Bluemoon labour thread.

[terryphelan]

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.labour-watch.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.labour-watch.com/</a>

 

[crizack]

i think your all sheep. "it's a democratic society", "we're civil", "blah blah blah". what was democratic about us joining the EU, speed cameras, THE BUDGET! you all sit there thinking you have some moral duty to 'vote' for who you wish to make your zainy little excistences that little bit more liveable. I don't vote and i couldn't give a shit if some woman threw herself infront of a horse. the winning party does not and will never care for the individual, parties are elected by the majority, then for another couple of years the minority ring up shitty breakfast shows whining about how the government is useless.

When there is a party who can truly bring peace, loyalty and health to this country, then i will vote for them. you turn up to the balots in flocks and in secrecy thinking your having an input into how society is run. Regardless who get's voted in, your still gonna work for pittence up until your bones are withered and baney. so run along little sheeps, have your say! have an input! do the right thing! i'll just sit back, accept i'm born into a country which dominates a person until they die and accept also that when i hear of some mp's spending tax-payers money on garden furniture or 50" dildos, it'll be the majority of this countries twisted citizens who have put them in that position in the first place.

good night.

Just plain wrong.

The government is formed by the party with the most seats and, because of our voting system, the party with the most seats is not necessarily the one with the most votes. Therefore, it is more likely to be the case that the minority of voters actually voted the government in because the majority either voted for another party or didn't bother voting at all. Why, a bit like yourself!

that's right. the party running the country is elected with the minority of votes.

 

[stonerblue]

Apart from not answering the question, I see the old myth that the public sector is "wastful" {sic} has been dragged out again. I would like you to provide the source you used to demonstrate your assertion that the public sector is indeed "wastful": "with far less efficiency and higher rates of absentee-ism" if you don't mind...

I don't think the worldwide recession has got much to do with the public sector unless, of course, you know something that I don't know?

Perhaps you can tell me how (just off the top of my head) annually increased fares, filthy buses, a duopoly amongst operators and the fact that we are charged through the eyes and nose in North Manchester and Salford and forced to pay 35% more on fares than our counterparts in East and South Manchester when profits for First Bus were £130+ million although their drivers were offered a 0% pay rise somehow suggest a better model that placing public transport in the hands of local authorities.

While we are at it, name something that has been improved by moving from the public to the private sector. I can't think of anything. Private firms have to make a profit, meaning cuts in jobs or wages or cutting corners. But again, if you know different...

And as for 'gold-plated' pensions? Another Tory lie! At current figures the average is about£3,000 a year; hardly gold-plated. On top of that public employees (like myself) have to actually pay in (an oft-overlooked fact) and it is cheaper for the state in the long run that we do this via a well-run and high-performing pensions fund (Greater Manchester) rather than leaving the state to provide. You'll be interested to know that there are many pensions' schemes in the south that aren't so well managed in predominantly - would you believe it? - Tory-run councils.

Mate - I am a financial advisor and know the public sector pensions very well (NHS - Council - Teachers etc) and I can assure you and anyone else reading this that you are talking out of your arse. And to compare defined benefit (paying in 3-6%) to "defined contribution" or "money purchase schemes" is absolute bollocks. There is no contest.

So I am no longer going to bother talking to you. Enjoy the last month of Labour rule and hope to cling on to your public sector job (I really hope the Tories don't cut your no doubt very useful beaurocratic job).

Enjoy kiddo.

Don't begin your sentences with the word "Mate". It's very irritating not to mention patronising, unless of course you're an Aussie in which case you won't be able to help it. Besides, I'm not your mate. "Financial advisor" eh? Well done and whoopy-do. I'm a public servant. But you're not alone with your lofty views although you might be with your breathtaking arrogance, but do remember this: your beloved private sector's not prepared to do all the jobs local authorities undertake, unless their fat-cat shareholders make a tidy sum. No, the money's not that great working for any local authority, but some of us, at least, believe we're doing the best we can for the good people of Manchester. Don't bother responding; your responses are selective, to say the least. You're probably too busy counting your cash. Vote Tory if you like, but do learn how to spell big words like "bureaucratic" if you want to show everyone how much cleverer than I you are, with your amazing job. You at least probably deserve them... mate.[/quote]

i bet the edit was for 'bureaucratic' wasn't it..??

