-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
broadwayrock
Member
A new super injunction twitter leaker is doing the rounds.
A lot of the names have been leaked previously, but there is one surprising leak involving a famous politician's offspring.
A lot of the names have been leaked previously, but there is one surprising leak involving a famous politician's offspring.
travisbickle
Member
zomgbbqftw said:
Do you actually have anything to back this up, I don't even think The Daily Mail writes this kind of crap?
radioheadrule83
Banned
Gowans007 said:
This please? Or google search term assistance?
broadwayrock
Member
Enter 'superinjunction' in the twitter search bar.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
While I don't agree with the principle of superinjunctions, that particular one is at least justified. Though it demonstrates why a real privacy law is needed.
EDIT: The one that is in your previous post Zenith...
EDIT: The one that is in your previous post Zenith...
zomgbbqftw
Banned
radioheadrule83 said:
@Legal_AIDS
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Yeah, that't the case John Hemming was talking about. Secret trials and imprisonment for talking to an MP. It's a disgusting violation of our laws.
travisbickle
Member
kitch9 said:
We're talking about country economies here, you have to be blind to a lot of the differences between the countries economies to think it's as simple as spend a lot and you're fucked. For one, Greece is as corrupt as all hell.
radioheadrule83
Banned
Thanks for the PMs and links guys
That's a regular injunction isn't it? You bring up a good point though. I'd hate to see court cases prejudiced and therefore dismissed as unfair trials because of internet blabbermouthing...
I think (hope) that Super Injunctions are just typically ones where persons or bodies have taken them out and gagged the media for personal reasons.
Meadows said:
That's a regular injunction isn't it? You bring up a good point though. I'd hate to see court cases prejudiced and therefore dismissed as unfair trials because of internet blabbermouthing...
I think (hope) that Super Injunctions are just typically ones where persons or bodies have taken them out and gagged the media for personal reasons.
i've been a bit dismissive of some of this stuff as i don't think papers should be reporting on who ryan giggs is fucking (though obviously no-one should go to prison for saying it online) but that david tune injunction story makes me so angry. fucking hell.
i thought super injuctions were injunctions where the very existence of an injunction being taken out on something isn't allowed to be reported on, whereas with a regular injuction a paper is allowed to say that a celeb has gagged them from reporting on their affair with imogen thomas. or do i have that wrong?
i thought super injuctions were injunctions where the very existence of an injunction being taken out on something isn't allowed to be reported on, whereas with a regular injuction a paper is allowed to say that a celeb has gagged them from reporting on their affair with imogen thomas. or do i have that wrong?
zomgbbqftw
Banned
travisbickle said:
Not really. The only country in trouble that has a level of immunity is the USA because they are a reserve currency.
Also, it's part of working in finance, you just get a feel for these things. The bond traders all say it would have been a nightmare if Brown was still PM since the financial markets would have moved to restrict the UK's borrowing by raising interest rates/bond yields. That would have led to more QE which would inevitably lead to to higher inflation (like we see now) and higher interest rates to curb it.
If you look at the detail of financial data, the real UK growth rate from 1997 to 2007 was around 18% while government spending rose by around 40%, the financial markets wouldn't trust someone with a record like that to cut spending. Ipso facto, nightmare, bankruptcy, IMF calling, election, Conservative overall majority.
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
Meadows said:
That should be what these things are used for, that or when a serious investigation is in progress.
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
Looks like the chinless wonder is academy-ising several hundred primary schools whether they like it or not:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13781243
Your thoughts?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13781243
Your thoughts?
travisbickle
Member
"forcing" schools, or any public organisation, to improve is never a good idea, and coincidentally always a Tory tactic!Guerrillas in the Mist said:
J Tourettes
Banned
travisbickle said:
Something something Labour NHS targets
travisbickle
Member
J Tourettes said:
Did they close failing hospitals? I honestly can't remember? I had a quick look on the internetz and all I can find is "possible closing of hospitals in new NHS reforms to be announced" and a lot of articles saying the idea is preposterous.
