Why Hutton?

This is a superb example of the Coalition spreading over most of the political spectrum and leaving the Socialists with nowhere to go.

A sharp rise in contributions (in Eire it was an extra 7.5%) in contributions to Public Sector pensions is long overdue - I pay 6% like nearly all white-collar State sector employees and a rise to 10% is clearly needed.

It has the effect of being a bigger imposition on those on the highest incomes, so it can be claimed to be 'fair' - though what that's got to do with anything, I've never understood, in a political sense.

A level tax rate for all is 'fair'; having higher rates for those on higher incomes is anything BUT!

A rise in the retirement age is also inevitable - a point you missed, Nick, with 70 likely by 2020 and 75/80 by 2030, to cope with longer life-expectancies.

Add better pensions but all additional benefits scrapped and you have a leaner, fitter benefits system - that costs £squllions less to administer.

No State pension to all higher-rate tax payers would also be popular, too, with it tapered off for all those paying the normal level of tax.

Add tax deductible Private Health care and Care Home provision (and insurance policies to cover it) and you've got the old-age problem licked: no longer a massive drain on those working simply because we no longer care fro our own family but prefer to farm it out to an uncaring, unthinking State (and we then complain about the quality, too!)

As a believer in social justice I've always regarded John Hutton as the devil incarnate.The worst example of the reactionary, mean spirited accountants who hijacked the Labour Party and turned into an inhuman haven for nerdy control freaks.
His every parsimonious utterance seems designed to make us all lose the will to live, maybe that's why he's been chosen-collective suicide will save so much in pensions!
Seriously, he's a very disappointing choice and the first time the coalition has lost my support. We can just about stomach Field but Hutton is totally unacceptable-the old politics personified!

Bernard Gray, not Grey.

John Prescott blogged this morning "do these ConLibLab collaborators have a conscience?... I can't believe what is happening".

That'll be the hypocritical prescott who is soon to become a lord ( after years of denigrating them as an throwback to the 1600s ). Ironically he appears to not understand the definition of hyprocrit.

if so look in a oxford definition under Prescott, John

Certainly interesting. Both Hutton and FF now working for Cameron. Wow. Frank Field, whilst not quite a Posturing Reactionary Buffoon, is very much the tories' favourite Labour politician - boy, don't they just love him - and thus it's wise to treat everything he says with a great deal of caution, but Hutton - well that's a different matter. Going by his Guardian/Observer stuff (and his "The State We're In" book, which I've read and is excellent), we're talking about a powerful and genuinely progressive Left thinker. So if the government gives him free reign and then acts on his advice, that's a positive.

"Last week the Office for Budget Responsibility produced figures showing that that cost could double in just five years."

More like four years, I think.

Will someone tell me what the Chancellor is doing for his huge salary??

The Chief Secretaries to the Treasury (Laws and Alexander) have done the work on what is going to be cut.

The Bank of England is going to be responsible for everything to do with banks and the financial institutions.

The Office for Budget Responsibility takes over forecasting and measuring effects of various policies/decisions.

Now Hutton is going to work out how to cut public sector pensions.

So what does that leave for Osborne to do - apart from posing outside No.11 with the 'red box'??? and blaming everyone else for the 'bad' news. So much for 'responsibility', but then I suppose someone with only a PPE from Oxford MUST let someone else do the economics work since he cannot.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

sagamix.
you're getting your Huttons confused. John NOT Will.

State statutory schemes always discriminate against the lowest paid. The highest paid get more out of the schemes than other employees because, first of all, pensions are linked to final pay. Plainly someone who rises from trainee to Chief Executive of a Local Authority has a steeper pay progression than someone who joins as a clerical worker and only rises to supervisory level. So that the pension received by a CE pensioner is much higher relative to her career contributions.
[It's worth looking at other superannuationschemes to see that the disproportionate bias exists in all those schemes - it's a widespread scam.]
That brings in the second factor that few people realise: most statutory schemes incorporate the NIC pension in calculating the percentage of pay to be paid as pension. Lower paid people would have an higher relative NIC pension and, therefore, less scheme pension. The lower contribution (usually 5%) that's supposed to compensate is an insufficient discount relative to higher paid workers pensions.
Being statutory schemes means John Hutton could recommend retrospective changes because it's likley that contract law doesn't apply to those schemes. But will he dare?
To round off with a third cause of lower-paid disadvantage: the highest paid are the most likely to get paid off with a big early retirement top-up. Interestingly, CEs and Finance Chiefs are the most likely to be able to 'pull' an early retirement bonus than anyone else. Curious that isn't it?

#5 sagamix

I assume you mean a brace of Huttons, Will H. (public sector pay) and John H (public sector pensions), and of course Frank Field as well. All Labour politicians, or left-leaning journalists.

If you include the independent Office of Budget Responsibility as well then the Government is showing an admirable willingness to accept advice and constructive criticism from a variety of non-Conservative sources.

Meanwhile Labour will carp from the sidelines.

Nice one from Prescott, the BIMBY's (Build in My Back Yard) friend. Attacking Field and Hutton for supporting the Coalition. For years Prescott supported Tory and Lib Dem Councils in the South by encouraging backyard development (not brownfield sites) where gardens were stuffed full of flats, where sewage, and security problems were conveniently overlooked, along with preservation orders on trees and wild life. Good old fashioned Tory policy of short term grabbing the money. These houses/flats were over priced and we all know what happened with the credit problems don't we. Nice to see Two Jags re-discover his socialism eh.

Can't knock it. Interesting to see what happens.

Four or five years of the coalition and the majority of voters will be begging for a Labour government. Huton's reptilian performance as a minister tells us all we need to know about him. By the way, "The State We're In" was Will Hutton ... a different chap.

Not my favorite Labour guy.

However, Will Hutton's piece in The Observer today is spot on.

Your article, particularly towards the end, seems to conflate two very different things: state pensions (universal welfare payments to the elderly) and public sector pensions (pension payments to which state employees are contractually entitled).

Since the former is (theoretically) paid for over the (now) retired person's working life by national insurance contributions, and the latter is part of the contractual commitments made by each employer (whether the NHS, Civil Service, Armed Forces, etc.) to its employees, the political and practical considerations surrounding 'reform' (presumably cuts) to each are quite different.

My guess is changes for those entering the public sector...not many I admit...and increased contributions for existing employees.

Any attempt at retrospective changes would be, I think, too risky for the Coalition to contemplate.

@ 9 - Ooops. Just too many Huttons, aren't there? Last time the government hired one (his Lordship) we got a rather odd product, I seem to recall.

#16 The State pension is not a 'funded scheme'. Payments made today come from taxes paid today.

Civil Service etc schemes ARE funded, but can be altered at will by a Statutory Instrument. There's no contractual obligation involved, though there'd be an almighty fuss, I agree, if PRESENT benefits are cut.
A change to new/nearly new entrants would not be a problem, nor raising the retirement age, nor raising the % contribution required, nor making it an AVERAGE of your final 3 years' salary, rather than the 'best 6 months', as now.

The biggest change would be to stop the State Pension for anyone paying higher-rates of tax - and I see no problem with that. The idea that it is a 'universal benefit' is one that has to be scrapped - along with free bus passes, free TV licence, winter fuel allowances, 25p/week extra when you're 80, 'universal' Child Benefit etc etc.

One simple rule - do you pay Income tax - if yes, all benefits cease, both for you and all your family.
BUT
Income tax does not start until 40 x min wage pay/week (which means around £15k today)

I guess it's a bit of a surprise to see a swathe of non ConLib politicians being invited to contribute ideas and policy to "sorting out" short- and long-term problems.