 

[SWP's back]

I thought I told you not to bother responding. Just couldn't help it though, could you? I also see that you didn't bother taking me up on any of my other points (eg. public transport - still a biggy for the plebiscite), just the one you thought you knew about. I can't be bothered responding TBH and thus extending the Tory media's "gold-plated" pensions' myth, for that is what it is. I also see you're speaking for others on here too rather than just yourself. Since you're bigging yourself up so much and you do, after all, have such an amazing 'beancounter' job, then instead of insulting public sector wokers with your derogatory comments, perhaps you can tell us all how much you think ex-Council workers' so called- "gold-plated" pensions are really worth PA, eh mate?

I only responded to the pensions bit as that is the only part where I know you are wrong/lying, mainly due to my "beancounters" job (such a lovely description for a job which secures the financial future and security for a large number of my clients - but cedry it all you wish).

The public sector is the only sector whereby "defined benefit" (ie final salary schemes, average working salary schemes etc etc) are still the main stay. That is not to say they don't exist anymore in th eprivate sector, they are just few and far between.

As for your question, an ex-council workers pension, on the whole would usually be one of three schemes, a (i)30/60ths - very rare, (ii)40/60ths - more common or (iii) 40/80ths - the new norm scheme (usually based on final salary). Therefore if a council worker had paid into a scheme (ii) for 40 years and finished on a salary of £60k, their pension would be £40k per annum. They would also have the opportunity to capitalise some of their annuity for a tax free lump sum.

Compare that and the amount that the retiring worker (in the above example) would have paid INTO the pot against a money purchase or "defined contributuion" scheme, ie those available to most in the private sector. The same worker would be looking at a pension worth less than half as much - despite paying the same amount in, over the same length of time. The country simply cannot afford to keep paying final salary scheme to public sectors workers on the same terms, that they were set up on - over the long term. Not without further bankrupting the nation. When the schemes were set up - people, on average, lived for around 3-5 years once retired. Now that figure is closer to 20, the pots are simply not big enough - just look at actuarial rates and how they have dropped over the last generation.

It also has not helped that a pensions surplus (in 1997) has been squandered and now all pensions pots are taxed on dividends since 1997 (thanks Gordon) and thus reduce their ability for growth, making the situation even worse than if could have been.

 

[sweynforkbeard]

I only responded to the pensions bit as that is the only part where I know you are wrong/lying, mainly due to my "beancounters" job (such a lovely description for a job which secures the financial future and security for a large number of my clients - but cedry it all you wish).

The public sector is the only sector whereby "defined benefit" (ie final salary schemes, average working salary schemes etc etc) are still the main stay. That is not to say they don't exist anymore in th eprivate sector, they are just few and far between.

As for your question, an ex-council workers pension, on the whole would usually be one of three schemes, a (i)30/60ths - very rare, (ii)40/60ths - more common or (iii) 40/80ths - the new norm scheme (usually based on final salary). Therefore if a council worker had paid into a scheme (ii) for 40 years and finished on a salary of £60k, their pension would be £40k per annum. They would also have the opportunity to capitalise some of their annuity for a tax free lump sum.

Compare that and the amount that the retiring worker (in the above example) would have paid INTO the pot against a money purchase or "defined contributuion" scheme, ie those available to most in the private sector. The same worker would be looking at a pension worth less than half as much - despite paying the same amount in, over the same length of time. The country simply cannot afford to keep paying final salary scheme to public sectors workers on the same terms, that they were set up on - over the long term. Not without further bankrupting the nation. When the schemes were set up - people, on average, lived for around 3-5 years once retired. Now that figure is closer to 20, the pots are simply not big enough - just look at actuarial rates and how they have dropped over the last generation.

It also has not helped that a pensions surplus (in 1997) has been squandered and now all pensions pots are taxed on dividends since 1997 (thanks Gordon) and thus reduce their ability for growth, making the situation even worse than if could have been.

I have some sympathy with both sides of the argument that's been going on, but, please SWP (ironic that given your views!) given your knowledge of public sector pensions, how totally mislesding to quote a final salary of £60,000! How many teachers, nurses, binmen, park attendants, call centre staff, housing officers etc etc etc finish on that sort of pay? You know the answer as well as I do- hardly any. Why not work out the figures for the final pay range £18,000 to £35,000 and quote those, that will be a fair reflection of the retirement status of the vast majority of public servants.

 

[SWP's back]

Me neither; typical Tory.

agreed mate

I wouldn't have to patronise you if you actually had a clue what you were going on about.

You may as well stop replying as you simply side step every valid point I make, such as you stating the world recession was caused by "Tory paymasters" - brilliant - blame a party that have not been in power for 13 years. Well done.

You will find that it was the US banks that had the worst practice and bad lending books. Northern Rock (the one bank worst hit in the UK) actually had a very profitable mortgage "book" but did not have the cash reserves for short term functionality - as result in the drying up of credit markets.

