I just heard the PM say that 40% of schools are open in spite of the strike and there is a video clip on BBC news of passport control moving at a pace at Heathrow I haven’t seen it for years. No doubt tomorrow we’ll get a better picture but possibly the strike will not be as damaging as feared. I am in receipt of one of those generous NHS doctors pensions which makes me pause before criticising too loudly those public sector workers who can see their working lives will be longer, they’ll have a poorer pension than our generation and they’ll have to contribute more while they’re working. But you only have to look at the private sector workforce, only 20% of whom have a salary-related pension, compared to 80% public sector, to realise that most private sector staff have to fund their own pensions for very modest returns of unknown eventual value to see how unfair it is that public sector workers, who now earn just as much as private sector workers and still enjoy greater security of employment, should be supported to a far larger extent by the tax payer. I understand why the strikers are cross and feel its unfair to change expectations but they must accept that there will be little sympathy for their action while negotiations continue.
Teachers and head teachers who strike merely impose an unreasonable burden on children and parents, many of whom will lose a day’s pay to stay home to care for children abandoned by their schools. What sort of solidarity is that? Do they really expect to keep professional respect for that? And that seems to me to be the problem of public sector strikes…it’s always some other poor worker who suffers as a result.
There’s a problem with the maths when a single pension can be shown to be better, or worse, depending on your political perspective.
However, setting aside the fraught debates about whether the proposals are good or bad – my main angst is how they are funded.
A private pension has to be built up during the working life of the recipient – it is a long term savings scheme, and in my opinion rightly so.
If a company offers a pension scheme, it is legally required to manage it and keep it fiscally solvent.
(whether they do that is another issue).
However, civil servant pensions are funded from the taxes of the next couple of generations, not from the wages of those who later go on to collect the pension.
The government has opted out of funding pensions in the manner that they require everyone else to follow.
In essence, today’s strikers are striking so that their grandchildren will pay more taxes.
It’s that bit which I have problems with.
The right to strike is a human right.
http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/news_centre/index.cfm/id/8D6A9A24-F149-465B-AD148C662890A8B5
The idea that any government can feel it is within their jurisdiction to remove that right is not a government of democracy.
Those who withdraw their labour do so because they feel they have been ‘sold down the river.’ And those on strike today have.
As we all have. Their money was taken under false pretenses. The contract made was broken. Government changed the goal posts mid game. And no mention of returning money’s already paid is broached. Oh, not a word of that. We’ll play lets pretend the worker is the beast. They deserve to have their heads cut off.
On top of that, we are repeatedly advised there is no money in the coffers and so ‘austerity’ for the next 30 years is needed.
Oh, yes. So why is Cameron giving away the silver to the likes of Virgin, the Quatari development companies, the aid to foreign states, and on and on and on. A country that is facing bankruptcy and devastation for its people, taxes the rich who can afford it, regulates the way the money is spent and the wastage by officials is capped and it gets it’s house in order. It doesn’t give back handers to friends and turn a smiling face to the public whilst doing it. We are all in it together is taking the p–s isn’t it?
Strike, I’d say this government is fortunate indeed, that our people, the British people, are such a tolerant breed.
You should be thanking your lucky stars that the strike is for one day. And not every day, until you make decisions that suit ‘all’ the people, not just a few.
I support those on strike today.
“The contract made was broken. Government changed the goal posts mid game.”
All contracts change and have done so this is nothing new. Of course if you want people to observe contracts to the letter I think the government will be quite happy to pay workers what they signed up to in 1967!
“And no mention of returning money’s already paid is broached.”
All accrued benefits are untouched. It’s what’s going forward that changes.
“So why is Cameron giving away the silver to the likes of Virgin”
You are aware he’s required to sell it by the EU.
@Croft:
Here is a little story on this Cameron freebie to the American, Wilbur Ross, who is the main shareholder, Branson and the Abu Dhabi invester’s, a joint second.
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/business/9391592.Virgin_getting_Northern_Rock_for_free_MP_claims/
Now where is it that you found or saw that the EU requires the UK to sell off it’s nationalized banks? I can’t find it.
And here is an entirely different point of view.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2011/11/britain-and-eu-1
“So why is Cameron giving away the silver to the likes of Virgin”
==========
Silver? More a bucket of s***.
Brown paid well over the odds for NR. Even now what is being sold is just the ‘cream’ on that bucket. The rest is with the taxpayer.
It you pay multiples of the real value for NR, why are you surprised that you don’t get your money back when its sold?
@LB:
So, if that is the case, why did the UK government bail it out in the first place wit the tax payers welfare money?
And more, we now read that the American, Wilbur Ross, and his Branson chum, have got the entire bank for free. A fiddle with the readies.
Want to bet it will suddenly become a huge money maker for the American, Quatari and Branson pals of this nasty little breed of illusionists, and we will be left wondering how it all came about. Scratching our silly little heads whilst they laugh all the way to Necker Island.
There must be some way for the ‘people’ as a group, to be able to sue the faces who pulled this deal off. Either the leader or the group altogether. That would put an end to this chicanery.
So, if that is the case, why did the UK government bail it out in the first place wit the tax payers welfare money?
==========
Because Gordon Brown was an idiot. He didn’t work out what they were worth. He just went with his socialist gut instinct and thought, look its cheap. If I nationalise it, I’m a hero.
ie. He couldn’t trade gold, he can’t trade stocks either, and over the near future you will see he’s pathetic at insurance too. Who in their right mind sells insurance after the building has burned down? Yep. GB.