Mainly because the influx of folk into Labour's "Government Of All the Talents" seemed to deliver a few GOATS who took peerages for very short useful services.

Hopefully there will be good, affordable and socially acceptable options considered.

I've always believed (based on observation) that
Compassionate Left of Centre governments think "I want to do all these wonderful things, now where can I find or borrow the money", while Compassionate Right of Centre governments think "I've got this money, now how can I use it to make a difference"...

And I don't really like the Right-Left stuff as it suggests a single linear model, while I feel it's more about positions around a circle.
So I came to believe that Stalin and Hitler coincided / overlapped on one arc of the circle (like the North Pole), while most folk struggle or potter along in fairly tolerant mode somewhere opposite that (call it the South Pole).

Whatever, the more decent minds are involved in trying to resolve a financial and social crisis the better.



to

Very good choice - John Hutton will do a very good job on this topic.

Hutton wasnt much good when in power with a labour government he came across as mean and unlikeable with policies to match but as he's not an MP anymore i assume he's free to do what he wants its always nice to see yet another QUANGO being set up

The problem is that taxation and contributions have not met the expected outgoings. This is not due to age or population, this has nothing to do with it at all, this is all because when the national pension scheme was introduced it immediately paid out to those at its stated retirement age and invested - yes invested not one penny of taxpayers income in a future fund to pay out to the future pensioner.

Even the best private fund in the UK now has to contribute 40% of its funding in Bonds to the UK government - which is one way the private pension schemes have bailed out the minimal National Insurance based scheme.

The pension crisis has already happened in 1991-97, you all were not aware of it because most of you reading this have 1/60 final salary state funded scheme - which will now end.

The normal working class UK pensioner will presently receive £95 per week state pension after most of them began work at the age of 13, most of them have 52 years of contributions to a scheme which pays the worst rate of return in Europe.

Why is it the worst rate - the scheme was treated as part of the taxation pot and spent but not invested. If you like it or not the parents of those who are now receiving a pension received their children's contributions without having to pay their own equivalent. The same thing happened when the NHS was founded, we the grandchildren have just paid off the debt of our grandparents in the form of the Bevin governments US loan.

All this is doing is forcing the next generation to pay for the last again, with a much reduced return.

There are members of all political parties who are genuinely concerned about the state of our nation, and there are those, like Prescott, who are only concerned with narrow party politics. Thank God for the former and pray that their efforts will be successful!

Nothing that can be done now, will do anything to reduce the pension bill in 4 or 5 years time so it is dishonest to tie pension reform to this factoid. Any changes will take decades to filter through into the tax payers bills as the current workers become the pensioners of tomorrow.

Those who sit in nice air conditioned offices and propose the extension of the retirement age to 70 and beyond, need to stop and think, how does this effect those on poverty wages, doing back breaking work often with poor diets and poor houses ? Do you really think that such workers can physically carry on working to 70+, it is pure craziness.

The need is to change our fundamental beliefs. The tory fixation on passing on an inheritance to one's kids for a start. It beggers belief that we feel have a right to state care for decades of old age and yet want to pass on a multi hundred thousand pound asset to our kids.

More fundamentally we need to reassess the role of our medical services and look at the balance between quality and quantity of life. Does it really make sense to provide years of poor quality, illness ridden life that we must fund both in terms of medical and social care ?

BTW,
I think I heard it suggested that the Budget could introduce regionally-varied taxes to attempt to encourage innovation, company growth and developments outside London and the South East.

Not sure I've ever experienced some "regionally varied" taxes before. (The Scot legislature has an ability to do stuff but that's not quite the same.)

I guess, as always, the devil will be in the detail. Sounds like a lot of HMRC effort to work out whether it's a company registered in a "qualifying area", an active outlet operational in such an area, or people having to prove they work for said companies in a qualifying area.
On the other hand, it could be easy-peasy.
(Just don't have a lot of experience of legislation being nicely thought-through and clear cut. No doubt others will offer specialist insights.)

What is most puzzling, confusing and quite frankly a waste of money and time, is:

1) Why is Mr Hutton NOT working, hand in hand, with Frank Field??
Surely Mr Hutton's DWP expertise and Mr Fields Welfare Reform should be two heads of the same department?

2) Are the Tory-Lips - sorry(!) Tory/Libs playing ducks and drakes with these two experienced individuals or, more importantly, you and me?

RIGHT:

Although by nature I am 'Right of Centre', Hutton is a man to be genuinely admired and regardless of 'Party Politics'.

David Muckband really "screwed up" by not following his (Hutton's), lead and also resigning and thus demonstrating just why Labour under David Miliband will spend the next 15 years in "the political wilderness" but, I may be over generous on the 15 years, it may well be 25 or perhaps, NEVER EVER AGAIN !

The reality is that we have all moved beyond purely "Tribal Politics" and despite what the "Son of Prescott" thinks, It is high time to 'move on'. Regardless of what people think, Labour had 13 years to sort things out and never bothered, too late now I might suggest.

Good article Nick.

By the way, did Brian Taylor (Blether with Brian) show you the SDS document he has seen. Obviously any sight of this document, provided by Labour, will prove that Labour in Scotland are really on the ball!

17

Retrospective changes aren't risky, they are wrong, immoral, and won't happen

Will Sutton is jumping the gun.

Until we know precisely what IS in the budget, how can you agree that it is wrong?

Whilst you may be right, you could also be very wrong, and be covered in egg

Wait until you see the budget, then comment on it

#25. At 5:29pm on 20 Jun 2010, SotonBlogger wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

'Back-breaking work' such as you describe ended for all but a tiny handful of younger men decades ago - where HAVE you been?

Building is done by men with machines; offices are there to support factory-workers; nearly all UK jobs are in 'the service sector' - to which must be added the offices of the manufacturing sector too.

I'd guess no more than 2-3% of jobs in the UK require SERIOUS physical effort these days (mining), and perhaps another 5% where some physical work is involved (nurses); the rest just require you to be 'normally fit'.

My 82 year old arthritis and pace-maker afflicted mother works in a shop and used to help out with handicapped children until well into her 70's, so I can see no reason why others cannot do so as well - looked around B&Q lately? Or the 'greeters' in Asda? Or in any charity shop? Or the stalwarts of any big local 'good works' group?

The idea that you're about to die at 65 is utter nonsense - indeed, if you keep working you stay fitter for longer.

Life's moved on since 1919 - you, however, appear not to have done so.

1919 - work 50 years, maximum probable pension 5 years (10:1)
2010 - work 40 years, maximum probable pension 20 years (2:1)

We need to get back to a 10:1 ratio - with a GOOD pension paid for a short time, not a pittance for decades. If you WANT to retire early (as you have your own pension or other funds) no-one is suggesting you cannot - just that you'll not get the State Pension until you're 70/75.

A final point - most people DO have an additional pension - it's just that inflation and Brown's Pension Tax means it's not paying out as much any more.

Every time we get a change of government we exchange one (often extreme) ideology for another and at the same time throw away all the experience built up by individual members of the previous administration.

Now we have a coalition (which should block extremism) and that coalition seeks to use the skills, knowledge and experience from former members of the last government and other people with expertise. So what is wrong with that? Isn't that the best way to solve this country's problems ... using the best available? For example, many people admired Vince Cable's common sense during the financial crisis ... now we have him in a position to use that common sense.

So what am I ... a Tory? No, I dislike them hugely because of their attitude towards hunting and will always vote against them in any election. But I can see the sense in what they are doing and I realise that much of that sense comes from being constrained by a coalition instead of having the power of a huge majority.