Anyway, you keep on insulting me, it shows the lack of depth in your argument. But hey, you are "right on" eh - nothing as bad as a Tory. Anyone that makes anything of themselves is a "Fat Cat" or "Parasite". Do you not realise that if it was not for people wanting to better their own situation and paying more tax in the process, then there would be nothing in the pot when you came to claim your weekly benefit?

-- Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:54 am --

i think your all sheep. "it's a democratic society", "we're civil", "blah blah blah". what was democratic about us joining the EU, speed cameras, THE BUDGET! you all sit there thinking you have some moral duty to 'vote' for who you wish to make your zainy little excistences that little bit more liveable. I don't vote and i couldn't give a shit if some woman threw herself infront of a horse. the winning party does not and will never care for the individual, parties are elected by the majority, then for another couple of years the minority ring up shitty breakfast shows whining about how the government is useless.

When there is a party who can truly bring peace, loyalty and health to this country, then i will vote for them. you turn up to the balots in flocks and in secrecy thinking your having an input into how society is run. Regardless who get's voted in, your still gonna work for pittence up until your bones are withered and baney. so run along little sheeps, have your say! have an input! do the right thing! i'll just sit back, accept i'm born into a country which dominates a person until they die and accept also that when i hear of some mp's spending tax-payers money on garden furniture or 50" dildos, it'll be the majority of this countries twisted citizens who have put them in that position in the first place.

good night.

Just plain wrong.

The government is formed by the party with the most seats and, because of our voting system, the party with the most seats is not necessarily the one with the most votes. Therefore, it is more likely to be the case that the minority of voters actually voted the government in because the majority either voted for another party or didn't bother voting at all. Why, a bit like yourself!

Have to agree with you on this. A bit like the fact that more English people voted Tory than Labour last time around but we have still had a Labour government. Still, look at Iran, could be worse - though Crizacxk would definately vote - they always have 99.9% turnout.<br /><br />-- Mon Mar 29, 2010 12:00 pm --<br /><br />

I only responded to the pensions bit as that is the only part where I know you are wrong/lying, mainly due to my "beancounters" job (such a lovely description for a job which secures the financial future and security for a large number of my clients - but cedry it all you wish).

The public sector is the only sector whereby "defined benefit" (ie final salary schemes, average working salary schemes etc etc) are still the main stay. That is not to say they don't exist anymore in th eprivate sector, they are just few and far between.

As for your question, an ex-council workers pension, on the whole would usually be one of three schemes, a (i)30/60ths - very rare, (ii)40/60ths - more common or (iii) 40/80ths - the new norm scheme (usually based on final salary). Therefore if a council worker had paid into a scheme (ii) for 40 years and finished on a salary of £60k, their pension would be £40k per annum. They would also have the opportunity to capitalise some of their annuity for a tax free lump sum.

Compare that and the amount that the retiring worker (in the above example) would have paid INTO the pot against a money purchase or "defined contributuion" scheme, ie those available to most in the private sector. The same worker would be looking at a pension worth less than half as much - despite paying the same amount in, over the same length of time. The country simply cannot afford to keep paying final salary scheme to public sectors workers on the same terms, that they were set up on - over the long term. Not without further bankrupting the nation. When the schemes were set up - people, on average, lived for around 3-5 years once retired. Now that figure is closer to 20, the pots are simply not big enough - just look at actuarial rates and how they have dropped over the last generation.

It also has not helped that a pensions surplus (in 1997) has been squandered and now all pensions pots are taxed on dividends since 1997 (thanks Gordon) and thus reduce their ability for growth, making the situation even worse than if could have been.

I have some sympathy with both sides of the argument that's been going on, but, please SWP (ironic that given your views!) given your knowledge of public sector pensions, how totally mislesding to quote a final salary of £60,000! How many teachers, nurses, binmen, park attendants, call centre staff, housing officers etc etc etc finish on that sort of pay? You know the answer as well as I do- hardly any. Why not work out the figures for the final pay range £18,000 to £35,000 and quote those, that will be a fair reflection of the retirement status of the vast majority of public servants.

I used £60K as it works very nicely with a 40/60ths pension scheme. It is also the pay of senior lecturers/ deputy heads at inner city primary schools/ senior project managers etc (which would all be very "possible" if you had worked there for 40 years in the example).

Anyway, the point was not to show how much one could earn, but the disparity between the amount you pay in and the amount that you take out when compared with priave sector pensions (my original point about 8 posts back and the reason why I called public sector pensions - "gold plated"). They simply are.

