# Public sector strikes



## flanajb (29 Nov 2011)

These public sector workers make my blood boil. How the hell can they think that it is fine to have a different retirement age to those in the private sector, and why do they also think they have the right to a gold plated pension on retirement.

If I was the PM I would tell them all to like it or lump it. The country is broke, people are living longer and we all need to accept that we will have to contribute more to the coffers of the treasury.

That's my rant over with for today. Thanks for listening


----------



## Karl (29 Nov 2011)

My better half is having to take a days unpaid leave tomorrow to look after the kids because their school is closed. 

Cheers, teachers.


----------



## Dodge (29 Nov 2011)

Hmmm - approximately 2million public sector workers striking tomorrow - There are also approximately 2 million unemployed - You know what I'm thinking! (hammer) (hammer)


----------



## Chems (29 Nov 2011)

I think its more a case of I signed up for this on Terms A, and now your changing it to Terms B. Anybody would be peeved with that, regardless of what it was relating too.


----------



## DIY Stew (29 Nov 2011)

I'm a retired fireman (Ill health retirement after 24 years service) and I am in total agreement with all public sector workers striking tomorrow.

If you sign up for a pension then what you should get is what you signed up for, if that means you retire at 55 then you retire at 55, I am unsure what you mean by a 'gold plated pension'.

As for all those people who are having to take unpaid leave because teachers are on strike, how many complained when they were given a days holiday to watch the Royal wedding, I suspect very few.

2 million unemployed and 2 million public sector workers on strike, before I became a fireman I worked in a hospital laundry where I had to sort very badly soiled clothing and bedding, not a very nice job but I had been unemployed for 53 weeks so I was happy to do any work, so tell me how many people do you know who would happily do a job like that for a pittance.

I saw on the news that tomorrows strike will cost the country half billion pounds, may I remind you, the ruling classes decide we can have the day off for a Royal wedding it doesn't damage the economy, but when the workers decide to strike it costs millions!

If you are commisioned to make a piece of furniture you agree a price, what if when its made the customer decides he wont pay what was agreed but will indeed pay you considerably less, not fair is it.

Stew


----------



## doctor Bob (29 Nov 2011)

I don't know a single person apart from other public sector workers who supports the strike.
The tide has turned against strikers whether they are public sector workers or the tube /TFL etc etc.
Striking is deemed as militant and in my opinion in these desperate times it does very little apart from destroying the company you are employed by or as in the case of public service workers "detached from the working masses".

Employment contracts are changed all the time in the normal workplace.


----------



## Jacob (29 Nov 2011)

Why should we support our workers on November 30th? 
Remember when teachers, policemen, police staff, ambulance staff, nurses, midwives, doctors and firefighters crashed the stock market, wiped out banks, took billions in bonuses and paid no tax? 
No, me neither.


----------



## blurk99 (29 Nov 2011)

public sector workers (me for example) don't 

"think they have the right to a gold plated pension on retirement"

when a senior nurse retires today, aged 60, after 40 years employment in the NHS he or she will recieve a pension of (approx) £18,000 (assuming the nurse was near the top of 'Agenda4Change Band 6' pay scale ~ most are on band 5 and will receive less), that same nurse will not receive the 'state pension' entitlement (currently £97 ish per week, £5000 per year) until age 65, so they retire on approx £13,000 having paid 7% of their salary for 40 years into a pension fund and full NI contributions (another 6% currently)

and here seems to be the problem... if they are "retired" they ought to get the state pension portion of their pension paid out at the same time, that's what they were 'sold' when they opted to start the NHS scheme 40 years ago, and yet that's not happening, and there's no concrete date of when that state portion will start paying out, maybe they'll have to wait until 67 before it happens, maybe it will have extended further... staff currently in the scheme are being told they all have to pay more into the scheme, to even out the contribution rates *but*... firemen / police / mental health all pay more (8-12%) because they have a lower retirement age (typically 55 due to the stresses and demands of their individual fields), and yet 'normal' NHS / Teachers / Council office staff etc. etc. etc. are being expected to pay the same increased proportion, but their retirement age is actually going up (by 7 years currently) unsurprisingly that is seen as unfair, again we were 'sold' a scheme that is now being changed without negotiation

successive governments have failed to grasp that there is a reason why people opt to work in the public sector;

1. there is a degree of job security that private business can't provide 
2. the rate of pension *is* better for what you have to pay in as a percentage of your salary than a private scheme could provide

the trade off is that the level of pay to start with is poorer than private business would pay for someone with equivalent qualifications by experience (typically that retiring nurse would be expected to have Masters Degree level qualifications, nursing is now degree level entry)

am i striking tomorrow? No, there is also a duty of care in the NHS that i'm professionally obliged to make sure that i help provide the best level of care possible, i can't do that for the 12,000 patients i'm responsible for if i'm stood on a freezing street corner holding a Unison placard

i don't think any less of my colleagues who are making their own point in their own way, but i do not consider strike action to be the obvious choice right now, there doesn't seem to have been much negotiation so far, there seems to be a group of union convenors who are longing for the 'glory days' of the 70's and early 80's and my personal opinion is that they aren't prepared to genuinely enter negotiations

anyway, i'm off to work tomorrow, at least it should be easier to get a car parking space eh??

cheers

jim


----------



## cambournepete (30 Nov 2011)

Chems":3v9727zy said:


> I think its more a case of I signed up for this on Terms A, and now your changing it to Terms B. Anybody would be peeved with that, regardless of what it was relating too.


My company pension is changing with me having to pay an extra 4% towards it.
If I went on strike I'd probably lose my job.
I'm sure my company is not the only one and that there are many people in a worse situation than me.
So no sympathy from me. Sorry. 

At least the teachers at my son's school aren't striking this time.


----------



## Modernist (30 Nov 2011)

Since the start of the scheme the teachers pension scheme has taken £40bn more in contributions than it has paid out. Do you imagine the average 67 year old is up to teaching a class of toddlers, particularly when they expected to retire at 60?

Setting aside that agreements are not being honoured for those already in the scheme it is yet another case of easy pickings while unnecessary expenditure and waste take place elsewhere on a massive scale. Many of the cuts will actually increase costs in the medium and long term, not to mention the hardship to those in greatest need.

Given that we are now, outrageously, no more than an irrelevant irritation in Europe then our place in the world certainly does not justify wasting billions on ill conceived military excursions around the world. Our economy is based primarily around service industries which are unnecessary compared to the merits of manufacturing and wealth generation.

Interesting that the present party in power is directly responsible for the policies which lead to these problems and has now decided on a U turn. It's chances of rebuilding manufacturing are nil, they haven't the wit. Meanwhile Gove will have our kids studying the history how Britain became great 100's of years ago.

The answer is staring them in the face but they are too blinded by bigotry to see it. High investment in manufacturing, free technical education, high skills training, high wages and excellent conditions of employment and a focus on design and marketing. This is combined with lower gap between rich and poor, effective social services and a sense of social cohesion and responsibility, precisely the converse of Tory policy over the years. It probably does mean higher taxes but I doubt many Germans or Scandinavians would swap for what we have.


----------



## flanajb (30 Nov 2011)

Jacob":1q06x3yj said:


> Why should we support our workers on November 30th?
> Remember when teachers, policemen, police staff, ambulance staff, nurses, midwives, doctors and firefighters crashed the stock market, wiped out banks, took billions in bonuses and paid no tax?
> No, me neither.


That is rather flawed. I work in banking and along with all my colleagues pay 40% tax. In fact the city contributes 30% of gdp to the treasury. The newspapers make out that everyone working in banking was paid millions. 

As to people complaining about pensions changes are not what they signed up for. I think you will find that a great many private sector workers have had their pension terms changed since they joined their company, but they don't have the luxury of striking.

In my eyes, the public and private sector should be the same. If you don't like the changes being implemented, tough, go get another job


----------



## bugbear (30 Nov 2011)

flanajb":23vh6dc3 said:


> These public sector workers make my blood boil. How the hell can they think that it is fine to have a different retirement age to those in the private sector, and why do they also think they have the right to a gold plated pension on retirement.



Do please feel free to state what their pension is - most low paid PS workers have measly pensions. "Gold Plated" is a rhetorical phrase used by the Daily Mail and the Govt. It's easier to attack "gold plated" pensions than to actually argue the real numbers.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (30 Nov 2011)

flanajb":2lsbp5r5 said:


> .... I think you will find that a great many private sector workers have had their pension terms changed since they joined their company, but they don't have the luxury of striking.


Yes they do - but it's not a luxury.


----------



## Max Power (30 Nov 2011)

Dont they realise the gravy train has come off the rails :roll: the money has run out , welcome to the real world


----------



## Modernist (30 Nov 2011)

flanajb":2mq4ym0x said:


> That is rather flawed. I work in banking and along with all my colleagues pay 40% tax. In fact the city contributes 30% of gdp to the treasury. The newspapers make out that everyone working in banking was paid millions.



They pay 60% tax in Denmark but I haven't notice a stream of Danish economic refugees arriving here. Most PS pensions are quite modest which makes it all the more essential to defend them.

That'll be the same city which has lead the country into destitution then? +A-B =<0



> As to people complaining about pensions changes are not what they signed up for. I think you will find that a great many private sector workers have had their pension terms changed since they joined their company, but they don't have the luxury of striking.



I don't think many consider striking a luxury.


----------



## flanajb (30 Nov 2011)

Modernist":eh7wexch said:


> flanajb":eh7wexch said:
> 
> 
> > That is rather flawed. I work in banking and along with all my colleagues pay 40% tax. In fact the city contributes 30% of gdp to the treasury. The newspapers make out that everyone working in banking was paid millions.
> ...



We won't see eye to eye on this, but I agree the city screwed up, but did anyone complain when the city was contributing billions to the treasury during the boom years. No!

The issue is still there, the country is broke and the government needs to find ways of reducing the deficit. I would be more than happy to pay an extra 5p on the pound income tax so long as the pain was experienced by all.

At the same time, I would also kick all those lazy illegitimate welfare scroungers up the buttocks and make them work in the community. And benefits for people with children would be limited to a maximum of 2. That way, people could not abuse the system by having child after child.


----------



## Jacob (30 Nov 2011)

flanajb":1h9l583y said:


> ........
> We won't see eye to eye on this, but I agree the city screwed up, but did anyone complain when the city was contributing billions to the treasury during the boom years. No!


Oh yes we did - we pointed out over and over again that it was a bubble. Books were written on the subject. This is well trodden ground. Very many people were horrified that our whole economy and our personal futures were in the hands of reckless speculators.