Found one Hinchingbrooke Hospital in Cambridgeshire is the first ever NHS hospital to be placed in the hands of a private company
Although this was pushed through under the new coalition government, it does mention that the process was approved by Labour the year before but never acted on...take that as you will.
StealthGoblin
Banned
I love how Michael Gove tried to goad teachers into not striking by attempting to turn public opinion against them. Sod off you pillock.
The fact that under the new proposals, I'll lose out if I work harder and get further up the ladder, have to contribute more and take the pension later is totally nuts. As it stands, UK teachers don't get paid as much as teachers in other countries. If they upped the salaries, there'd be less uproar.
The fact that under the new proposals, I'll lose out if I work harder and get further up the ladder, have to contribute more and take the pension later is totally nuts. As it stands, UK teachers don't get paid as much as teachers in other countries. If they upped the salaries, there'd be less uproar.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Galvanise_ said:
Welcome to the real world...
Public sector pensions are absolutely insane, that the private sector subsidises them to the tune of £9bn per year is inexcusable, especially considering there are a large number of private sector employees who can ill afford to save for their own retirement.
Why the hell should someone pay for your pension when they can't afford their own? You don't have to answer, but I would appreciate it if you did.
100% the unions (and members) are going to lose out from this. The public don't support public sector strikes, especially concerning pensions because of the reasons above. Michael Gove doesn't need to turn public opinion, it is already against public sector strikes. I honestly think the unions are doing their members a disservice by trying to give the government a black eye and playing politics. There is a reason Ed Miliband is worried, the strikes will be landed at the doorstep of Labour and people will blame him (especially since it was the unions who installed him as leader). It will hit Labour's ratings and he is worried that once the > 40% ratings go, so he will too.
StealthGoblin
Banned
zomgbbqftw said:
I'm not against working longer to receive the pension. That is to be expected as we have an aging population, and now how older people in stronger bills of health. I am also not against contributing more, if I were to get more out of it than I will do. Women should work to the same age as men and draw at the same age as men. After all, they have the longer life expectancy.
What concerns me is the triple whammy. It punishes people like me who work hard and will try to work their way up the ladder. As it stands, teaching isn't a very financially rewarding profession anyway, and these moves will make talented people turn their attention away from the profession.
If they were to say 'okay, we'll hit your pensions harder, but make up for it in an average annual salary increase' then teachers will be more accepting of it all. That would mean they can afford to contribute more, will be more financially sound as they get older (providing they save), and the average draw will also go up. Chucking teachers into the 'one rule to bind them all' public sector pensions pot absolutely shouldn't happen for teachers. Throw in all the bullshit educational reforms and the government have well and truly whacked the hornets nest. Hardly anyone knows what is happening with this academy shit, local LEA's are potentially being scrapped, heads are losing their jobs and the teachers are having the systems (exams, coursework, modules, recommended teaching practices) thrown around. These are very uncertain times for teachers. Even teacher training is being messed around with.
My personal opinion is that Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, HMAF etc should have a higher pension rate than the private sector (even when at a comparable annual salary), simply because we are in the direct employment of the government and doing absolutely necessary jobs for society. I've always been a believer in 'pay/reward people what they are worth' and the public sector really does do a fantastic, albeit largely always criticised and under appreciated job.
radioheadrule83
Banned
zomgbbqftw said:
Sorry, but no. I know you don't work in the public sector, which is probably why you have no idea about what the current schemes offer and cost.
The private sector subsidises nothing. Certainly not directly, to suggest so is purely a political spin operation.
What is true is that in recent years the amount of public sector pensions being received has outstripped the amount being put back in. On a short term scale and as a snapshot, that pension deficit looks horrible, and can be said to be covered by taxation, which is the very reason the government is able to make the argument you just have for these changes. However, such deficits also exist in private sector pensions, deficits ran entirely at risk. The size of the state is fluid, it would stand to reason that whoever had gotten into power for this term - the size of the state would have shrunk. That alone would have had something of a mitigating factor. In better years it has been easier to cost them, certainly. Pension schemes are essentially promises, agreements between employer and employee that help to provide for people in the vulnerability of retirement after years of service. You will not find many members of any Union who would argue that there isn't a problem here at all, you won't find many who are particularly against the idea of retirement ages going up as we live longer... but what you will find is indignation and fury for the disrespect and goalpost moving perpetuated by this shit-house government and the one before it.