 

[stonerblue]

whilst 60k may well be the salary of senior lecturers etc i'd say the vast majority of council employees get nowhere near that

 

[Skashion]

agreed mate

I wouldn't have to patronise you if you actually had a clue what you were going on about.

You may as well stop replying as you simply side step every valid point I make, such as you stating the world recession was caused by "Tory paymasters" - brilliant - blame a party that have not been in power for 13 years. Well done.

You will find that it was the US banks that had the worst practice and bad lending books. Northern Rock (the one bank worst hit in the UK) actually had a very profitable mortgage "book" but did not have the cash reserves for short term functionality - as result in the drying up of credit markets.

Anyway, you keep on insulting me, it shows the lack of depth in your argument. But hey, you are "right on" eh - nothing as bad as a Tory. Anyone that makes anything of themselves is a "Fat Cat" or "Parasite". Do you not realise that if it was not for people wanting to better their own situation and paying more tax in the process, then there would be nothing in the pot when you came to claim your weekly benefit?

-- Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:54 am --

Just plain wrong.

The government is formed by the party with the most seats and, because of our voting system, the party with the most seats is not necessarily the one with the most votes. Therefore, it is more likely to be the case that the minority of voters actually voted the government in because the majority either voted for another party or didn't bother voting at all. Why, a bit like yourself!

Have to agree with you on this. A bit like the fact that more English people voted Tory than Labour last time around but we have still had a Labour government. Still, look at Iran, could be worse - though Crizacxk would definately vote - they always have 99.9% turnout.

Time for an English Parliament then? Question, and a genuine question, would you rather we get rid of the UK Parliament altogether and have complete devolution? Or, should we have both, like the Scots and Welsh?

Tories can't complain about FPTP though. It serves them more than anyone else. Go on tories, put your hands up if you'd like a system which gave more proportional results. You'd have a hung Parliament every time with the tories as the permanent opposition unless Labour or Liberals fancied a change from each other.

 

[sweynforkbeard]

agreed mate

I wouldn't have to patronise you if you actually had a clue what you were going on about.

You may as well stop replying as you simply side step every valid point I make, such as you stating the world recession was caused by "Tory paymasters" - brilliant - blame a party that have not been in power for 13 years. Well done.

You will find that it was the US banks that had the worst practice and bad lending books. Northern Rock (the one bank worst hit in the UK) actually had a very profitable mortgage "book" but did not have the cash reserves for short term functionality - as result in the drying up of credit markets.

Anyway, you keep on insulting me, it shows the lack of depth in your argument. But hey, you are "right on" eh - nothing as bad as a Tory. Anyone that makes anything of themselves is a "Fat Cat" or "Parasite". Do you not realise that if it was not for people wanting to better their own situation and paying more tax in the process, then there would be nothing in the pot when you came to claim your weekly benefit?

-- Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:54 am --

Just plain wrong.

The government is formed by the party with the most seats and, because of our voting system, the party with the most seats is not necessarily the one with the most votes. Therefore, it is more likely to be the case that the minority of voters actually voted the government in because the majority either voted for another party or didn't bother voting at all. Why, a bit like yourself!

Have to agree with you on this. A bit like the fact that more English people voted Tory than Labour last time around but we have still had a Labour government. Still, look at Iran, could be worse - though Crizacxk would definately vote - they always have 99.9% turnout.

-- Mon Mar 29, 2010 12:00 pm --

I have some sympathy with both sides of the argument that's been going on, but, please SWP (ironic that given your views!) given your knowledge of public sector pensions, how totally mislesding to quote a final salary of £60,000! How many teachers, nurses, binmen, park attendants, call centre staff, housing officers etc etc etc finish on that sort of pay? You know the answer as well as I do- hardly any. Why not work out the figures for the final pay range £18,000 to £35,000 and quote those, that will be a fair reflection of the retirement status of the vast majority of public servants.

I used £60K as it works very nicely with a 40/60ths pension scheme. It is also the pay of senior lecturers/ deputy heads at inner city primary schools/ senior project managers etc (which would all be very "possible" if you had worked there for 40 years in the example).

Anyway, the point was not to show how much one could earn, but the disparity between the amount you pay in and the amount that you take out when compared with priave sector pensions (my original point about 8 posts back and the reason why I called public sector pensions - "gold plated"). They simply are.