----------



## Modernist (30 Nov 2011)

It actually pre-dates that. Many of us objected violently to the Thatcher wholesale destruction of not only sections of industry but the sense of community. It was so obvious it was impossible to miss.

As ever the tories were so devoid of ideas of their own that they slavishly followed the Keith Joseph/Thatcher ravings.

Not much has changed. Prior to the last election I was invited to a meeting with Hague when they were seeking ideas for the future, no doubt sold as vox pop, but they were clearly without any underlying philosophy of their own hence the current ineffective easy target cutting.

Surely even they must see the irony of heralding a return to manufacturing, no doubt with full employment and riches for all. NOT


----------



## beech1948 (30 Nov 2011)

Modernist,

Odd ain't it. My view of Thatchers era was that she provided the following for us:-
1) Cut back the greedy Government
2) Cut back the injurous Trade Unions who were ( and still are) creating negative wealth for the country
3) Drove us out of ruinous dependency on old fashioned forms of industry
4) Created the pattern for the next 20 yrs which gave much higher wealth to all who wanted to have a go
5) Beat back the EU..hooray

by contrast every Labour Gov of the past 60 yrs has ended with an ignominious financial crisis where the Tories had to clean up the Labour mess. Yes every single time.

Do I think that our form of Government be it Labour or Tory is good...absolutely not. All Government is too big, too corrupt, too greedy, to wasteful.

WE need a law to restrict Gov'mt spending to 35% of GDP including indirect Taxes and to return the rest to us.

Al


----------



## Jacob (30 Nov 2011)

beech1948":25mjzwk1 said:


> ... All Government is too big, too corrupt, too greedy, too wasteful....


You are an anarchist?


----------



## henton49er (30 Nov 2011)

My pension contributions changed from 5.5% to nearly 8% of my salary and the final salary pension scheme was scrapped in favour of a CARE (Career Average Relative Earnings) pension. Do I have sympathy with the public secor workers ... not a jot. My company made the changes so that they could stay in business and offer a reasonable pension; the government is seeking to do the same for staff that they employ. Get back to work!!!

Mike.


----------



## tomatwark (30 Nov 2011)

I can understand that the current staff being angry about changes to something they have agreed too. 

But this needs to be introduced to at least new staff as we can't afford to keep this scheme in place in the long term. 

I pay into my private pension every month and I won't get any where near to the people in the public sector, and will have to work to I am at least 70. But that is my choice.

This head butting between the LibCon government and the unions only benefits the union bosses who need to justify their £100k+ salaries by being seen to be doing something. 

In the end, as always a compromise will be reached which will have cost millions of pounds and caused a lot of bad feeling between the public and private sectors. 

The union bosses and the government will be patting each other on the backs saying how well they did. 

Tom


----------



## Ring (30 Nov 2011)

Well as an Ambulance driver with 22 years service and having another 17 years to work i can assure you my pension will be no golden handshake if im lucky to make it to pension age i will get about 15/18k lump sum and £600 Per month and at the age of 67 they will still expect me to carry chair/stretcher people out of their homes,i was a joiner to trade but i looked at the long term employment my choice yes but i signed up to the nhs because of the pension and job security the same as millions of others did they made that choice but not for any goverment to hack this whole country to bits while the rich get richer and the working man suffers again.My brother inlaw worked for the ici retired at 55 and has got more of a pension as i have as a wage thats a Golden Handshake pension. :evil: :evil: sorry rant over
Jim


----------



## beech1948 (30 Nov 2011)

Jacob,
Anarchist nonit at all. In fact I feel only contempt for those poor thoughtless idjits. Rather I'm a 63 yr old who has had it up to there with the plastic, cosmetic politions who lack any vision and means to deliver what we need. I think I will become an MP and change from inside.
Al


----------



## Modernist (30 Nov 2011)

beech1948":2a40qzdq said:


> Jacob,
> I'm a 63 yr old who has had it up to there with the plastic, cosmetic politions who lack any vision and means to deliver what we need. I think I will become an MP and change from inside.
> Al



Then we do have something in common except I wouldn't dream of being an MP  , a nightmare.


----------



## Allylearm (30 Nov 2011)

But we are all in it together. Except if you can set your own wages and pensions like the MP's or CEO of some bank or other obscene large conglomerate. 

As for Private and Public, please don't the real question is why do the private not have same pension rights as the public. You do not negotiate down but bring the down up. As for golden handshakes, a real myth when you do the sums or the other one the public sector pensions do not finance themselves, just like the minority of private sector paying themselves 40%+ wage rises or getting millions in bonus. Other point the Civil Service also pay tax and NI so the private pay tax and NI as well. You could be perverse and say CS pay for themselves. To start a discussion you must look at the mean average you are talking about. In this case part time and female workers who have not a long service but paid pittance and doing the unpopular positions in society. We have a need for them but they are great unvoiced so cannot defend themselves. Are we such a society that we put worker against worker. The better off against the poorer, how sad has this country become. 

Next thing I read was that £20 billion was being found to start growth in a few years, only thing is Danny (the ostrich) Alexander does not know where he is getting it. More flawed and not well thought conclusions from a devoid govt amalgamated for self need rather than for deed. David Cameron has been rather subdued as well not getting down to his shirt sleeve rolled up look. But it usual for him a devoid politician who only is good for a sound bite, weak willed just like George who is not allowed out to speak unless chaperoned. This is what happens when you let the non qualified run a country. Non of parties got the votes needed so we end up with a put together lot who are all now so joined there is no joining line. Clegg history will be a demise of a party he led. 

As for some unions, they have more members than the the Liberals and Conservatives combined. In Scotland for example the Conservatives have less than 7000 members, do we really think that 0.1% of a population of Scotland have right to lead or tell anyone what is best. That is the problem endemic of politics in this country. We are being run by minorities who do not speak for the populace but for there own well being and continued riches for their own elite. The public only go from one crisis to another and are fully supporting as long as it does not cost them or change there way of life. 

Who did not see the total destruction of a manufacturing economy and the loss of the century old Apprenticeship system would result in a loss of world lead in manufacturing or design. Well the Tories and Maggie did not, the obscene get rich quick thinking and short term investment was our ruin. How embarrassing is the slogan of that era "Loads of Money" funny on hind sight its cruel that it should define that era. Like a lot of occurrences in life they go in circles. Thatcher started it and New Labour bought in to it. Without variance in views or the stifling independent thought we get this result, when does a politician state his real opinion only when he has no chance to govern thats what. As for Lib Dem we see an end of a political party. My thoughts one down and a few more to go, the only real thing to come out the euro demise in Italy and Greece is that it's leadership has changed to people who know what economics is about, not sound bite or short term gains for their buddies or what shares they own or boards they belong. The obscenity is that we all stood by and let it happen, for what short monetary gain, a disease afflicting humans from time in memoriam we are no better than what we sow.


----------



## monkeybiter (30 Nov 2011)

I'm lucky to still be in a final salary pension, but it was reduced a couple of years ago, at a higher cost. I could strike of course, wouldn't be much point in returning to work after I'd made my point. People all over the country have lost jobs, I appreciate my good fortune but realise it could easily change.

My son is a sole trader working on his own two market stalls. Today the strikes mean the market is shut and he can't work/earn.

I have sympathy for others who's terms and conditions/benefits also change, but the scattergun tactic of striking isn't appropriate.


----------



## beech1948 (30 Nov 2011)

Modernist":2br4646d said:


> beech1948":2br4646d said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob,
> ...




Ok but if you or others won't put up then you have to stay quiet. I really mean shut up. I have just fought and won a battle against a Local Authority, Telephonica and apathy. I learned that it is the unreasonable man who changes things not the go along moan and groan types. I also learned that the many stupid things done by the twisted logic of Government can be prevented if you try hard enough.

But if you won't take part then you can't shout the odds.

Alan


----------



## RogerS (30 Nov 2011)

Modernist":11w9id6p said:


> It actually pre-dates that. Many of us objected violently to the Thatcher wholesale destruction of not only sections of industry but the sense of community. It was so obvious it was impossible to miss.
> 
> As ever the tories were so devoid of ideas of their own that they slavishly followed the Keith Joseph/Thatcher ravings.
> 
> ...



Oh please give me a break. I wondered just how long it would be before someone trumped out 'It's all Thatcher's fault' yet again.


----------



## Allylearm (30 Nov 2011)

RogerS":1v84kov3 said:


> Modernist":1v84kov3 said:
> 
> 
> > It actually pre-dates that. Many of us objected violently to the Thatcher wholesale destruction of not only sections of industry but the sense of community. It was so obvious it was impossible to miss.
> ...



Well the Tory and lib pact seem to say it was all labour and Mr Brown bad management. But for the period they have been in power Tory/Lib pact they have blamed natural disaster, the royal wedding and of course the Ole Euro issue. They did not allow labour or Brown to hide behind the Banks being the problem and we certainly should not allow DC and Clegg hide behind theirs. They chose a path of economic change and look where it has landed, recession and a defunct logic stating that the bank/stock exchange can solve it or sell an asset for less than we purchase it, shrewed George. Well Brown can tell you it did not and I do not see any political willpower to end that theory not from DC or George, they have no plan B. Well maybe the Unions/Pension funds can change that or China. Is that all they got, Danny Alexander should have stayed in the Muppets for all the good he is, he makes me ashamed he is a scot.


----------



## RogerS (30 Nov 2011)

Allylearm":2apujae2 said:


> RogerS":2apujae2 said:
> 
> 
> > Modernist":2apujae2 said:
> ...



Ummm..we were already in a recession when they took over. I think you'll find that if you dig deep enough and do the math that the differenc between Labour's plan and that of the Coalition in terms of numbers ends up broadly the same. 

Anyway, I was talking about poor old Margaret getting dragged into things again. I'm with beech on this one. She did a lot of good.


----------



## Allylearm (30 Nov 2011)

Wrong the govt are spending more than labour plan, I have done the arithmetic. Maggie good for South England and bad for everyone else.


----------



## flying haggis (30 Nov 2011)

Could anybody who has been forced to take a day off work to look after the children because the teachers are on strike, send in a bill for lost earnings to the appropriate union? I would love to see a test case!


----------



## studders (30 Nov 2011)

Blah!


----------



## Modernist (30 Nov 2011)

RogerS":3hztcv94 said:


> Anyway, I was talking about poor old Margaret getting dragged into things again. I'm with beech on this one. She did a lot of good.



You can rely on me Roger. :wink: 

Re not getting involved in politics - not standing as a prospective MP does not disqualify you from comment. This and other forums are an equally valid form of democracy and, I think, a good thing. Far better to have discussion than not.