And one other point .... if the problem of our aging population is solved by some form of insurance for future care then think about this: If we stop anyone from outside the EU working in Care Homes from 2014 (as proposed by the former government) then does anyone believe that enough EU citizens will be willing to work long, unsocial hours to care for people who unfortunately can be aggressive, demanding and incontinent? If you do, then the best of luck when you get old .... I think we will be in a mess and unable to staff our care homes and then when we realise our mistake will find that care workers from the Philippines, Africa, India, etc. will have been welcomed by other countries and we wont be able to get them back. I would not do the job for one hundred pounds an hour, let alone the minimum wage many now receive. But I would be happy to have the job of one of our great Company bosses and might even accept less than the millions they receive per annum for attending lavish lunches and networking on the golf course!

One of the drawbacks of the Internet is that too often it 'liberates' people to go wondering around, talking off the top of their heads, without explaining properly or thinking through anything.

I'm afraid happydadtoo appears to be prone to this. In #1 he seems to advocate a flat tax and says progressive tax is unfair. But by post #19 he's advocating progressive taxation- saying this:

Income tax does not start until 40 x min wage pay/week (which means around £15k today)

Correct me if I am wrong, but at the NMW rate of £5.80ph x 40hrs a week x 52 weeks a year, that makes £12,064. So where's £15k come from? It's certainly not the product of a 40 x multiplier, that would get you to close to half a million pounds pa!

He or she says in #1 and #19 that people paying higher rate tax should not get pensions that they have actually contributed to throughout their lives (with 'tapering off' for ordinary rate taxpayers!), but puts no flesh on this very uncooked and utterly unfair idea.

Is s/he really saying that someone earning £44k and just in higher rate tax on the day before their pensionable age should get no pension the following day and forever? When do they have to have earned higher rate tax to be stripped of their pension? Ever? It's a universal benefit, happydadtoo, because people make a contribution to it, not through some act of generosity by the state.

Or maybe its that they wouldn't be able to work in retirement and still get the pension they have contributed to? So exactly who would still get state pensions in this brave new world?

A bit more explanation would be great.

Always pass the s**t onto to someone else if you can - it's the blame-passing trick that is growing hoary with age and they've only been at it for six weeks.
I wonder how many turned it down before Hutton grasped it with his eager paws?

JH66 @ legs

"Meanwhile Labour will carp from the sidelines."

That would be "holding the government to account" (being the sacred duty of Her Majesty's Official Opposition) you'd be meaning there, John, would it?

John Hutton was a pretty appalling sight when he was a minister I can't see him being any better in this role. I assume they (the LibCons) have to look to others for ideas since they seem to have forgotten the ones they put forward last month.

They tell us we cannot afford public pensions but at a mere £9Billion p.a. it seems like a snap compared to the mega billions spent to keep incompetent bankers in a job. Or even the billions spent pursuing unwinnable wars for unfathomeable reasons.

I just love it that the super rich who lent us so much money cannot afford to reduce the interest they want as a way of saving us from ruin.

But hey what do I know - I 'm not a failed politician.

30

My typing gets worse....I know it is Will Hutton.....

Kevinb @30.

OK. I will form an objective and considered opinion on the budget after Black Tuesday.

Although my comments in the current economical climate may seem weird or just plain mad, why do we still rely on central or local government to tax the public to provide an unaffordable pension for their work force?
We should all be educated to be responsible for our own financial future.
By having a pension we are abdicating our responsibility to provide for our retirement (if that ever comes) and hoping someone else will look after our financial interests! Hello are we mad or just plain negligent?

@31
I take it 'happydadtoo' that your mum is still working because her tight fisted son refuses to help her out. I pity the kids....

18. At 4:58pm on 20 Jun 2010, sagamix wrote:
@ 9 - Ooops. Just too many Huttons, aren't there? Last time the government hired one (his Lordship) we got a rather odd product, I seem to recall.

Saga,
I always like your stuff.
Doesn't mean I agree with it but I like the fact that you don't care, as long as the folk in the pub, sitting on the tube or around the dinner table have something to argue about.
I've got this image of you in a mask, wearing a cape of invisibility to hide your Rupert Bear trousers, getting off at Oxford Circus while all the other passengers are wondering why on earth they're talking about stuff they couldn't refer to in the Metro or whatever it's called...
Not sure you'd survive like that in Swindon, but good luck.

But I fear you are right. Lord Hutton, in my view, conducted an appalling public enquiry. And Lord Falconer exacerbated the problem by deciding that the process (not conducted under oath or with any real forensic examination of critical facts) should be used to waive aside a proper inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly.

That really was a shameful episode.
Especially when the "intelligence" services admitted shortly thereafter that they had no double-checked information that Saddam had any usable WMD. (Unlike the UK...) But their admission only came post-Kelly report. And nobody seemed to care that a big bit of the report was filled with a PhD graduate study that wasn't really checked out.
And now the BBC offers Alistair Campbell air-time to publicise his self-serving books. Same bloke who strutted down the staircase to tell the world that he had not helped to "sex-up" the report (becase Hutton said that governments were allowed to put "favourable interpretations" on information they pass to the public - even if it has no genuine basis), but he managed to help the BBC to implode.

Government is a necessity. Good governance is a miracle.

The appointment of Hutton is a shrewd move designed to deflect the inevitable flak following public sector pensions reform which is long overdue.
Privately funded purchased annuities have become very poor value over the past 15 years with no sign of improvement in sight.To continue to expect these contributors funding their own pensions,and the tax-backed public sector pensions,is clearly wrong.
We can no longer afford many commitments which up to to now have been seen as a right.

38

Very good

Not sure your view will be objective though!

#33. At 5:59pm on 20 Jun 2010, cardicam wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'll not go through every point, but £5.80 is NOT the minimum ADULT wage in 2010, and I was assuming we were looking at 2015 and also assuming that you'd want some leeway above min wage and no benefits - otherwise you get near- 100% taxation levels at the interface.

You do NOT pay 'into' the State pension scheme as it's NOT a 'fully-funded scheme' - you pay NI today which (nominally) pays the pensions of those who are over 65 today. There's no 'paying-in' to some hypothetical fund.

If you're on £44k a year and you get an additional £10k free of all tax, then you can afford to lose around £5k in State pension (do the maths - you lose only around £2k)

I want a single tax rate - say 25% - whatever your income. I fail to see why, since when I earn more, I pay more in tax AND pay more VAT on things I buy, THEN I pay tax on the income from my savings AND THEN someone thinks it right that I should pay a higher PERCENTAGE of my income in tax. That's just plain wrong and a powerful disincentive to working harder and earning more (thus providing profit for tax-lawyers and accountants to set up complex instruments to avoid tax. Keep it low, keep it simple!)

Nothing unfair about the ending of 'universal benefits' in exchange for MORE generous benefits for the few. And who can best afford to lose these benefits - those with the highest incomes!

There are hundreds of benefits and tax breaks and allowances and wotnots - lets sweep them all away and have a simple scheme:
No pay for having a baby (CB ends)
Benefits if you choose not to work whilst your child is young, tax allowances if you work AFTER your child is 5-11, as it's your duty to be at home caring for your child NOT at work (opposite of Hatie's madness)

One rate of unemployment pay - based on workfare principles
More benefits if you have children - but only up to the age of 5 (halved) and 11 (ended). Your children - YOU pay for them.

All other benefits gone (I'll allow a housing element - but only for a short time, after that it's into the almshouse for you).

