right!).
If this government was serious about wanting to address the real pension provision issue in this country then they'd be making far more radical proposals but like all previous regimes they daren't grasp the nettle.

At least they're doing something. The problem has been known about for a long time and Labour did fuck all, except actually making it worse by increasing taxes on pensions. This is just the first step, more changes will come soon.

Summerof69 makes a very good point about Unions being hypocrites. It amazes me that these outdated organisations still wield so much influence.

The leaders of these organisations are champagne socialists in the truest sense. Look at their salaries, pensions and benefits in kind (paid for by union subs and in some cases, even the fucking taxpayer!)

As for the strikes, a ridiculous waste of time (and taxpayers money) that will achieve nothing. Time for the public sector to be culled massively. The create no wealth. 60% are nothing but self serving parasites.

I only wish Maggie destroyed the Unions when she had the chance.

The bitch should have been fucking jailed for what she did to the miners.
The Unions aren't perfect but at least we haven't got kids climbing up chimneys. Thanks to our fantastic capitalists we now get children in other countries to go up the chimneys.

Don't let your emotions get in the way of reasonable debate chalkie.

This "step" is about reducing public expenditure rather than increasing provision.
I don't share your optimism that any government will address that issue in a meaningful way.
The introduction of NEST is a baby-step that has been watered down since first proposed and I don't belive it will have any major impact.
This isn't having a pop at any specific government but a modern-day politician that will do what is necessary rather what they believe will be popular is very rare.  It's certainly not Cameron and nor was it Blair or Brown.

What's wrong with what I said?

I know you hate maggie dude, i might have been fishing a little!

It already has- and yeah who needs teachers, police, fire, ambulance, environmental heatlh, health services, social services, armed forces, coastguard, etc etc, the market is all we need. And as for unions, diamond miners in Africa don't have them and it hasn't done them any harm has it?

Yes but diversity co-ordinators, yoof outreach workers, street football managers and all the thousands of non jobs that you see advertised in the Guardian can all fuck off because they are pointless and nothing but a drain on public spending.

As for diamond miners in Africa, I truly couldn't give a fuck.

Didn't realise you read the guardian, thought you were more a Sunday Sport type of fella.

Yeah I guessed you aren't too concerned with the plight of anyone else, must be great being part of the master race.

I think you'll find that's  "whack" and "Sterling", Reg 8)

The first step for the Government should be to announce that the current pension scheme is to be closed to new entrants, replacing it with a standard defined contribution scheme.

Then they should address the affordability of the existing scheme.

At least things wouldn't get any worse in that regard.

I fear you grossly underestimate the ineptitude of the powers that be.

They'll never let it get (much) worse for fear of the political fall out.

Yes, there's quite a furore about the current plans. But that would pale into insignificance at what would happen if the scheme went completely bust.

One load of pensions that should be reviewed are the MP's pensions. They are even more luxurious than the Public Sector ones. I lost count how many times it had to be topped up in the last Parliament.

The government haven't offered final salary pensions for years. I've been a civil servant for over four years and I haven't got one.

Its not all roses in the NHS/DoH , we havent had a cost of living increase for 3 years and its not looking good for the next 2 either. 

Correct, the existing pension scheme isnt the problem and is certainly affordable (well it is in my Gov department).  It's the old scheme that is the issue and this was closed to new entrants about 6-8 years ago off the top of my head.

Same.

If we have i aint been told about it

I stand corrected, (and way behind the times)

The same could be said for a large proportion of the private sector too.

Fuck off you snivelling little shitball. Although you do make a good point, I am superior to pretty much everyone else   :girlgiggle:

Overall, your contribution to this debate on public sector pension strikes has been extremely valuable and insightful to the rest of us, well done.

By coincidence it's Guardian Society day on a Wednesday....so I counted how many jobs there are advertised...40 that's for the entire nation.

I like the Guardian....does things like expose the right wing cabal of media owners, police and government, which allows things like the phone hacking scandal to happen.

Why "Ironside" are you in a wheelchair?

There are 13,583 "jobs" currently on their website though.

Well that's good to see because with 2.5 million on the dole...the more the merrier.

I'm in the private sector and over the past year seen my pay increase by 1.34% and 1.17% respectively. What's your point? It's called a recession and we're all in it together.

Luxury!

I dream about 1% pay rises

Said the man in the orthopaedic shoe............

Not really Reg, most of them are government/public sector or private organisations which leech of the public purse. The whole point being that they don't give, only take.

All Co-operative employees received 2.5% rises this year and last.

That's the benefit of sensible unions and sensible senior management being involved in sensible discussions. (Well that and the fact we don't have greedy shareholders to worry about).

120 redundancies announced at my place today. Quite a few junior members of staff are being made to reapply for their own jobs, albeit at a lower grade. Strangely, most of the management chain and the HR people seem to be unaffected...

Where do you work mate?

RCUK SSC Ltd. with Eddie/Heather. Been a shitty day.

Holy fuck

Shared Service Centre as in Polaris House etc ?????

We have had many dealings with them

I have an Allied Crowbar private pension which has been frozen and currently worth £900 per annum! I have another work related pension frozen when I left that employment worth fuck all and will as likely as not be gobbled up by admin fees before I retire. I currently have NO pension provision other than what the younger generation will pay me and I retire in 16 years. My mortgage runs till 65. I am, rather than paying into a works pension, down paying my mortgage at £200 per month which will reduce my mortgage term by 4.7 years.

Think of it like this. If I save 5 years of payments off my mortgage @ £200 per month now (and it does assume I carry on paying that admittedly) then I can save £550 per month for five years = £33,000 in hard cash plus interest which by then will have gone up for when I retire. Plus any other savings and pensions that I may have been lucky to pay into if my employment situation allows.   

I also plan to further down pay my mortgage with the maintenance money I will save on my eldest next year, further reducing my mortgage term. My youngest costs us £240 per month in child care and again that will be used to down pay the mortgage though I'll have to wait another five years before I can consider letting him come home from school and look after himself. Pensions at the moment are accruing jack shit with the way the world economy is down spiraling and interest rates will go up sometime soon so I see that as a better option investment wise. I pay the mortgage off and it's done no one can take that away from me, paying into a pension and who knows what the spivs and charlatans in the financial sector will do with it?

We make sacrifices as well. Don't smoke, go out on the piss very rarely, make our own meals and not ready convenience crap, no foreign holidays or shopping for stuff we'll never wear. We pay our credit card off each month. Simple things to make the dosh go further.

My wife is younger than me and I doubt to be honest I'll be able to fully retire. I don't want to sit at home bored shitless waiting for her to come home anyway.

Pension strike? fuck 'em I doubt most of us will notice. The shit has hit the fan globally and everyone will suffer, admittedly some more than others but it will get better, not sure when, but it will.   

Public sector employees and the unions gorged themselves at the gold plated table with the finest foods bought by their puppets the Labour Party four thirteen years at the expense of the private sector............

Yeah the main bulk of the company is in North Star House, but I work at Polaris.