As for the outcome, it depends on the economy. Even the good loans can go sour.
There must be some way for the ‘people’ as a group, to be able to sue the faces who pulled this deal off. Either the leader or the group altogether. That would put an end to this chicanery.
You might think so, but the peers and MPs have it stitched up. You don’t get a look in. They will dictate to you, and spend your money. Democracy? You mean you want a vote on what we do with your money? Nah, we can’t have the plebs making a decision. They might cut our expenses, …
Some 39 years ago when I started work in the Inland Revenue I saw the amounts of pension paid by some private pension schemes – the amounts were derisory frequently. Since then the quality of private pension provision improved considerably, though occasionally hampered by employers inadvisedly taking pension holidays from their employer contributions (sometimes for cash flow needs). For a long time, the employer/employee contributions were quite moderate and certainly below 10% on either side. The big change in the last 20 years has been the dramatic extension of life expectancies and this meant that contributions inevitably had to rise from one party or the other, or both, or a variation in when retirement occurred or the terms of the pensions paid. When I was a councillor negotiator on behalf of local government employers between 1986 and 1994, we were alive to this then and in a sense it is a surprise that the issue is only really coming to a head now rather than a decade or more earlier.
The trigger is the drop in stock markets in recent years which led actuaries to point out that delay was no longer possible. It’s my gut belief, without seeing any evidence one way or another, that there was an element of panic here which is unnecessary. Taking a longer view, pension funds may stabilise without all the drastic action now going through. What is happening is that some public sector schemes are being pulled down to the lower levels of private schemes without a full actuarial need.
Personally I see the case for moving from final salary schemes, provided that applies to all employees and not just all bar the top tier, to career average schemes, as the latter will benefit those whose incomes do not dramatically rise during their careers and those who have had career breaks. It will not however make up for the lost years during child-rearing, so women will generally still have poorer pensions than men. I have a gut dislike however for money purchase schemes, suspecting that they disguise the poor investment outcomes. On the other hand, we don’t ever want a repeat of Equitable Life where a complex mix of assured returns and with profit returns dragged the former down with the latter when the unsoundness of the entire enterprise came to light.
One of the factors really infuriating unions is that all public sector schemes are being lumped together under, or tarred with, a broad brush, when some schemes were operating quite satisfactorily. For example, the teacher pension scheme. Francis Maude has just asserted there is no teacher pension fund, but the scheme is considered actuarily healthy, so I understand.
One issue does need addressing – the milking of the scheme by early retirements especially of those who then take on lucrative consultancies. As a councillor I was often advised by officers to authorise early retirements, often to engineer management restructuring, where the full cost to the local government pension scheme was not spelt out but was considerable. I would like to see more transparency about the cost of such packages, preferably before they get the OK.
Finally, I am not sure that Parliament yet grasps the impact of the switch from RPI to CPI – here I must declare an interest as a public service pensioner – where it is now conceded by ministers there is a permanent loss to the pensioner.
1. Derisory amounts – most likely cause – derisory contributions.
2. Life expectancy increase have been predictable for a long time.
3. Unfunded schemes. ie. Most government schemes. They took the contributions and spent them. There is no cash. That and that alone is the reason they are defaulting.
4. The FTSE. It’s not as bad as you think. For a median worker (26K) if they had put their NI into the FTSE for the last 40 years, then bought an annuity (manipulated government interest rates), they would have an annuity of 21K a year, RPI linked, joint life.
The reason is simple, there is growth with the FTSE, and there is compound interest.
ie. The government has ripped off people. Over 75% of their pension has been squandered. Your Gut dislike is not backed up by the evidence.
Early retirees. Solved by money purchase.
Paying 80 years for services rendered last year? Solved by money purchase.
Direct comparison of public and private sector salaries – solved by money purchase.
You can evaluate the cost of public services. No hiding the real cost for another generation.
No leaving debts for children to pay off. Debt bondage is bad in the UK as it is in the third world.
RPI to CPI. 15% off.
Raise the state retirement age one year, 5K off the state pension plus any NI contributions.
Notice with all of this, who is the villain. It’s the government.
Even with rip off providers, the government could have easily capped the fees. They didn’t. It takes two to rip off the public and the government is complicit in the fraud.
Peers have done nothing to stop this. Time to axe them.
It’s quite moderate of you, Lord Blogger, to confine your abolitionism to your final sentence.
On money purchase, the problem is, as with any purchased annuities, that the terms are those obtainable at the date of purchase. There is no inflation linking thereafter, whatever inflation measure is used (and I agree CPI is a rip-off) and you are locked into whatever you bought. I also am not convinced that stock exchange yields will be as good 2011-2051 as they were 1971-2011, taking dividend yields into account.
The basic weakness of our economy lies not in the supposedly generous terms of public sector worker pensions, but elsewhere. I would cite the fact that over 52% of net personal wealth is invested in owner-occupied residential property. Had we less obsession with owner-occupation, and were not to favour this by tax subsidies on a gigantic scale, people would invest their savings, such as they may be, elsewhere – hopefully in bank deposits, national savings, unit trusts, and equity interests in small and medium enterprises and non-equity interests in mutuals and cooperatives. I mention bank deposits and national savings not because I particularly trust the banks or the government, but because people should have readily accessible savings. This country is under-invested in its enterprises. They lack working capital and investment capital. Rather than seek this from the native population they sell their souls and ownership to foreign companies. If just 1% less was invested in owner-occupied property and instead in enterprises that would be an extra £72billion working capital for businesses, mutuals and cooperatives. And these investments could act as supplements to, or substitutes to, pensions whether public or private and whether managed well or poorly.
http://www.annuitybureau.co.uk/resources/rates_rpi.html
Quite wrong. Here are the prices for RPI linked annuities, available now.