Returning the the subject of Mrs T you will have missed the recent article (Graun IIRC) which said her detractors and supporters both overstated their case, she was neither as bad or as good as either stated. Speaking for myself this is absolutely not the case. The damned woman was an archetypal aspirant vis the wealthy husband, artificial, unnatural accent and royal we when the despicable Mark was cruelly almost taken from us. (Chance missed). Such people drag along the similarly inclined in a mass self delusion event as we saw and see. 

As for getting rid of lame industry they would dearly like it back now. Strange how the Japanese can make cars successfully using the same population who apparently could not do so for UK companies. Logically that points the finger not at the workers but the management/government.

I note none of my detractors have attempted to explain the volt face on manufacturing. Can no-one yet dream up a coherent excuse?


----------



## LuptonM (30 Nov 2011)

flanajb":mf3audts said:


> Jacob":mf3audts said:
> 
> 
> > Why should we support our workers on November 30th?
> ...



What kind of banking job do you have??????????


----------



## wyldpuss (30 Nov 2011)

:shock:


----------



## MickCheese (30 Nov 2011)

I am a public sector worker. I was not on strike today I was working from 6am to 8:30pm.

I pay, and have done for the past 35years, 11% of my salary in pension contributions.

11% is quite a high sum in contributions wouldn't you agree? But we should not be pitting one set of workers against another we should be seeking a solution.

Mick


----------



## Dibs-h (30 Nov 2011)

Alan Jones":2y0nyaum said:


> Dont they realise the gravy train has come off the rails :roll: the money has run out , welcome to the real world



+1.

Dibs


----------



## RogerS (30 Nov 2011)

Modernist":lnyi8efs said:


> ....
> 
> As for getting rid of lame industry they would dearly like it back now. Strange how the Japanese can make cars successfully using the same population who apparently could not do so for UK companies. Logically that points the finger not at the workers but the management/government.
> ....



Lame industries like the heavily subsidised coal industry?

Re the car industry...you left out the unions.

I can do no better than quote this comment taken at random from a Google search..

The transformation was brutal, but it was worth it. Instead of a knackered shipbuilding industry, and politicised mining and car industries we now have industries that actually make money - IT, pharmacueticals, oil exploration and still (though foreign-owned) a car industry.

The transformation of BT, BP, British Gas and the removal of the burdens of Coal and Steel convinced me that the Tories were right.


----------



## RogerS (30 Nov 2011)

Allylearm":j7sefas0 said:


> Wrong the govt are spending more than labour plan, I have done the arithmetic. ...



Care to share it with us? 

And don;t forget that it was dear old Gordon Brown who raided the private sector pension funds.....didn't see those of us in the private sector going on strike.


----------



## wyldpuss (30 Nov 2011)

> 11% is quite a high sum in contributions wouldn't you agree?



Yes I would, but is this typical or is some of it voluntary? Is this figure gross or net?

Roy.


----------



## studders (30 Nov 2011)

Blah!


----------



## Modernist (30 Nov 2011)

RogerS":1ilhpof9 said:


> Modernist":1ilhpof9 said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



It's amazing how different views can be, after all we are both aware the other is sane  

Coal - OK if you are happy to rely on and be hostage to imports. OK if you are comfortable with the lower safety standards by which it is produced 10k/annum deaths in China alone. OK if you are happy to see the damage to communities and the consequent cost to the state of maintaining them. In fact we may be better to leave it in the ground for later, nous verrons.

Cars - why did the unions change, perhaps it was better conditions in the new makers.

BT is regularly highlighted as one of the worst service providers in the UK. Tesco's supply chain stats for one. 

BP don't really know

British Gas - I don't notice any personal benefit and we are certainly hostage to imports.

Steel - currently the object of huge investment but by foreign companies - result, I think not.

Selling off assets at knock down prices is only a way of offloading the problem, not a solution. Vis, last week Northern Rock. Opportunities missed include reinstating the Girobank which, of course, they previously sold off.


----------



## RogerS (30 Nov 2011)

Modernist":3qkhpiio said:


> ......
> 
> Cars - why did the unions change, perhaps it was better conditions in the new makers.
> 
> .....



NO...because Mrs T broke their stranglehold

Game, set and match!! :lol:


----------



## Modernist (30 Nov 2011)

RogerS":s0z7kq27 said:


> Modernist":s0z7kq27 said:
> 
> 
> > ......
> ...



Leading to what - they aren't here!


----------



## Steve Blackdog (30 Nov 2011)

DIY Stew":2rjtsyqu said:


> before I became a fireman I worked in a hospital laundry where I had to sort very badly soiled clothing and bedding, not a very nice job
> Stew


 
My first job was working in a hospital laundry in the early 80s  I'd managed to blot out the draw sheets from the operating theatre until I read your post!! £65 a week. Those were the days.


----------



## Sawyer (30 Nov 2011)

> We won't see eye to eye on this, but I agree the city screwed up, but did anyone complain when the city was contributing billions to the treasury during the boom years. No!


They contributed as little as possible and are masters of tax evasion (aided and abetted by their mates in government). The city wide boys owe the UK taxpayers billions. Enough to pay the deficit, in fact.



> The issue is still there, the country is broke and the government needs to find ways of reducing the deficit.


Not too broke to pay for wars though. And they're _really_ expensive. Is the UK broke, or is Afghanistan &c. &c. also 'living beyond our means'?



> I would be more than happy to pay an extra 5p on the pound income tax so long as the pain was experienced by all


A good start would be to collect the vast amount of tax already owed (by the super-rich, not ordinary people). They won't do that by cutting 25,000 Inland Revenue staff though, will they? The people who caused this mess have no intention of paying for it themselves and have so far, been successful in handing all of us the bill, whilst holding onto their own immense wealth. 'We're all in this together', is one of the most spectacular lies of all time.


----------



## doorframe (30 Nov 2011)

Steve Blackdog":24pe4wrc said:


> My first job was working in a hospital laundry in the early 80s  £65 a week. Those were the days.



First job... 1981.... apprentice with Radio Rentals... £31 a week b4 tax. £15 to my mum. Not enough left for the bus fare both ways(4 buses a day). Still, the walking kept me fit.

Those certainly were the days... back when we had the last remains of industry. My route to work took me past wall-to-wall industry, employing thousands (and thousands). It's all gone now. It was gone by the end of the 80's! It's all retail parks and leisure. Those jobs will never come back. All too easy to import cheap foreign rubbish. 

Good old Maggie. Taught those unions a lesson, eh? Wiped out jobs. Wiped out communities. Kept those (ex) workers in check. Got rich quick. Gotta love 'er.


----------



## Kieran62 (1 Dec 2011)

Not been long in from a long day, started at half seven this morning. I'm trying to remember the last time I heard so much pointless trivial point scoring on this forum.
I started work in the construction industry at 16, started a pension at 18 on the advice of my father; and kept up my contributions even when work was scarce in the late eighties. Kept that private pension going until I was thirty two (1994), I couldn't even buy a road legal vehicle with what that pension is worth today!
I had the chance to do some voluntary teaching, found I was quite good at it  and decided to retrain as a technology teacher. Fifteen years and one heart attack later, I gave up teaching and returned to part time work. I now have two frozen pensions, which means that I have a bleak retirement to look forward to.
You can blame whichever colour of government you like, the country is bankrupt, we've involved ourselves in ridiculous wars or peace keeping missions that have not benefitted this country one iota.
What is needed is a government that is strong enough to; 
a) sort out the monumental waste that has gone on in paying for so called "consultants" in defence, health and education; and the failed programs they've put in place.
b) make a proper attempt to cut tax avoidance (in particular the telecommunications companies, and bonuses paid into overseas banks. you know who I mean). Instead of the £100,000,000 that Danny Alexander thinks he'll recover by stopping the VAT free sale of DVD's from the Channel Islands.
c) actually tell us ALL the facts instead of the mealy mouth lies and evasions we've had to listen to from all sides of the political spectrum.

I feel much better for that 
Kieran


----------



## RogerS (1 Dec 2011)

Sawyer":3hg29tbl said:


> > We won't see eye to eye on this, but I agree the city screwed up, but did anyone complain when the city was contributing billions to the treasury during the boom years. No!
> 
> 
> They contributed as little as possible and are masters of tax evasion (aided and abetted by their mates in government). The city wide boys owe the UK taxpayers billions. Enough to pay the deficit, in fact.



And your evidence is where? Please spare us the leftwing rhetoric unless you can back it up with some unbiased figures



Sawyer":3hg29tbl said:


> > The issue is still there, the country is broke and the government needs to find ways of reducing the deficit.
> 
> 
> Not too broke to pay for wars though. And they're _really_ expensive. Is the UK broke, or is Afghanistan &c. &c. also 'living beyond our means'?



Agreed



Sawyer":3hg29tbl said:


> > I would be more than happy to pay an extra 5p on the pound income tax so long as the pain was experienced by all
> 
> 
> A good start would be to collect the vast amount of tax already owed (by the super-rich, not ordinary people). They won't do that by cutting 25,000 Inland Revenue staff though, will they? The people who caused this mess have no intention of paying for it themselves and have so far, been successful in handing all of us the bill, whilst holding onto their own immense wealth. 'We're all in this together', is one of the most spectacular lies of all time.



More leftwing twaddle. Where is your evidence? Although I do agree with the statement The people who caused this mess have no intention of paying for it . There was a very interesting and *well-researched documentary* questioning just how opaque are the finances of Blair, who took us to war, twice.


----------



## MickCheese (1 Dec 2011)

MickCheese":61in2t4b said:


> I am a public sector worker. I was not on strike today I was working from 6am to 8:30pm.
> 
> I pay, and have done for the past 35years, 11% of my salary in pension contributions.
> 
> ...



This is typical, everyone pays the same and it is set to rise to 14%.

Mick


----------



## beech1948 (1 Dec 2011)

The Daily mail today.

" State workers get 7.5% more pay than private sector staff. Men in state jobs enjoy an average of 4.5% extra and women earn an added 10.5%."

The trade unions now have as little credibility as MPs especially after seeing that senior union officials get up to 40% of salary paid into their pension pots from the workers union dues.

This debate has gone the way all such debates go. Detail to counter detail to poor logic and even poorer conclusions. 

What now seems to be clear is that the public sector worker on average is getting an OK deal. They just don't want to pay any more for it and would rather the private sector tax payer paid for it. The UNions seek a fight to justify their increasingly irrelevant existence.

My credentials in this are that I worked for a county council for 9 yrs after uni. This was 1969 to 1978. The employee attitude was to do as little as possible for as long as possible. To have poor inefficient processes and IT systems to blame and to provide as poor a service as possible. I don't see that much has changed. Yes the dustmen work as hard as ever. The office workers less so.

