david_carnell

But of course heaven forbid anyone should be made to pay for that...... Nice one Lulu Too.

What do we do? What do you do? Sort of the same, only for the government.....

Err....isn't there a coffee cart located AT the playground most days? One of those little Italian three wheel scooter things with the van bit on the back. Good coffee too.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "I would suggest that your assertion that Britain > can be successful by removing worker security, > decent pensions and pay rises would be an equal > falsehood." > > I have made no such assertion. Have you taken to > fabricate arguments to win now? You've repeatedly suggested that Britain needs to make such sacrifices to ensure economic stability/success, no? I'm not attempting to fabricate anything. Don't be so petty.

I would suggest that your assertion that Britain can be successful by removing worker security, decent pensions and pay rises would be an equal falsehood.

How are the Scandanavian economies performing at the moment? You know, the ones that have "increased taxation to pay for early retirement, inflated pensions, longers holidays, fewer working hours".... Oh yeah. They're fine. Those crazy Keynesians.

A government adopting a position that causes workers to strike doesn't seem very economically productive to me.

Oh and for those who aren't familiar: Paul Krugman is is an American economist, professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times. In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography. So he kind of knows what he's talking about.

Well perhaps I should quote from Paul Krugman then: When the Cameron government came in, it was fully invested in the doctrine of expansionary austerity. Officials told everyone to read the Alesina/Ardagna paper (which is succinctly criticized by Christy Romer (pdf)), cited Ireland as a success story, and in general assured everyone that they could call the confidence fairy from the vasty deep. Now it turns out that contractionary policy is contractionary after all. As a result, despite all the austerity, deficits remain high. So what is to be done? More austerity! Underlying the drive for even more austerity is the belief that the underlying economic potential of the British economy has fallen sharply, and will grow only slowly from now on. But why? There?s a discussion in the Office for Budget Responsibility report, p. 54, that basically throws up its hands ? hey, these things happen after financial crises, it says, and cites an IMF report(pdf). So I wonder: did they read the abstract of that report? Because here?s what it says: That is, history says that a financial crisis reduces long-run growth potential if policymakers don?t limit the short-run damage it does [italics his]. And yet what?s happening in Britain now is that depressed estimates of long-run potential are being used to justify more austerity, which will depress the economy even further in the short run, leading to further depression of long-run potential, leading to ? It really is just like a medieval doctor bleeding his patient, observing that the patient is getting sicker, not better, and deciding that this calls for even more bleeding. And the truly awful thing is that Cameron and Osborne are so deeply identified with the austerity doctrine that they can?t change course without effectively destroying themselves politically.

Moos Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh you beeeech. > > Actually, I'm having a dry run of Mr. Sparkes' > best rib of beef this weekend, and though I've > missed Stir-up Sunday will be attempting making a > Christmas pud. > > So ner. The library service happily receive left overs....

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > d_c, I specifically said that it doesn't make me > an expert - just expert enough to call you out on > cheap sloganeering. > > So you're position is: > > - the strike is not just about pay and conditions > but you have to pretend that it is > > - you recognise that changes to pension > arrangements are needed, but not now, because > we're in a recession > > - the strikers position is reasonable because it > involves reasonable people > > - you believe that the governments plans for the > public sector are (i) ideologically motivated > rather than economically driven and (ii) not > likely to be effective in economic policy terms. > > It's helpful when you set it out clearly because > then we can ignore the first three points, which > are essentially irrelevant to the issues, and just > deal with the last one (in two parts). On the > first, I would say that it is one of those happy > coincidences where ideology and necessity are in > harmony. As has already been pointed out, > Conservative ideology is inherently more likely to > favour small government, and all they are doing is > reversing in some part the huge expansion in the > public sector 'payroll vote' that successive > Labour governments presided over. All those public > sector jobs in Northern cities didn't get there by > accident, you know. On the second part, I > disagree. The reason why borrowing will still be > rising has b*gger all to do with public sector job > cuts and a whole load to do with problems in the > Eurozone, the UK's biggest export market, and the > associated and ongoing credit squeeze. I notice > that Ed Balls appeared to suggest that future > borrowing should be both higher and lower - nice > and clear. You appear to be saying the same. I don't know why the first three issues are irrelevant? I said the strikes were also about wider issues. The key word here is also. One of the reasons that people are so angry about their pensions is that it is part of wider pay and condition issues. And when I say that I'm willing to negotiate on the deal I don't think you should mirror the government and adopt a position of intransigence. That surely marks me as a sensible moderate who would be willing, should I be in the position to, to remain at the negotiating table. Instead we have a government refusing to budge on any key issues thus forcing the hand of the trade unions. And nor do I see how the fact that many of the unions involved lack a history of militancy is one of no consequence. The Society of Radiographers is hardly a hotbed of Bolshevism. That must tell you there are some serious problems that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of reasonable people feel so strongly about that often for the first times in their careers they are resorting to industrial action. You accuse me of idealistic naivety - I reply that with a swipe of your hand you are guilty of truculent ignorance of the plight and feelings of many.

Don't play dumb Sue - you know as well as I do what Huguenot was referring to because we know why you want to go mining on years old threads. Maybe just let it go eh?

Hyperbolic perhaps but not bizarre.

