Why did the amendment have to mention Grenfell and recent terror attacks. This vote was all about Labour trying to get one up on Tory's and the Tory's not letting Labour get one up on them. Lose Lose for the country and politics in general.
The Tory's downfall (on this subject, there are many others to come no doubt) will be when the independent report comes out with it's recommendations. My understanding is despite the pay freeze the report will recommend a level regardless. If the Tory's don't take heed of that then they are even bigger fools than I think right now.
As i've said previously, 'public sector' is all well and good, but that makes up around 17% of the working population of this country. If any party was really for making the lives of those less fortunate/lower paid (or however you wish to describe it) better then they'd be looking at doing something for all of them, not try to score political points or carry favour with the public.
I've no doubt a lot of the public sector deserve to earn more, but so do many, probably more (due to the 83/17% split), in the private sector, what about them? 'For the many not the few' yer right.
I've never been so engaged in politics but also never been so saddened as to what a complete joke they all are. The quicker we get rid of both May & Corbyn the better.
Chop chop @bobmunro with @cobbles running your campaign you've my vote, i'll even register in your constituency so that I can vote for you even if I have to buy a flat there (we can rent it to @cabbles sorry cobbles, to run the campaign from).
Of course including reference to our emergency services in the amendment was political point scoring and it served its purpose. There was zero chance of the amendment going through, everyone knew that. It was to drive home the point that these are the sorts of public sector workers who have been subject to the ideologically driven cuts to pay and conditions.
Most of the public, frankly, don't give a monkey's if a social worker or a EHO or a planning inspector or a teacher or a carer or a refuse collector effectively take a pay cut year after year for 15 years (because that's what we are talking about after all). And that's because we in the UK utterly undervalue our public services on the whole and if we don't use them then we're not bothered if they get treated poorly by our government.
But when you start pointing out that this deliberate attack on public sector pay also impacts on nurses, ambulance staff, firefighters and the police then the message starts to get through. Look at the police officer interviewed yesterday. He'll quite rightly get all the plaudits and awards he deserves but the amazing bravery and selflessness he and his colleagues demonstrated isn't valued enough by this shower of a government to give them a decent pay award
The public are starting to see that at long last and I think that's what we are seeing in the latest social attitudes survey that came out.
As pointed out, Labour presented other measures to address the stagnent pay within the private sector but it shouldn't be a case of either/or anyway.
Bournemouth, do you work in the public sector by any chance?
I'm getting a bit fed up being told by others earning 6 figure salaries at how the tax situation is somehow compensating for the lack of anything approaching an adequate pay award.
You would rather then have had an 'adequate pay award' but be worse off than you are?
Is lowering taxes for the lower earners not compensating then (both public & private employee's)? is it not another way of increasing the money in peoples pockets?
It may we'll be the case that overall the pay rises together with the lower taxation hasn't gone far enough but you can't only look at one IMHO as suits. The public sector effects less than 1 in 5, let's help everyone public & private accordingly and not fall for the political games as to what sounds fashionable.
There is a reason governments at times like these lower taxes at the lower end (either rate or personal allowance) as it helps all of the lower paid workers, not just one particular section of society such as the public sector that they can control the salaries of.
On the flip side they will increase taxation on the higher earners to filter the money down to fill back in the gap created by lessening the tax burden of the lower earners, which the Government have continued to do since 2010.
But although it may not be headline grabbing like 'end austerity' 'living wage' and 'Pay freeze' it's equally if not more of an efficient way to achieve the same goal.
There you go with your trickle down economics again.
I note your own staff had a rise of 2% this year.
I presume you've shared your thoughts with them on how lucky they were to get to keep a little bit more before paying tax plus a rise twice that of nurses, doctors, firefighters, our armed forces, social workers, teachers, a council carer looking after a double incontinent octogenarian or even PC Wayne Marques and his colleagues?
You did right, because otherwise that might suggest you think that it was less than it could be and might be a bit demotivating for the team and dare I suggest they might even consider you were taking the pee.