The point is that the unemployed are 4 groups - those between jobs; those who have a personal problem (health, children, family, education) which can be fixed; those who make a life-style choice to live on benefits and exploit the system; and those who are so feckless that they cannot manage any aspect of their lives(and are often on drugs).

No-one objects to paying for the first 2 groups - it's the latter 2 which cause all the problems (ASBO, Gang, drugs) and cost all the money (Soc Ser, Police, Courts, Hospitals).

The policy that has been tried for the past 40 years is to throw money at the problem - it's not worked, just made the number claiming and causing problems double or treble.
So a new approach is needed - 'tough love' - in which you get benefits only by conforming to a set of strict rules - you need training - you get it AND then take any/every job you're now qualified for that's on offer afterwards AND stick at it for at least 12 months OR your benefits end.
Ditto for the other examples, BUT the last 2 groups get REALLY tough 'love'. Been on benefits for 5 years - why? 12 more months, then it ends - forever. There are jobs picking strawberries atm. - hard work, low pay, but a job. So go do it. No more dole for you!

Much of the problem lies in the staff who see it as their job to dole out the maximum possible benefit, rather than the minimum, forgetting that it's the taxpayer who funds the money they authorise. A family were on TV last week - mum and 2 children living apart from their dad to get more hand-outs. All are fit and bright enough - but their total benefits were around £25k, making any jobs which paid less than £40k (together) left them worse off.

THAT kind of situation is what gets everyone's backs up and it has to end. I don't blame them for not working when they get that much - but what happens it their cash is reduced to £5k? With no tax payable if they earn £15k? NOW it's worth taking that minimum wage job.

42

Annuities aren't poor value, they simply reflect the low interest environment, and longer life expectancy

There is a difference between that, and poor value

#40 funnily enough, my mum's 50% pension from my father (ex Local Govt officer) is MORE than I earn as a teacher AND she has no mortgage (nor has ever had one - thge big thing of that generation).

So she has more money than she can spend, a house worth perhaps £400k - and poor health, so I think I'm better off in many ways.

As for your grossly offensive last comment, my children live in Sydney and I've spent £300k on lawyers trying to get them to live here in the UK again and to see me regularly. I'd give the rest of my cash (I was declared bankrupt 18 months ago) to see them regularly and be a proper father to them (thank you, Family Courts!)

Meanwhile, my multi-millionaire, Times Rich-list sister lives just down the road from mum and they spend a lot of time together and have great days out.

Further confirmation of your ignorance, I'm afraid, and I do not like personalised atatcks from those who know nothing of me.

Try attacking the content of my posts, by all means, but lay off me and my family - better to be thought a fool than to start posting as you do and remove all doubt - eh?

What a clever ploy by George Osborne, to ask John Hutton, to write a report on how to cut the costs of pensions in the public sector, is this a way of getting a scapegoat who is not a member of either of the coalition parties, John Hutton's findings if put into action may back fire and cause trouble with the unions, if this happens it could lose votes for the Labour Party at the next general election

Will Hutton's article in the Observer is incomplete. Last week the Dispatches Programme that he produced, commentated on etc complained bitterly about the banks and the City generally lack of support for industry.

So why didn't Hutton say today that the City must now invest in industry to compensate for a run down in the public sector and so rebalance the economy as everyone (except Labour) seems to want?

re 46

'happydadtoo' your posts display such ignorance that they are hardly worth talking about.......but now I understand your punish everyone but me attitude. Forgive me I thought you might be joking.

"My 82 year old arthritis and pace-maker afflicted mother works in a shop and used to help out with handicapped children until well into her 70's, so I can see no reason why others cannot"

Quite righ HD. I don't always agree with some of your more extreme views but what you are doing is rasing issues and questions that need raising and that the left have no real answer to except to trot out their 1960's (and earlier) class war garbage. My mum (71 years old) recently clocked up her lifetime personal best for the 10k. 1hr 14m. There were runners 50 years younger with slower times.

The left's social plans and policies are just a list of excuses.

here's why you can't get on
here's why you can't get a job
here's why you didn't pass all your exams
here's why your life isn't great.

None of it is your fault.

Followed by - let us (The Government) look after you. And of course, the left's misguided policies have to be funded by those who look at all those questions and realise that it's up to the individual to help and better themselves.

This is what we voted for, the best of any political party to try and sort out the mess created by Blair, Brown and New Labour. John Prescott is just part of the old politics and should be ignored as a sore loser.

#HappyDad

If the days of dieing young of poor diet, smoking and hard labour are long gone then why do the national office of statistics quote the life expectancy at birth in central glasgow for males as a mere 56 ?

If you are going to discuss the pension system in this country please discuss it based on facts, not the myths propagated by the cosy office based middle classes in the affluent south of england.

#44 At 7:07pm on 20 Jun 2010, happydadtoo wrote:
-------------------------

£5.80ph IS the national minimum wage for people over 22 today, isn't it?
HMRC seem to think it is - and I don't think the presumed distinction you make between adults and all over 22, or the increase this October, undoes my argument for a moment.

I never said that the state pension was "fully funded" - that would be absurd, based on the variable earnings of a population over a lifetime. That doesn't alter the fact that it IS still a contributory scheme based on qualifying years of NI contributions.

Amid your very long answer (almost all of which wasn't prompted by me!) you only briefly explain your higher rate tax=no pension plan would work.

This para - "If you're on £44k a year and you get an additional £10k free of all tax, then you can afford to lose around £5k in State pension (do the maths - you lose only around £2k)" - suggests you are only talking about higher rate taxpayers among pensioners losing their pension.

Is this what you are saying? If so, how will this affect people doing a modest amount of work post-retirement at lower rates? And can you tell me roughly what percentage of those receiving state pensions pay higher rate tax now, which does seem to be rather important?

It should presumably be £47k anyhow, to include the personal allowance for pensioners, so not sure what your additional £10k is.

#52 Life expectancy of a newly-born today is such that >50% will reach 100.
(ONS, 2008)

Now, Central Glasgow has had a Labour Council since the dawn of time - so why do those who a the recipients of unlimited Socialist largess from cradle to grave live such a short time?

I suggest it's because of the choices those people make.
Their choice. Their life.

At least they don't live long enough to claim much in pensions.

52

This is down to poor diet, too much alcohol, too much smoking, not enough exercise, and too much drugs

It is nothing to do with 'hard labour'

The link is here, from that ultra right wing newspaper....

The Guardian

https://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jan/21/health.politics

The solution, is....

Stop smoking, drink less, exercise, stop doing drugs

Nothing to do with hard labour......or even poor government from labour

See answer to question asked by Lord Laird (Hansard 17 June 2010: Column WA134) to gauge the level of subsidy for civil servants pensions and guess if John Hutton will suggest the real way round it - make them pay. He did not consider it even a problem when in office.

"To ask Her Majesty's Government what proportion of civil servants pay into the nuvos pension scheme; what are the respective employee and employer contributions to that scheme; and what are the equivalent contribution rates to the classic Civil Service pension scheme.[HL215]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud): ...in 2008-09, 8% of the active members of the Civil Service pension schemes were in the nuvos scheme. Employee contributions to the nuvos scheme are 3.5% of pensionable pay. The equivalent employee contribution for members of the classic Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS) is 1.5% cent...

The employer contributions are as shown in the ASLC element of the table below...The actuaries determine the level of contributions that employers should make to meet the cost of providing the pensions. These are called accruing superannuation liability charges."(ASLC)

Civil Service Employer Rates

Salary band from 1 April 2010 - ASLC%
Up to £21,000 16.7%
£21,001 to £43,000 18.8%
£43,001 to £74,000 21.8%
£74,001 and over 24.3%
Prison officers with reserved rights 25.8%.