Much of what passes as government need not actually be in place. I want to see a listing of what the local and central governments must do for us and then make sure they do nothing else. All government is a cost to society. They make nothing, they invent nothing, they deliver nothing. Education is disguised as a success but in reality is a failure. The DoE figures show that 47% of all pupils score less than a grade C at GCSE level and that around 24% can't read and write properly or are innumerate. 

Such a performance in industry would be seen as a failure and immediate steps would be taken to improve that performance. Does Government local or central do this..OH NO.

Why are only 10% of the police available at any one time to be on the streets and not stuck in an office.? I could go on but will stop here.

The question Modernist and others need to consider is not the blaming of Thatcher but the real question of what do we want and what will we tolerate. Until that can be answered the debate is meaningless. Those who lean to the Left, Centre or Right will debate how many angels can fit on a pin head. I'd rather get stuff done and delivered. To denigrate Thatcher is to misunderstand not just politics but the reasons for the changes in the country. Was she mostly right...HELL YES!!

Today China seems to have all the cards. Low wages, some inflation, lots of output. BUT its time to look at the cost of transport from China to the west, the increase in costs in China, the worker unrest in China, to see whether the UK can return to the manufacture of the things we lost to China or the east as their costs escalate. Who is trying to do this..NO ONE.!!

Time to not just CUT costs but to SURGICALLY remove costs, people and waste but its also time for companies to pay their staff more and their shareholders a bit less....REMEMBER I am still an unrepentant Tory.

My view is that :-

Thatcher was awe inspiring.
Callaghan was a failure
Blair was a conman
Brown was a failure who spent all the money on rubbish
Milliband is a child lost in the wilderness of union political rubbish
Cameron is a plastic cosmetic politician
Clegg is an inexperienced fall guy on an ego trip. 

Where o'h where is that sense of leadership, that drive forwards, that common sense approach to be found today. Who has a clear vision unclouded by political opinion, who is prepared to do the right thing. NO ONE.!!

The last thing we need is more political clap trap. Time to run the country like a business.


Al


----------



## Jonzjob (1 Dec 2011)

This should really help the situation?

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

Clarkson at his best, bless!


----------



## Allylearm (1 Dec 2011)

Beech you forgot one thing about Thatcher. She destroyed but never tried to rebuild or supply a viable alternative to employment she destroyed. That's her real gift to history, never a builder and who forgets the Falkland War saved her govt.

If she was was so good for Britain and the Tories, why was she dumped by her own party. Why has the Tories since the Poll Tax went down a ever decreasing tunnel with a sole MP in Scotland at present. They did have the majority of votes in pre 60's. 

Her brand of leadership was grating on those who worked for her. She was not for the manufacturing sector and could not resolve conflict. A true leader would have achieved the result by rebuilding and improving it thjrough agreement and change. Thatcher gave us Council House sales that started the credit trap and mortgage scam who fed the banks, estate agents, lawyers, finance, etc etc. Where are we now is the result of Thatcher meddling, trying to iron rule where diplomacy and change were needed, never her strong point. She neither had the skill for or the inkling to aid change in recovering the manufacturing sector but started the drive to a service economy. She succeeded in this goal but I do not think she ever thought or planned what she created. She went for a fight with Unions or anyone who disagreed with her view. Very democratic and worse for the UK in general.

So I cannot share your slanted view of history. Look at the outcome to judge. All governments to their shame followed her Service economy and selling public owned assets as the way forward.


----------



## beech1948 (1 Dec 2011)

Allylearm said:


> Beech you forgot one thing about Thatcher. She destroyed but never tried to rebuild or supply a viable alternative to employment she destroyed. That's her real gift to history, never a builder and who forgets the Falkland War saved her govt.
> 
> Governments do not build anything. Your mistaken.
> Governments can only create an environment of laws and tax which should help business not hinder
> ...


----------



## Modernist (1 Dec 2011)

beech1948":haouajq4 said:


> The Daily mail today.
> 
> .............................
> 
> ...



Don't imagine I condone waste or idleness in PS, I said the reverse. Given that much of private pension provision has been closed then, if we are to avoid a generation of under resourced pensioners that must be replaced, the answer is not tot further reduce the public provision. 

I don't agree with several of your points re education etc however we will inevitably end up paying more for less in a wide range of areas. So far as your question of what we want and will tolerate we do not have much choice but clearly financial security funded by work is a priority. How the nation cares for those unable to move mountains themselves is a test of our civilisation.

Re politicians, I would have shot thatcher and have little more time than you for the rest and you are correct about Blair.

I absolutely agree the country (any country) needs strong leadership however we have allowed our political system to become corrupt along with the press and financial services (to just name 3) and are therefore bedevilled by the same problems which plague 3rd world economies and more.

The problem is who would be a politician under such circumstances?


----------



## Sawyer (1 Dec 2011)

RogerS":1jo73vj7 said:


> Sawyer":1jo73vj7 said:
> 
> 
> > > We won't see eye to eye on this, but I agree the city screwed up, but did anyone complain when the city was contributing billions to the treasury during the boom years. No!
> ...



Well, let's start with some right wing rhetoric shall we? Even the Daily Telegraph admits it's £35 billion. Not an insignificant sum, I feel.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... -year.html


----------



## beech1948 (1 Dec 2011)

Modernist,
You said>>>>>>
I don't agree with several of your points re education etc 
<<<<
This is a matter of public record and is from the figures published by the DoEd. I don't care if you agree or not but you can't disagree with these figures.


You nsaid,
>>>>
however we will inevitably end up paying more for less in a wide range of areas. So far as your question of what we want and will tolerate we do not have much choice but clearly financial security funded by work is a priority. How the nation cares for those unable to move mountains themselves is a test of our civilisation.

Re politicians, I would have shot thatcher and have little more time than you for the rest and you are correct about Blair.

I absolutely agree the country (any country) needs strong leadership however we have allowed our political system to become corrupt along with the press and financial services (to just name 3) and are therefore bedevilled by the same problems which plague 3rd world economies and more.

The problem is who would be a politician under such circumstances?[/quote]
<<<<
I do agree. What I find hard to stomach is that you appear willing to accept it. You identify it but condemn yourself to no choice, no action. Why are you defeated.

Al


----------



## Allylearm (1 Dec 2011)

Beech again you are misjudged what Thatcher did to taxation. She misused North Sea Oil Revenue to pay for her taxation and misspending of her govt. Not a viable option then or now and only gained in the short term like her govt and all proceeding govts that followed, that is what her service directed outcome of her policies generated. 

North Sea oil revenue would have been better spent supplying jobs for then and the future, Infrastructure of the country and supporting new product development/business. All things Thatcher should have done and any govt worth it salt should do. To project future growth and revenue opportunities is well within their scope. In business a five year plan to invest to reach an outcome is good planning along with support for investment, no CEO or owner could do so without. Can you tell me Thatchers planned outcome for UK, split local tax to a new system that generated ill will, spend ever decreasing natural asset to fund tax cuts that fuel what spending on imports due to lack of products produced in this country or fuel lifestyles that continued the rich to get richer, sell its assets in public utilities to finance what greed or fail in the future to be able to regulate or stipulate cost of power/gas. Who did we sell our crown jewels to and what was the benefit to the lowly tax payer/previous owner. Yes Thatcher was great for Great Britain was she not.


----------



## Sawyer (1 Dec 2011)

Sawyer":1ebvy92v said:


> > I would be more than happy to pay an extra 5p on the pound income tax so long as the pain was experienced by all
> 
> 
> A good start would be to collect the vast amount of tax already owed (by the super-rich, not ordinary people). They won't do that by cutting 25,000 Inland Revenue staff though, will they? The people who caused this mess have no intention of paying for it themselves and have so far, been successful in handing all of us the bill, whilst holding onto their own immense wealth. 'We're all in this together', is one of the most spectacular lies of all time.





> More leftwing twaddle. Where is your evidence? Although I do agree with the statement The people who caused this mess have no intention of paying for it . There was a very interesting and *well-researched documentary* questioning just how opaque are the finances of Blair, who took us to war, twice.



Now then, let's have a little look at this one shall we? The BBC, hardly noted as a purveyor of 'left wing twaddle' (sic), mentions 20,000 job losses in HMRC, with another 12,000 planned. 200 tax offices have already been closed. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-13885311

Well researched and unbiased enough for you?

Not quite sure how a documentary about Tony Bliar's wars and opaque finances relate to this particular question? (Not that he, and his cronies are blameless for allowing avoidance by the super rich of course).


----------



## flanajb (1 Dec 2011)

Sawyer":2ygav11w said:


> > We won't see eye to eye on this, but I agree the city screwed up, but did anyone complain when the city was contributing billions to the treasury during the boom years. No!
> 
> 
> They contributed as little as possible and are masters of tax evasion (aided and abetted by their mates in government). The city wide boys owe the UK taxpayers billions. Enough to pay the deficit, in fact.


 I think you need to check your facts on that one. Are you talking about the minority of people on mega high salaries in London or in general. The reason I ask is that most people in the city are PAYE like everyone else. Tax evasion is not possible under that scheme.

The majority of people in this country read the Daily Mail and think they know everything about the city. A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.


----------



## beech1948 (1 Dec 2011)

Allylearm":1w0fs6re said:


> Beech again you are misjudged what Thatcher did to taxation. She misused North Sea Oil Revenue to pay for her taxation and misspending of her govt. Not a viable option then or now and only gained in the short term like her govt and all proceeding govts that followed, that is what her service directed outcome of her policies generated.
> 
> I misjudge nothing. The old saw about North Sea Oil is another myth usually put about by the Scots.
> 
> North Sea oil revenue would have been better spent supplying jobs for then and the future, Infrastructure of the country and supporting new product development/business. All things Thatcher should have done and any govt worth it salt should do. To project future growth and revenue opportunities is well within their scope. In business a five year plan I have spent my life working in large companies both in general management, MD roles as well as Strategic Planning. NO company has or keeps a 5 yr plan today and has not done so from the 1980's. Change is so fast that such a long range plan would hobble rather than aid a company. Certainly as MD of my company I keep a strict 1 yr budgeted plan, the next year is outlined but not yet firm and year 3 is simply a wish list. We are the most productive in our sector. Investment needs good planning for the investment but a 5 yr plan is no real help these days.to invest to reach an outcome is good planning along with support for investment, no CEO or owner could do so without. Can you tell me Thatchers planned outcome for UK, split local tax to a new system that generated ill will, spend ever decreasing natural asset to fund tax cuts that fuel what spending on imports due to lack of products produced in this country or fuel lifestyles that continued the rich to get richer, sell its assets in public utilities to finance what greed or fail in the future to be able to regulate or stipulate cost of power/gas. Who did we sell our crown jewels to and what was the benefit to the lowly tax payer/previous owner. Yes Thatcher was great for Great Britain was she not.