Shit

I work heavily with the Sector Managers, Bernie Marsh and Julie Paget in particular

Anyone likely to be impacted by this tomorrow? I don't have kids, I'm not flying anywhere, I'm not having an operation and it's not bin day. Same old, same old.

Also, anyone's opinions changed since the thread started? In our office I'd say most people are annoyed with the strikers rather than have sympathy with them.  I do feel a little bit sorry for them but a large part of me still thinks that their guaranteed pensions will still be far better than mine...

I'm striking.

Bloody kids are home.

Sack em all - especially Research Council staff  8)

What do you do o_f?

At least the roads will be a bit quieter tomorrow morning. Bonus.

Delivered there today....think they used a horse and cart when they first built that goods in area ::)

I've always been against strikes and always will be.

But there is a massive amount of bullshit being spread about the pensions by both the Government and the Trade Unions. One says the current pensions can't be supported long term and the other says they can. Someone isn't telling the truth though I suspect it is probably somewhere in the middle.

Though it is something the Labour government should have tackled but didn't have the bollocks to have a run in with the unions, more interested in staying in power than doing what needed to be done.

More people living longer = More people claiming state pension = less people of working age = less tax revenue = lower funding for state pension

As Sam says its ya classic ageing population which is the long term issue. Short to medium term the Government is fucked given the bale outs and the borrowing to do so. They have to make cuts to pay it back, which the unions would rather come from elsewhere but which it seems to me isn't really an option. Cuts will be made everywhere. I think Thatcher had it right with unions! (runs and hides).

I think the old adage "There are three sides of an argument - your side, my side and the truth" applies here. I'd think the Government will buckle and compromise. 

My Mrs is working at her school tomorrow, the scab :) Then again if she was striking I'd be disgusted with her.

I realise I said state pension, but it works the same for any defined benefit pension scheme.

I get that.

What I don't get is some of the unions saying their pensions are fully funded at the moment and that there not likely to be any issues for the foreseeable future. But then I don't really understand how the public sector pensions are setup and where the payouts come from. I assume there is some kind of separate fund for at least some of them, based on what the teachers have been saying.

I think I'll take me pension at 55 - just in case I don't get to take it at all

No sympathy over the pension issue at all.  The public sector are still going to receive a very good pension should they stay in their schemes and should be grateful of that. Us private pension members have all had to endure some financial pain in recent times and it's a sign of the times that that pain has spread.

We're up the creek here and striking isn't going to help matters, well that's what I think anyway.

On a side issue will traffic wardens be going on strike tomorrow? 

I don't know exact figures, but at the moment contributions into the scheme (plus fund growth) will cover the pensions paid out of the scheme. So the unions are right in that sense. They're just being a little narrow minded and glossing over the fact that there will be massive problems in years to come because there will be more people drawing money out than people paying contributions in.

I agree with most of that Jan though if you started a job years back and the pay/conditions were poor but the pension good it is shit if that contract is broken or the goal posts moved which means all those years are worthless...if you get my meaning.

Why not put up National insurance while people work.....so that when they are retired they get a higher state pension....of course it would take a generation for it to work properly but we have to start something soon...and fast.

How old are you Ron? As I wouldn't be surprised to see that age be increased before too long.  55 is very young to take your pension to be honest. You could have 30 years or so of needing that pension. Depending on pension fund value I suppose you could take your TFC and leave the rest as nil income drawdown, but even so it's a young age to take it.

NI and income tax will be merged before to long, so they may not need to increase it as such as collecting it may prove to be a whole lot easier, not sure if this makes sense, but easier collection equals cheaper costs, therefore you could leave the income tax/NI contribution levels at similar rates to today and income (for HMRC/govt) should increase.

(I haven't really thought this through - but it could work - maybe)

We already have S2P.

That sums up the public sector mentality. They think they should have a job for life on the same or better terms that they started on and if it pushes the entire country to the point of bankruptcy and means everyone else has to pay massive taxes to cover them then tough. The world doesn't work like that and hasn't for a long time, they need to get out of cloud cuckoo land and back to reality with the rest of us.

The simplistic point is that the benefits of being a public sector work have always been good pension and job security. The negatives have been poor pay compared to the private sector.

In recent years there has been a massive push to increase productivity in the civil service. In order to do this they have paid people from the private sector to come in and shake things up. This has resulted in some of these 'seniors' receiving better pay.

In the last year or so the media has been trying to blacken the name of civil servants by claiming that they are all over paid (based upon some of the senior civil service pay packets).

My job security (and all benefits that I had within the job) have disappeared in past few years. I work comparable hours to those in the private sector and get a fraction of the pay.

Now, my pension is being eroded, but unlike some of the unions, my union is not taking industrial action, but is instead holding a bake sale in order to collect funds for 'our suffering brothers'!

I won't be buying a cake because I have had to take leave to stay at home and look after the kids!

S2P's a load of shit.  The amount of times they've changed the state graduated scheme/SERPS/S2P-accrual rate/flat rate, goes to prove that. 

I know that....do away with all pensions except the state one.....make us pay more but give us a state pension that we can live on,it really is that simple.
If you want extra money on top of that.........you could always save some.

I see what you mean and in some ways simplification would help. If you ask people how much (in % terms) tax they pay they'd probably be able to tell you. I doubt it's the same for NI though.

Like a private pension

I know we've done this before but if it's that bad get a job in the private sector and if you can't then maybe your public sector job isn't as bad as you think it is.

Fuck that, massive step too far. Whoah there!!!!

Sorry, I can't agree with that. If people can't be motivated to make sure they've got sufficient income in retirement then fuck them, I'm not having the government force me to contribute (more of) my hard earned into some state run scheme because of other people's idleness.

Wasn't there some talk that the Tories had been considering switching to a flat rate tax system?

I'm all in favour of simplification, I'm sure absorbing NI in to Income Tax would save a fortune for the country as a whole.

If we managed top earners to pay tax that might help. I mean the super rich i.e. sports stars. But don't put them through the everything over £xk you have to pay 50%, cap it. Perhaps then the ultra-rich won't be constantly looking for ways out of paying tax. Or perhaps have a scheme where x amount of their tax is not lost forever to HMRC coffers but lent to the government somehow.  I'm just rambling again....

Well you are doing that anyway Sam i am afraid at present....the majority work hard so the majority would reap the benefits.....you cannot stop forward thinking because of the idle minority.

Problem with this idea is whilst it would start off as a 'everyone gets the same' it's not fair on a couple of counts.

1. People get used to living on what they earn. So if Samdy works hard for a living gets to £xk at retirement then gets some shite (relatively speaking) level of pension, whilst some bloke who's not done much to improve his salary from day one gets the same pension, I'd not be happy (if I were Samdy).

2. You just know it'd start off as a everyone gets the same, then a couple of years before you're due to retire the government would introduce means testing. If you've got x in the bank, you're flat rate pension gets reduced.

And they wonder why people are nervous of investing in pensions when rules changes happen every 6 months. People don't know how or when they'll be able to take them.

But he's not as he has a private pension to look forward to, plus the amazing state pension, and S2P!

It's not a minority though leefer, it's a majority.