You can go fixed if you want, its your choice, but RPI are available,
The basic weakness of our economy lies not in the supposedly generous terms of public sector worker pensions, but elsewhere.
It’s part of the weakness. 1.3 trillion worth.
1.05 trillion of borrowings. (Gilts)
PFI, Nuclear decommisioning, state pension, state second pension. All without assets.
So the economy is predicated on servicing government debts.
Had we less obsession with owner-occupation, and were not to favour this by tax subsidies on a gigantic scale,
There is no subsidy. MIRAS has gone. Now I can already see the reply. CGT. However, what would happen if everytime you moved you had to pay 30-40% of the house price? Hmmm. Even worse.
The next part of your post is correct. We are underinvested. We’re underinvested because it doesn’t make economic sense if the government is going to take 50% of the winnings, none of the losses, for no effect on their part.
They lack working capital and investment capital.
So lets go money purchase for everyone, and make it compulsorary.
Now, there is your capital. That drives up investment. Drives up jobs (so long as you don’t import the labour), and so those who are disadvantaged get onto the workforce.
You also have to remember about borrowing for start ups. Most people use property equity for this. It’s one of the current problems.
1/ The cost of an RPI-linked annuity is prohibitive relative to a fixed annuity, as paying £100,000 for a £3,950 (before tax) annuity demonstrates for a single man of 65.
2. I agree PFI was and is lunatic – the present government has OK’d around 50 to date. Nuclear decommissioning is a bottomless pit for the future. The state pension being unfunded was an inevitable consequence of its origins – there was no way Lloyd George could have created in one year the pot from which to pay the pensions payable from year one, however small they were and however short the then life expectancies upon retirement.
3. Clearly mortgage interest tax relief has gone but the CGT relief is the bigger relief. Obviously bringing in CGT on owner-occupied houses would require a lot of reliefs to make CGT remotely palatable – for the first £100,000 of a gain, some form of exemption of the gain accrued before 2011, some form of indexation to relieve any modest inflation increases in property values. But the yield would grow with each year and would enable relief from taxation on other fronts – for example gains on owner-run businesses (with some ceiling naturally) and reintroduction of reduced rates of income tax. With these sweeteners I think it could be done by a brave Chancellor in the early years of a Parliament.
4. I doubt we can ever eliminate borrowing against assets or future earnings. It’s the driver of such much we do in life. But measured borrowing risks against assets of genuine value is not unhealthy in moderation – like alcohol. But it is intoxicating at times of inflation.
1/ The cost of an RPI-linked annuity is prohibitive relative to a fixed annuity.
2820 for a RPI joint life at 60 (civil service standard).
It’s the cost. That’s what it costs for such a product. If you think that’s expensive, you could always go into the market, offer a higher amount, and clean up if its too low an amount for the payments that are made.
It’s not. If you want a discussion on how to calculate the fair price of an annuity, I’ll lead you through it.
I agree PFI was and is lunatic
Probably. It takes two to tango. The lender and the borrower. Who is at fault if the borrowing costs are too high? Not the lender. The borrower can always say no.
However, PFI is peanuts compared to the other debts. They are also off balance sheet items. Ever wonder why?
CGT
See, you have to have all sorts of exemptions – which lead to loop holes. What you’ve also ignored is the side effects. People will be very reluctant to move.
For example, would you move to get an extra 5K a year at the other side of the country, if it meant you had to pay 40K in CGT? It’s bonkers. Now if you are rich, you would just let to buy, so you would avoid all of it.
New taxes don’t solve anything, because high taxes are the problem.
Why would you invest in a business if 50% of the profits go to the government, for no risk or effort on their behalf? Get rid of such taxes, and people will take the risk, leading to jobs and taxes on the employees.
I doubt we can ever eliminate borrowing against assets or future earnings.
It’s going to happen sooner than you think. It’s called default, and its already in process.
What do you think reneging on pension deals is? It’s a default. They have borrowed and spent people’s pension money. Now they are reneging on that debt.
I have a basic state pension. Not having a car is worth £5000 per year. Growing my own veg is worth another £2,000.
I am well off, and can occasionally even rabble rouse in the palace of Westminster, on a day out.
Forst the attack on private sector pensions. That was very successful. Now the poor provision for the private sector is being used to launch an attack on public sector pensions.
All the time the advances made for working people are being reversed. What’s Parliament doing to protect people? What’s it doing about tax avoidance by the richest individuals and corporations? As more children fall into poverty – what is our Parliament doing? Now is not the time for Parliament to become irrelevant.
No David. It’s not that its being transferred from Private to public.
It’s because for the vast majority of public sector pensions there is no fund. Total for the civil service alone (present value) 1.3 trillion. (not billion, trillion)
So why should the public pay that sum to a small minority for no services in return?
problem with the maths when a single pension can be shown to be better, or worse, depending on your political perspective.