Hind sight is great is it not as well as rationalising after the fact. Thatcher delivered much to GB. The Poll Tax was a mistake but we all make them. The failure of GB industry is more to do with that industries lack of investment than any Government lack of spending. I see and feel where your view comes from but I do not feel you have it in balance yet. People expect too much from all Governments and do not do enough for themselves.

Al


----------



## doorframe (1 Dec 2011)

beech1948":mrkritwf said:


> People expect too much from all Governments.
> Al



On the contrary. People expect *nothing* from Governments any more. And that's just what they get. Except dumped-on maybe.

That's why voter apathy is so high. It just doesn't matter who gets in. They're only there to line their own purses. They say what they want when in opposition. Once they're in.....U-Turn on everything. Get rich. Get out. Next please.


----------



## Modernist (1 Dec 2011)

beech1948":3r2t29vq said:


> Modernist,
> You said>>>>>>
> I don't agree with several of your points re education etc
> <<<<
> This is a matter of public record and is from the figures published by the DoEd. I don't care if you agree or not but you can't disagree with these figures.



Which figures? Before you answer you might like to take into account that my wife is an OFSTED inspector.



> I do agree. What I find hard to stomach is that you appear willing to accept it. You identify it but condemn yourself to no choice, no action. Why are you defeated



I am not defeated and how do you know what I do about it? Given that the current crisis has amply illustrated that national governments are powerless against global markets there is little hope of individual progress. If we accept the concept of globalisation, which all governments have, then the only balancing force would be a united Europe, hence Merkel's position. 
This of course does not go down well with the island Britain brigade so poorly lead by the current incumbent. What influence do you think we could have in Europe after the tories devastatingly damaging performance over the years. Most industrialists of course ignore the silly person politicians and carry on trading regardless but how different it could have been. Anyone who thinks UK can prosper in isolation in a globalised world is deluded.

What will actually happen is that poverty will enforce common sense on the posturing politicians and we simply will not have the cash for expeditions to Iraq, Afganistan and the like and a good thing too. That incidentally is also the view of the editor of the FT. 

The only way out of this mess is Keynsian economics as it always has been before. This is not borrowing to pay for borrowing as the tories bleat but funds for investment to generate the profits to pay the debts.


----------



## beech1948 (1 Dec 2011)

Modernist":cerei0ie said:


> beech1948":cerei0ie said:
> 
> 
> > Modernist,
> ...



Which figures? Before you answer you might like to take into account that my wife is an OFSTED inspector.

The following figures direct from DoE published annual statistics ( last full set was for 2009):-

21 % leave school and are illiterate...can't read nor write well enough to register
24% leave school and are innumerate...can't count, add up nor calculate decimal fractions
46 % of children can not achieve a Grade C GCSE

These rates of production can only be described as failure.

Just in case you decide to argue I invite you to come to our latest set of interviews for graduate trainee consultants in February 2012. It should be very illuminating for OFSTED to see what they are producing against the requirements and needs of industry. 

There are only two common and basic global languages. 1) Math 2) Business. 

Being an OFSTED inspector is neither here nor there. Not really that important. Does she teach. Does she deliver employment ready youths who can deal with the complexity of business. Is she a doer or a watcher.

Keynesian economics eh ?. I am not sure about this in the simplistic way you throw it in. The theory is OK the practice is much less sound. It's interesting that no major economy has tried to implement a Keynesian economy in the past 60 yrs. Some debt is OK and even essential. Many business deals could not proceed without debt however short term eg importing a boat load of stuff from China. Keynes would have us all pay up front with no debt this would cause a banking riot when a boat load of stuff was rejected at the factory inbound goods inspection for example.

I agree that debt is generally not so good. Uncontrolled debt is bad. Uncontrolled debt underwritten by Government is very bad. Hence our current economic woes.

I'm reminded of my first board meeting and an old finance director looking at me to say ....Turnover is vanity, Profit is sanity, Cash is survival. He was right then and would be correct now and thats' a spread of 28 years.


Al


----------



## Karl (1 Dec 2011)

beech1948":3sjebo1c said:


> f
> 21 % leave school and are illiterate...can't read nor write well enough to register
> 24% leave school and are innumerate...can't count, add up nor calculate decimal fractions
> 46 % of children can not achieve a Grade C GCSE



If those figures are true i'd be amazed. Particularly the 1st and 3rd.


----------



## Sawyer (1 Dec 2011)

flanajb":wtvm2j4l said:


> Sawyer":wtvm2j4l said:
> 
> 
> > > We won't see eye to eye on this, but I agree the city screwed up, but did anyone complain when the city was contributing billions to the treasury during the boom years. No!
> ...


 Firstly, let me assure everyone that I am not a Daily Mail reader!
I was not so much referring to individuals on PAYE, but to big business tax evasion. Egs:

Vodafone: let off a 6bn tax bill by HM Revenues & Customs.
Boots: moved to a Swiss tax haven. Last year paid £14 millon on profits of £475m.
There are plenty of others.


----------



## Modernist (2 Dec 2011)

beech1948":3luxfb5y said:


> Modernist":3luxfb5y said:
> 
> 
> > beech1948":3luxfb5y said:
> ...



You're an aggressive so an so it seems. 

Your stats are rubbish and would not be published by the DES in that way. I shall investigate.

I see we are discounting anything to do with art, humanities or culture. There is more to life and education than maths and business.

For myself I have owned and run an successful engineering business for 20 years and I have found all the students we have worked with to be highly impressive and capable in that time and have had to a great deal more hard work than I had to in my day. 

What do you do?


----------



## Allylearm (2 Dec 2011)

Beech again we are talking of Thatcher and a five year plan has to be taken into the life of any parliament, or are they planning for the following election I think not MP's cannot think past there next recess or junket to attend. So oil revenue went where, did it just vanish or was it like the moon landing and never happened as it made nothing from tax revenue.

A year is short for any planning with enlargement being intended, infrastructure or planning control can swallow up time. But with product change or development I would agree though, but sometimes this gets prolonged due to market forces.


----------



## barkwindjammer (2 Dec 2011)

flanajb":2dxivsgd said:


> We won't see eye to eye on this, but I agree the city screwed up, but did anyone complain when the city was contributing billions to the treasury during the boom years. No!



They were being reckless with billions, contributing to their own bank balances, bonuses and private trust funds, to be paid for at a later date.

Every good story has a beginning, a middle and an ending. :ho2


----------



## jack55 (2 Dec 2011)

I have been in public services for the past 37 years. For 36 years I have contributed to my pension provision. Not by choice, it was a condition of employment that after 12 months employment I had to join the pension scheme. The contribution is deducted at source. In return I was promised 1/80th of my final salary for every year I contributed, with a maximum of 40 years. This is not gold plated! I have consently heard in the past few days that those in the public sector should be grateful to have a job. However, I doubt very much those same people would tell that to the face of the fireman who is trying to save their property from burning to the ground, or to the paramedic who is at the scene of an accident or other serious injury, trying to save their life. “ I CANNOT afford to have a pension” is the other mantra which is being trotted out. Yet these same individuals expect that the dinner lady, road sweeper or bin man can afford to pay for their own retirement, which of course they do. The local government pension scheme was reviewed two years ago, benefits were reduced and contributions increased, now it seems we are expected to welcome even more changes. Not to make the pension scheme more affordable but to pay the debts the bankers have ranked up for us all. I will not get a salary increase this year or the next two years, any increases I had in the past rarely were at the same level as inflation. I manage the waste services here in the north east of Scotland, my staff work in all conditions, be it torrential rain or snow blizzards, they earn their wages and the contribute to their pension. They have the right to expect that their employer will honour their part of the contract. If they are lucky and have worked for 40 years they could get £9,000 in a pension, but it’s more likely to be 20 years and get 4,500 a year.


----------



## StevieB (2 Dec 2011)

I think you are missing a rather important point Jack - your contribution to your pension in a year does not equal 1/80th of your final salary. This is the way most final salary schemes used to work, with the employer contributing to the pot as well. For example, the scheme I was in took an employee contribution of 6.35% and an employer contribution of 14% to pay out a 40/80ths final salary on retirement. This has recently been closed to new entrants, employee and employer contributions raised becasue the pot was not enough to pay out existing and future liabilities for staff currently in the scheme, let alone new joiners. In your case you are bemonaing the percentage you pay increasing, but there is no 14% equivalent from your employer, its paid for by the tax collected from all of us. Just the same as a private scheme, the pot becomes too small to pay existing and future liabilities without huge tax rises for everyone. The crux of the argument is whether this is fair - and to a large degree this depends on whether you are on the public or private sector side of the line. Previous contributions are protected, so nobody has lost anything except an expectation that things would stay the same for 40 years when they signed up - prehaps an unrealistic assumption given the pace of change in the world?

Confusing the pension issue with the 'worth' of the job in question - teacher, nurse, fireman etc is emotive but irrelevant.

Steve


----------



## jack55 (2 Dec 2011)

I fully understand my percentage payment did not fully equate to the 1/80th which is why the money paid in to pension funds is invested and the return on the investments goes into the pot. The employers are also required to put in their contribution, and for some considerable time their contribution was small. It was part of the overall agreement. But to force someone to join a scheme, take their money, then want to renage on the deal is not in my opinion fair. Especially after the scheme was reviewed and the deal then was the final salary scheme would remain providing it could prove to be viable, which is why the changes were made to the scheme a couple of years ago. I am not bemaoning the fact I may be asked to pay more, like I said we have already had an increase, and changes have been made to the scheme, so I am not expecting nothing would change over 40 years. What I do object to is having already accepted changes they are proposing more changes, which will not contribute to the pension fund but rarther the treasury. It is just a stealth tax. I have no doubt that changes will be made to the scheme and new entrants will find they are offered different terms. However, it is short sighted to think the Tax payer will not eventually have to pick up the bill anyhow. It is no longer a condition of employment to be part of the pension scheme, so if the benefits are not to be forthcoming then lots will opt out and rely on the state to provide for them in their old age. 
What seems to be happening is instead of the aurgument for a fair pension for all, we are sinking to the lowest common denominater.

The reference to the public sector workers is not to judge their worth but rarther to make the point its easy to bemoan the public sector until you need it. Maybe thats the discussion that needs to be had, not whether the public sector workforce has a pension scheme but rather do we need a public sector. Maybe we should just pay for all the service we use directly, no free health service, or education, toll roads, pay as you throw and no welfare service. It would be easy to transfer some public services to none for profit companies which make a direct charge for the services they provide. 