The 'deputy head of an inner city primary school' who I worked with for 10 years got nothing like that. Maybe principals of the largest colleges would reach that level-but senior lecturers-NO WAY. My mates dad was a long serving lecturer at North Trafford College-his pay was comparable to that of a long serving teacher on the main pay scale i.e. around £30,000. You complain about people regurgitating propaganda to suit their argument- looks like you've caught the bug!
For many years there was a form of social contract with public service workers that equated poorer pay with slightly better pensions. I think in those days many public service workers saw their job as a calling, much less so these days I feel. From what I read in a number of sources public sector pay has caught up, if not marginally overtaken, similar pay levels in the private sector, so,as I said, I agree with your views in that I am not against a re-evaluation of the whole system. But surely we need good pensions for everyone no matter what sector they are employed in. Why not berate the companies who have converted their pension schemes away from final salary? Strange, isn't it, how all the senior executives keep their enormous benefits even in companies that crash and burn spectacularly leaving creditors to enjoy 1p in the £ etc. But, of course, it would be the politics of envy to mention that!<br /><br />-- Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:29 pm --<br /><br />

I wouldn't have to patronise you if you actually had a clue what you were going on about.

You may as well stop replying as you simply side step every valid point I make, such as you stating the world recession was caused by "Tory paymasters" - brilliant - blame a party that have not been in power for 13 years. Well done.

You will find that it was the US banks that had the worst practice and bad lending books. Northern Rock (the one bank worst hit in the UK) actually had a very profitable mortgage "book" but did not have the cash reserves for short term functionality - as result in the drying up of credit markets.

Anyway, you keep on insulting me, it shows the lack of depth in your argument. But hey, you are "right on" eh - nothing as bad as a Tory. Anyone that makes anything of themselves is a "Fat Cat" or "Parasite". Do you not realise that if it was not for people wanting to better their own situation and paying more tax in the process, then there would be nothing in the pot when you came to claim your weekly benefit?

-- Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:54 am --




Have to agree with you on this. A bit like the fact that more English people voted Tory than Labour last time around but we have still had a Labour government. Still, look at Iran, could be worse - though Crizacxk would definately vote - they always have 99.9% turnout.

Time for an English Parliament then? Question, and a genuine question, would you rather we get rid of the UK Parliament altogether and have complete devolution? Or, should we have both, like the Scots and Welsh?

Tories can't complain about FPTP though. It serves them more than anyone else. Go on tories, put your hands up if you'd like a system which gave more proportional results. You'd have a hung Parliament every time with the tories as the permanent opposition unless Labour or Liberals fancied a change from each other.

Wouldn't it be nigh impossible for an English Parliament to return anything other than a Conservative government? Much as the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments have, and probably always will, return Labour/Nationalist majorities in various combination.

 

[SWP's back]

The 'deputy head of an inner city primary school' who I worked with for 10 years got nothing like that. Maybe principals of the largest colleges would reach that level-but senior lecturers-NO WAY. My mates dad was a long serving lecturer at North Trafford College-his pay was comparable to that of a long serving teacher on the main pay scale i.e. around £30,000. You complain about people regurgitating propaganda to suit their argument- looks like you've caught the bug!
For many years there was a form of social contract with public service workers that equated poorer pay with slightly better pensions. I think in those days many public service workers saw their job as a calling, much less so these days I feel. From what I read in a number of sources public sector pay has caught up, if not marginally overtaken, similar pay levels in the private sector, so,as I said, I agree with your views in that I am not against a re-evaluation of the whole system. But surely we need good pensions for everyone no matter what sector they are employed in. Why not berate the companies who have converted their pension schemes away from final salary? Strange, isn't it, how all the senior executives keep their enormous benefits even in companies that crash and burn spectacularly leaving creditors to enjoy 1p in the £ etc. But, of course, it would be the politics of envy to mention that!

Again you are too simplistic - "Fat cats keep their pay etc" - It is not possible for companies to carry on with final salary schemes. People would realistically have to be paying in some 30% of their pay into the schemes for them to work with no shortfall. It is not a case of attacking those companies that got rid of the schemes. If they had not got rid of them, the companies would have gone into administration by now with all their employees being made redundant. I don't think you are actually aware how serious the situation is with regards to pensions shortfalls. People think they can get away with paying 5% of their salary (if that!) into a pension for 30 odd years and then retire for 20 years on somewhere near their working pay!!! The matrhs simply do not add up. IT CANNOT HAPPEN! SO you can't just say "Surely we need good pensions for everyone". The problem (though a nice one) is that we are living too long. We are out-living our savings and no government will do anything about it as the benefits would not be felt for 30 years but the party which made expensive pensions saving compulsory would be un-popular and voted out of power.

As for top executives still getting good pensions. Yes - that is true. But it is a lot cheaper paying 4 board members £1 Million (£4M total) then than it is to up 20,000 workers pensions by only £10k (£200 Million) etc. The top earners are always ok whichever sector or job. But I was not talking about them, I was talking about like for like (middle to higher earners) in both sectors.