I mean where would we be, if everybody interested in the exchequer added up the same?
This blog is typical of a generation who have enjoyed all the benefits of a generous welfare state and the decided to pull up the draw bridge to their children and grandchildren. The baroness says herself she recieves an excellent doctors pension. Why should today’s doctors, nurses, soldiers and teachers not revieve the same? The governments own study shows public sector pensions declining as a % of GDP over the comng decades. I also see the noble baroness is not so concerned about the national debt to not claim the maximum £300 attendance allowance for each day she turns up at the lords. Perhapes given the generous pension she admits to recieving she might decide not to claim and do her bit to show ‘we are all in it together?’
“Why should today’s doctors, nurses, soldiers and teachers not revieve the same?”
Because workers who retired in 1960 lived relatively short periods on their pension its risen by decades since yet the contributions have not.
“The governments own study shows public sector pensions declining as a % of GDP over the comng decades.”
A large part of the mess in private sector pensions have been due to actuaries grossly miscalculating life expectancy when the schemes were started. 50 years ago schemes looked fireproof but today have closed or restructured to avoid collapse. Relying on calculation to be accurate 50yrs in the future is hopelessly optimistic yet it is only over that period that the %GDP ‘corrects’.
The issue today is that we have a massive deficit ~9.6% GDP but if you look at the pension gap between public worker contributions (static at ~21Bn 2010-2015) and the amount claimed by public sector retirees (~24Bn 2010 -> ~33Bn 2015) you can see the unfunded gap over the next few years is growing from ~3bn to ~12bn at a time when we are desperately trying to balance the books. The projections have this increasing further post 2015 so the government can’t just sit a hope for the best in ~50yrs time.
A large part of the mess in private sector pensions have been due to actuaries grossly miscalculating life expectancy when the schemes were started.
==========
It’s a tad more complex.
1. Life expectancy is entirely predictable. It’s been increasing between 1 year in 8-10 years since the mid 19th century. Bar a couple of blips for world wars. It’s a rather smooth graph.
What’s happened is that people didn’t like the cost of these increases. So they ‘assumed’ they were going to stop. They didn’t, so you then get black holes in the pensions systems. Liabilities > assets in all of them [Government system means assets = 0]
The next problem isn’t just that the payouts are growing, its that the payouts are linked to inflation, but the receipts from the people who pay it, is linked to GDP. Taxation .
Rates of growth in the UK are far below the rate of inflation, and so the public sector are milking it even more than the government dodgy figures would suggest.
They have my respect simply because they are standing up to the likes of Cameron and Clegg and it’s their way of saying enough is enough! When you’re sitting where they are knowing they have to work longer for less and meanwhile struggling like crazy, whilst the likes of people in Government and the banks and those who have money in tax havens doing less for more, is it any wonder they’re walking the streets complaining?
Those pensions you say have to be funded by the tax payers but I have news for you, they are the tax payers. They are the true people keeping this society together. They don’t sit there all day making up rules and laws to suit themselves and their friends and family who have millions sitting in their banks already, they work hard for it. They also don’t have a pot of money they can call on whenever they feel like it for expenses.
The money they will lose out on because of striking will put a real hole in their pay packets. It wouldn’t dent the likes of you lot in government.
Remember one thing. Without those in society who teach, nurse, clean etc, you lot on your high pedestals are nothing. Absolutely nothing and you should be supporting those people 100%.
hose pensions you say have to be funded by the tax payers but I have news for you, they are the tax payers
=======
Really. And where do they get the money from to pay those taxes?
yep, the private sector or borrowing (dumping the problem on children)
Create an island and put 10 people on it.
Each earns 10 units.
One decides to set up a civil service to ‘service’ the others.
90 units of wealth now get generated by the private sectory.
1 unit from 9 goes in taxation. 1 unit comes from the civil servant in tax. Total 10 units of revenue.
So gross pay for the civil servant in 10 units. Take home is 9.
So the private sector are paying 9 units of tax.
Civil servant is taking home 9 units.
Where does the civil servant contribute anything to his take home pay?
Now scale it up. 20 people, 2 civil servants. Are they paying anything
towards their take home pay?
Notice too that the take home pay of the private sector, and the civil servant have gone down.
Why should today’s doctors, ….nurses, soldiers and teachers not revieve the same They are all overpaid for what they do, and as for coppers, drastically overpaid due to the power of their unions.
too that the take home pay of the private sector, and the civil servant have gone down. Goooood!
Come and do some vegetable gardening, and find out how half the world earns your food for you.
Gareth, do you really mean what you say here – that nurses, doctors, soldiers and teachers are all overpaid for what they do? As opposed to whom? Relative to whom? Sure, they are paid more than those in the Third World but have a much higher cost of living here than there.
As to take-home pay falling in real terms, you may find this good but tell a civil servant that his – or more likely her, given there is a majority of female civil servants – pay having been frozen for two years will now rise for just 1% for each of the next two years at a time when inflation, admittedly modest relative to the Thatcher years, is rising faster. IF you want revolting public servants you are going the right way.
decided to pull up the draw bridge to their children and grandchildren.
=====
No they haven’t. They need them. They have to supply the cash to keep them in the style to which they have become used to.
Then they don’t care. Those two generations will have been milked dry, and its their problem.
The governments own study shows public sector pensions declining as a % of GDP over the comng decades.