29 million people in work
3.2 million contribute to a workplace pension
6.4 million contribute to a personal pension

That's 19.4 million people who are doing precisely nothing about their retirement planning and I for one am not prepared to fund it for them.

I'd say there's more than 19.4m doing nothing Samdy, as the 3.2m contributing to a workplace pension probably make up a huge chunk of the 6.4m contributing to the personal pensions.

No doubt that cunt Bob Crow will be at the front
Id strike that cunt with an iron bar if i could

I don't agree.

Get rid of the "state pension" and the associated tax. You either work for it and save it independentaly, or get fuck all. End of story. (there's a story on benefits in there too, perhaps for another thread...)

Massive ponzi scheme (as has been said by better people than me).

And you should probably account for a good percentage who are doing "other things" too...

There is a lot of people who thought they had a nice private pension to look forward to...but as we know a lot of people have been let down with firms going bust etc....the state pension is like a premium bond.....you cant lose,unless you are Greek of course.
Private pensions will soon be a thing of the past i reckon.....i have a small private pension and they want me to contract back to the state....but i will cash it in at 55,well a quarter anyway and have a minimal pension with the rest....get rid as soon as possible because basicly they make up new rules about private pensions whenever they like.

My late mother in law had a lovely private pension on top of her state pension,she worked her butt off to pay in 18% every week for 25 years.........but in reality she didnt have a lot more than the fellow across the road who lived on a state pension...she passed on a few years after the pension started,fact is she could have bought another house with what she paid in!

Thats the gamble you take i suppose........she could have lived to be a hundred.

Ironside.....i take your point but what if your savings bank goes bust with fourty years of your savings in,....is it a case of tough shit?

You will always have a state pension.

No offence dude, what kind of person places their future in the hands of a bank? Trditional savings and investments where you just pay your money and don't worry about it are a thing of the past in my opinion.

I'm lucky and made a few quid when times were good but just working and waiting to see what happens is suicidal.

Be EDUCATED but be pro-active in managing your finances. This is something I'm passionate about the kids learning. Otherwise you end up like my parents. Worked, paid taxes all their lives, did the whole private/public pension thing, end up with fuck all.

I can see both sides of the argument, it's fucking horrible when you work your bollocks off and you get screwed over.

On the other hand, even with the changes, it's still a bloody good pension. I think it's a good compromise, this makes for interesting reading:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15475716

I can't speak for any other public sector pension but I do know about the Teachers Pension.

Firstly, it was offered as part of a wider deal covering pay, expected hours of work, and so on.  I signed it.  No-one forced the government to offer it to me.  So all I want is the deal I was offered.  I didn't strike when they froze my pay as I could understand the need.

Secondly, teachers made changes to their pension in 2007.  Again, this was agreed as the need was made clear.

At that time the teachers pension scheme was breaking even, so with the changes it is reasonable to assume the scheme is now in credit...however the government is two years overdue in publishing the state of the pension...so we don't know.

If the government can prove thier changes are necessary then I'll think differently, until then, I'll continue to fight for my rights.  I would urge anyone to do the same (public or private sector).

Primary School Teacher.


I didn't like the idea of paying into the LGPS (Local Government Pension Scheme) but everyone advised me that it would be wise. The advantage seems to be that the 6% of my wage that I contribute is bumped up by the 14% which my employer also puts into the pot.

It sounds good, but I'm only 26 and I don't like the whole insecurity of the arrangement. Though LGPS are meant to be as safe as they come. But as far as I am concerned nothing is safe from going under, and terms can always be reneged by providers ala the current fuss.

Is this kind of arrangement what you mean by "traditional savings and investments"?

Hahaha sorry...It just seemed so predictable that some of the most vocal lefties, turned out to be teachers!

I don't know whether to cry or commit suicide....

Yes. In a roundabout sense of the phrase.

They always have and always will, however, maybe, just maybe they have worked hard for that position. Not every fucker who is on 100k plus pa has been parachuted into that pay bracket by birthright and nepotism......

As one head teacher who is not going on strike points out. "This is the paradox about the unions: on the one hand, they’re very Left-wing and want money poured into deprived areas, but, on the other, they reject the measures that do some good for children in poor communities".

These are the fuckers that would as likely as much ignore the "women and children first" order when the ship is going down or a I prefer to say "All for one and all for me" syndrome.   

A h a day off to recognise the staight of the pensions for public sector works.

Or is a day day that falls on pay day for most and offers a chance to do the xmas shopping without the saturday crowds???

Not that i'm being a sinic!!!

If it mattered that much, why don't they do it in early Jan when nobody has any money??

Savings are guaranteed up to a certain limit (can't remember what it is now - it used to be £50,000) so as long as you don't exceed the limit and spread your money about you should be just fine.

Sorry, too simplistic an approach. Admittedly, as with all walks of life, there are some people who are wasters and can't get another job.

But what some people forget (especially some of the younger generation who were brought up with Thatcherism) is that the attraction of some jobs isn't just the salary. Its sometimes about the fringe benefits or morals, ethics and duty. Sometimes people just want to help others, while other want to serve and protect the country. To illustrate, I know of at least one person who is entitled to quite a large salary, but doesn't draw it.

Cynic its cynic !

It's up to £85,000 now and if you have more you could/should be splitting the amount amongst different banks (make sure they're not owned by the same parent company). 

I worked in Local Government for 16 years though am now self employed.

During those 16 years I never went on strike, but if I was there I would today.

When you join a council as a teacher or a bin man, you sign a contract with that council, part of which is a mutually agreed pension arrangement. What is happening today is that a 3rd party who is not part of that contract is forcing a change to the arrangements. This change is being forced through regardless of the fact that not all local authority pension schemes are in the same amount of deficit.

If the Government and employers had approached this differently I am sure there wouldn't have been a problem. They could have taken a line that all existing staff increase their contributions by a smaller amount (staff made an offer to increase payments to 7% years ago) and any new staff join the scheme on a different basis.

Lets not forget that the biggest reason for a deficit in the schemes was a Tory government giving the employers a holiday from paying in the employer contributions back in the days of Leon Britten.

Private sector employers change the terms of their employees' employment contracts all the time.  In fact, I've seen this first hand in relation to pension arrangements.  So to that extent, I've never understood the argument that employment contracts initially signed by public sector employees should be set in stone.

I can understand why the strikes are taking place.  The workforce is more unionised and so there's something to be gained from having a go.  In a similar situation, many of us would do the same probably.  But this is not the moral crusade that some are portraying it as.  It's a body of workers trying to get the best deal for themselves.  In real terms, just about all of us have suffered in this downturn...and the public sector is going to have to take this on the chin to an extent as well.

If the majority of public sector workers earnt their pension I wouldn’t have an issue.  However, having spent two years working for an LA, my only view is ‘work shy slackers waiting for their unworthy pensions’.  Don’t get me wrong, if I’d stayed longer I would have thought flexitime, hiding behind ‘the council’, answering requests within a two months etc was the norm, but it‘s not.  I can’t really put into words the wastage that occurs, it's truely shocking. Apologies to stereotype all, but when 95% of people I worked with fell into the work shy category, it’s hard not to. 