Do we have to list our credentials now before being posts are deemed worthy of consideration? I'm not indulging anyone in some pointless d*ck waving contest. I'm of the opinion that this strike is more than just about pensions, but since trade union laws prevent industrial action based on generic political issues and restrict them to pay and conditions, the opportunity to "stick one" to the government has been welcomed by many within the public sector. The issue of pensions is an important one since for decades, if not right now, the sacrifice in pay that came with working for the state was compensated by a decent pension. Old habits die hard. Redundancies and pay freezes have already made many agitated. As UDT points out, the NAO found that the pension schemes were on target and affordable. But we aren't naive. I'm aware that people are living longer. And I'm happy to see some discretion used in adapting the pensions model accordingly. However, in the middle of a recession, with a 16% cut in pay over 5 years, asking workers to pay significantly more into their pension pot, to work longer AND to get less when they retire is positively insulting. It is worth noting that it is far from the "usual suspects" appearing on the picket lines today. Whilst I view the likes of PCS with suspicion given their preference for bully boy tactics over negotiation, today we see normally passive, considered unions like my own, Prospect, the FDA and the Association of Head Teachers all walking out. These are reasonable people with reasonable cause. When looking for an easy target of spending cuts, this government has turned its sights on reducing numbers, pay and conditions of the public sector workforce. That is beyond dispute. What is controversial is whether this is a valid economic tactic or merely disguised ideological opposition to state run services. It's not difficult to realise that these attacks do little to damage Conservative polling. Most public sector workers are Labour and LibDem voters. The hardest hit regions will be those northern cities most reliant on public sector jobs - again, Labour voting. And yet the Chancellor's actions are causing him, far from reducing the deficit, to borrow more to pay benefits to the hundreds of thousands out of work and the associated reduced spending power that is contributing to a steep decline in the retail and service sector. Not a wise move just before Xmas. Opinion polls seem to show the public are not yet blaming this government for the current state of the economy or their own personal misfortune. The key word is yet.

DaveR - I let the first bitchy comment slide but not again. I don't quite understand the venom aimed in my direction. Do you honestly believe that these moves by Osborne are not an attempt to fatally undermine the public sector, its workers and its ethos? Do you really think these are simply pragmatic moves to help paydown the deficit?

You ought to come and work in the public sector Loz - it's amazing. We have chairs made of clouds and desks of gold. Free beer and sausages for all and as much holiday as you want.

This is slash and burn politics. The economy is stagnating at best, there are already record numbers of unemployed and yet Osborne thinks the solution to the problem is to sack more public sector staff and demoralise those who survive this further cull with a real terms pay cut (a cumulative cut in benefits of around 11 per cent plus the increased pension contributions), thus removing spending power from the economy. Regressive. Meanwhile, he cuts tax credits for those in work and yet rise with CPI for those unemployed. Schizophrenic. And the idea that this is going to help reduce the deficit is difficult to understand when it results in further borrowing, more than Labour's projections, getting us further into debt. Absurd.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BTW have you asked d_c whether he'd rather be > associated with MM or Huguenot? Do I have to choose? On an aside, I'm sure there will be a similar split of opinion on the Autumn statement by the Chancellor today (following a previously announced pay freeze) announcing that public sector pay rises will be capped at 1% for two years, job losses in the public sector will increase from 400,000 to 710,000. He's certainly declared war on the public sector.

"For too long nurses have been undervalued, restricted in what they could do, with too few career opportunities in clinical practice. For far too long, nurses have endured a pay system that has held them back - both professionally as well as financially." - Lord Hutton

Love it. Can't get enough. I'm sitting here in my pants smeared in the juices of the Scotch Woodcock as we speak. All my own work. Went out there......dispatched it myself. Gruesome stuff. Wouldn't have it any other way.

But Mamora Man, is that not symptomatic of your general political dogma rather than anything more objective? As a libertarian you'd rather government was providing hardly any services at all let alone providing pensions. The big danger is that you make the schemes so unattractive to new entrants a whole generation and more misses out on any pension and the schemes become ever more unsustainable due to a lack of new investment. A self-fulfilling prophesy.

If Father Christmas is reading this.....I want a canoe for Xmas too! Awesome gift. Not sure when I stopped believing, about 8 I think, but my parents never went to great efforts. In fact we didn't have a fireplace so they used to tell me they just left the front door unlocked so FC could get in. Sort of ruined the magic.

Attaching a winky emoticon doersn't make your argument more valid, you know. It's just a sign of teenage immaturity and a desperate wish not to offend when you're being a berk. ;-) You know that by cutting a nurse?s pension you will do nothing to boost the pension of a shop-worker or any other private sector worker? And what exactly do you mean when you say you want public sector pension provision to be more like that of the private sector? How about some key facts from the ONS this time to dispute your arguments: Two in three private sector workers are not members of a workplace pension scheme; Private sector pension provision increases sharply with pay, while in the public sector it is much more evenly distributed; Two in three public sector staff earning between ?100 and ?200 a week are in a pension while only one in seven private sector employees in the same wage band are in a pension; Pension provision in the private sector varies hugely between sectors, with four in five workers in the energy sector having a pension, but only one in 16 in the hospitality sector having one; While senior public sector staff are in the same schemes as the rest of the employees in their sector and often pay bigger percentage contributions, top directors in the private sector (FTSE 100 directors) have pensions worth nearly ?4 million on average. So in summary......to make public sector pension provision like that in the private sector we would first have to take pensions away from two in three public sector workers, concentrating on the low paid. Next we would have to take the public sector?s top earners and give them much bigger pension pots. Making public sector pensions as unfair as those in the private sector does nothing to increase fairness. Private sector workers should be angry not at public sector workers but at their employers and successive governments who have allowed private sector pension coverage to decline so sharply. *hat tip to Left Foot Forward for some of the stats and language*

As others have noted already it is hardly a revolutionary point to state that private sector tax pays for the public sector. And....? We're meant to be eternally grateful or something are we? Doffing caps and tugging at forelocks at the graciousness of others who have so kindly donated to us as if we were charity for Romanian orphans? Give me break.

The Oxford "tube" from Victoria station. http://www.oxfordtube.com/