It’s flawed. If you read it they have assumed they have a fund, invested in AA corporate bonds, and that there won’t be a default. It results in a higher discount rate, and a lower value, leading the conclusion it must be affordable.
However, there is no fund. What matters is the rate the liabilities grow, and that is at inflation. So to present value the liabilities you have to use a rate of zero. That leads to a much large true liability, and its unaffordable, even with the changes.
That’s why the government doesn’t include these items in its accounts. It’s a Ponzi. It’s the start of the end game for the Ponzi.
So with no assets, the public sector have every right to be worried. They won’t get the reduced pensions, let alone what they wanted to keep.
The first underlurking question here, needing to be answered honestly, accurately, and publicly, is a compound but simple one:
1. What is the longest-term Purpose of Life On Earth ?
(a) Within that, what is the longest-term Purpose of this Human Race on Earth ?
(b) Within that, what is the UK’s longest-term purpose on Earth ?
(c) Within that:
(i) what is the UK Civil Service’s longest-term purpose, medium-term purpose, and short-term (say 5 years) purpose on Earth ? and
(ii) How compatible is that purpose with the overarching purpose of the British Constitution and of the Governing Establishment ?
The second underlurker is:
2. What is the longest-term Economics-Equation for fulfilling the above Purpose(s)* ?
(d) Within that what is the longest-term Budget for keeping** our Human population and both its Workplaces and Lifeplaces, sustainworthy ?
(e) Within that, what is the longest-term Civil Service budget, for keeping both the UK Population – and within that the Civil Service itself – both sustainworthy & sustained ?
—————————————
* incidentally, I disagree with merited Professor Iain Stewart, of TV documentary series “How Earth Made Us” fame, that “It is not the Earth that needs saving – it’s Uz !”
my angle and point being that without confining our whole Human Race to living within the Earth’s Means, by “saving” the Earth’s Lifesupports and conserving them, the Earth will be increasingly ‘downgraded’ as a Life-Support; and ‘though Iain may be quite right that “even if we Humans are extincted, some Life will go on (on this disrupted and majorly life-extincted planet)”.
In short, it is only by saving the Earth’s Lifesupports that we shall save Ourselves.
** given that both the UK Population & the Civil Service are each and both already both fit-for-Purpose & sustainworthy ?
There is no ‘purpose’. That is just religion.
Even replicating DNA isn’t a purpose.
Some good comments there, thanks.
IanVisits has a good point that most public sector pensions will be paid by future earners who pay tax since there is no fund at all but pensions come out of current tax revenues. The burden of unfunded pensions will be faced by our grandchildren. Croft’s response to Dave edwards is correct; the demographics are different now and there’s no changing that. I don’t moan that my pension is very much worse than that of doctors today because my pay was much lower than doctors’ pay now is. Why should today’s doctors feel aggrieved if their pension is a slightly lower proportion of total lifetime earnings than my final salary scheme? The rise in public sector pay more than compensates for the change in the value of pensions; although contributions are higher, the contributions are out of a bigger pot. I know there’s no arguing with someone who thinks members of the Lords shouldn’t be recompensed for what they do. But I can assure you I wouldn’t even on my NHS pension be able to afford to travel to and stay in London every week without being paid allowances to do so. You Dave Edwards donate your own money in order to work I suppose? Basically that’s what you’re advocating.
This business of the right to strike is not straight-forward. There is no legal right to strike in British common law, but for most of the last century that did not matter as a result of the 1906 Trade Disputes Act made the right to take industrial action immune from prosecution. You could not be sued for the company’s loss, so long as the strike met certain criteria. In recent years, these criteria have been tightened and now it is quite difficult to strike. I accept that most people feel that withdrawing their labour as a last bargaining weapon is acceptable when all other avenues have been explored but it is quite another matter as to whether, even if there is a kind of legal ‘right’ it is morally right in the particular circumstances. It is one thing to withdraw labour from an industrial concern or industry where profits will be reduced and one may be risking one’s own future employment; quite another to impose hardship on other members of the public who are dependent on a service.
You Dave Edwards donate your own money in order to work I suppose
A good many people do, especially in the cooperative sector.
I have always paid to attend parliament and I spent six years doing so,1994-2003, quite apart from local government service many years ago, for which I claimed a cup of tea at the county show.
I shall continue doing so and I still shall not claim expenses, which I am invariably told I should be doing.
Indeed had I claimed expenses in 1995 onwards
I would certainly have been “given something to do”. As it was I have found plenty of useful things to do, without so much as going near the expenses office.
I hope that helps.
It is one thing …..; quite another to impose hardship on other members of the public who are dependent on a service.
It may not be, if it compels the dependent ones to reconsider their need for dependence, which is usually the case.
There is no legal right to strike in British common law, (BM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Union_and_Labour_Relations_(Consolidation)_Act_1992
protect the right of workers in a union to take action, if necessary by strike, to support and defend their interests, when reasonable notice is given, and action is “in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute”
I fail to see what common law has got to do with it.
The burden of unfunded pensions will be faced by our grandchildren
==========
Lets analyse that bit for what hasn’t been said.
They will pay, but they won’t receive any services for that money.
So why is it that debt forgiveness is right for the third world, but not for children in the UK? Bonded Labour is good. Serfdom is good. Slavery is good. Yep, sums that up.
But I can assure you I wouldn’t even on my NHS pension be able to afford to travel to and stay in London every week without being paid allowances to do so
That will save us quite a lot of money. Helps pay off the debts.