Its one thing to break your promises and pension scheme agreements, just rewrite them and retroactively apply them as you see fit -- but to do it while also reducing the incentives for leaving the department, decimating the compensation scheme, and culling jobs left right and center - just says one thing to people really... thanks for your years of service, whether you leave now or retire at 65-70, we're still going to fuck you.
The Civil Service Pension Scheme was already changed in 2001 so that new members would not benefit from the old-style rights, so this deficit was set to come down anyway as the workforce matures. That these new pension proposals will cut the public pension deficit quicker is just a bonus here -- the real payday for the government is that they won't have to preserve the rights that they promised their employees, and the policies that they signed up to. They can put a big STOP on supporting the pensions of that part of the workforce that they still actually need at the moment, and retroactively change their pension schemes, make them work longer, and for less. Its amazingly brazen. Before the 90s, such perks were among the only reasons to work for the government as pay was substantially worse than in the private sector (for equivalent responsibility). Suddenly people who are a few years away from retirement, but long enough away to be hit by the new measures, can look forward to having the rug pulled from underneath them, the prospect of working later before retiring, and having LESS at the end of it. Marvellous. Younger people like me have our rights accrued to a point preserved, but will go onto an average salary scheme just at the same time as they are freezing wages, reigning back on spending, culling projects, culling jobs, and farming it out at great expense to profit-geared contractors, who will obviously take on more and more under this government. If your department gets TUPE'd out to some contractor, you're forced to transfer your pension to another private scheme anyway. Some of those contractors I absolutely guarantee you will do a significantly worse and more costly job... they do already in some respects.
If you want to know why people are striking this week, its because they don't see what they get out of working for the government any more, respect and understanding is breaking down. They are sick of un-negotiated impositions, laid down by overpaid half-wits in London, looking to make ideologically-motivated structural changes, hurting long-standing loyal employees and cutting outsiders in on the profits to be made. The least they could do is make a case for themselves at the negotiating table and make cuts and transitions as painless as possible, but as every union - including the education unions now report -- this government won't even do that.
There are methods and alternatives to be investigated regarding pensions, the current solution is a rushed and vague interpretation of the Hutton report. The rapid imposition of such changes is whats pissing off government employees, teachers and their unions most of all. There's no dialogue at all. No compromise. No leeway. Just pure capitalisation upon the 'austerity' narrative in the media, getting away with what changes they can, while they can.
zomgwtfbbq said:
I don't want to strike on Thursday. I'm a PCS member. Frankly I think its a waste of time with this government. The particular role I do does not impact the public directly and therefore my absence that day will not be particularly noticed. The only person I hurt by going out on strike is me, because they will withhold a days pay and still get the work out of me when I return. However, I'm going to go out because I want the government to either TALK to its people PROPERLY about this, or for this to be the biggest strike since the General Strike of 1926.
Initially, I think things like the teachers striking and RMT striking again will piss members of the public off. Nobody likes disruption. However, I think people respect teachers far more than they respect politicians... certainly more than they respect Michael Gove. If there is a band of people I expect to eloquently articulate their point well, its probably teachers also. Meanwhile, this will serve as the first opportunity this year for people to vent their frustration and anger at the witless white hall "senior civil servants" and politicians who have been putting loyal public servants under the kosh. Do you know we are privately thanked for all we do and defended internally? Its a joke. Publicly, they refuse to defend us in the light of right wing media propaganda. You couldn't get more two faced. People at the likes of the DWP, Inland Revenue, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Defence and other departments... council services and job centres closed up for the day. People will notice.
All Ed Miliband really needs to do is distance himself from either side and express that he would like to see the government acknowledge concerns and bring the unions back to the negotiation table. When the government refuses to do so, it makes them look like shit imo.