I would add that I’m not including nurses / teachers etc in the above.  Just the majorioty of people working inside district / county council offices.  Jokers

A lot of local authority/council staff are now employed by private sector companies.

I hate all teachers. I've had to share a table in McDonalds due to them being on strike. Wankers.

Not all teachers are on strike ;)

*bites lip* Don't even get me started...

Go on, what's wrong with you then...

I know they were going on about the cost to the economy of the strikes but I'm not so sure about it now. The shops are packed (well not really packed but busier than normal) and people are spending money - maybe it will provide a bit of a boost instead?

The 'teachers' that aren't on strike have either fucked off to the pub or gone on a theatre trip....

Dont knock them,one day where you work might shut down, or take your pensions,then you will strike and want everyone's support

Cameron will love seeing people who've been shafted slating others who are protesting at getting shafted. Mugs

This happens everyday to everyone else and they don't strike. Whether they want support from other people or not is irrelevant as no one really gives a fuck unless it directly affects them. Unions don't care when non-union staff are sacked.

It will be interesting to see how the strikes are reported in the main news bulletins this evening, and on Newsnight etc.  Based on what little I have heard, it does feel to me as if this has not gone well for the unions...and that their position will have been weakened by today's action.  The Coalition (or the more Tory elements of it) will be loving this.

Up to around 5 years ago the Governement used to seperate the NI contributions from the tax revenue...but it now gets paid togther by companies...and the Government now treats it the same.

But the cost here is that it is collected differently, the government treats it the same, but they want to merge them together collection wise.

My old company used to match my contributions up to a maximum 7%. I don't know of many private companies that pay in more than double the employees contributions...if any.

Unions and their leaders are the biggest hypocrites of them all.

Around 10 years ago, the unions reps of GPMU (now Amicus) said to all employees at my old place, that they agreed with the company decision to get rid of our old Final Salary pension to replace it with a Stakeholder pension, with no fight at all, despite employees increasing their contributions a few years previously.

Now, the Public sector has been told to pay some more money in...time for a stike despite them being offered a Final Salary pension...but they would have to work a few extra years. If I was offered what they were...I would've ripped the Governments hand off...literally.

Of course the main difference being the government is not labour now

Good to see Jeremy Clarkson weighing in to the debate on the strike with a well reasoned, balanced and thought provoking statement; "I'd have them all shot. I would take them outside and execute them in front of their families".

Interesting response from the unions; all the strikers were actually mums who hold our society together by saving lives and caring for the sick, vulnerable and elderly. Plus they're going to grass him up to the Police, not sure what this will achieve though as this doesn't even make the top 20 most offensive remarks by Jeremy Clarkson.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15977813

What annoyed me most about Clarkson's comments is that David Cameron felt he needed to weigh in and condemn them.  He's the PM, FFS.  Clarkson will only have made the comments anyway because he'll have a book out for Christmas (I haven't checked - but he will) and he wants some publicity.  Is the top job now so media-driven that Cameron feels he has to take time out to comment on comments made by television presenters?

(I know the answer to this question is 'yes', and this is what depresses me.)

What annoyed me most about Clarksons comments were people totally overreacting to them. He is Jeremy Clarkson FFS. Even if he literally meant it, which I really doubt he did, who cares.

Its RossBrandgate all over again. Attack the personality because they don't like him.

I believe he has a DVD out rather than a book.

Newsnight had Maude on for the government and Mark Sorwotka for the union (I think its PCS), the worring thing for the Union is that Sorwotka comes across as being as smug and out of touch as Osbourne does.

Ultimately now we have the career politicians on one side and the career union reps (who dream of being politicians) on the other and everyone else is just stuck in the middle. I just wish that the media would stop interviewing them, its just plain pointless.

When I worked in LA I was a Unison rep for a while (as no one else wanted to do it), and I can honestly say they had no interest unless you were a female member of staff or on minimum wage. We had a dispute regarding some of the planning staff being screwed over regarding allowances and the Union didin't even bother sending anyone up from manchester to assist with negotiations with management - they essentially admitted that it is not good PR for them to get involved in such disputes and thus they didint bother!

In fairness to Cameron (the clueless tosser that he is) he was asked the question on This Morning, he can hardly say no comment in those circumstances - his response was as bland as it could get in my view.

As for Clarkson it was clearly a joke...some people should get over it.

I'm assuming he probably has one of each out - he usually does.

He does, it got poor reviews for its lack of decent editing.

Edit http://www.amazon.co.uk/Round-Bend-Jeremy-Clarkson/dp/0718158407/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322745427&sr=1-1

To be doubly fair to Cameron, prior to the interview a Labour shadow minister had specifically requested that he distance himself from Clarkson's comments. Bit of a stupid request, as if any politician is going to say they agree with anything Clarkson says, let alone when it's calling for strikers being shot.

It makes me laugh, cos people want the BBC to sack him.

As if they would, with out him top gear would be shite. Top Gear has to be one of the best TV programmes viewing wise.

And it makes the BBC as shit load of money.

Still if unions want to waste their members union fees consulting lawyers about whether his comments are chargeable so be it.

Completely agree.  Clarkson loves to stir things up, its what he does best.  People should know that by now!

(apparently Unison are considering legal action against Clarkson - what a joke and a waste of time and money)

I hate what I'm about to do (stick up for Clarkson)

They'd spent his entire visit on the show bigging up how he says stupid/outrageous stuff regularly - they even had some mock court with kids dressed up as judges.

His full comment started with a jab about BBC balance, which seems to be awkwardly cut off at the start of all the videos I've seen.

I mean it was a pretty weak over the top joke by a man who plays up a one trick cartoon characterisation of himself. Not particularly well thought out, and the bits about families was probably too far, but all a bit yawn worthy. Free publicity for his Book/DVD though.

Saying that, Top Gear should have been axed years ago. It's felt tired for a long time. It's a shame that Hammond cunt didn't die. It would have been a good end.

On the topic of the one show, the best bit ever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do4yRf71oZM
Matt Baker you are forgiven for being really boring most of the time (Welshy's gasp is also great).

He also made some good and telling comments about soldiers as well in the same episode, which has been cut from the versions circulating - strangely iPlayer is not showing the full version of the episode so context etc is hard to gauge

This!  He has made a career out of comments like this, and most of the time they are tongue in cheek. Most of his script on Top Gear is the same, but only the minority complain about these.  If Clarkson is sacked then so should be Jimmy Carr, Lee Evans, Peter Kay, Russel Howard, Glen Hoddle.... oh hold on!

Cameron lives near enough next door to Clarkson, think the swinging parties might be over now he has condemned him

Am I missing something?

People want more money/better pensions.

The Country has fuck all money.

People go on strike for more money/better pensions.

The Country still has no money.

It's all very well hand-wringing about how unfair it is (Ask the thousands of private sector workers who either haven't had a pay rise at all, or been made redundant, how unfair things are) but the money has to come from somewhere, so who's willing to take a hike in taxation to pay for it? Not me.

Times are tough and will probably get tougher.

