Marmora Man

D-C I think you view the world through a distorting lens. Because you adopt and old fashioned, socialist work, class war rhetoric you seem unable to believe others might adopt a more enlightened and objective approach to national problems. The Conservative Party is of out to destroy the working class or the public sector. Please get real. This is about affordability - not class war.

Or is reducing the size of the public sector that that which the country can afford. Diffrerent views of the same issue. I might have described G Brown's expansion of the public sector and tax hikes in much of the last decade as "war on the private sector" but I refrained.

But SJ - as daveR has pointed out the distance to the ends of a spectrum depend upon where you yourself sit upon it. We may be personally / politically miles apart - but that does not mean I am, personally, miles from the objective centre.

We've rehearsed this argument before. You know I cannot point to any state that operates as I would wish. That doesn't mean that I cannot dream of, propose or argue in favour of such a state. The socialist utopia that many on the left dream of doesn't exist anywhere either. It is by proposing new ideas, challenging ideas and thought provoking ideas that political thought and debate moves on. As you know I've been arguing for a small state since well before the current recession revealed the structural deficit problems that are now being tackled. Had UK been closer to my ideal and opted for a small low tax, state (or even just a sllightly smaller, slightly lower tax and less over burdening state) in say 2008 then arguably, we would not have such a structural deficit. However, my particular libertarian instincts do not preclude me from making my points on this forum, nor do they render my thoughts valueless - unless you feel such instincts have rendered me brain dead?

The small state argument that I deploy is based on the experience of running SMEs - I believe it's scaleable. Small companies, with minimal bureaucracy and low overheads operating in an environment where regulatory imposition is low tend to be the most successful. As companies grow to become the Unilevers thatyou want to take a pop at are generally overburdened with wasted cost and resource. For exaample I'll bet that Unilever has a large dept dedicated to PR & marketing - but I'll also bet they have very little idea of how successful, or otherwise, much of the staff and activity in that dept are. However, I'm with Hugenot on this pensions argument - which is about government spending and the cost of sustaining it. There are three options for the country as a whole: a. Taxes go up b. Other gov't spending goes down c. The public sector pays for their own pensions.

S-J, You know that by quoting Leonard Cohen it will please me - but it pleases me also to see you acknowledge the ponzi scheme nature of public sector pension provision. I assume it came about when state pensions were introduced by Lloyd George back in 1908 (?). Then, as ever, it was a vote winning political wheeze - offering a state pension to all those over the age of 65, safe in the knowledge that very very few lived to much beyond that age anyway. The "take" from National Insurance was far greater than the payout in state pensions. Over time NI moved from being theoretically hypothecated tax to cover pension costs to gradually become just another tax and we all forgot that pensions weren't properly funded - politicians and the tesaury usually hate hypothecated taxes anyway - so chose not to draw attention to the fact. As an aside - I'd support any politician that simply incorporated NI into current tax rates - so that we had greater clarity on real tax rates. Would be interesting to see if an actuarialist could devise a scheme whereby from a given date pensions for public sector staff were properly funded with personal and employer contributions invested as in the private sector, with the government picking up the gradually reducing cost of funding the ponzi scheme pensions for another 50 years. I assume Lord Hutton looked at this - but don't know.

nashoi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MM > > Whether something is generous or not, is not a > mathematical argument. It is when you are comparing one set of numbers with another.

SJ - I'm not arguing from ideological grounds. Mine is a mathematical argument. To expect 60% of the working population to find generous final salary scheme pensions for the other 40% of the working population is neither sustainable or fair. Private sector pensions are funded from the investments made by the pension fund into which they pay. Public sector pensions are funded from current taxes - essentially a long running Ponzi scheme managed by the government. Ponzi schemes tend to collapse when new investors recognise the scam which is, roughly, where the country is now, except that some people - including you seem to be arguing that the private sector should continue to pay into this particular Ponzi investment plan forever and without complaint.

But this argument isn't about establishing fairness between public & private sector pensions it's about whether the country and taxpayers can afford to continue to provide pension arangements for the public sector that: a. Are not available / affordable in the private sector b. If they were to continue would further diminish the opportunity for private sector workers to pay into a half way decent private pension - thus making the disparity you affect to be concerned about still wider. It is the cost of government that is being borne by the private sector, it is the cost of government that needs to reduce. Changing public sector pension arrangements is but one part of a major cost reduction exercise that the country needs to go through.

Trident costs somewhat less than ?150m a year - SJ you are referring to the total throughife costs over 15 - 20 years. You'll need to identify another ?34.85Bn annually from somewhere.

I'm not suggesting the public sector owe any debt of gratitude but I would like the public sector to recognise the economic illiteracy of expecting the private sector to fund, forever, more generous pension schemes and benefits for public sector workers than it can afford for its own employees. And yes, I acknowledge the public good provided to society by the work of the public sector, but this of itself is not an argument to bankrupt the payor. Of course there is an alternative, agree the union demand for maintaining current public sector pensions and cut government spending elsewhere by approximately ?35Bn. Perhaps D-C, SJ and others would like to propose where these balancing cuts should fall?

But the tax they is has no value - it's just wooden dollars. That is public sector salaries are paid from the public purse (ie from taxes paid by the private sector). Any tax paid by a public sector employee adds nothing to the public purse.

This country has a democratic system - that many choose to ignore is shameful. That politicians are unable to inspire people to use is equally shameful. I have diliberately chosen not to quote Churchill on democracy - but believe he was right. Lady D - what alternative proposals do you have for determining the governing of UK?