So we (the employer) pay up to 25% of civil servants' salary to cover their pension liabilities. They pay 1.5%.

Snooty and Wooster are bringing in all and sundry - from disgraced liberals to out of work psuedo-socialists.

Purpose?

Create as much smoke screen and potential for blame shifting as possible - ready for when the economy starts to dip.

#53

Current tax-free allowance = £6k (higher for pensionsers)
Add £9-10k to that figure to allow for 2015 personal allowance plans and you get an additional £4000 pa for those paying higher-rate tax (since their earnings will now drop out of tax)

So if those same people no longer get the State pension (£5k) they are going to be, at most, £2k worse off.

Given that they have no mortgage they're hardly going to be destitute by losing their State pension (+ all other pensioner-based benefits from winter fuel to 25p/week for being over 80).
The 'poor' atm are families with just under average incomes (say £25k together) and big mortgages - once interest rates rise.

I never suggested standard-rate taxpayers should lose their State pension - though I think it should be tax-free, regardless of income (except for the 'end at higher-rate tax' point) so that it's worth saving for your own old age.

I'm not trying to be firm on exact figures, but firm on the principles:
Higher-rate taxpaying OAPs are NOT in need of the State pension
By stopping ALL their benefits, you could pay more for those worse off
By tapering the pension off for those with a pension/income as well as the State one (above some upper limit - say £22k of taxable income, since it's half the higher-rate point) you'd also free more cash for those with nowt.

Ditto the pension age raising - anyone who thinks it won't be going up to 70/75 soon is living in cloud-cuckoo land, as that is an absolute certainty, (currentb pamns are for 68) and it will happen a lot quicker than many seem to think - I'd say 75 by 2025 is quite likely.

We need to raise taxes or cut spending by £200 billion a year and harsh, even brutal, decisions are the only way to save that sort of cash to enable the Nat Debt to be repaid in some sensible time-span (ie before the next big shock).

I genuinely believe it would be better to get £15k for 5 years as pension/earnings lower limit than to have £5k for 25 years or so.

As for another poster who moaned about the 'decades' of social care elderly people now need:
a) It's 5 years or so - 'decades' is utter rubbish
b) Why should the State pay AT ALL - why not their children stop working full-time and care for them in the family home (as usually happened until 20/30 years ago) OR use your home/buy an annuity to pay for teh cost.

Why the State (ie other taxpayers?). Why, why why - YOu look after yourself - THAT's why you have children - to care for you in your old age!

@45
In the last 20 years, the value of annuities purchased with any given self funded "pension pot












































@45
In the past 20 years the value of annuities purchased with a self -funded "pension pot"decreased by nearly 50 percent although contributions keep rising.
To those of us forced to play this Ponzi Game ,this represents Poor Value, though obviously you see things in a different light.

To all the torie supporters on these pages.

If over the next year or two, this country, like in the 1980s ends up devasted by torie cuts,and hurting the most vulnerable people in the country, who certainly weren't responsible for the economic situation we find ourselves in, (do you remember what the banks did) you tory supporters will be the ones responsible for this.

And as the tories were against the bank bailouts in the first place, why don't they simply get the money back off the banks, the hypocrites! then there wouldn't be any deficit to be whinging about.

As for john Hutton and frank Field, they are amongst the most nasty, right wing supine slimey worms in politics in this country, so they'll fit in well with the con-dem party,so good ridance to those lowlife traitors.

MP's are in the public sector. Before they start ripping into the pensions of others they can begin by reforming their own pension pots! Then they will have the credibility to look at others!

Whenever Pensions are mentioned there is immediate confusion between private funded and Public Service unfunded, then there is confusion involving the rates of contribution both by employers and employees. There are rants that Public Sector pensions must be cut, based not on fact but on myths.

One inescapable factor of Funded Pensions is that the contribution level needs to amount to around 20% of the income of the contributor to give even a basic standard of living. The amount depends on the length of the working life, the efficiency of any pension pot set aside, and the fine print.
For a non funded pension there is a ratio between the number of current contributors and the number of pensioners, hence the concern with longevity.

There is need for a non-political review of the whole pension system, to ensure that enough is 'invested' to ensure that they are affordable. A big problem for so many years has been that most people have paid insufficient amounts for the returns they expect, or have been promised. Already many Public Sector schemes have been changed for new members, as have private schemes, but until people accept that their contributions must rise dramatically the problem will persist.
Some pensions in the Public sector were part of the overall renumeration for the job, part of the overall employment contract. AN example is the Police Pension, which was specifically set by the last full enquiry into Pay and Conditions. Contrary to 'myth' the pension is not paid on early retirement but after a set period of years contributing, the original time of 30 years was based on the life expectancy of the time, it may well be that it is time to change the conditions, but the change should be reasoned not based on myth.
The same consideration applies to all other pension schemes. It could be that a properly conducted review by someone like John Hutton will reset pensions on course.

So your pension policy is then by your own omission for the top 50% percentile who have the diet, wages and lifestyle that means they live long enough to make extensive use of their pensions and the devil take the hindmost ?

You seeem to forget that from the point of view of the punter the state pension system is a savings plan. I know in fact that political parties of *all* colours have debased that notion but that is still how my parents and grandparents see/saw it.

What have you to say to the minority of the population who for whatever reason are required to spend a lifetime of paying in with no realistic proposition of ever receiving a penny ?

1. At 2:15pm on 20 Jun 2010, happydadtoo wrote:
This is a superb example of the Coalition spreading over most of the political spectrum and leaving the Socialists with nowhere to go.

A sharp rise in contributions (in Eire it was an extra 7.5%) in contributions to Public Sector pensions is long overdue - I pay 6% like nearly all white-collar State sector employees and a rise to 10% is clearly needed.


I paid eleven percent of pay for my public sector pension, so by your standards you will be happy to take a pension cut! How many of the people in the private sector complaining about public sector pensions pay eleven percent for their pensions? It is not something for nothing!


Will John Hutton lead by example, will he forego his very lucrative parliamentary pension, which by public sector standards is not only gold plated, it cost hime very little in contributions! After all he got to vote on the cost to him for his pension, not forgetting what he would get! Oh and of course will he get a nice payment for his contribution to the committee to cheapen pension values.

Perhaps some one could enlighten us on the projected costs of the public sector pensions ten and twenty years hence, as most public sector schemes have been drastically changed making the older closed schemes more expensive in the short to medium term til they die out. As we have all seen over the years statistics can be made to say anything you want, politicians of all parties have used statistics to their own ends.

This is yet more good news for the new Conservative Government and proves the point that I have been saying to all my Lefty "friends" ever since the Election result on May 6th - "We are ALL Tories now!"

What a delicious summmer this is proving to be. The sun is shining nicely over England now.

"Now, Central Glasgow has had a Labour Council since the dawn of time - so why do those who a the recipients of unlimited Socialist largess from cradle to grave live such a short time?

I suggest it's because of the choices those people make.
Their choice. Their life."

I suggest that great swathes of our population only get to choose from a limited/different menu.

Wonderful idea and excellently expanded by 'Happydadto' - I am an 81 yrs old with 3 pensions all taxed 20% at source and transfered to my bank a/c in Germany where they are now worth 25% less than they were 5 years ago. But I could stand the pain of a little less if it helped my grand and great grand children.

1. At 2:15pm on 20 Jun 2010, happydadtoo wrote:

It has the effect of being a bigger imposition on those on the highest incomes, so it can be claimed to be 'fair' - though what that's got to do with anything, I've never understood, in a political sense.