Theres a bloke on my Facebook who i know doesn't have a job calling Strikers layabouts...

stopping corperate tax evasion would fill the hole somewhat

The tax that the likes of Vodafone owe wouldn't even make a dent in the pension deficit.

Someone should tell the World's governments this! Why didn't anyone let them know before the global collapse? It's fucking disgusting.

I tried,no one listens to me though.

Make posters.


And use lots of bright colours.

There were reports on how much all the Union leaders get in pension benefits over the last few weeks. They were all getting more in pension benefits than I was getting paid anually.

I think a big reason the Union leaders kicking up a fuss is because if the workforce no longer gets a FS pension, they cannot justify getting such big pension benefit for themselves.

Couldn't the Unions take clarkson outside and shoot him - that DVD would sell well for X Mas.

I imagine that he'd have been one of the first up against the wall anyway.

oh my..I did a bad quote :(

I noticed, but was too polite to mention it.

I've just seen the Clarkson comments on the news. Can't believe it's got that much hype.

One of the articles on the BBC website states they believe there was an organised campaign. It's backfired if there was, Clarkson is laughing all the way to the bank and the unions look a bit twatish as a number of people have back tracked on their stance once they'd actually heard the comments in context.

It's one of the trade-offs that allow companies to set-up shop in the UK and provide mass emloyement.

The government taxes the employee's and not the employer...

Yeah you are missing something. The strikers aint asking for 'more money/better pensions' for starters.
Also money is there as the fat cats are still creaming it off,and money is being wasted on europe and senseless wars we will never win.

Thanks for clearing it up for me.

is that it? i thought you'd at least argue a bit....

So they're using public sector pension funds to pay EU subscriptions and fund wars? Pull the other one.

I didn't say that did I?
But it is the public purse and how they spend it. Robbing Peter to pay Paul. Even propping up the banks who got us into this mess with public money.
Governments have historically borrowed from pension pots though, as you mention it. They continually borrowed from the Royal mail for instance.

Yeah, forget the (already overstretched) defence budget or trying to stop the banking system from collapsing, let's bung it all in pension funds. At least the civil servants will be happy.

This strike was hardly a return to the 1970s, was it.  'Yep, we're all so hard up that we're going to withdraw our labour for one day, pack out shopping centres up & down the country and spend, spend, spend.  That'll show 'em.'

Probably the first time in history that a strike has improved the economy.

You realise that if they hadn't propped up the main high street banks and instead let them collapse, we wouldn't be arguing about a few percent here and there on public sector pensions and that instead we'd all be running around waving our hands in the air shouting "oh fuck it's all turned to shit". The stuff going on Greece would look like a Butlins holiday camp compared to the time we'd be having.

Blaming the banks for the melt down is very simplistic. What about the governments that failed to control the financial industry and instead let it run riot?  Though personally I blame all the twats that voted Labour in to power and kept them there for so long.

Is blaming it on labour not very simplistic?
Labours good work is forgotten due to the war in Iraq and the global financial meltdown.
I think they put alot of the mess left by the Tories right. They will have to do so again when they get the boot in the next general election.

What good work ? The only good thimg they did was leave the budgets as they were for the first few years when the country was actually making real good progress.
Then the rot started with the main culprit being Gordon Brown

that has to be the 1st time in my life i've read someone say that labour have to clean up the tories mess not vice versa

Well here you go again. Labour had to clear up from the mess the Tories left after nearly 2 decades of power.

that went well then ::)

I though Labour were the Tories now.

Labour, Tories, Monster Raving Loony Party....

Isn't it a Global crisis?

Not sure exactly what mess it was that Labour had to clean up. Other than increasing public sector spending, which you could argue the Tories had cut too much. Except once Labour had spent all the cash on hand they carried on spending, borrowing more and more money, continuing the privatisation sell offs, raiding pension funds, increasing taxes and then coming up with new ways to borrow more money (e.g. PFI).

All of which is fine until the economy goes in to meltdown and the country finds itself leveraged to the max with little room to manoeuvre. Whilst it was a global meltdown, if we weren't in so much debt and had regulated our banking industry more we wouldn't be in as bad a mess as we are now.

Not sure it really matters who is in power now, everything is fucked and spiralling out of control. Though out of all the options I do think the Tory-LibDem coalition is the best one and I'd prefer that to continue over a Tory majority.

You forgot to add the Gold Reserves, which were sold off at a prcie that turned out to be rock bottom.

Oh to have some gold reserves now.

Ummmm, who's fault is it that we make next to fuck all in this country now?

Don't think that helps our cause to be honest.

That's a bit of a myth;

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/22/manufacturing_figures/

Look it's simple. Like him or not, let's make Clarkson Employment or Transport Secretary or both!!!


Ok, he's a clever fella and managed to raise his profile in front of milions. That excepted, he only said what people were thinking.  His wording may have been a little bit over the top. But hey, most people were thinking it.

How many watch 'The One Show'?  8 - 9 million and only 5,000 compained!!  That means a lot agreed!!

Civil service - got  a job? = Yes

Civil Service - got a Pension? = Yes

Civil Service - got a pay rise?  = Yes


Private Sector - Got a job?  = A what??

Private Sector - Got a Pension?  = Whats that?

Private Sector - Got a Government funded 1% pay rise?  =  Don't be silly!!

You've not noticed the huge cutting of jobs in the public sector then?  I'm receiving my second "at risk of redundancy" letter in two years on the 23rd December.  If I survive this time (I didn't last time - had to find another job which I was lucky to do) I'll be done for next year.  I'm not complaining, but I do think the public v private sector argument is often built on myths, misunderstandings and a touch of ignorance - on both sides.

A woman interviewed on the picket line on Wednesday said that she joined the Civil Service in the late 70's early 80's and she was on the picket line because the 'attack on her pension' wasn't what she joined up for!!

If she has lasted 30 odd years with any worries so far, lucky her..


Welcome to the real world luv!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Might have helped if that twat Brown hadn't employed over a million new Public Sector Workers - there wouldn't be the need to get rid of so many posts now.....

Everybody loves a good Quango.

Gordon Brown sold off the gold at an average of $295 an ounce. Gold is now traded at over 4 times that price. Apparently in the City that sale is known as 'Brown's Bottom'.

Brown sold UK gold reserves in late 90's, when gold was about the same price at it was in the late 70's, what a master stroke.  I was at a fund managers meeting recently and the only credit they gave Brown was he stood against Blair and would not allow him to take us into the Euro.

http://goldprice.org/30-year-gold-price-history.html

I'm the same, already had my letter and i find out on Dec 28th if i still have a job or not, happy xmas!

And after working 7 years in the public sector (previous 19 in private and had redundancy before to deal with) i can't see if i last this year i will next either...

Good luck fellas.

Am I the only one that finds it strange that the Unions are silent over redundancies yet are happy to call an all out strike when changes are planned to pension schemes? Haven't heard single person in the media mention the redundancies.

Being a leftie, I'm getting pretty fucked off with the Union bashing - public v private bollocks. The bottom line is that the workers on the front line are cannon fodder as they were in wartime. A strike or work to rule are the only weapons in the armoury. If the bosses went on strike for a day or so, what the fuck would happen - nothing. How many times have management teams been on team build days, weeks away and the business still runs OK.
If the working class stuck together we'd be OK but the bastards know that as soon as we breed or take on commitments they've got us by the short and curlies.
 