In 3/4 years time when people start to think about their next election choices - will they view Labour and the unions as hand-wringing and unjust over all this -- or will they simply remember a summer of discontent, strikes, infighting, images of people kettled in at parliament square and tearing up the place... such happy memories. I'm sure the Tories will win by a landslide! If they know whats good for them, they will try to address at least some concerns and try not to come off as smarmy, politicking cunts like Michael Gove and Danny Alexander.
It's always been the case that in the private sector you have a more unstable but potentially higher revenue stream compared to the public sector where you have a stable but lower wage coupled with a better(read guaranteed) retirement package. The fact that the private sector is shit on both counts at this current moment in time is neither here nor there. It's not the normal situation and will ultimately correct itself.
The average nurse or teacher gets paid sweet FA. At least they had a DB plan to fall back on.
The government is not being straight with teachers at the moment. They won't tell them the current funded status of the plan, will not do a valuation and have failed their fiduciary duty to perform the valuation as required. It is ideological politics. Quite frankly it's dirty. I don't think public opinion will be against teachers if they strike. After all teachers, nurses and police tend to have public backing. The game is totally ideological, to pain them as villains.
My personal opinion is that DB schemes are unsustainable at the national level and should all convert to defined contribution schemes, with a boost in salaries.
EDIT: Reasoning: A static view of the funded status of the plan is pretty much useless in determining it's sustainability. Bottom line is that the key ratios are not good and the biggest issue is that active lives to retired is a run away freight train. DB scheme will bankrupt the public sector.
However the way you do this in the private sector is normally shut the DB plan out to new entrants and manage the liability. Which is pretty simple. This is a FAR easier sell than the current horseplay and would ultimately save more money. That would be true reform.
The average nurse or teacher gets paid sweet FA. At least they had a DB plan to fall back on.
The government is not being straight with teachers at the moment. They won't tell them the current funded status of the plan, will not do a valuation and have failed their fiduciary duty to perform the valuation as required. It is ideological politics. Quite frankly it's dirty. I don't think public opinion will be against teachers if they strike. After all teachers, nurses and police tend to have public backing. The game is totally ideological, to pain them as villains.
My personal opinion is that DB schemes are unsustainable at the national level and should all convert to defined contribution schemes, with a boost in salaries.
EDIT: Reasoning: A static view of the funded status of the plan is pretty much useless in determining it's sustainability. Bottom line is that the key ratios are not good and the biggest issue is that active lives to retired is a run away freight train. DB scheme will bankrupt the public sector.
However the way you do this in the private sector is normally shut the DB plan out to new entrants and manage the liability. Which is pretty simple. This is a FAR easier sell than the current horseplay and would ultimately save more money. That would be true reform.
StealthGoblin
Banned
Thnikkaman said:
Offputting isn't it? That is my biggest fear. We'll potentially lose some great future teachers out of all of this. People with fresh ideas. People with exciting outlooks on life who can inspire people. If things continue the way they are, the current stock of teachers will become less effective because of financial concerns and the feeling that they are undervalued, and the potential new cohort will be put off altogether because of the turbulent working environment and all of the associated politics dragging everyone down with it.
Worst of all, it will have a negative impact on the children. If we don't know what the heck is going on, are pensive about things going forward and too much is changed, the children will pick up on it. They are not stupid. Their education will suffer and that is no good for anyone.
On a more positive note, I was covering a Reception Class on Thursday and was teaching them about 3D shapes. For 4 and 5 year olds we don't expect much but try to make the shapes fun etc. When I asked about a shape that I thought would be particularly hard for the children, one little girl put her hand up and said 'That is a square based pyramid. It has five vertices'. Made by week. I came out of that lesson grinning from ear to ear. So rewarding to know that there are some incredibly bright and talented children coming through our system.