Oh and I don't expect to retire earlier than anyone else my retirement age is at the moment 65.


----------



## RogerS (2 Dec 2011)

Sawyer":8ukqm3iq said:


> RogerS":8ukqm3iq said:
> 
> 
> > Sawyer":8ukqm3iq said:
> ...



Sorry but you need to do better than that. Apart from the headline catching £35 bn nowhere else in the article is it mentioned. Nor does the article specifically say that who they are targetting. In fact they are targetting everyone.

I'd like a better example than the one you've given.


----------



## Sawyer (2 Dec 2011)

> And your evidence is where? Please spare us the leftwing rhetoric unless you can back it up with some unbiased figures



Well, let's start with some right wing rhetoric shall we? Even the Daily Telegraph admits it's £35 billion. Not an insignificant sum, I feel.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... -year.html[/quote]



> Sorry but you need to do better than that. Apart from the headline catching £35 bn nowhere else in the article is it mentioned. Nor does the article specifically say that who they are targetting. In fact they are targetting everyone.
> 
> I'd like a better example than the one you've given


And your point is what: Daily Telegraph too left wing is it?
Still, on further enquiry it appears 35bn is the wrong figure: take a look at what the Daily Mail reports today: seems the gap is actually 42bn :!: Mervyn King slating HMRC for it. 

And by the way - yes, they are targetting everybody (ie ordinary folk) for it. If they won't take it off the tax-dodgers the less well off majority will have to fork out: VAT, library closures &c. &c.

Hoping of course that Our Merv's opinion is not considered 'left wing twaddle' . :mrgreen: 
And if the Daily Mail is too Trotskyist to be relied on, the Financial Times also has stuff on this.


----------



## RogerS (2 Dec 2011)

Sawyer":2s5yqc5q said:


> A good start would be to collect the vast amount of tax already owed (by the super-rich, not ordinary people). They won't do that by cutting 25,000 Inland Revenue staff though, will they? The people who caused this mess have no intention of paying for it themselves and have so far, been successful in handing all of us the bill, whilst holding onto their own immense wealth. 'We're all in this together', is one of the most spectacular lies of all time.





RogerS":2s5yqc5q said:


> More leftwing twaddle. Where is your evidence? Although I do agree with the statement The people who caused this mess have no intention of paying for it . There was a very interesting and *well-researched documentary* questioning just how opaque are the finances of Blair, who took us to war, twice.





Sawyer":2s5yqc5q said:


> Now then, let's have a little look at this one shall we? The BBC, hardly noted as a purveyor of 'left wing twaddle' (sic), mentions 20,000 job losses in HMRC, with another 12,000 planned. 200 tax offices have already been closed. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-13885311
> 
> Well researched and unbiased enough for you?
> 
> Not quite sure how a documentary about Tony Bliar's wars and opaque finances relate to this particular question? (Not that he, and his cronies are blameless for allowing avoidance by the super rich of course).



I wasn't referring to the number of jobs being lost in HMRC. I was referring to your first sentence.... The reference to the programme on Blair's company suggested that he had spun a web of companies upon companies and so the true picture as to how much tax was due by both him and his companies was clouded in uncertainty. So you need to stick Blair in that group of 'super-rich' who avoid tax.


----------



## RogerS (2 Dec 2011)

Sawyer...you're still missing the point (and the right quote marks to make any sort of sense). Of course there is tax revenue that could be collected. Plucking figures of £35 bn or £42 bn are just newspaper headlines. The point is though that this money is spread across the whole population...not just those at the top (and who are probably non-domiclled here anyway)


----------



## Sawyer (2 Dec 2011)

> I wasn't referring to the number of jobs being lost in HMRC. I was referring to your first sentence.... The reference to the programme on Blair's company suggested that he had spun a web of companies upon companies and so the true picture as to how much tax was due by both him and his companies was clouded in uncertainty. So you need to stick Blair in that group of 'super-rich' who avoid tax



But I wasn't talking about Blair in the first place. 
Corporate tax avoidance was my point. Rather than making ordinary people pay, they should collect the 35bn, 42bn or whatever the figure is from the scoundrels who have been dodging it. 
Drastic cuts in HMRC are not going to assist with this.
And yes, super-rich Blair is quite possibly one of the culprits himself.


----------



## RogerS (2 Dec 2011)

Allylearm":2i0k33v4 said:


> Wrong the govt are spending more than labour plan, I have done the arithmetic. Maggie good for South England and bad for everyone else.



Any chance we can see your figures? Oh, I already asked this question.


----------



## DIY Stew (2 Dec 2011)

6 Pages!!!!!

Can you believe it.

Stew


----------



## RogerS (2 Dec 2011)

Sawyer":1d3ycxnv said:


> ......
> Corporate tax avoidance was my point. ......



No it was not.

This from your original post

The city wide boys owe the UK taxpayers billions. Enough to pay the deficit, in fact. Nothing about corporate tax avoidance there. And no evidence provided by you whatsoever to justify the last sentence.

And lookie-lookie....in the same post

A good start would be to collect the vast amount of tax already owed (by the super-rich, not ordinary people)

Nothing about corporate tax avoidance there either. And no evidence provided by you whatsoever as to whether or not they do owe tax nor how much 'vast' is.

I asked for sound research to back up your statements. Instead you offered me nebulous newspaper headlines of various types which were simply that..a newspaper headline. Show me some statistics or some reports carried out by someone who knows what they are on about. 

In another post, you say Vodafone: let off a 6bn tax bill by HM Revenues & Customs. Please DO check your facts and don't believe everything that you read in the tabloids. They actually paid an agreed sum of £1.25bn...that figure of £6bn was plucked out of the air to fan the febrile little minds of those protesters who demonstrated. You can read a pretty accurate report in the FT here and a very good explanation of the difficulties that ALL governments face in the face of globalisation is here. Don't believe everything that UK Uncut gets hot and bothered about. Strange name anyway for a protest organisation...more suited to The Society of Uncircumcised UK Males.

Until then I still think all you have offered is empty left-wing rhetoric. By ducking and diving rather than objectively answer the questions, you're getting as bad as Jacob at a'slippin and a'slidin.....


----------



## RogerS (2 Dec 2011)

DIY Stew":2j68vdk1 said:


> 6 Pages!!!!!
> 
> Can you believe it.
> 
> Stew




:lol: :lol:


----------



## Sawyer (2 Dec 2011)

RogerS":67jond83 said:


> Sawyer":67jond83 said:
> 
> 
> > ......
> ...


So: BBC - not good enough. Telegraph, Mail & FT - not good enough. Despite intentially avoiding sources which you would predictably decry as 'left wing' nothing seems to be sufficient and everything unpalatable is met with - 'more evidence'. Picking holes in the semantics of my posts - is that the best argument available in favour of the system?
And just where do you glean all _your _facts from, Roger? Because whilst we have all been greatly amused by your succession of bald, unsupported assertions, you have been remarkably light on evidence, despite demanding it from me.

When you bother to cite them, I'll enjoy consulting your sources, which presumably will not include the BBC and 'serious' press.


----------



## flanajb (2 Dec 2011)

RogerS":aylprwtx said:


> DIY Stew":aylprwtx said:
> 
> 
> > 6 Pages!!!!!
> ...


I think it just goes to show what an emotive subject it is. Private sector on one side and public sector on the other. They will never agree!


----------



## RogerS (2 Dec 2011)

Sawyer.. Oh FFS...stop answering my question with another question..please refer to my original question which has been re-iterated above. Do not duck and dive and try to bring in red herrings yet again.

I will try and keep this simple.

You originally said in your very first post before you went off wandering and quoting headlines that bear no resemblance to the topic in question.....

The city wide boys owe the UK taxpayers billions. Enough to pay the deficit, in fact.

I asked where is the evidence to support those two statements. You have given none. Or if you think that the headlines you have referred to actually do provide this evidence then please copy and paste and show us.

Do not go off on yet another red herring. Just answer the first question. Then we can move on to the next one.


----------



## LuptonM (2 Dec 2011)

From reading stuff, it seems the bursting of the US house bubble combined with previous low interest rates and the over leveraging of subprime mortgage type investments by US banks triggered the financial crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s ... ial_crisis

Now its high government debt in the eurozone that is causing problems. This was partially caused by the bailout of banks and some countries retarded tax collection systems


----------



## Sawyer (2 Dec 2011)

RogerS":4x88aua7 said:


> Sawyer.. Oh FFS...stop answering my question with another question..please refer to my original question which has been re-iterated above. Do not duck and dive and try to bring in red herrings yet again.
> 
> I will try and keep this simple.
> 
> ...


I refer you back to the sources already cited and await evidence in to back up our own un-supported assertions.


----------



## barkwindjammer (2 Dec 2011)

flanajb":3uo5mi0n said:


> RogerS":3uo5mi0n said:
> 
> 
> > DIY Stew":3uo5mi0n said:
> ...



And thats the game the government are playing out to the 'thickos' of the populous of this country, its the oldest move in the book, its called 'divide and conquer', so 48% are on the private side and 51% are on the public sector side-pit them against one another-whilst they're scrapping it will take their eye off the ball-we raise big bonus and salaries while half of 'that lot' migrate from one side to another, in 10 yrs time we'll decide its been a huge mistake, we'll let them migrate all the way back again. tick, ,tock, ,tick, ,tock, ,

and yes my arithmetic is rubbish 48 and 51 don't make a 'hole', maybe I'd fit right into the banking sector then . . .


----------



## RogerS (3 Dec 2011)

Sawyer..this is getting tedious. Are you sure you are not a politician because you have done everything except answer my question.

It is now blatantly obvious to all of us that you cannot provide any evidence to support your empty left-wing rhetoric. You have not explained your position at all. Referring back to an arbitrary couple of newspaper headlines is not a replacement for reasoned debate.

So, unless you're prepared to either put up or shut up, then I see little point in continuing this, well, I am reluctant to call it a debate.


----------



## Jacob (3 Dec 2011)

RogerS":2cbxrp7l said:


> Sawyer..this is getting tedious. Are you sure you are not a politician because you have done everything except answer my question.
> 
> It is now blatantly obvious to all of us that you cannot provide any evidence to support your empty left-wing rhetoric. You have not explained your position at all. Referring back to an arbitrary couple of newspaper headlines is not a replacement for reasoned debate.
> 
> So, unless you're prepared to either put up or shut up, then I see little point in continuing this, well, I am reluctant to call it a debate.