Hear fucking hear.

And again CS, I agree.

People slating public sector workers for withdrawing their labour is exactly what the government will love to see. You know,those people surfing the net whilst at work calling public workers lazy and fortunate. Many of those on strike wont have that luxury. They will be wiping pensioners backsides,cleaning the street,serving kids lunches,helping kids learn to read and write,etc,etc,etc. Many on minimum wage or a little above it, made to increase their pension payments,pay for longer,recieve it later,and get less,already seen collegues made redundant and had their hours cut with no chance of a pay rise. Their pensions were not gold plated in the first place. They were peanuts in so many cases.

I like Clarkson but he overstepped the mark. He is a public worker,paid with a stealth tax from television licence holders.
He is a Tory and pals with that cunt Cameron. People have been sacked for alot less in broadcasting(not that i'd sack him though)

The "we're all in it together" is a load of shit too. The weathly aint suffering are they? The millionaire Mp's blurting that shit out to us aint suffering are they? they won't be working until they are 67 will they?

There is money,plenty of it. But the government chose to fleece those who need it whilst those with pots of cash get away scot free.

Just a little bit of pedantry - If that's their answer they aren't 'employed' in the Private Sector.

Something I posted on another forum, which sums up my feelings on the whole debacle pretty well.

Firstly, the us and them thing. In what way do you think going on strike is going to improve that situation?

Secondly, the difference your employer being the government makes is that your tax and NI contributions are basically imaginary. If there was no private sector to tax then there wouldn't be any money to pay you, hence no money to tax you on.

It's not indirect. Every time I pay VAT a chunk of that goes on your salary. And however modest that is, if 50% of the working population are receiving it, on top of pensioners, the unemployed and a million other demands on the public purse, then we run out of money. Like we just have.

You can say what you like about my workplace but since you don't fund it I am quite entitled not to listen. Feel free not to buy my products or services. If your union has never complained about "fat cat" bonus payments in the private sector then they are a strange union indeed.

All contracts are up for negotiation at any time, and if my supplier or client was facing bankruptcy then it would be very much in my interests to keep them alive, if I wished to continue that line of business.

Your pay is not based on personal circumstances, and nor is mine, nor that of anyone else I know.


The fact is no government could afford to pay you if they wanted to. If the UK government was a private company as per the comparisons you have made, then it probably would be bankrupt already and your salary, employment contract and pension would be worth precisely nothing.

As things are going at the moment the money will run out very soon, and the government will be faced with a very real choice of who it is able to pay. So ask yourself in those circumstances who will get paid? Who will get money out of a struggling government that owes money to banks, foreign governments, large private investors, international organisations like the IMF, and er, a few pensioners, unemployed people and public sector workers.

That's right, your salary, and those of your many colleagues will be at the bottom of the pile, not because it's fair, not because it's right or just, or the contract says so, but simply because in that situation politicians will have less to lose, and less to fear by screwing over the small guys.

I'm going to make a slightly arrogant presumption that you are not very politically astute.

You are being manipulated and used as a pawn by people who understand all of the above and yet choose to continue pushing this absurd argument in order to build their own financial and political empires. They get a good salary from your union contributions, and whatever they can take from the public coffers as well. They care nothing for you, or your personal circumstances, and they believe they will only benefit from more people who feel they are underpaid and undervalued, and are ready for a bit of turmoil as a result.

That applies to everyone from your local union rep to Ed Milliband.

Strike if you want. Enjoy your day off. As a VAT man please feel free to take many more. But for Christ's sake don't for one minute think these cynical, scheming, lying toads are on your side because they would see you starving in the street before admit they were wrong and take a hit in their own pockets or egos.

edit: didn't refresh before above post was made. I think that's largely spot on.

On the flip side the good old days of the private sector were over a number of years ago. You used to get decent pensions - at least contributions matched at a %, good severance pay and the like as pretty much standard. Its very much changed now, wages are down and benefits aren't what they were.

So forgive for not being supportive of public sector strikers, because I don't find the governments plans too outrageous.

I agree that when someone reforms your pension in 2007 you have every right to be pissed off that somebody is trying to do it again. And when you have something and somebody tries to take it away you there is bound to be anger. I'd be fully supportive of work to rule and no overtime to put pressure on.But  I will never be supportive of disruption to key services.

Ultimately there will be some kind of reform, because eventually the pensions of public sector workers will become more and more tax payer funded if it doesn't. And that is not on.

As for Clarkson, if people are too thick to take it in the context it was said then the deserve to be offended.

On the money.

Just like the Labour party in opposition won't or cannot recognise that as the leaders of the country for thirteen years they are ultimately responsible for the shit we're all in, in a word denial. Oh yes, blame the bankers, for what exactly? Raking millions in EARNED BONUSES, whilst raking in Billions in tax and billions for pensions funds for the PRIVATE sector that Bliar and that one eyed sweaty sock fucking raided and then spent on growing out of proportion the hundreds of thousands of non jobs in the public sector that dwindling private sector employees who then have to pay a higher burden towards the public purse which in turn feeds that voracious monster called the public sector. Then they spend billions more on benefits when we were allegedly booming and borrowed billions more still. Labour as recent history has shown are the Man U of financial profligacy in spending everyone else's money but piss poor at paying it back. Oh they know the game will eventually be up and leave it to the incoming government to pay the bill who always end up being those nasty Tories. They fucked up the legacy that the out going Conservative government (the one lead by by John Major) had built up under the stewardship of the chancellor. What was that legacy I hear you sneering at? Oh, only the best set of government finances left to ANY incoming government in history.

So the note left in the "in tray" at the treasury saying "it's all gone, there is no money" at best was a sick joke but turned out to be spot on. So Mr, Mrs, Miss or MS public sector worker don't expect the private sector to pick up the mess that your probably preferred political party put us in and certainly the preferred choice of support given by those union bosses who did not lose a days pay sending you out on strike.  

I have no pension to speak of. In fact a small amount accrued with a previous employment looks like being gobbled up in fees by the provider so don't bleat on to me and if you're in a shit low paid job, tough you should have tried harder at school. If you have a dearth of kids to feed, tough again you should have put a sack on it or kept your legs closed.

Oh just remember who let let in without a fight all those Eastern Europeans to take jobs and drive down the wages of non public sector workers legit or otherwise.

I'm sick to death of it's the Tories this, it's the bankers that, you can't undo 13 years of one unopposed governments work no matter how good or bad they were in a few years and with the world in financial meltdown no-one is guaranteed anything by anyone no more no matter what you were promised. The more anyone takes now the less your children will have and the more and longer they will have to pay for it.

Even the French and Germans are in denial wrt the Euro and are in the process of trying to engineer a new treaty to get by any means what they want. You remember that treaty that one eye signed up to that was just a tinkering around the edges of the Mastricht treaty. So great was it the one eye sneeked in a few days later and signed on his own.