A level tax rate for all is 'fair'; having higher rates for those on higher incomes is anything BUT!

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

I think you are forgetting a lot of other factors. Basic essential living costs and the proportion they take out of (the smallest of) earnings. Regressive taxation. The opportunity to accumulate wealth and create more income.

A flat rate of tax is fair when applied to a flat rate of earnings. Everyone paid the same and contributing the same by way of tax.

Do you really want THAT?

I cant figure out our political system we have a party with no overall majority get into bed with the party that came last out of the three and then they add a few malcontents from the past and give the pot a big stir and what do we have ..a sort of tory party who are preparing to go down their own ideological route and then will pass the blame to the silly people who joined them in this farce..shame on you Field and Hutton ..desperate for power are we ???

Thatcher reacted to the trade unions bringing down Ted Heath, Blair & co gave their reply by adopting a spend, spend, spend policy, import loads of Labour voters, and give more power to the EU, is this anyway to run a country?
As one Tory Politician has said about bringing in talent from other partys "no political party has a monopoly on genius" John Prescott is living proof of that.

When all the Tory boys out there where complaining about the bbc being biased towards the labour party (the blair broadcasting corporation)they would call it.

These web pages clearly prove that was total BS, as you'd think, by reading these pages, you'd stumbled on some extreme right wing blog for the Con-Dem party...I mean the tory party.

And a big up for John Prescott...keep sticking it and peeing off all the toffs and tory boys out there!

LOADS OF MONEY!!!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

It's funny mr moderator

I found most of the comments on these web pages offensive,but they haven't been removed, and to think i was defending the BBC an hour ago.

I new the bbc were PC but that's unbelievable.

These are interesting times. And pose a big question.

Why are there moves to get Frank Field, John Hutton and others on board and be seen to be helping the coalition? Only the next couple of years will tell.

The move is obviously meant to make it appear AT THE PRESENT TIME that Cameron is listening to everyone and trying to achieve a consensus But what will happen in a couple of years time, when perhaps the future seems clearer (even if things are still not good)? Will Cameron listen to his party and perhaps scape a victory at the next election? Or will he virtually redraw British poltics by getting away from the 'bosses vs workers', 'rich vs poor' mentality which often either stifled or over promoted social progress and gave us unsatisfactory governments for large parts of the last century.

Labour are doomed.
At the next election, their only policy - 'tax and spend' - has been shown to be the cause of all our current mess.
It's been their only policy since at least 1962, and they only got elected in 1997 by claiming they would follow the Conservative's spending plans - which they DID - until 2000, when winning the 2001 election became the name of the game and the spending taps were opened full - and taxation never caught up - we simply borrowed ourselves into debt for 30-40 years.

Secondly, the Coalition will field a SINGLE candidate in many seats where Labour have a sitting MP, leading to a straight 2-way electoral choice, rather than a 3 (or4) way split.

That will hoover up around 100-150 Labour seats, leading to a 2015 Parliament with 50-80 seats only.

Get used to the new electoral arithmetic, lefties; you had your chance under McDoom - and blew it - big-time!

Our great-grandchildren will still be paying for Brown's boasting (unless Osborne can get things turned around by £200 billion a year - in which case, we might just be back in a sensible financial position in around 15 years' time.

One of the problems of the word 'talent', especially in overuse, is how vague and/or downright misleading it can be.

As evidenced by ex-GOAT John Prescott in the link kindly provided.

He certainly had/has 'talent', as did most of Divine Wind Gordon's other sycophantic supporters, but sadly none that applied/ies beyond their own selfish interests.

One wonders why he still seems to be given airspace, as he is a significant waste of it.

At the risk of sounding hopelessly out of date, the state pension is presented to the taxpayer as a contributory scheme - it justifies the National Insurance deductions which are made from our paychecks. So I would tend to the view that any move to withdraw the state pension from say higher rate taxpayers would be the last step in destroying the fiction that NI is any kind of insurance scheme, and should therefore have its name changed. My suggestion: "IcantBelieveItsNotIncomeTax".

74. At 07:10am on 21 Jun 2010, Boilerbill wrote:
These are interesting times. And pose a big question.

Why are there moves to get Frank Field, John Hutton and others on board and be seen to be helping the coalition? Only the next couple of years will tell.

The move is obviously meant to make it appear AT THE PRESENT TIME that Cameron is listening to everyone and trying to achieve a consensus But what will happen in a couple of years time, when perhaps the future seems clearer (even if things are still not good)? Will Cameron listen to his party and perhaps scape a victory at the next election? Or will he virtually redraw British poltics by getting away from the 'bosses vs workers', 'rich vs poor' mentality which often either stifled or over promoted social progress and gave us unsatisfactory governments for large parts of the last century.

In my view, the moves are completely genuine, and Cameron and Osborne are totally serious about tackling ALL necessary issues seriously, head-on, and urgently

Politics in the UK ARE being redrawn, and Prescott's comments are what you would expect from someone who spent their entire political 'career' attacking those in the HOL only to accept a peerage

How he can attack anyone else, from a position of such weakness is beyond me

Labour need to catch-up quickly, or they will be caught up in their own leadership campaign, rather than dealing in what is going on in reality

The Budget will once more catch them out, and they will be chasing shadows if they are not careful

It will be hard for them to adjust to not being the Government, and they still look stunned to me, the comments and manner of those comments from Darling, being a good example to me.

Dignified as chancellor, Darling seems more and more like a man who is losing his composure very time I see him

These are interesting times, and considering your views on the Conservative Party, you raise the issue in a very sound way indeed

From my perspective, as a Conservative voter, I hope that the Labour Party elect Diane Abbot/Ed Balls, and keep up the shadowplay

60. At 9:10pm on 20 Jun 2010, davybaby wrote:
To all the torie supporters on these pages.

If over the next year or two, this country, like in the 1980s ends up devasted by torie cuts,and hurting the most vulnerable people in the country, who certainly weren't responsible for the economic situation we find ourselves in, (do you remember what the banks did) you tory supporters will be the ones responsible for this.

And as the tories were against the bank bailouts in the first place, why don't they simply get the money back off the banks, the hypocrites! then there wouldn't be any deficit to be whinging about.

As for john Hutton and frank Field, they are amongst the most nasty, right wing supine slimey worms in politics in this country, so they'll fit in well with the con-dem party,so good ridance to those lowlife traitors.


What a great example, of the reason that we have a deficit of the level we do

Your anger and frustration would be better directed at those that caused this mess (ie the people you support) rather than those who have to sort it out

I expect that following the budget, you will be congratulating George Osborne for an outstanding budget

Not sure Frank Field has ever been called right wing before?

61. At 9:21pm on 20 Jun 2010, Nuno wrote:
MP's are in the public sector. Before they start ripping into the pensions of others they can begin by reforming their own pension pots! Then they will have the credibility to look at others!

It is beyond ALL doubt that the MPs will need to lead by example in this area

57. At 9:03pm on 20 Jun 2010, jon112uk wrote:
Snooty and Wooster are bringing in all and sundry - from disgraced liberals to out of work psuedo-socialists.

Purpose?

Create as much smoke screen and potential for blame shifting as possible - ready for when the economy starts to dip.

The alternative may scare you....Try thinking that they are actually serious about solving the issues, and are utilising ALL resources available to them to do so

Get beyond the tribalism you seem currently entrenched in....it IS a scary thought for Labour supporters, and I say that in all seriousness

What happens IF they don't mess this up, and are right?