This business of the right to strike is not straight-forward.
It should be. You should not be forced to labour for anyone. Hence there should be a right to strike. You however, have to give notice that you intend to strike, and I suggest that it is the same period as you notice with the company. The employer should also have the right to say, fine, I’m not employing you on that basis.
Similarly, tax payers should have the right to strike when it comes to the government. They should be allowed to go on strike, and the government can then exercise its right not to provide them with any services. For exactly the same reason. People aren’t serfs or slaves. Feudalism ended and we shouldn’t allow the state to do likewise.
Forced labour is slavery.
tax payers should have the right to strike when it comes to the government. They should be allowed to go on strike, and the government can then exercise its right not to provide them with any services
You can’t and they won’t! It’s an idea though.
There must be a moral there somewhere?
I feel governments are getting away with murder, and worse than that is, people condone this robbery. None of you seem to insist or even consider the people who make these decisions, with tax payers money, on our behalf, have misspent it. Whilst people whose money is put into their hands, by force, are sold hogwash and lies. Or you could call it, misappropriation of our collective funds, which is gaining pace as I write. They know we have tumbled and are rushing to get their obsession through the door as quick as they can, before they are out on their ear.
Take the most recent news we have regarding the spending of our funds, that is so downright outrageous the public should be calling for a general election on the grounds of no confidence in those who rule.
We are now to put up with a ‘law’ that ‘compels,’ regardless of financial status and horrendous poverty in this country, to give to despots and maharajahs elsewhere, foreign aid amounting to £29 billion pounds. Compelled by ‘law,’ remember, not simply a decision made by those in power of the day. This is treasonous. To compel us as a people, without first going to the country, to force us into charity we have no reason or position to comply with.
The trouble with this bunch, and frankly most of them in our Parliament is, they have either been to Public school and have no idea how the ordinary man lives, and save the Rhino is their priority, to the extent of extinction of those they beg to give them the right to do so. As those suffering in ‘our’ hospitals and ‘care homes’ doesn’t affect them one iota, or, they choose not to acknowledge it, as those poor foreigners are more in need than we. Except, of course, the needy of those we give to don’t see a penny of it. Just as ours don’t.
On top of that, you have Croft here, telling us that the ‘contract’ we have with governments, that took our money under false pretenses, have a right to do so. Because, there are always changes and alterations reneged on, so this is okay. How he reaches this remarkable conclusion is an enigma. He extols the idea which tells us we would not have inflation proof pensions anyway. Who is the major pusher of inflation that would reduce our pensions accordingly? Can anyone tell me? Quantitative easing being one of them. This line is a load of hogwash.
Who creates inflation? Who is in control of the money? And why are we willing to allow them to have this money without any guarantees that they will not abuse that trust? As they have done and do still now. And when they make a mess of it, and leave us in dire straights, walk away with ease, smug in their belief they were the great saviours. Not once having to pay for their abandon.
Instead of laws compelling our tax paying public to feed those abroad, who will not work for themselves, who breed in outrageous proportions, are totally unwilling to address the issues, and who choose one way or another, to live under a different government expectation, we should immediately set up ‘laws’ that bring those who take office here, under control. Now a law of that kind would change matters to ‘our’ benefit at once.
Laws that can eject a government who lied to be in office, should be on the cards. With say, just a 100,000 people calling for them to be ousted. See how quick they would stand to attention should we insist on a law like that.
And another ‘law’ that says should a government who hid what they had planned in real terms, be found guilty of action against the will of the voter, they must personally be held responsible, out of their own pocket, to repay, in proportion to their deceit, back into the peoples coffers.
Further, there must be a department that has to see, beyond doubt, that laws enshrined that will change the population, as in mass immigration, and the culture of our population, must be put to a referendum before any action can be taken in that direction.
Here is an example of what I am talking about. The absolute audacity of the wife of the ‘cheating’ Liberal Democratic Party, has decided to use her husbands back, as she is an unelected individual, who it is very doubtful could be so elected, to now ‘call’ for quotas to boost women in the boardroom. Regardless of their ability.
First and foremost this woman is in no position to fight for anything, she hasn’t been approved by the public to do so. Secondly she is Spanish and as Spain has decided to have more women than men in their cabinet, she feels she is on the up with a quick chance to rule here, via the position of her husband. Secondly, has she taken a vote from British women on this issue? She being a self styled fighter for British women’s rights. One would think she may like to seek some kind of authority from British women to do this on their behalf.
And finally, boardrooms in the UK are longing for women with the know how, dedication and intelligence to join their hierarchy. So if they are not making it there, then they are not up to it. So what she wants is to force companies to float a woman, or, any other quota that may be chosen, at their shareholders or business expense. In other words, those incapable of rising it on their merit must be placed in such positions, even to the detriment of us all. According to Mrs Clegg that is.
What a bloody cheek this is! And this woman is the cheekiest of all. If she wants to ride. legs astride, on the back of her henpecked man, that is her prerogative, but to impose it on us all, without as much as a word to the majority of females is outrageous. Where did she get off on believing she was the one for this campaign? And that she is ‘right’ in pushing her wish for an easy ride on the rest of us women?
Quotas make me sick, as they do to most people it is discussed with, across the board. It is quotas that has us in this mess we have now. All pushed onto the tax payer by those who are incapable of doing a proper job. The fund raisers, the lobbyists and those of their ilk, are bleeding this country dry. It is about time it was stopped and people should start demanding it is.