Oh btw I did not do college or uni and am now going to spend the next few hours working un paid to keep the house warm, food on the table and hope that my letter to Santa arrives before YOURS.

It's hard but it's going to get harder for all of us, just be thankful for what you have.

Not true, increase in contributions doesn't apply to those on £15,000 or less. All of the pension reforms (effectively) don't apply to those over 50 either

So paying longer isn't paying more? Even if what you say is true they are still paying more and have less disposable income as everything else is costing more.
Also i'm sure those on the princely sum of 15 grand a year are doing cartwheels. Those poor buggers wont be able to afford to retire anyway and will have to work until they drop the way things are going.

One thing is for sure,on this topic no matter what anyone puts on here someone will have an opposing view.
An arguement that cannot be won aint it.

Not really when life expectancy is longer.

Those on low incomes won't see their life expectancy rising much. If anything their health will suffer i would expect.
The government are already starting to put the squeeze on the nhs with cuts.

So they'll die earlier because they had to pay more into their pension? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Did i say that?
In some cases i think that will happen though.
 Those already struggling on low incomes,then feeling the squeeze further will go without things. Heating,quality food etc,etc.

Do you read the Daily Mail by any chance?

The changes the teachers made in 2007 were a proven need, so we did it.  No strikes or industrial action, but negotiation.  This time, for example, the government have said the change from RPI to CPI is non-negotiable...hardly a good start to negotiations.

The government have not published the state of the teachers pension (it is two years overdue to be published)...without that how do we know the scheme needs the changes the governement are trying to dictate?  We don't.

As for Clarkson, surely he was having a go at the BBC's need for balance in everything?  Seemed pretty clear to me.  I shall watch a Christmas Top Gear (assuming there is one) and enjoy it as usual.

What are you on about?
But no to your question.

Because you're basically saying people will die earlier because they're being asked to pay more into their pension for longer.

Which would be the complete opposite of the type of typical Daily mail article. More right wing than jpm

Still, your point is completely ludicrous though.

 Life expectantcy is decreasing in areas of poverty already. Putting the squeeze on low earners will see more people falling into poverty which will see life expectancy decrease for more people.
Of course the rich and comfortable will balance that out with long lives so people like you will brush it off as ludicrous.

Forgive my ignorance, but can public sector employees effectively opt out of their pension schemes?

Yes.

Here's the problem -
1. The Govt spends more than it earns; the last govt bridged that gap with borrowing, the current govt is doing the same but is trying to eliminate the deficit over time; if we try to bridge the gap by increasing taxes, it drives wealth-creators away and reduces growth; if we carry on borrowing we either have to let inflation rip to reduce the debt, or we pass on the burden of our own profligacy to our children and grand-children;
2. There are too many public-sector workers - Winky reduced structural unemployment by creating 1m public-sector jobs that weren't previously required - these all have a pension; yes these people pay tax, but for every £100 the govt pays them it only gets back £20 in tax - see the problem?
3. people are living longer, so current pension commitments are unaffordable;
4. we are in a major financial crisis which may get catastrophically worse in 2012 - there is an urgent need to reduce spending in areas which do not create economic growth;
5. Winky not only magicked up an extra 1m public-sector jobs, he also increased public sector pay so that the average public-sector wage is now £3k more than the private-sector one - the old bargain of "get paid less but get a better pension" has been ripped-up; in the private sector, you will get paid less and get no pension or a money-purchase scheme with an unknowable end result;
6. Everyone is suffering - people are getting laid-off, salaries frozen, overtime scrapped, bonuses disappearing - why should the public sector be an exception?

You're basically saying those on the £15k threshold are all struggling to make a living and put food on the table and that they're all going to die because they're being asked to pay another £450 a year into their pension.

Then that's the problem* I have with the strike action. There are alternatives, it's not anybody's fault they just happen to be not as good.

*I say problem because I don't really care. The reality is any government would find a way to claw back money, even if not directly from pension changes. Someone, somewhere is going to be worse off. Tough breaks.

As I said, I have sympathy there. I don't agree that strike action is the way to make a point.

I also think that reducing long term costs to the government is a legitimate action. But if the total  pay in to the pension over the next 20 or 30 years was predicted to be less than the total pay out then aren't you better off with a private pension? You'd effectively be giving a surpless to the pension pot (or more likely the Government).

No i'm not. Try reading what i do say before making your sarcastic comments.

I don't want an account deleting argument, but it did read that way to me too.

 

If that wasn't the point of your posts then I'm struggling to see what was the point.

Poor people's life expectancy in the uk is ten years less than rich people. Fact.

I pay well over £300 per month into my public sector pension, I'm getting a bit pissed off with people saying Im getting something for nothing, I have paid into it for years and now they are changing the rules. But its ok for Bankers to get £1m pound bonuses cause the recession is the fault of police, nurses doctors teachers and social workers.

Hope clarkson has a heart attack and sees the funny side when the ambulance coming to get him gets stuck in traffic....  

Rules change, you still get the 300 per month you put in. Nobody is blaming the man in the street, we have all felt the pain from the bank meltdown.

Lastly I like the hypocrisy of your wish of Clarkson having a heart attack for saying people should be shot.

Like Batch said, rules change. Plenty of private sector schemes have been changed or even closed.

At least your £300pm will still get you a guaranteed pension. Think yourself lucky they haven't changed it to a money purchase scheme or closed it all together.

The public sector needs to be streamlined. Less middle management bullst and more workers on the coal face on a decent wage in health, education, civil service etc. That those who deserve it are not being paid as they should is down to the bloated sector that they work in with diversity officers, equality officers, LGB integration workers and other such bks!

But in this instance they have to recognise that whilst they are a part of this labour party fuelled behemoth, it is one which we just cannot sustain. YES we need to cut benefits to the feckless. YES we need to cut immigration. YES we need to cut health tourists.

BUT the public sector has to be made more streamlined and efficient and begin to provide what it should for the inordinate amount of money being thrown at it. And the people within it just do not recognise what the normal, working person in the street can see from miles away!

I want the local council to sweep mud off the roads and gutters, tidy the hedges, suck the drains out and make sure litter is picked up.

I also want the roads resurfaced when they get damaged by frost and I want a good program of improvements designed to aid flow of traffic, I want affordable car parking near to work.

I want the police to operate a visual effective service that actually cuts crime down, I want the courts to deal with these people effectivly so punishment is a punishment. I want the prisons to be dry and warm and provide food and training but to be a punishment.

I want public transport to be a viable alternative to cars, not just in London but all over the country, if it is to work it needs to be subsidised and run properly with times and frequency to suit the peak hours.

I want a health service that is efficient and has enough beds, doctors, nurses and surgeons, This service needs to be local, a good full hospital in every major town.

This is just for starters, at the moment we get none of the above yet we are paying for all the above many times over.

And I got pissed off when I lost my final salary scheme in 2006, in part thanks to Gordon Brown. It happens. The public scheme would have had to be reformed anyway with or without the recession - it was unsustainable but for obvious reasons Labour bottled it.

The terms on offer are still generous, certainly I would bite the Government's hand off (and probably many others in the private sector) if I was offered those terms.