Politically it will put Labour in a very, very difficult place

Please think this point through, as it is entirely valid as an alternative to the current protestations from some Labour supporters, who are still finding not being in Government very, very hard to deal with, almost two months after the election

At some point, you will have to realise that the coalition will NOT fall apart as you may have thought that they would

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

74#

Well said BB. Interesting times, interesting questions.

59

Looker wrote


@45
In the past 20 years the value of annuities purchased with a self -funded "pension pot"decreased by nearly 50 percent although contributions keep rising.
To those of us forced to play this Ponzi Game ,this represents Poor Value, though obviously you see things in a different light.

I am unable to comprehend your point...

Annuities are most certainly NOT a Ponzi scheme though

71. At 01:30am on 21 Jun 2010, davybaby wrote:
When all the Tory boys out there where complaining about the bbc being biased towards the labour party (the blair broadcasting corporation)they would call it.

These web pages clearly prove that was total BS, as you'd think, by reading these pages, you'd stumbled on some extreme right wing blog for the Con-Dem party...I mean the tory party.

And a big up for John Prescott...keep sticking it and peeing off all the toffs and tory boys out there!

LOADS OF MONEY!!!

IF you rely on John Prescott as being your hero, then you must be in a pretty poor position

Calling someone a collaborator is a low blow, even from someone who prefers attacking the privileged, despite living in grace and favour properties, and now accepting a peerage

Frank Field is anything but, and it is to the discredit of the 13 years of the previous Labour Government, that they did not in any way try to deal with any of the big issues, preferring to waste hours of time on Fox Hunting

Shameful

Morning Mr Robinson and fellow Brits Well it looks like Last night board was full of want to be celebrity chefs
or come dine with me?
Why would the coalition want to engage a labor man when they got the sums wrong last time?
Continuation from previous blog.

Continuation of why we should put the great back into great Britain.
When a gentleman gave up his seat to a lady if she was pregnant or not. on public transport
when police officers plodded the street in pairs .
when bad language was not used in front of females ,
when you went into your doctors surgery and the doctor spoke perfect English and not with a German accent.
when ambulance workers were treated with respect.
when fire crews were given a well earned cup of tea after putting out your fire, and not repeat not spat on and had their windscreen smashed.
when drunken lat-abouts we not tolerated.. When young teen age girls were not actively engaging in foul mouthing a police officer.
when the same teen agers had a daddy waiting for them to come home after a reasonable hour.
When the family had a sing song around a piano in the house as a form of entertainment..
When the same louts were not seen to be urinating in the same street.
When teenagers were sent up to bed to get a good nights rest to enable them to concentrate at school the following morning instead of two much tele or games.
when a meal was prepared for then by a mummy who could get out of bed in the morning and not stayed in bed supping on her wine bottle.from the night before.
When it was possible to go down the beach for a swim and not be sitting in sewage or other latex rubber ware St's etc..When the family group could collect cockles and other mollusk knowing they were perfectly fit to eat
When the boy scout could see the little old lady across the street.
When you could be sure your waist was collected once a week.
when councils didn't spy on your dustbin.
When cars were not parked on the pavements.
when hospital car parks allowed you to visit your dieing relative without incurring a Levi or fine.
when all the shops were filled with customers and not covered over with ply boarding.
When the streets were clean.
when the wards had matrons.
when you came out of hospital cured and not given a virus that kills you.
when you respected your elders.
When you could watch a foot ball match with out paying sky.
when the same foot ball had real men in their sides and were not over payed prima Donner's

63. At 10:12pm on 20 Jun 2010, SotonBlogger wrote:

So your pension policy is then by your own omission for the top 50% percentile who have the diet, wages and lifestyle that means they live long enough to make extensive use of their pensions and the devil take the hindmost ?

You seeem to forget that from the point of view of the punter the state pension system is a savings plan. I know in fact that political parties of *all* colours have debased that notion but that is still how my parents and grandparents see/saw it.

What have you to say to the minority of the population who for whatever reason are required to spend a lifetime of paying in with no realistic proposition of ever receiving a penny ?

NO idea if this refers to my comment or not, as you do not say

However, if it does, it is rather unfounded, as most of the people I referred to, who die at 54, pay nothing in, and in fact spend a lifetime taking out, so even if that life ends prematurely at 54, they actually do rather well financially, as they pay nothing in, and get money out

As far as the basic state pension is concerned, they would be allocated credits

So again, HAD they lived to 65, would benefit, despite paying nothing in

I am aware that you are very left wing, and good luck to you

On this issue, the points you make are simply incorrect, though, on all counts

86

Much of that is true

#88 Morning kevinb
99.5% is correct i could go on and on and on.
But i suppose their will be others saying I'm standing in the way of progress.
glad in away ia'm on my way out and not on my way in.
My life hasn't been a bed of roses but i don't envy the future.

AndyC555 wrote:
The left's social plans and policies are just a list of excuses.

here's why you can't get on
here's why you can't get a job
here's why you didn't pass all your exams
here's why your life isn't great.

None of it is your fault.

>>

Morning Andy. Can you provide any evidence to support this rather wild assertion? It doesn't square with any Labour policies or proposals that I can remember. Or is it just lame Tory propaganda that should be ignored?

There is always hope

This is why the politics are currently so interesting, and also why we need this coalition to succeed

Scorpio @ 86

Remind me, what year was that?

I agree with a couple your points. Some are, I think, factually wrong. (I believe our sea and beaches are cleaner now that they were 30 or 40 years ago.) Others I don't quite follow. For example, why does your doctor's accent matter, provided he or she is well qualified and competent?

The reason I asked about the year is that it would be interesting to compile the reverse list for the same era - things which were bad then and better now. You could be harking back to a golden ear in which infant mortality was much higher, childhood diseases were still rife, homosexuals were imprisoned or lived in fear of it, battered women had nowhere to turn, abused children were always silenced by the abusers ... But as you say, at least people didn't swear in front of women!

86 Scorpio33

The worrying thing is it is not that long ago that things were like that. How can so much go wrong in such a short time ?

On the pensions issue , does anyone know how much the govt has saved with the rolling programme of increasing the female SRP payment age from 60 to 65 ? This of course was in response to an equality ruling on a claim for parity by the men!

92

I don't think we have made much progress with battered women or abused children.....sadly

Both are never going to be fully eradicated as they reflect the flaw in human character (collective flaw)

More children are murdered by their parents than any stranger, as you possibly know yourself

I nearly posted a point on this theme yesterday, and didn't, although following your post, I am going to

Over time, obviously some things alter

Whether you feel as an individual that this improves or worsens the overall picture, is really going to depend on your own perspective, and how these things impact upon you or your family, meaning that the same situation changing can be viewed as a positive or a negative even though the change itself is neutral

I don't think it is possible to have an absolute truth as to whether things are better or worse as a fact, other than areas which are independently measurable, such as infant mortality, which is better, as you say, without a doubt

However, it could be argued that obesity is worse, diet is worse, exercise is worse

Scorpio said he is glad he is on the way out, and not the way in

This, in my view, is extremely relevant

Feeling that the world has altered, and that it has altered for the worse, is entirely reasonable to me as a natural coping mechanism for the ageing process, and helps people to cope with their own mortality

I would be more interested in hearing about areas YOU feel have got worse, rather than the opposite, which make you sound shrill, when in all honesty I don't think that you are shrill in general

Although there are areas where we will possibly never agree

#93 xTunbridge.

I'm not sure of teh sums, but the TAXPAYER has saved a substantial sum - the Govt owns and pays nothing!