Also, no I am not lying. I am simply going off what my clients earn and those are not false figures. Senior lecturer (a Prof) was earning £65k from a Manchester Uni when I met her last week.

Primary school head teachers pay ranges fromm £75-95k depending on seniority and region.

If you do not believe it then simply look it up. Just because your mates Dad was something or other does not make my point false.

As for the English parliament bit - well maybe devolution would be a good thing then. After all, each country, Eng, Scot and Wales would then have the government that the majority obviously want. I cannot see anything wrong with that.

 

[Anonymous]

Tories can't complain about FPTP though. It serves them more than anyone else.

2005 Election...

Lab - 35.3% of the vote 55.2% of the seats
Con - 32.3% of the vote 30.7% of the seats
Lib - 22.1% of the vote 9.6% of the seats

In England, Labour polled seventy thousand fewer votes than the Conservatives, yet won ninety-two more seats.

The fptp system benefited Labour far more. In fact, this was the lowest ever percentage of the vote gained & a party still manaaging an overall majority.

 

[sweynforkbeard]

The 'deputy head of an inner city primary school' who I worked with for 10 years got nothing like that. Maybe principals of the largest colleges would reach that level-but senior lecturers-NO WAY. My mates dad was a long serving lecturer at North Trafford College-his pay was comparable to that of a long serving teacher on the main pay scale i.e. around £30,000. You complain about people regurgitating propaganda to suit their argument- looks like you've caught the bug!
For many years there was a form of social contract with public service workers that equated poorer pay with slightly better pensions. I think in those days many public service workers saw their job as a calling, much less so these days I feel. From what I read in a number of sources public sector pay has caught up, if not marginally overtaken, similar pay levels in the private sector, so,as I said, I agree with your views in that I am not against a re-evaluation of the whole system. But surely we need good pensions for everyone no matter what sector they are employed in. Why not berate the companies who have converted their pension schemes away from final salary? Strange, isn't it, how all the senior executives keep their enormous benefits even in companies that crash and burn spectacularly leaving creditors to enjoy 1p in the £ etc. But, of course, it would be the politics of envy to mention that!

Again you are too simplistic - "Fat cats keep their pay etc" - It is not possible for companies to carry on with final salary schemes. People would realistically have to be paying in some 30% of their pay into the schemes for them to work with no shortfall. It is not a case of attacking those companies that got rid of the schemes. If they had not got rid of them, the companies would have gone into administration by now with all their employees being made redundant. I don't think you are actually aware how serious the situation is with regards to pensions shortfalls. People think they can get away with paying 5% of their salary (if that!) into a pension for 30 odd years and then retire for 20 years on somewhere near their working pay!!! The matrhs simply do not add up. IT CANNOT HAPPEN! SO you can't just say "Surely we need good pensions for everyone". The problem (though a nice one) is that we are living too long. We are out-living our savings and no government will do anything about it as the benefits would not be felt for 30 years but the party which made expensive pensions saving compulsory would be un-popular and voted out of power.

As for top executives still getting good pensions. Yes - that is true. But it is a lot cheaper paying 4 board members £1 Million (£4M total) then than it is to up 20,000 workers pensions by only £10k (£200 Million) etc. The top earners are always ok whichever sector or job. But I was not talking about them, I was talking about like for like (middle to higher earners) in both sectors.

Also, no I am not lying. I am simply going off what my clients earn and those are not false figures. Senior lecturer (a Prof) was earning £65k from a Manchester Uni when I met her last week.

Primary school head teachers pay ranges fromm £75-95k depending on seniority and region.

If you do not believe it then simply look it up. Just because your mates Dad was something or other does not make my point false.

As for the English parliament bit - well maybe devolution would be a good thing then. After all, each country, Eng, Scot and Wales would then have the government that the majority obviously want. I cannot see anything wrong with that.

Now you are lying. You say 'Primary school head teachers pay ranges from £75-£95k depending on seniority and region,' For 2009-2010 a Group One Primary school head's pay range was £41426 to £55669. You quoted a deputy head teachers pay in the post I was querying, which, of course, will be lower still. I have worked in education for nearly 30 years-the last deputy head I worked with closely was coming up to retirement age at a large inner city primary school-she earned just over £40,000.

 

[Skashion]

Tories can't complain about FPTP though. It serves them more than anyone else.

2005 Election...

Lab - 35.3% of the vote 55.2% of the seats
Con - 32.3% of the vote 30.7% of the seats
Lib - 22.1% of the vote 9.6% of the seats

In England, Labour polled seventy thousand fewer votes than the Conservatives, yet won ninety-two more seats.