StealthGoblin
Banned
Thnikkaman said:
Depends what sort of teaching you'll want to do really. There is a LOT more work involved than the vast majority of people give teachers credit for. Managing a class of 30 individuals with different outlooks on life, varying abilities in every subject, personal problems, medical problems and then teaching them multiple subjects a day, getting all of the resources ready for those 45 minute slot blocks of lessons, differentiating the tasks for the children based on ability levels and fun, planning ahead for the rest of the week/fortnight, making presentations for lessons, researching new resources for teaching, marking the homework and work done in class, going to all of the staff meetings/subject meetings, running an extra-curricular activity club, being on your feet for more or less the entire day etc is very hard work.
Get it right however, and its the best job in the world. I love it. What I don't like is being continually dicked around by the government. You probably know all of that though.
What age brackets are you thinking about teaching? I teach 4-11 year olds so I also have the responsibility of teaching discipline, manners, sharing, caring and all of that lark.
I also have to do more singing than I like to do.I'm really not sure. I'm also still 22 and had a rotten time in secondary school. So 4-11 and primary might be what I would prefer but I don't think I can pick and choose in this current job market. Still I like to think I could be a good-cop in a secondary school, heh.Galvanise_ said:What age brackets are you thinking about teaching? I teach 4-11 year olds so I also have the responsibility of teaching discipline, manners, sharing, caring and all of that lark.
Plus, secondary teaching means having a specialised subject is a must.
StealthGoblin
Banned
Thnikkaman said:
Aye, my first degree was in Pharmacology, which is why I am deputy head for science at present. I am also male, which means I will move up the ladder quicker at a Primary level. Strange to be a minority for once, really.
A lot of the golden handshakes have disappeared for Secondary NQT's, which is a shame.
radioheadrule83
Banned
Look at this smug motherfucker right here:
I've just read the latest story in the pensions saga: David Cameron saying that a status-quo with no pension reform means households paying £1000 a year to fund public sector pensions. There's actually a bit in the story where he acknowledges that many public sector workers get less than £6k a year... he's a shrewd fucker I'll give him that.
The language is clever -- on the face of it he appears to be understanding, but resolute - saying this needs to be done. But on the other hand, he has carefully picked his words. Is anybody arguing for a pensions status quo? Everyone acknowledges that we are living longer and that reform is needed, so his figure is meaningless in terms of future projections, and serves purely as a perfunctory shock value to scare tax payers. He is saying to people who don't have family members in the public services or any experience of it themselves -- "hey! you're paying for these guys". He's playing off private sector workers against the public sector workers, playing the PR game to try and keep public opinion on-side. As I said: clever.
Firstly, private sector workers need to understand that their job market is entirely different. In good times, their wages rise faster, their average wage is better, and the opportunities greater. In bad times, private employers are quicker to shrink/constrict employment and lay off.
Public sector workers fortunes are more aligned to the state of the treasury than the fortune of companies. Being taxpayer funded, Value for Money is a mantra that drives all government departments, keeping wages low, and the bulk of staff firmly in the lower grades. The only people who will be enjoying "gold plated" pensions are those minority of civil servants who are in the higher grades, the senior civil service and politicians. They are your equivalent of department heads, directors and CEOs. You *could* accrue a decent pot of money if you were a middle management grade and you worked for a department for 40 years -- but barely anybody actually does that and displays such loyalty.
I don't buy into private / public relational comparisons that insist the public deal should be more like the private one. Companies offering little or no contribution, or no internal scheme, are simply offering their employees a raw deal. Competition for jobs will allow them to do that in some respects... but if people were discerning and fought for better conditions, maybe they'd get them. Many people in those circumstances rely on the basic state pension - which is one of the worst in Europe. More than half of the population doesn't make enough of a contribution to prepare for old age. We have pensioners who forgo meals to afford paying their heating bills -- and the argument is that we should drive *more* pensions down?
The Hutton report - on which these reforms are based - found that only 10% of public sector workers recieve pensions of £17k or above, and retired firemen and police officers are the groups most represented in that group. That to me, makes sense given their exposure to personal risk. Only 1% get a payout of £37k+ a year, and those are typically NHS doctors and consultants. Doctors at least, are a group I think most would consider valuable. Typical pension payments for a local government worker? £337 a month. An NHS worker? ~£600. Civil Servants? ~£500. Teachers? ~£800. Armed forces? ~£640. Considering the increased contributions, some of those figures are only a little better than the £60 or so a week that the state pension could provide. Some of those payments would scarcely cover rent / mortgages / bills in many areas of the UK, and in many cases, people would need that income to be supplemented.
