Public Sector pensions

[Undisputedtruth]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Come on when was the last bit of radical or

> progressive thinking from the left? They've had an

> open goal for the past 4 years and still failed to

> provide much of an alternative. Genuienely how do

> we compete in a global eceonomy which is pulling

> millions out of global poverty but gradually

> eroding the wealth and priveliged poition that the

> west has enjoyed at the rest of the worlds expense

> for too many years? hint it doesn't involve

> maintaining uneconomivc benefits and agreements

> drawn up when things were very different. We'll go

> bust in the end unles we embrace the need for

> change....as progressive unions/workers in say car

> mannufacturing have realised, white collar middle

> class PS workers still seem to think there's a

> goose with golden eggs somehwere (or the money

> tree SJ)

I'll give you a full answer to a fair question this Monday.

[DJKillaQueen]

Pulling millions out of poverty???? Are you sure? Last time I checked with the WHO there were more people living in poverty around the world than there were a decade ago.

[????]

There are many more people in the world than there were a decade ago and poverty is a relative measure...so stop the crass sloganeering. You been to India now and 30 years ago? You been to China now and 30 years ago? Even Sun-saharan Africa is looking better than ten tears ago. Obscene poverty yes but soo much better than before when the model was patronising or politically motivated handouts from the west or Russia rtaher than global free trade...but, worse for us in blighty now we have to compete...

[????]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> On the one hand, we hear the left have had an

> "open goal for 4 years" (why? because everyone

> else has been so wrong? By implication anyway)

>

> But it turns out it's not REALLY an open goal

> because there is no alternative to current

> thinking according to ????

>

> That open goal is a mirage. And they are fools,

> FOOLS I TELL YOU, to even aspire to anything else

> (however clumsily)

Well tell me yours then or just snipe and say oooh let's keep it as it is? until we're bust. I don't see any open mindedness on this just prejudice and occasional vitriol from those are quite cosy with the unworkable status quo. Come on Strafer, sell me something else I am genuinely interested and open minded, unlike most on here I'd say.....

There is an alternative but I don't know what it is, isn't that convincing to me to be honest strafer. Be bold and contribute.

[????]

criticism is easy

[Otta]

I'm interested to know what you think of my idea of keeping T&Cs as they are for existing employees, but changing them for new recruits? I guess a down side would be that the old skool would never move on, but rather cling to their posts, although they'd get around that by restructuring.

[david_carnell]

As a hypothetical, surely if the t&c in the public sector were THAT good you would be attracting the best and the brightest to run the govt depts that govern the country? Whilst politicians come and go, 'tis really the mandarins on Whitehall who run the show. For eg Spelman at Defra got screwed over bin collections because the civil servants there were resolutely opposed to her policies. In this case for a bloody good cause.

By watering down the t&c you cease to attract those top quality calibre employees. Ditto teaching, nursing, policing etc. I'd rather my public servants were paid well and hose jobs were seen to be the real plum ones for graduates rather than Deloittes or KPMG.

Pay peanuts, get monkeys?

[Loz]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Pulling millions out of poverty???? Are you sure?

> Last time I checked with the WHO there were more

> people living in poverty around the world than

> there were a decade ago.

Is that real poverty or the I-can't-afford-new-Nikes-but-the-bloke-next-door-can relative poverty?

And, if it is real poverty, is that as percentage or number of people (and thus not taking population growth into account).

[StraferJack]

this just prejudice and occasional vitriol from those are quite cosy with the unworkable status quo. Come on Strafer, sell me something else I am genuinely interested and open minded, unlike most on here I'd say.....

Sorry (genuinely) but I haven't got anything to "sell"

the prejudice and vitriol you speak of seems to be coming from you on a daily basis - I'm fed up of the constant sneering from you re: liberals, Guardian readers, left blah blah blah. Maybe I shouldn't react to it. It's not even like it's a response to anything - some days when the skies are blue you just go looking for a reaction

Some of the odd lefties on here are almost enough to make me despair and see where you are coming from. But honestly, I see far more (sometimes cheeky) malice from you than towards you in terms of tone in debates.

I don't think I can sell you anything. I believe that governments planned for "normal conditions" - just as banks etc do. the fact that those assumptions were bunkum I blame the financial vendors, not anyone else. You largely don't. You blame Gordon and co for overspending (without context)

I'm not knocking that - but given the polarity, no I don't see much room for "selling" alternatives. Not without endless headbanging arguments. And I'm not as keen on those as I once was

I regularly make efforts to emphasise where I agree with you. But beyond a need to address the current situation, we diverge quite quickly. I genuinely believe that the current administration is using the current situation to crowbar in ideological reforms which are unacceptable. And because the deficit is so big enough people seem to say "whatever boss"

We have different ideas about what history will show. But you spend a lot of time berating the left for sacred cows. Yet anyone who disagrees with the current administration gets short shrift from you - suggesting it's not the left who have sacred cows alone. Who knew

[DJKillaQueen]

It is real poverty and population growth is not the whole story...the proportion of those living in poverty compared to those who are not has not improved. Yes there are more wealthy, but there are also more poor. I'll look for some stats to illustrate but it's percentages that matter not individual numbers.

[DJKillaQueen]

From a United Nations annual 'Least Developed Countries Report'

'the poverty rate in the world?s 50 least developed countries is rising ? despite an overall economic growth in these countries of 7% on average each year, the fastest in 30 years. Instead of the poor though experiencing substantial improvements in living conditions, 277 million people still live on less than US$1 a day (compared with 265 million in 2000 and 245 million in 1995); while two-thirds of all people in those 50 countries survive on just US$2 a day.