Absolutely right SJ. The Armed Forces are not a typical part of the public sector and have a far better case to make for a decent pension, but don't whine and don't strike. They have instead a 24/7 commitment that takes routinely takes them away from home for months on end, its staff may get weekends off - but this is not an entitlement - only the 6 weeks leave a year is (tho' often foregone). For many these days violent death or injury is a real possibility. Members of this service do enjoy a pension based on 1/60 but few ever get to serve for more than 30 years - so maximum pension is seldom even 50% of final salary. And, of course, this atypical part of the public sector will again be expected to turn to and support critical public services while the more pampered element are indulging in a strike on Wednesday.

Can we put this one to bed once and for all? Public sector workers may pay tax but this is simply the recycling of government funds - it is not an income into the public purse. Public sector workers are paid from the public purse and any taxes they pay go back to the public purse, but do not add to it. Whereas private sector workers are paid by their employers, or generate income by working for themselves. The taxes they pay fund the public purse.

So cancelling planned operations is OK? Failing to transport patients is OK? Treating NHS patients are a cost most taxpayers (ie those of us that do not work in the public sector) are prepared to bear. Treating puic sector staff to an early retirement and free pension is not. Even after the Coaltion proposals are adopted public sector staff will still have far more generous T&Cs than the private sector. I spent 20 years in the public sector - I'm content, not wildly happy, to accept the changes to my pension - CPI for RPI etc for the overall greater good.

Hairy?

A practical contrast to support the Hugenot position: On the day I'll be running a 100 bedded private hospital - delivering services to a predominantly NHS patient base (roughly 80%) at sub NHS tariff rates. None of the staff will be striking but they're all in the private sector and are all on 1/80 non final salary pension schemes, as the final salary pension scheme became unaffordable under changes made by the last administration. Current company retirement age is 65 and rising to 67 in accordance with recommendations. To ensure we keep the hospital running staff have planned: a. A voluntary creche service to cover for the schools and nurseries that won't open (public sector staff on strike to protect their final salary scheme based on 1/60 of salary for every year of service and retirement at 60) so that parents can get to work to deliver an essential service b. To share cars (or stay overnight in spare beds) as public transport won't run (public sector staff on strike to protect their final salary scheme based on 1/60 of salary for every year of service and retirement at 60) In the next door NHS hospital staff of all specialties and grades will be striking - even including nurses. They won't provide to us essential Patient Transport Services (we'll pay for taxis), deliver blood for operations or loan out sterile supplies for theatres - all to protect salary scheme based on 1/60 of salary for every year of service and retirement at 60

I like the point made by the QC making the case for the Corporation of London - viz: "we support free speech and the right to protest but we don't believe this extends to a right to establish a permanent campsite". I am also pleased that the judge hearing the case requiring an early hearing rather than accepting the delay proposed by the protesters. For me it is simply unsightly, ineffective, small minded and incoherent. It should go.

I suppose such action (self help. Urseries, schools etc) could be considered as an example of the "Big Society" and people doing things for themselves, rather than expecting a paternalistic government to provide for every want using money it doesn't have.

Sue - come on. It's not going to tun Lordship Lane into downtown Tokyo is it?

GPs have always been private businessmen and not part of the NHS. It was one of the many compromises in the run up to establishing the NHS in 1947. To earn the sort of money he is Dr Gupta must be delivering a pretty comprehensive service. He will not earn money from "NHS" patients unless they are seen, diagnosed and, to an extent, treated in the practice that he owns. I expect he employs a number of fixed salaried GPs - who don't get to share in the profits his practice makes. However, the NHS patients are not losing out - there is no obligation for the GP owner / manager of a GP practice to see every patient, in the way that there is no obligation on the CEO of an NHS hospital or of a private hospital to see every patient. Their resposbility lies in managing a healthcare process to ensure all patients receive the right treatments. Unless you can demonstrate that Dr Gupta is making his money by cutting corners, providing clinically unsafe procedures or reducing cover to dangerous levels - there is no complaint to be made. If he's doing any of these things - that's not capitalism, that's unethical and improper clinical care and he can be reoported to the GMC.

I work as an Interim Manager - some days I'm unwaged, some days I'm not. If I pick up a good asssignment i can be, effectively, "waged" for several months and then out networking and unwaged while I seek the next assignment. In the worst part of 2008/09 the networking and seeking was fairly prolonged - but like faithoj I didn't seek JSA or other allowances as I had my savings. Tho' equally, I didn't seek the other benefits either of low cost gym access. Not really sure about the argument - but a straight answer might be a bank statement evidencing outgoings but no incomings?

Relax everyone - it's temporary and will, temporarily, add interest to a blank wall area. Why worry - don't sweat the small stuff! I hate "thin end of the wedge" arguments - they're tend to be petty, NIMBY or just plain daft.

What is this opportunity of which you speak? What re-engineering are you proposing? What refinements would work? Sitting in a tent near St Pauls doesn't seem to have achieved very much - except to undermine the quality of life of Londoners working and travelling in the area - and sending out the wrong message to potential tourists. If people wish to engage in political dialogue - fine, make a speech, set up a political party, write an article. Squatting isn't dialogue - as Ian Hislop has pointed out all the St Pauls camp has actually achieved is the departure / dismissal of two or three rather woolly minded clerics.