Secondly, nobody is saying there should be no reform. We live longer, we should work longer as a result.
Nobody is saying the working youth should continue to pay for people through retirement... as much as many baby boomers might like that.
What's not fair is when people use 'broad averages' - the likes of which PriceWaterhouse Coopers and other accounting services provide to the media - to back the argument for driving down ALL public service pensions. As the Hutton report highlights, the top 10% pulls those averages up, and the reality is that most people are not on these 'gold plated' pensions that people like to imagine.
What you also have to understand is that this isn't the only issue -- this is more like the straw that broke the camels back. Lower paid civil servants have been under attack since the Brown government was in power via pay increases below inflation (ie. pay cuts), department downsizing, outsourcing (TUPEing), departmental shake ups, and numerous reviews resulting in job cuts. There is also a pay freeze for middle earners on £23k+ (typically affects the first management grade and the grades above it). There are valid reasons for all of that, but people feel they've been a punchbag to some extent already, and now they are being asked to be a punchbag in old age.
As I posted earlier in the thread, most departments - like mine - have had final salary schemes closed to new entrants for quite a while - as early as 2001; with time - that will help. There will be additional savings in making people work longer -- but I concede that you're not going to have 65 year old doctors and nurses, or elderly teachers. That's just not realistic. So IF extra savings are needed, scheme payments should be driven down progressively, with those who can afford to take more of a hit being the ones who take it, while protecting the low paid -- otherwise what is the point in these schemes at all?
The real problem here is that the government is trying to sound all understanding but they've actually got their plan in motion, and they don't want to deviate from it or negotiate such protections. They will try and paint the Unions as unreasonable, but when pricks like Danny Alexander and Michael Gove were precluding talks with such a closed, confrontational stance - they really left them no choice. Only negotiation would have stopped this from happening.
Think about it: If the Government bullies Union members with un-negotiated impositions, the Unions have to call action or be rendered impotent. If the Government bows to any and all Union pressure, then they're a lame duck Government. Talks are what were needed, and they're *still* needed.
I've just read the latest story in the pensions saga: David Cameron saying that a status-quo with no pension reform means households paying £1000 a year to fund public sector pensions. There's actually a bit in the story where he acknowledges that many public sector workers get less than £6k a year... he's a shrewd fucker I'll give him that.
The language is clever -- on the face of it he appears to be understanding, but resolute - saying this needs to be done. But on the other hand, he has carefully picked his words. Is anybody arguing for a pensions status quo? Everyone acknowledges that we are living longer and that reform is needed, so his figure is meaningless in terms of future projections, and serves purely as a perfunctory shock value to scare tax payers. He is saying to people who don't have family members in the public services or any experience of it themselves -- "hey! you're paying for these guys". He's playing off private sector workers against the public sector workers, playing the PR game to try and keep public opinion on-side. As I said: clever.
Firstly, private sector workers need to understand that their job market is entirely different. In good times, their wages rise faster, their average wage is better, and the opportunities greater. In bad times, private employers are quicker to shrink/constrict employment and lay off.
Public sector workers fortunes are more aligned to the state of the treasury than the fortune of companies. Being taxpayer funded, Value for Money is a mantra that drives all government departments, keeping wages low, and the bulk of staff firmly in the lower grades. The only people who will be enjoying "gold plated" pensions are those minority of civil servants who are in the higher grades, the senior civil service and politicians. They are your equivalent of department heads, directors and CEOs. You *could* accrue a decent pot of money if you were a middle management grade and you worked for a department for 40 years -- but barely anybody actually does that and displays such loyalty.