We all know, in general terms at least, about the wealth splashing about, tax evasion/avoidance on a huge scale and the overall inequality of the country which the Bullingdon boys are so anxious to preserve. Director's salaries and pensions, bonusses even paid when businesses are failing and have had to be nationalised, are just a part of it.
You can see it before your very eyes in simple terms; amazing house prices and conspicuous wealth/consumption going on all round. That's just the tip of the iceberg. 
If Roger believes it's an illusion it's up to him to show us the evidence. See if you can prove the earth is flat whilst you are at it, it'd be easier!


----------



## RogerS (3 Dec 2011)

Thought you'd been a bit quiet, Jacob.

You're also doing it...trying to derail a line of enquiry by bringing in sweeping generalisations. It's not up to me to prove otherwise but the originator of the statement to prove their case. As I say generalisations don't cut it. Nor does empty left-wing cant.


----------



## DIY Stew (3 Dec 2011)

RogerS":24zalz15 said:


> DIY Stew":24zalz15 said:
> 
> 
> > 6 Pages!!!!!
> ...


If only Len Goodman (Strictley Come Dancing Judge) where on this site, he would say SEVEN.

Stew


----------



## Sawyer (3 Dec 2011)

Nope, not a politician.
Your question was 'were's your evidence?' and I've supplied various (free of left bias) sources of information for people to consider, but all you have done is split hairs with them and the wording of my posts. If I supply more, you'll do the same.

We've heard all your dogmatic and unsubstantiated statements: time for you to present your arguments and sources for scrutiny. Is this in some way problematic?

And remember - free of undue bias. 

We're all waiting....


----------



## RogerS (3 Dec 2011)

Sawyer":n76xgafd said:


> Nope, not a politician.
> Your question was 'were's your evidence?' and I've supplied various (free of left bias) sources of information for people to consider......



No...............you..............have................not.

Your original statement...for the record....The city wide boys owe the UK taxpayers billions. Enough to pay the deficit, in fact.

Let's look at your first example of 'evidence' taken from the Telegraph since you seem incapable of cutting and pasting anything to prove your point...simply throwing back the same old same old cliche so loved of the loonie Left ....'I've given you the evidence' blah blah blah.

First sentence

The so-called ‘tax gap’, which is the difference between the amount of tax due and the total collected, was reduced from 8.1pc of revenues from the year before but critics argue that the figure is still too high.

Anything about city boys? Nope. Anything about them owing enough to pay the deficit? Nope.

Second sentence

The Coalition has pledged to make tax collection more efficient by simplifying the system and clamping down on tax evasion.

Anything about city boys? Nope. Anything about them owing enough to pay the deficit? Nope.

I could go on but I won't. There is NOTHING in that article to back up your sweeping generalisation and I truly feel sorry for you that you are mentally incapable of understanding that fact. 

I apologise to the rest of you guys that this has gone on so long but you will be relieved to hear that I'm 'out'. Life is too short and I have things to make.


----------



## Jacob (3 Dec 2011)

RogerS":361ywg3p said:


> Thought you'd been a bit quiet, Jacob.
> 
> You're also doing it...trying to derail a line of enquiry by bringing in sweeping generalisations. It's not up to me to prove otherwise but the originator of the statement to prove their case. As I say generalisations don't cut it. Nor does empty left-wing cant.


Go on have a go. You've successfully deluded yourself so you know how it's done!


----------



## Sawyer (3 Dec 2011)

Still splitting hairs then Roger.

And what _were _your sources? I'm keen to read them (who knows, they may change my mind). But you seem remarkably reluctant to cite anything.

I'm beginning to wonder if your stance is actually based on research, or just homespun dogma.


----------



## Jacob (3 Dec 2011)

Sawyer":18gh6um4 said:


> ....
> 
> I'm beginning to wonder if your stance is actually based on research, or just homespun dogma.


I'd guess his sources are basically the Telegraph, and some dubious aquaintances! Do you play golf Roger?


----------



## Allylearm (3 Dec 2011)

The main point Roger is missing is that his thoughts or words have no support in independent analysis as he failed to show any support for his point in the first instance. So why should anyone show him theirs.

Civil Service pension is costing less, there is enough been said on it even Hutton/BBC/Guardian pointed to the fact. So revenues gained from the 14/16% increase to burden the average CS who is in the majority of the low to medium bracket, which makes it a wage cut along with wage stagnatyion for the last three years and the next 3 it looks like. The monies gained will not go to prop up the pension burden as it is self paying it will go to the treasury, even the govt have grudgingly agreed this. Wonder where it will be spent. The govt retire-ct is not for reform the CS already agreed to reform and is currently in progress and is not unsympathetic to it, the govt is looking to generate income quickly and not like their investment in 3/4 years ahead in job creation and infrastructure projects. They are cutting jobs and wonder why our borders have not enough Custom officers to stop persons from entering, but with limiting checks more get through. We have a £35/45 billion deficit in unpaid tax from upper tax bracket payees who refuse or find ways to elude payment. They allow banks to carry on regardless and pay unjustified bonus payments to brokers who speculate on making this country weak or non productive. The govt do not support business they support voodoo economics and hope to prolong the elite they are part. 

Until this country loses its apathy we will be burdened by a govt of any persuasion that fail what they are their to do. For all their faults Brown/Darling had some idea what they were about, I did not see the world looking or beeting a path to the door of David/George when the Euro or Credit Crunch needed direction in the last week. What Brown/Darling got wrong like a lot of others including the other political parties (they stopped agreeing when it clearly went **** up) and economists, was believing that the Stock Exchange/Banks were trustworthy and new what they were doing and self regulate. They did not then and do not think they can now, why are we trusting them now anyway. The BofE sits on its hands and when asked to report they hide their words in hidden meaning, they cannot even tell it as it is, they have not met their target in ages why is Mervin still in a job along with his advisers, why is Mervan and a lot of others worth a Knighthood. The banks can run the core job of peoples finance, the high street bit, its the bit about making income from speculation is the bit in trouble. Make money to go down and make money to go up or Stags and Bears need placed in a zoo, the modern method of IT makes the issue to quick and does not allow for logic. The stock exchange want quick returns for investors, why how can this make sense when business growth depends on such lending. Business growth need longer term planning, the infrastructure needs longer term planning from roads/rail/water and of course energy. What this country did to sell its power manufacturing to foreign companies was ludicrous and worth a prison term.

Maybe the best is default everybody and start again. What would happen if all Europe and USA went bust all in it together likes,


----------



## RogerS (3 Dec 2011)

RogerS":1h3egey0 said:


> Allylearm":1h3egey0 said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong the govt are spending more than labour plan, *I have done the arithmetic*. Maggie good for South England and bad for everyone else.
> ...



Still waiting. Think I might be waiting a very very long time because you haven't done it, have you?

S'funny...you lot on the left come out with your trite little diatribes but when challenged simply duck and dive and weave away...anything but answer the question. Cracks me up, really, makes me chuckle.


----------



## Sawyer (3 Dec 2011)

Speaking of 'still waiting', Roger; what about the repeated request for anything to support your own position?

You keep shouting others down whilst showing nothing - absolutely nothing back up your own arguments.


----------



## Digit (4 Dec 2011)

> A good start would be to collect the vast amount of tax already owed (by the super-rich, not ordinary people).



Well I've followed some of this with amusement, I have seen no report that states that the vast amount of tax is owed by the super rich or any other specific groups.
The idea that the few 'super rich' people in this country could owe such a vast amount seems highly improbable to me, just how many are there? Even the two occasions when I have had problems with the tax man do not lead me to believe that HMRC are that inefficient. Also income tax is not the only form of tax evasion, some of the large figures that I've seen in the past relate to VAT, and in many cases that means the self employed, of whom there are many more than the 'super rich.'
To be honest I have yet to meet anyone who rushes around to the tax office to pay his dues. I also doubt that the class warriors would be likely to refuse a 6 figure bonus. Also with all the prees reports on bankers bonuses they would seem to be that last who could avoid the attentions of HMRC, wouldn't you say?
Blaming Maggie for the uneven wealth distribution is ludicrous. Even the Domesay book shows a greater wealth, and population, in the south. I live within sight of the Irish Sea, _nobody_ in their right mind is going to start a business in this area that involves the inport/export of raw materials/goods, we are simply too far from the sources of the raw materials and the markets for the finished products.
That is a fact now and has been through out our history due to the proximity of Europe to the south of this country, and that wasn't anything to do with Maggie or anyone else!

Roy.


----------



## Sawyer (4 Dec 2011)

Digit":3qi248p6 said:


> > A good start would be to collect the vast amount of tax already owed (by the super-rich, not ordinary people).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe take a look at the Report of the Commons Select Committee?

According to the thoroughly right wing Daily Telegraph and D. Mail, David Hartnett; boss of HM Revenues & Customs is 'Whitehall's most wined and dined Civil Servant' 

Hmm, why ever could _that_ be? :? 

He was queried by a Commons Select Committee on (among many other things) why Vodafone got let off around 6bn in tax and a dodgy arrangement with Goldman Sachs. Hartnett's lawyer was so slippery that the Select Ctte. took the extremely unusual step of placing him under oath.
Hartnett reckons that HMRC can still do its job properly after upwards of 25,000 job losses and 200 office closures. With _him _at the helm? Pardon my scepticism. 
Now, I don't know who the benefactors were on all of the 107 times that Hartnett accepted hospitality in the period in question, but can't help suspecting that they tend to be on the rich side. Or is he in the habit of popping into cafes for lunch with cleaners on the minimum wage?


----------



## Digit (4 Dec 2011)

> boss of HM Revenues & Customs is 'Whitehall's most wined and dined Civil Servant'



That is an allusion of corruption, were he to influence an individul tax inspector i would suggest that it would become public knowledge toot sweet, don't you think? Also he has information that he can share, legally, on, for example, the survival chances of the Euro, of value to every employer/self employed in this country, so not to expect him to be questioned, wined and dined is unrealistic.
Vodafone is a company, not an individual as you implied when you spoke of 'ordinary people.'
I see no reason why any company, or individual, 'super rich' or 'ordinary people' should be exempt from their obligations.
The report in the Telegraph does not specify any group as being worse, or better, than any other, 'super rich' or otherwise.
I also see no need for the 'right wing' badge of the Telegraph and DM, I will hazard a guess that the report was published in every newspaper, bar the Daily Star perhaps. 

Roy.


----------



## RogerS (4 Dec 2011)

Jeez Sawyer. Don't you _ever_ read anything before coming out with your usual rubbish? I have already given you the link to the article in the FT that quite clearly states that Vodafone paid an agreed amount of £1.25bn and still you keep bringing out this same old £6bn garbage. Are you really that much of a plonker?