Since 2006 the situation for the poorest of the poor has worsened with the biofuel and climate change induced food crisis having led to a steep increase in world and domestic food prices in 2007/2008. In some countries the prices of staples such as maize, wheat and rice have doubled in the past 18 months.

While a rising population and a shortage of well-paid jobs are named as major reasons for the surge in the number of people living in poverty, unequal distribution of income and wealth of course is also a major factor behind the poor not being able to improve their life?s circumstances.

The increase in the number of people living in poverty means that the 50 least developed countries will not be able to achieve the first of the UN millennium development goals, halving the proportion of those living on less than $1 a day between 1990 and 2015. To achieve this, they would need to cut their absolute poverty rate to 20% by 2015. UNCTAD said that if current trends continued, they would only achieve 33% of the target by that date.

And it is important to note that things like rising food costs...things that are directly affected by the current global crisis are influential in the bench mark for poverty. It is pure fantasy to think that wealth and growth in a few economies is somehow redressing the balance of global poverty.

[Otta]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

I'd rather my

> public servants were paid well and hose jobs were

> seen to be the real plum ones for graduates rather

> than Deloittes or KPMG.

>

> Pay peanuts, get monkeys?

Fair points, although I hate to see jobs reserved for graduates. People without degrees are not necessarily the monkies.

[Otta]

I know lots of jobs are through graduate schemes, and not saying that is wrong, but equally, I think people can have a lot more to offer than a degree qualification, and it would be a shame if these people were excluded.

[DJKillaQueen]

I agree Otta....it is important that opportunity exists for all if they can demonstrate abilty and dedication.

[Otta]

Team DJOtta... Wow! ;-)

[????]

Since 2006 the situation for the poorest of the poor has worsened with the biofuel and climate change induced food crisis having led to a steep increase in world and domestic food prices in 2007/2008. In some countries the prices of staples such as maize, wheat and rice have doubled in the past 18 months.

DJ - I said 30 years, not the financial crisis. We can all be selective on our dates but global free trade and capitalism has raised millions and millions out of subsistence level poverty across the globe...anyone who thinks otherwise is mad.

[????]

sj

In my snearing i make a constant point of saying 'liberals' as for actual liberals, i'm proud to consider myself one. Personally i'm sick of the constant snearing on here of middle england, Daily Mail and Sun readers, and the white working class, many of whom are thoroughly decent people with huge commonsense and the backbone of this country, I just fight their corner a bit against smug, metropolitan hypocracy....which I see constantly on here, Diddums for the poor Guardian readers my sniping obviuolsy hurts the poor darlings, Snorky and I are obviously the majority opinion on here or maybe just pricking your bourgeois insecurity a bit too much.

Anyway this is the Drawing Room, where we are laughably not meant to make it personal.

[????]

pS and Louisa

[StraferJack]

Apart from daily mail bashing I don't see much else of what you claim. The White working class are constantly sneered at are they? En masse?

Don quixote called. He wants his windmills back

[DJKillaQueen]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DJ - I said 30 years, not the financial crisis. We

> can all be selective on our dates but global free

> trade and capitalism has raised millions and

> millions out of subsistence level poverty across

> the globe...anyone who thinks otherwise is mad.

But it's not proportionate Quids...that's my point.....as a percentage...growth is helping less of a percentage of global population. So in other words...new growth is less effective in combating world poverty more than ever.....

You know as well as I do that growth/ wealth and it's distribution is localised. And we both know that developing economies rely on what can be considered as no better than slavery - so that means people working for very little above a meal a day money and children working long hours for fec all too. India is a classic example of this and China too. We were the same during the early stages of our own industrial revolution. Maybe it's a necessary stage to making it to ultimate national wealth (I think it is, and more than ever) but let's not pretend that it doesn't exist.

[????]

agreed DJKQ, which is why I included Obscene poverty in my post.

The sweatshops for Nike in Vietnam etc have 1000s longing to work in them becuse 25p and hour beats 0p an hour.It's disgusting it's horrible but eventually it pulls countries and their people out of starvation rather than depending on western handouts, a gloomy truth I think. But we should try an be ethical about our shopping (non ironic statement) although this will then benefit the next tier up economies where garment workers get 75p an hours, say Indoneisa.

The developing world is gradually getting richer, or rapidly in a few cases and we are going to have toi give up some of our cosy arrangements of the past to compete

[taper]

Public sector pension reform has long been on the agenda, including with the last Government. It's entirely reasonable for any Government to want reform. But this is sensitive territory affecting the lives of millions of people who have signed contracts and planned for their retirement based on assumptions. Changing these assumptions needs to be done in negotiation and without partisanship. What really grates is the Government's attempts to get political capital from this by pre-empting the negotiations and going public. Alexander has now been slapped down. But what he said a few days ago was a disgraceful piece of posturing designed to appeal to the base who like to see public sector workers get a kicking (read the comments on the Mail's website). It's nasty stuff and divisive- the last thing a government should be.

[david_carnell]

Otta/DJKQ - I used "graduates" without really meaning to. I just meant "best" and my own prejudices came out. We should want the "best" people in public sector roles given their importance, be it social care, town planning, reforming welfare, deciding arts grants or reviewing our defence industry.

And yet seemingly the public sector is seen as a weak touch for those that couldn't "hack it" in the private sphere. The home for slackers and the work-shy. And an easy target for those seeking to reduce government spending without looking beyond the horizon. Decimate this sector now and you'll regret it forever.

[Otta]

Couldn't agree more.

Within social care, it used to be that social workers would climb the ladder in to management. These days however, managers are coming in as managers, if that makes sense. I think there are pros and cons to this, but that is another discussion for another time.

[nashoi]

Apologies in advance for the pedantry, but the type of jobs d_c was originally talking about would be civil service fast stream positions and you do need a degree to get on to that.