I don't buy into private / public relational comparisons that insist the public deal should be more like the private one. Companies offering little or no contribution, or no internal scheme, are simply offering their employees a raw deal. Competition for jobs will allow them to do that in some respects... but if people were discerning and fought for better conditions, maybe they'd get them. Many people in those circumstances rely on the basic state pension - which is one of the worst in Europe. More than half of the population doesn't make enough of a contribution to prepare for old age. We have pensioners who forgo meals to afford paying their heating bills -- and the argument is that we should drive *more* pensions down?
The Hutton report - on which these reforms are based - found that only 10% of public sector workers recieve pensions of £17k or above, and retired firemen and police officers are the groups most represented in that group. That to me, makes sense given their exposure to personal risk. Only 1% get a payout of £37k+ a year, and those are typically NHS doctors and consultants. Doctors at least, are a group I think most would consider valuable. Typical pension payments for a local government worker? £337 a month. An NHS worker? ~£600. Civil Servants? ~£500. Teachers? ~£800. Armed forces? ~£640. Considering the increased contributions, some of those figures are only a little better than the £60 or so a week that the state pension could provide. Some of those payments would scarcely cover rent / mortgages / bills in many areas of the UK, and in many cases, people would need that income to be supplemented.
Secondly, nobody is saying there should be no reform. We live longer, we should work longer as a result.
Nobody is saying the working youth should continue to pay for people through retirement... as much as many baby boomers might like that.
What's not fair is when people use 'broad averages' - the likes of which PriceWaterhouse Coopers and other accounting services provide to the media - to back the argument for driving down ALL public service pensions. As the Hutton report highlights, the top 10% pulls those averages up, and the reality is that most people are not on these 'gold plated' pensions that people like to imagine.
What you also have to understand is that this isn't the only issue -- this is more like the straw that broke the camels back. Lower paid civil servants have been under attack since the Brown government was in power via pay increases below inflation (ie. pay cuts), department downsizing, outsourcing (TUPEing), departmental shake ups, and numerous reviews resulting in job cuts. There is also a pay freeze for middle earners on £23k+ (typically affects the first management grade and the grades above it). There are valid reasons for all of that, but people feel they've been a punchbag to some extent already, and now they are being asked to be a punchbag in old age.
As I posted earlier in the thread, most departments - like mine - have had final salary schemes closed to new entrants for quite a while - as early as 2001; with time - that will help. There will be additional savings in making people work longer -- but I concede that you're not going to have 65 year old doctors and nurses, or elderly teachers. That's just not realistic. So IF extra savings are needed, scheme payments should be driven down progressively, with those who can afford to take more of a hit being the ones who take it, while protecting the low paid -- otherwise what is the point in these schemes at all?
The real problem here is that the government is trying to sound all understanding but they've actually got their plan in motion, and they don't want to deviate from it or negotiate such protections. They will try and paint the Unions as unreasonable, but when pricks like Danny Alexander and Michael Gove were precluding talks with such a closed, confrontational stance - they really left them no choice. Only negotiation would have stopped this from happening.
Think about it: If the Government bullies Union members with un-negotiated impositions, the Unions have to call action or be rendered impotent. If the Government bows to any and all Union pressure, then they're a lame duck Government. Talks are what were needed, and they're *still* needed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13957587
Well it looks like they are going to clear up what "reasonable force" is when it comes to defending ones home. Wonder how that will affect stories about squatters.
Well it looks like they are going to clear up what "reasonable force" is when it comes to defending ones home. Wonder how that will affect stories about squatters.
Meus Renaissance
Member
What the fuck...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...-to-pay-up-to-36000-to-study-in-Scotland.html
English students face paying up to £36,000 to attend Scottish universities, it emerged today, even though local undergraduates will study for free. In a further twist, it emerged that students from European Union states outside the UK will also be entitled to free tuition under EU law.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...-to-pay-up-to-36000-to-study-in-Scotland.html
English students face paying up to £36,000 to attend Scottish universities, it emerged today, even though local undergraduates will study for free. In a further twist, it emerged that students from European Union states outside the UK will also be entitled to free tuition under EU law.
J Tourettes
Banned
Meus Renaissance said:
What the fuck what? SCots have had that agreement for a while now with other EU states. Think it's a reciprocal agreement IIRC.