----------



## Digit (4 Dec 2011)

For some reason that escapes me Rog you will find a small business man employing a tax expert to keep his tax as low as possible then walk into his pub and start moaning about a company or the 'super rich' for doing precisely the same thing!
It smacks of envy to me.

Roy.


----------



## Sawyer (4 Dec 2011)

RogerS":39fhdvx2 said:


> Jeez Sawyer. Don't you _ever_ read anything before coming out with your usual rubbish? I have already given you the link to the article in the FT that quite clearly states that Vodafone paid an agreed amount of £1.25bn and still you keep bringing out this same old £6bn garbage. Are you really that much of a plonker?


Agreed in a dodgy deal with Hartnett. Why? Agreeing to pay just a small fraction of one's tax liabilities sounds somewhat irregular to me. The Commons Select Ctte. were wondering about this too, as Vodafone were reckoned to owe the tax man about 8bn. 

Not my figures, Roger - questions to Hartnett & lawyer from the Parliamentary Select Ctte.

'Rubbish', 'twaddle' 'drivel', 'cant', now 'plonker', all from somebody who had the cheek to talk about 'reasoned debate'! Clearly, abuse comes more easily to you than proper discussion, as has been shown time and again in your posts. By the way , I've been meaning to ask: UK Uncut = _'Society of Uncircumcised UK Males'_. A bizarre gender/racially loaded expression. Care to explain just what you mean by it?


----------



## Digit (4 Dec 2011)

How do you know it was 'dodgy' may I ask? [/quote]Agreeing to pay just a small fraction of one's tax liabilities sounds somewhat irregular to me.[/quote] How do you know that that is the case please?



> racially loaded expression



Oh Lord! I am Jewish Sawyer, do you wish to guess what my race is and whether I have been circumcised or not?

Roy.


----------



## Sawyer (4 Dec 2011)

> How do you know it was 'dodgy' may I ask?


An enormously profitable company meeting with the country's top tax official and being let off around 85% of its liabilities. Doesn't that sound _just a little bit _fishy to you?


> > racially loaded expression
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Lord! I am Jewish Sawyer, do you wish to guess what my race is and whether I have been circumcised or not?


Rest assured I do not Roy! But it was not your good self who used the term in question, so you probably have no more idea than I, what is implied.


----------



## DIY Stew (4 Dec 2011)

So you guys what do you think about the Public Sector Strikes?

Stew :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Digit (4 Dec 2011)

You stated that a comment on circumcision was 'racial', pesonally I know of no 'race' that practices the rite. But as ever I am willing to be corrected, that way, I learn.



> So you guys what do you think about the Public Sector Strikes?



In this country, with few exceptions, employees have that right, I, as a DM reader :lol: support that as a democratic principle. But as I understand it less that 50 % of those same PS employees voted in favour of such action. That is not my understanding of democracy.
And yes, before I am asked, I have been on strike in the past.

Roy.


----------



## Sawyer (4 Dec 2011)

> You stated that a comment on circumcision was 'racial', pesonally I know of no 'race' that practices the rite. But as ever I am willing to be corrected, that way, I learn.



Not exactly, Roy; but it has certain connotations does it not? Many times, I have heard it used either in jokes or perjorative comments about groups of people. I expect we are all familiar with the sort of thing I refer to.


----------



## Digit (4 Dec 2011)

> Not exactly, Roy;



Your phrase was 'racially loaded expression', you took a phrase and decided it was racial when we all know or should know that circumcision as a rite is not practised exclusively by any race. In fact over 50 % of US males are currently circumcised, and to clarify further not all Jewish sects practise the rite.
The fact that others may make jokes etc is not something I wish to comment on.
As a Jew I found nothing to be offended about by Roger's comment.

Roy.


----------



## RogerS (4 Dec 2011)

Sawyer":32en6q73 said:


> ..... proper discussion, ....



That's what I've been trying to get out of you. At the risk of repeating myself and boring everyone else and in the vain hope that you actually stay on track and don't try and evade the issue again...

Timeline...page 4.....you made this sweeping statement....The city wide boys owe the UK taxpayers billions. Enough to pay the deficit, in fact.

I asked you to justify that statement.

Your response was to quote from a Telegraph article. I read that article. There is nothing in that article that supports or refers to your sweeping statement. 

I asked you to cut and paste and show us where it did - in case I missed something. You did not.

So I started to cut and paste myself to show you how to do it. But I got bored as I knew that there was nothing in that article to support your, yes, cant.

So I ask again. Where is your evidence to support the above statement? If you can't produce any evidence then retract it, admit that it was a sweeping generalisation based on your own left-wing viewpoint and has no justification then we can move on.


----------



## Sawyer (4 Dec 2011)

Digit":2jx188hu said:


> In this country, with few exceptions, employees have that right, I, as a DM reader :lol: support that as a democratic principle. But as I understand it less that 50 % of those same PS employees voted in favour of such action. That is not my understanding of democracy.
> And yes, before I am asked, I have been on strike in the past.
> 
> Roy.



Erm, what percentage voted Cameron for PM - remind me please? He'd have been very happy indeed to have got anywhere near 50% of the vote. Despite this one being one of the Tories' favourite anti-strike arguments. 

All affected union members were balloted. The PCS Union received a 'yes' vote of 61%. By my understaning of democracy, that's a clear majority.


----------



## Digit (4 Dec 2011)

> Erm, what percentage voted Cameron for PM - remind me please?



Remind me as to the percentage who voted for Blair whilst we are at it. There has been but two, IIRC, majority government in the UK since WW2. The present coalition makes the third.
The last time the LDs, or Libs as they were then, were in power, was in coalition with the labour party. I didn't hear any of these arguments from the left at that time, why i wonder?



> The PCS Union received a 'yes' vote of 61%.



and the teachers etc?

Roy.


----------



## RogerS (4 Dec 2011)

Sawyer":1c8hl9g8 said:


> Digit":1c8hl9g8 said:
> 
> 
> > In this country, with few exceptions, employees have that right, I, as a DM reader :lol: support that as a democratic principle. But as I understand it less that 50 % of those same PS employees voted in favour of such action. That is not my understanding of democracy.
> ...



Erm..remind me just what percentage of the PCS actually voted? 32%. So 61% of 32% can hardly be called a majority. By my calculation that figure means that out of the entire PCS union membership, 20% felt sufficiently strongly to vote for a strike action. You do have a way with, shall we say, selectively quoting.


----------



## Sawyer (4 Dec 2011)

Roger: so: Vodafone, Goldman Sachs, Sir Phillip Green's retail empire, RBS, _et al_. have nothing do do with the City. Is that what you're saying?
Or are you suggesting that this lot have paid their taxes in full? Maybe you know better than a Commons Select Committee, who seemed to think otherwise?

Your own cutting and pasting efforts from the Telegraph were curiously selective, I thought: you missed out 'Britain lost £35bn in uncollected taxes last year - the equivalent of 7.9pc of the annual revenue, the Treasury has admitted'. Purely an oversight on your part, I'm sure.

Digit: Still a clear majority of votes in PCS. How many voted 'no' again? Oh yes, and how many voted in the General Election?


----------



## Digit (4 Dec 2011)

> Digit: Still a clear majority of votes in PCS. How many voted 'no' again? Oh yes, and how many voted in the General Election?



You are facing both ways here my friend, if you are talking percentage of votes cast rather than percentage of voters you must do so for both Unions and General Elections.
The Labour party has been talking of making voting in General elections compulsary, will they do so with the Unions?
The percentage of non voters in the last GE was probably little different for any of the parties, thus the non voters would have had little effect on the result even if they had voted.



> 'Britain lost £35bn in uncollected taxes last year - the equivalent of 7.9pc of the annual revenue,



True or not I know not, but you went on from there to blame your 'super rich,' as I pointed out, the report does not seem to apportion blame to any particular group. You seem to be reading more into the report than is stated.

Roy.


----------



## doorframe (4 Dec 2011)

Chaps, it's got to be time to end this one... at least the political 'to and fro'-ing.

Why not just agree to disagree. :wink: 

Roy


----------



## RogerS (4 Dec 2011)

Spot on, Rico. I'm with you on this.


----------



## DIY Stew (4 Dec 2011)

Mod's is this a record, 121 posts on 9 pages?

Stew


----------



## Digit (4 Dec 2011)

No it isn't. A quick check shows that giving up smoking has 50 % more posts.

Roy.


----------



## SteveB43 (5 Dec 2011)

Based on whatever your political persuasion, blame who you want, bad gangster banksters, fraudulent MP's with duck houses, feckless Greeks and Italians, etc, etc, 
fact is we are living longer, funding those extra years will cost ( not us but our kids, remember it's a Ponzi scheme after all) more and more. 
We need a sensible way forward on Pensions, encouragement to save for this where ever you work (if you're fortunate to be in a job which most of us are...), and not being penalised in later life cos we didnt live for today and blow the lot (are you listening Clegg...).
The money ain't there, the public sector need to grasp that fact fast!....


----------



## Sawyer (5 Dec 2011)

> Erm..remind me just what percentage of the PCS actually voted? 32%. So 61% of 32% can hardly be called a majority. By my calculation that figure means that out of the entire PCS union membership, 20% felt sufficiently strongly to vote for a strike action.



Plenty voted with their feet on Nov. 30th though.  

By the way Digit, you seem to imagine me a supporter of Tory Blair. Yet I've been called 'left-wing' on this thread. Can't have it both ways, can you?


----------



## Digit (5 Dec 2011)

> you seem to imagine me a supporter of Tory Blair.



I imagine nothing.

Roy.


----------



## gregmcateer (6 Dec 2011)

doorframe":2htyeoo5 said:


> Chaps, it's got to be time to end this one... at least the political 'to and fro'-ing.
> 
> Why not just agree to disagree. :wink:
> 
> Roy



+1!!!

At times interesting, at times, not - Surely it's time for a little quiet internal navel-gazing? How about everyone kisses and makes up and concentrates on a bit of good ole woodworking? ccasion5:


----------



## ricasso (10 Dec 2011)

Hmmm... an interesting thread, just one observation, while Ive been reading all about the different sides in this "discussion", who contributed what to the GDP, who's going to be a few quid worse of each month, and generally how hard done by everyone feels, I have on a sidebar of my screen, an appeal by save the children showing an image of a poor little child, who through no fault of their own, will probably die a long slow and painful death through starvation and lack of shelter and a clean water supply due to the fact that their parents/ community have NO money to provide such things... as I said, just an observation.


----------