{OK, a pedant point, but I wish much greater use was made of the term 'taxpayer' by commentators, rather than 'the Govt has spent £xx billion on....'}
I have heard a few US broadcasts on their spending plans and the commentators in the news clips invariably use 'taxpayer' rather than 'Govt.'

Politicians always use New Speak ('investment' instead of 'squandering' was my pet Brown hate) but I expect better from my broadcasters - and better yet, from the BBC!
Incidentally - why, when McDoom puffed himself up and claimed the same money as 'investment' (ie wages) for the third or fourth time did no commentator ask what the rate of return was on that 'investment' and how it differed, in accounting terms, from projections for 'current expenditure' and how wage costs can possibly count as 'investment' and over what period was the investment amortised?

I expect the BBC to show no political bias - and that includes not swallowing ******** from a Socialist PM.

71. At 01:30am on 21 Jun 2010, davybaby wrote:
When all the Tory boys out there where complaining about the bbc being biased towards the labour party (the blair broadcasting corporation)they would call it.
These web pages clearly prove that was total BS, as you'd think, by reading these pages, you'd stumbled on some extreme right wing blog for the Con-Dem party...I mean the tory party.
And a big up for John Prescott...keep sticking it and peeing off all the toffs and tory boys out there!
LOADS OF MONEY!!!

davyb,

You don't have to be a toff to be a Tory voter, nor a horny-handed labourer to be a Labour voter.
Plenty of well-heeled folk in the previous "New Labour" administration who had little experience of getting dirty fingernails in any job pre-politics...

And it's maybe time to redefine what a "Toff" means, nowadays...
Will John Prescott become a Toff when he's elevated to the rank of Lord Prescott of Tudor Beams?
Will he try and make a "statement" by turning up for his inaguration wearing a donkey jacket and jeans? No way his Missus would allow that!
And I don't think he'd appreciate it if you want him to "pee off" Lord Sainsbury, Lord (SrAlan) Sugar, Sean Woodward, the Milibands and many others who support Labour while being financially protected from the belt-tightening impacts to come.

I heard Prescott, a couple of weeks ago, saying he was opposed to an elected second chamber (The Lords) and felt that a fully appointed membership was the way forward. And he'd made the point in Cabinet.

I've met plenty of folk with well-proven ancestries (no longer than yours or mine - just better documented!) and Sloane accents who have savagely socialist ideas far to the "Left" of anyone standing for the Labour leadership.
And plenty of others with proud histories of families in "labouring" jobs who think that Maggie T pulled her political punches too much.

Time to move on from the "Toffs" vs "Workers" garbage.
It just makes no sense in the 21st century to be trying to keep the old political "Tribal Memories" alive.

4 - if you're going to quote a dictionary or reference it pays to get your spelling right. Don't knock John Prescott - life would be dull without his mistakes.
The high income group (rich) will always be with us.
The low income group will always be needy and must have support.
The middle income group are divided into the spenders (the poor) and the careful (rich as they don't go on holiday, keep their cars for over two years etc.) The former group should only receive the same benefits as the latter.
To suggest you should not be able to pass wealth to your children would destroy incentive for middle income group and will be bad for the economy. The high income group will always manage to do so.

Another day another former newlabour minsiter won over to the coalition cause.

Now let's sit back and watch what remains of newlabour back themselves into a corner by opposing every cut, every efficiency saving, every axed quango and above all from the people who helped to ruin the private sector pensions industry; let's hear how they aim to oppose raising public sector pension contributions.

Years and years of farcically low public sector pension contributions, this is an issue that has been dealt with with some gusto across Europe; there is no place for an unfunded pension scheme for the public sector in the UK.

The left wing press and posters can rant about the loss of free swimming for the elderly till the cows come home but an argument for even more fiscal incontinence is an argument to bankrupt us.

The gutless, profligate, nannying ways of newlabour are beginning to feel like a bad dream. Except everyday we awake to the consequences of that period. Every day we spend £150bn more than we take in taxes is a day the deficit goes up and the national debt goes up.

Still the newlabour apologists pedal the same old line; we built more hospitals.

Given the hysteria about the number of hospitals built in the last thirteen years from the newlabour apologists anyone would think people spent half their lives in them. They behave as if hospitals were some kind of drop in centre rather than there to serve us in case of an emergency. The bile spewed out on anyone who dares to question this legacy tells us just how over important these institutions have become. Like anything that is told it is doing a fantastic job by politicians of every colour or creed; the NHS has started to believe all the publicity and so is failing to deliver efficiency savings itself.

There is absolutely not the slightest difference in the result achieved by Gordon Brown turning up at the Mansion House every year to sing the praises of his deregulated City, and newlabour apologists constantly preaching about our fabulous public sector services. The result will be exactly the same; waste and inefficiency on a gargantuan scale and they start to believe they are runnning the show.

The umbilical cord needs to be cut and the great reforming age should begin. Public sector pensions; incapacity benefits; the NHS; education; immigration; debt reduction - there must be no sacred cows.

It's a great time to be a tory.

Seems to me that the political 'tribalists', as personified by Prescott, simply cannot get their heads around this.

Tony Blair promised and failed to deliver a big tent/broad church, due to the tribalists in his Party and the country suffered for it.

England is in a poor position* just now and cannot afford the luxury of tribal politics anymore.

The world is very competitive and intra-country politicians must learn to co-operate and pool their talents, as per Huttons case.

* Not just in football but it would help greatly if English football fans started to sing an English anthem and NOT the British national anthem, which is a miserable dirge.

Kevinb @ 94 wrote:

"I don't think we have made much progress with battered women or abused children.....sadly

Both are never going to be fully eradicated as they reflect the flaw in human character (collective flaw)"

>>

I don't agree with the first sentence. Of course we still have battered women and abused children but we are more open about acknowledging the problem, so the victims have an escape route - or a chance of belated justice at least. In that sense, we've taken a step in the right direction. There's much further to go. The fact that both crimes reflect a flaw in the human character does not mean progress cannot be made in combating them.

>>

"More children are murdered by their parents than any stranger, as you possibly know yourself"

>>

I did know this, yes, but find your choice of phrasing a bit alarming.

>>

"I don't think it is possible to have an absolute truth as to whether things are better or worse as a fact, other than areas which are independently measurable, such as infant mortality, which is better, as you say, without a doubt

However, it could be argued that obesity is worse, diet is worse, exercise is worse"

>>

Diet is a moot point - depends on how far you go back. But it has probably worsened in my lifetime, and obesity and exercise for sure.

I think there are a greater number of measurable improvements than your comments imply, particularly when it comes to health care. For example, cancer survival rates are improving all the time, screening programs have been very successful (especially for breast cancer) and technological advances like pace-makers, bypass operations and transplants have saved many lives. Premature babies have a far better chance of survival than they did even a couple of decades ago. Is this shrill? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Is anything that's positive shrill?

>>

"I would be more interested in hearing about areas YOU feel have got worse, rather than the opposite, which make you sound shrill"

>>

Why? Why is it more interesting to hear how things have got worse?

Anyway, to oblige ... I find yobbish behaviour depressing, and the increase in casual violence, especially towards ambulance crews, firefighters, hospital staff and the like. We have too many cars, which causes problems beyond congestion - increased stress and worse air quality being two obvious ones. I think it's a shame that so many children are brought up by single parents, because both parents are important to children's development.

But most of all, I really hate the way everyone's intonation now goes up at the end of a sentence even when it isn't a question.

Your description of nostalgia as a coping mechanism to deal with the ageing process is very interesting. In fact, one of the most interesting comments I've read on this blog for a long time!