If we got rid of these types, and their costly ideas, we would be in a position to fulfill our obligations toward pensioners, benefit recipients, impoverished children and so on.
But, no, the likes of the Clegg wife, want to use what little we have to exacerbate the poverty so that they can play the ‘do gooder’ role and line their pockets as they go.
The public should be rid of people like this in one swoop, vote out the husband and you are rid of them both.Then she can work on him becoming the house husband whilst she is the main bread winner. Or, isn’t she already the main earner in that household? The kids, of course, left to the nannies. Or whoever else is willing to let these ambitious meddlers ride on their back.
It is time the public took account of what is happening in this country and do something about post haste, before it’s too late.
I am currently reading about Rome and Maude’s description sounds exactly like that.
She has put a fine finger on the contradictory largesse made on our behalf in overseas aid, and then we must only have 2.1 children!
Rome or England! (read London; I live with the Etruscans)
I couldn’t agree with you more, Maude Elwes and they wonder why people rebel. Trouble is, to many people go around with blinkers on and unless it’s pointed out to them they don’t realise what’s happening. Some can’t even be bothered to find out and the masses will never hear what’s happening in todays society because the papers only seem to print the propaganda that’s spread for some rich person’s cause. An example of this is the benefits cheat saga that seems to be sweeping the news and papers. It’s obvious the agenda is to get their reforms pushed through as fast as possible with little thought of the people it effects.
I say get rid of all the lobbyists, the middle men and the think tanks. If the people we vote in can’t do the job that they are elected to do without the influence of outsiders looking after their own interests and those of their clients who are making them extremely rich, then they should resign.. How much money is this costing us as a country, I don’t know but it’s a pure waste of money that doesn’t belong to them.
An example of this is the benefits cheat saga that seems to be sweeping the news and papers. It’s obvious the agenda is to get their reforms pushed through as fast as possible with little thought of the people it effects
It may be that the department concerned, like any government department, has to sweep with a new broom every now and then, and when it does it sweeps out things which are useful as well.
The people who are given no thought, have to think hard, as to how the state will continue to support their negative taxation/benefits, in future.
Drawing the line for benefit well above that for taxation of non state income is the wisdom of the modern ‘caring’ state.
Persuading people that they have also got to work, in whichever way they choose, may be more of it.
Talking about Income versus Expenditure,
and on the MSL-or-MSI* simple percentage basis
of what is the most sustainworthy human-living required for the individual to maintain his/her healthiness, citizenlikeness, and environmental-supportiveness lifelong,
and since the UK Government legislates that £150 per week is such a sufficient individual human living/income but for simple-arithmetic’s sake, and in the face of the many billions of ‘lesser’ or ‘less-sustain-worthy’ humans worldwide who have less than half of that minimum-sufficient-living upon which our Governments expect one to maintain oneself healthy, citizenlike, and environmentally-supportive, let us say that £200 per week would be the UK minimum sufficient individual human living:
then the simple task is to add up all the income-amounts over £200 per week that the 63 million UK population, especially of ‘middle and upper’ ‘classes’, has been drawing/being-given from the Common-Purse in this lifetime so far,
and simply send them each and all a bill for the Common Purse to recover all those multiple-human-livings as excess-income.
Would it be £trillions ? quadrillions ? pentillions, sexillions, septillions ?
even ‘squillions’ ?
———-
Surely Baroness Murphy is one human being; no more, no less ?
Yet her excess-income whilst reportedly being ‘generously’ more than the civil servant’s income, is but considerably less than the Sir Fred Goodwin-like worldwide failed-bankers’ incomes and perks, but still leaves her owing the Common Purse a sum approaching £millions ?
Likewise I suspect Lord Blagger, another and ‘equal’ human-being, who appears to be cynically and sceptically in denial, not only as to his own excess-drawings/gifts from the Common Purse, but of any Purpose in our Civilisation and in our British-Nation, and of any subsidiary purposes in any of his, our’s, or Others’ lifes-work and life-styles, is being blinded by furiously complex yet tomes of ‘mere’ details ?
And does he mean that “religion” is the only human-activity or discipline to have any ‘purpose’ (surely they each claim to have the only Purpose) ?
Others also writing brilliantly, but evidently over-busy competing over who-deserves-a-fatter-income-than-another;
whilst Maude has somehow not spotted the frequent minority-of-one, such as milesjsd, and frequently of even such honesty-whistleblowers as the testy and cantankerous-seeming Lord Blagger, who is saying that our governmental and ‘upper’ hierarchy millions-of-privilegocrats have long been and still are and intend to go on, mis-spending our life-effort and taxes and profits that they levy out of our ‘lower’ class hugely-smaller-percentage incomes.
Nonetheless Maude’s articulate use of the Red-Hat, emotional-mode thinking-mind, along with an aware balance of White, Green, Yellow, Blue and Black ‘thinking-hattednesses’,
is practically exemplary under the self-extinction threatening Political, Economic, Religious, and Community-Social Circumstances that the Human Race and the British population have now long been trying to ‘bear-up’under but, sadly, are somehow still failing to face up to, even under different kinds of “we’re all in this together” (cracked)-clarion-calls.