The fptp system benefited Labour far more. In fact, this was the lowest ever percentage of the vote gained & a party still manaaging an overall majority.

Oh dear... You don't understand it still do you?<br /><br />-- Mon Mar 29, 2010 2:15 pm --<br /><br />

Wouldn't it be nigh impossible for an English Parliament to return anything other than a Conservative government? Much as the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments have, and probably always will, return Labour/Nationalist majorities in various combination.

Not impossible but the Conservatives would win far more elections.

 

[IFeedGoats]

Again you are too simplistic - "Fat cats keep their pay etc" - It is not possible for companies to carry on with final salary schemes. People would realistically have to be paying in some 30% of their pay into the schemes for them to work with no shortfall. It is not a case of attacking those companies that got rid of the schemes. If they had not got rid of them, the companies would have gone into administration by now with all their employees being made redundant. I don't think you are actually aware how serious the situation is with regards to pensions shortfalls. People think they can get away with paying 5% of their salary (if that!) into a pension for 30 odd years and then retire for 20 years on somewhere near their working pay!!! The matrhs simply do not add up. IT CANNOT HAPPEN! SO you can't just say "Surely we need good pensions for everyone". The problem (though a nice one) is that we are living too long. We are out-living our savings and no government will do anything about it as the benefits would not be felt for 30 years but the party which made expensive pensions saving compulsory would be un-popular and voted out of power.

As for top executives still getting good pensions. Yes - that is true. But it is a lot cheaper paying 4 board members £1 Million (£4M total) then than it is to up 20,000 workers pensions by only £10k (£200 Million) etc. The top earners are always ok whichever sector or job. But I was not talking about them, I was talking about like for like (middle to higher earners) in both sectors.

Also, no I am not lying. I am simply going off what my clients earn and those are not false figures. Senior lecturer (a Prof) was earning £65k from a Manchester Uni when I met her last week.

Primary school head teachers pay ranges fromm £75-95k depending on seniority and region.

If you do not believe it then simply look it up. Just because your mates Dad was something or other does not make my point false.

As for the English parliament bit - well maybe devolution would be a good thing then. After all, each country, Eng, Scot and Wales would then have the government that the majority obviously want. I cannot see anything wrong with that.

Now you are lying. You say 'Primary school head teachers pay ranges from £75-£95k depending on seniority and region,' For 2009-2010 a Group One Primary school head's pay range was £41426 to £55669. You quoted a deputy head teachers pay in the post I was querying, which, of course, will be lower still. I have worked in education for nearly 30 years-the last deputy head I worked with closely was coming up to retirement age at a large inner city primary school-she earned just over £40,000.

40k seems a bit low for a head, the missus is a special needs teacher and gets around 34k + special needs weighting(2k I think). I know a Primary school head and she was on around 60k about 4 years or so ago and a head of year at a secondary school who I know was on around 45 - 50 k

 

[Skashion]

Now you are lying. You say 'Primary school head teachers pay ranges from £75-£95k depending on seniority and region,' For 2009-2010 a Group One Primary school head's pay range was £41426 to £55669. You quoted a deputy head teachers pay in the post I was querying, which, of course, will be lower still. I have worked in education for nearly 30 years-the last deputy head I worked with closely was coming up to retirement age at a large inner city primary school-she earned just over £40,000.

40k seems a bit low for a head, the missus is a special needs teacher and gets around 34k + special needs weighting(2k I think). I know a Primary school head and she was on around 60k about 4 years or so ago and a head of year at a secondary school who I know was on around 45 - 50 k

Heads do not earn 40k. I was reading in the TES just last week that over 100 heads in state secondary schools in England or the UK (can't remember which) earned 150k or more. That's not an average obviously but a secondary teacher at the top of the pay scale earns 35k and I can't see it being 5k more for a head. Just doesn't sound right.

 

[Anonymous]

2005 Election...

Lab - 35.3% of the vote 55.2% of the seats
Con - 32.3% of the vote 30.7% of the seats
Lib - 22.1% of the vote 9.6% of the seats

In England, Labour polled seventy thousand fewer votes than the Conservatives, yet won ninety-two more seats.

The fptp system benefited Labour far more. In fact, this was the lowest ever percentage of the vote gained & a party still manaaging an overall majority.

Oh dear... You don't understand it still do you?

Go on then, explain. If you are saying that in a hung parliament there would always be a Lib/Lab pact then that's some assumption. The Lib Dems (despite their protestations) would work witrh either of the other two parties.

Oh, and being condescending just shows you up.