Personally I think the unions have picked the wrong battle, no-one is going to have much sympathy in these austere times, when a generous pension scheme has been down graded to a slight less generous pension scheme which is still better than most others out there.

The unions would in my view better off keeping their powder dry for other problems coming down track particularly if the Eurozone goes pop.

Well maybe you should read it again as what i said was quite clear.
Samdy was trying to be clever by being sarcastic and twisting what i'd typed. No counter arguements though.

I'd never delete my account due to a arguement on here.

It's those who are bearing the brunt that i don't think is fair. So its "tough breaks" for those who already don't have alot.

You said that those in poorer areas will have a lower life expectancy because of these changes.

What part of that is not saying people will die earlier?

You wont get any of that under a tory government it will only get worse.
Labour with all their faults improved public services

you've misquoted me numerous times in this thread. I'm not going to keep repeating myself as what i said is here in the thread. i certainly didn't make comments like 'they're all going to die because they're being asked to pay another £450 a year into their pension' which you said i did.

if you think i'm talking shit then tell my why i am, i'm yet to read a response from you that tells me why i'm wrong. But i ask you deal with what i do actually post.

I think your argument that people will be forced into poverty because they are being asked to contribute more to their pensions is nonsense.

For the lowest earners affected by the changes (those on £15k), as I have pointed out previously the extra they'll have to contribute is £450 per year. I cannot see how that is going to affect someone's life expectancy.

That better for you?

My life expectancy has just shortened after reading the last few pages of this thread.

Look common sense,government stole pensions,been caught out,you pay extra £250 year and take a pay freeze, pay in for another 5 years, goverment can pay pension,I work for Royal Mail pay £120 month pension,goverment did not invest for 10 years(took pension holiday)now billions in the red and blaming us,but I still had to pay,wheres my money?
lib con thats right

Blair/Brown let companies take 'pension holidays' in the late 90's before the full effects of Brown's £5-10bn annual raid on pensions. Labour ruined ALL pension funds accross the board with this stealth tax. The Private sector have been paying through the nose in the last 10 years and now it's the Public sector to feel the pinch...the only difference the Public sector have been still offered a final salary pension, which there are very few left of in the private sector.

I thought it was now going to be based on an average salary not final?

You've sort of provided both the problem, the cause and the solution in that one post. It wouldn't matter who was in power, shit is fucked and it needs to be sorted.

I know Gordon Brown fucked up but i honestly believe he was trying to do the best for everyone. Blair was a tory in a red cloak and Brown was onto a loser the moment he took on the leadership.
Remember, we were all lapping it up for years under Labour and they were good years for the general public. There were and still are some genuine good back benchers amongst them.

I don't believe the tories are for the good of all. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer under mad maggie and it looks like it's happening all over again. 18 of the 22 cabinet ministers are millionaires telling us we are in it together. Such bullshit.
Cuts will bite hard. Not just the pensions. Vital services built up by Labour will be lost. The tory party are brutal with their destruction of anything public. Always have been in my living memory

I don't remember seeing any evidence to support the belief the wealth gap narrowed under Labour, quite the opposite in fact as there is plenty to suggest it got wider. Labour aren't short of their share of millionaires and privileged backgrounds either.

Whilst they put a lot of money in to public services I don't believe we got value for money as a lot of it was pissed away on bureaucracy, consultants and middle management. Of course it's difficult to really tell as all politicians manipulate statistics but I didn't see any major improvement in any public services first hand under Labour.

The Tories would argue that by reducing public spending they put more money in peoples pockets which they can spend as they choose. You can debate whether this is good or bad but portraying it as simply cutting public spending is very simplistic.

Sorry bollocks. You do not deliberately tax the poorest and most vulnerable in society in order to give a tax break for those who will win you an election, nor deliberately put 10,000's people out of work to carry favour with the unions because his premiership was on the line, if you think it's best for everyone.

Could you explain further please?

Am happy to. First point refers to the abolition of the 10p tax band - which subsequently paid for 2p cut on higher wage earners. It was a trick Brown employed in his last budget as Chancellor not only to win the Labour leadership election but also to win over 'middle England'' He was warned repeatedly by Blair, Civil Servants and the Treasury before the announcement of its impact on lower earners  but still ahead he went - he hoped to getaway with it. The trick was picked up within hours of that budget by journalists. As with all Brown budgets he revelled in trying to trick people. This time it was on the back of the poor which rightly backfired.

As for my second point, I refer to the EU Agency Workers Directive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_and_Agency_Work_Directive) on which we had a veto. Brown rightly threaten to veto it because by Government's own stats it would cost tens of thousands of jobs but in order to gain favour from the Unions when his Premiership came under pressure he agreed. The Unions had calculated that those job loses would force companies to employ more permanent staff who were 'more unionised'.

That is just two reasons why the man was a complete cunt and not interested in 'everyone' And I haven't touched on Brown and McBride or his deliberate 'economic scorched earth' policies to make it harder for the incoming Tories (coalition) before the 2010 election.

Now who's Daily Mail?

How did your shite excuse of a football team get on today ?

Forever in our shadow and just love this inferiority complex that appears to get bigger every year you have with us.

Thanks. Interesting points. The thing with politics is that every decison made is viewed differently.
It is a subject that interests me,and i've learned that political arguements cannot be won. It's up to people to make up their own minds regarding it all really. You certainly make your points well and i respect them.

You know he's not really an Oxford fan, right?

A final salary pension can be based on a range of salary definitions, very few are these days based on actual final salary. More like an average of the last five years salary.  What's important is its a defined benefit scheme and not a money purchase scheme, where you're basically in the lap of the markets Gods.

Ah right, cheers muchly for your reply. I was taking the 'final' bit literally.

A money purchase scheme is what I now have and you're dead right - it's in the lap of the Gods

Didn't play - got knocked out by Sheffield United in the previous round.

Phrases like 'forever in our shadow' immediately put an image of a chimp sitting at a keyboard into my mind. Do you suffer from a mental handicap?

Ok im going to admit my total lack of understanding of the debt crisis here, so feel free to take the piss I dont mind...

So we as a country owe zillions?

1.who do we actually owe it to?
2.does anyone owe us anything?

The BBC have got a flashy graphic thingy showing which countries owe what and to whom;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15748696

How the fuck can we owe ireland more than they owe us?

According to that we owe the US 578bn and they owe us 834bn

so we win,whats the problem

but who do we actually owe the money to,who lends it? banks? goverments?

It's lent to governments in the form of gilts/bonds from investors (banks).

They explain some of the quirks in the numbers in the sidebar text.


The charts show all the money owed by one country to another, not just the Government debts. So if a UK bank had borrowed money from a US bank, say to fund a mortgage offer, then it shows as a UK to US debt. Hence our total foreign debt is €7.3tn and our total Government debt is €1.4tn (which isn't all foreign debt).

There are other related articles on the BBC website (mainly the blogs) which explain why despite what those figures may suggest, countries like Italy and Spain are really in the shit and we aren't.

That chart is bollocks as it does not include China, Most of the western world has massive debts to them.