Provided each member of such public is provided with a copy of
“Awareness Through Movement” by Moshe Feldenkrais,
simply so that each can make better individual-human-development and progress by and for their-self,
and thus be fitter-for-purpose in –doing-something-about-it” collectively,
I can only agree with Maude’s “It’s time the public took account of what is happening”
– and, we should add, of what is not happening that should be happening –
“in this country, and do something about it quick-sharp, and before it’s too late”.
————-
* = Minimum Sustainworthy Living/Income.
£trillions ? quadrillions ? pentillions, sexillions, septillions ?
even ‘squillions
=========
Perhaps we could match up with nano- and giga-
instead of these daft words.
A woman in Croyden, mentioned previously by Blagger, has once again been detained in a prison for crimes of alleged ‘racial hatred speech’ on a bus. She had been detained for a week previously.
This woman was clearly distressed by her surroundings and the situation she was in whilst this video of her was made and obviously under enormous stress. She has a small child. This child must be in prison with her? Or, is he/she left with someone else? Or worse, has he/she been taken to that wonderful place called ‘in care.’
Has this country gone mad? Now we have political prisoners on the grounds of video film ‘over speech.’ Yet, murderers are released to kill again. Violence of all kinds is often ignored or sentences are light. Yet here is this woman jailed for ‘speaking’ her mind.
Does Stasi ring a bell here? Is this the kind of justice, or lack of it, our people died for in WWII?
http://berlin.barwick.de/sights/east-berlin/hohenschoenhausen-memorial-center-prison-museum.html
Here you will find the ‘right to free speech’ and what it means in that ‘super power’ we follow so blindly. Except, when it comes to the rights of our own citizens.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=j5L3u57L0QgC&pg=PT11&lpg=PT11&dq=prisoners+jailed+for+speaking+freely&source=bl&ots=Il2Da0J3Dj&sig=viqnAaq40LcEMY1XkD95yvt14Gc&hl=en&ei=kjreTtrLI9SD8gPNhrXSBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
Free speech is not only a right for those with whom we agree. Should that be so, there would be no need for such a ‘right.’ It only becomes an issue when those we disagree with want to tell us how ‘they’ feel.
Now here we are following the practice of those we consider barbarous. I cannot tell you how monstrous this feels and to believe it is happening in my country, in this time.
Ah, its a quick win isn’t it.
Jail someone, apparently for their own safety. No need for a trial, no need for a guilty verdict. Then if found innocent, what the heck. We’re not going to pay a penny in compensation.
Meanwhile, we’ve taken the child away, given it to our mates who earn money as a consequence.
As for murder, much to difficult. Far better to go for the easy targets, such as this woman and motorists.
Meanwhile the debts mount, and no action is being taken.
I think you have it right on the button there LB. For example, the police don’t make charges on watching video youtube if the victim is suffering racial hatred at the hands of four Somali muslim women who thrashed a woman soundly, almost killing her, screaming racial slurs at their victim.. Reason, they were let off? They were usunused to drink….And if you saw these four woman you would have to wonder how they managed to call themselves Muslim, it is said, they have stringent laws on dress. These four looked as if they bought their clothes from ‘Fredericks of Hollywood.’ And the pout mouths were out of all proportion.
Then there was the guy who was attacked by fifteen, yes fifteen, Asiam youths for hate crime. He couldn’t stnad up when they left him. But the police saw nothing and they don’t chage on the grounds of youtube cideo. Exccept if it is a London born white woman that is.
Now I’d say Police negligence in this matter, comes under hate crime, as to punch kick and injure, leans heavily toward hatred, and they did nothing to help these people when being attacked. Whereas speech is not violence, yet here they are taking on the Stasi mentality to find a women who was overwhelmed by the situation she found herself in.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8937856/Muslim-women-not-used-to-drinking-walk-free-after-attack-on-woman.html
Freedom is now being removed from the internet. You cannot any longer view these videos on youtbue unless you are willing to expose who you are. They use the excuse of age. Which we know is a subtifuge, as age is not a blocker to pornography, is it?
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/9000789.Gang_attack_on_Burnley_teenagers/
So, those in control are now blocking the right to view, on this free service, what is our right to understand and be aware of. They are afraid of us knowing what they sanction. Especially when it covers obvious racism toward the British indigenous population.
Now why is that?
A-greed, Tom;
well-sniped
(but alas! only at one of the enemies’ mere mirror-decoys).
A-frayed “we’ll” have to accept the £trillions bit as de-facto old son.
Now, down to real business: what did you think of any of the real main points being raised :-
Centuries of over-rewardings-for-failure, and failed budgetings (by Welsh, Scots, and English alike) ?
so pay-it-all-back ?
to the Common Purse ? or to the Earth’s Lifesupports ?
“Coloured” thinking modes ?
How do you appreciate Maude’s need to include Britain’s other gross malfeasance of further-victimisation against one and a family of defenceless and innocent British citizens already seriously disadvantaged and done-so by the same ilk as those wastefully and destructively mis-spending your Twm’s-and-our “nano and giga £££”, as being actively relevant to the Striking Civil Service,
and relevant to the comfily-ensconced peerage-pollies who look to be quite traditionally and simply using the media to cast ‘key-information’, ‘democratically’, our way, like the farthings and tiny-little-Victorian-silver-threppeny-bits on Mayor-Choosing Days ? ? ?
Twm O’r Nant again does injustice to both the person and the points-raised
but since milesjsd’s subsequent contribution has not been published, any reader may see it on http://www.lifefresh.co.uk .