In the 1997 election, the victorious Labour Party gained 43.2% of the total votes cast and won 63.6% of seats at Westminster. The combined number of votes for the Tory and Liberal Democrats represented 47.5% of the total votes (nearly 4% more than Labour) yet between them they got 32.1% of the seats available at Westminster.

In the 2001 election, Labour got 43% of the total popular vote whereas all the other parties got 57% - yet Labour maintained its very powerful position in Parliament with 413 MP's out of 659. The same trend was seen with the 2005 election result.

It can be claimed that such a percentage of votes should not have given Labour such large Parliamentary majorities – but the workings of the FPTP system allows for just such an occurrence. In fact, no government since 1935 has had a majority of public support as expressed through votes cast at a national election.

Lord Hailsham once referred to this system as an "elective dictatorship" in that a powerful government can be created with overwhelming Parliamentary power which can usually push through its required legislation - but with only a minority of the country supporting it.

An argument put forward against FPTP is that it might put people off of voting in an election for a minority party as they know that their vote will be wasted. This discriminates against minority parties who will lose out as a consequence of this. It is possible that minority parties might have greater political support than their election figures show.

FPTP has discriminated against the Parliamentary power of the Liberal Democrats at national elections. Both the Tories and Labour have benefited from the system.

 

[sweynforkbeard]

40k seems a bit low for a head, the missus is a special needs teacher and gets around 34k + special needs weighting(2k I think). I know a Primary school head and she was on around 60k about 4 years or so ago and a head of year at a secondary school who I know was on around 45 - 50 k

Heads do not earn 40k. I was reading in the TES just last week that over 100 heads in state secondary schools in England or the UK (can't remember which) earned 150k or more. That's not an average obviously but a secondary teacher at the top of the pay scale earns 35k and I can't see it being 5k more for a head. Just doesn't sound right.

I agree, they don't earn £40,000, they can earn £41426, as I posted, in 2009-2010. That is for a Group One school- a small primary school. This is very easy to check- NUT or NASUWT websites, Ed Ballsup's departmental website, take your pick. Schools are ranged from Group One in size to Group 10 (think that's still correct that there are 10 groups.) Group 10 schools tend to be mega huge comprehensives mainly in London.<br /><br />-- Mon Mar 29, 2010 2:47 pm --<br /><br />Sorry-London and other urban connurbations.

 

[Jnr Kisby]

'x' gets paid more than 'y'

baaaaww

 

[Skashion]

Oh dear... You don't understand it still do you?

Go on then, explain.

Oh, and being condescending just shows you up.

Well stop trying to act like you know better than you do and I won't be so condescending. You could have asked me to explain instead of trying to contradict me with such poor evidence and making statements as if they were already proven. FPTP doesn't favour any one party in the sense that one party must necessarily win more seats per vote than another - as you were trying to say. This is the marginals issue I've mentioned constantly. If Labour wins them then they get far more seats than their votes suggest they should. If Conservatives do, then the situation is reversed.

In the 1983 election, the Conservatives won 42.3% of the vote but won 61.1% of the seats. So 1.44% of seats for 1% of the vote. Whereas Labour won 32.2% of the seats with 27.6% percent of the vote. So, 1.17% of the seats for 1% of the vote. Our electoral system hasn't changed one bit though. Wouldn't be surprised if it happens again this election and the tories win more seats per vote. This is the nature of FPTP. Where it does benefit the tories though is that we have three parties and two of those parties have always been more inclined to form election pacts and joint cabinets etc. The outsider of that group is the tories and that's where FPTP benefits the tories. The Liberal (Democrats) are always the party that suffers. By happy chance, 1983 is the best demonstration of this. SDP-Liberal Alliance won 25.4% of the vote and received just 3.5% of the seats. That's 0.14% of the seats for 1% of the vote. So, FPTP doesn't favour the tories because of the nature of the system but because of the relations between political parties, most notably those between Labour and the Liberal (Democrats).

 

[sweynforkbeard]

Now you are lying. You say 'Primary school head teachers pay ranges from £75-£95k depending on seniority and region,' For 2009-2010 a Group One Primary school head's pay range was £41426 to £55669. You quoted a deputy head teachers pay in the post I was querying, which, of course, will be lower still. I have worked in education for nearly 30 years-the last deputy head I worked with closely was coming up to retirement age at a large inner city primary school-she earned just over £40,000.

40k seems a bit low for a head, the missus is a special needs teacher and gets around 34k + special needs weighting(2k I think). I know a Primary school head and she was on around 60k about 4 years or so ago and a head of year at a secondary school who I know was on around 45 - 50 k

OK-but what Group was the school? And it's still not the £75-£95K which I was disagreeing with.