I'm going to swerve this thread tonight I think. My missus has just walked in and is currently in tears again for the second time this week. She's covering two jobs at the moment and has so far this week taken over 200 calls from social services/NHS clients with complex mental health issues and learning difficulties, and their families, seeking help from her team. That's not to say people in other jobs don't work hard or get stressed or are subject to abuse and expected to put up with it. They do. It's just I don't think you have the first fecking clue what's going on in our public services.
I was given a 1.2% pay rise pot for myself and my staff and that was a real battle and was one of the few departments to get anything, unlike the public sector they hadn't had a pay rise since I believe 2013 actually (to be fair one joined in late 2014 and I joined in September 2016). It is for me to decide how that is divided (although my boss might have had words had I kept it for myself!), i'll let you work out how they all got 2%, yes they were grateful both for the rise and still having a job (we've made hundreds redundant in recent times you see so everyone's doing twice the work for pretty much the same pay, sound familiar?).
No I clearly don't have the first fecking clue about the public sector as i'm just about the only person in my family who works in the private sector rather than public, of course i'm not married to anyone in the public sector, clearly don't have many friends who are policeman, teachers (had 20+ teachers at mine for a BBQ last week) and nurses (I am missing a fireman to be fair) and of course i've never done any work in the public sector, nor been co-opted onto a council board etc ......
Don't know who I despise more, Theresa May and her band of looney Brexiteers or Jeremy Corbyn and his looney Momentum backers.
The overwhelming majority of Labour voters and Labour MPs are opposed to Brexit. There is no spin that Corbyn and Macdonald and the rest of the deluded 1980's student activists currently running the Labour Party can make that will change that fact.
Brexit, Corbyn and the DUP! It is like the UK has been diagnosed with 3 separate terminal cancers over the last 12 months! I am absolutely despondent about our future.
So you suggest Labour oppose Brexit now and make themselves truly unelectable to half of the voting electorate? Remember, as much as us "Remainers" might not like Brexit, 52% did vote to leave.
What evidence is there that there has been a shift in public opinion that would justify this position on Brexit? There isn't one. Like I say, wait for public opinion to change, then you can push for it without worrying about creating disillusion among half of eligible voters.
You make it sound as though the Labour party are being held back by a minority and in this case, they are: by Chuka Umunna and co. who propose this amendment.
Absolutely ridiculous for any Labour politician to be voting against the whip at this stage.
Let Brexit negotiations play out, let the tide turn and then push for it. The Tories are a mess, don't give the impression that you are as well.
Could it be remotely possible that a number of MP's in the party don't really support Corbyn or his ideas? Wasn't it exactly a year to the day that 172 MP's gave a vote of no confidence in him? (believe it was 40 who voted for him?).
Otherwise i've absolutely no idea why any Labour politician would be voting against anything right now........
Absolutely ridiculous for any Labour politician to be voting against the whip at this stage.
Let Brexit negotiations play out, let the tide turn and then push for it. The Tories are a mess, don't give the impression that you are as well.
Could it be remotely possible that a number of MP's in the party don't really support Corbyn or his ideas? Wasn't it exactly a year to the day that 172 MP's gave a vote of no confidence in him? (believe it was 40 who voted for him?).
Otherwise i've absolutely no idea why any Labour politician would be voting against anything right now........
They've been having this ridiculous infighting for two years. Twice, Corbyn was voted for by the members to lead the party.
I don't understand what Umunna and co. stand to gain by continuing to defy him. The only result is an easy ride for the Tories.
Absolutely ridiculous for any Labour politician to be voting against the whip at this stage.
Let Brexit negotiations play out, let the tide turn and then push for it. The Tories are a mess, don't give the impression that you are as well.
Could it be remotely possible that a number of MP's in the party don't really support Corbyn or his ideas? Wasn't it exactly a year to the day that 172 MP's gave a vote of no confidence in him? (believe it was 40 who voted for him?).
Otherwise i've absolutely no idea why any Labour politician would be voting against anything right now........
They've been having this ridiculous infighting for two years. Twice, Corbyn was voted for by the members to lead the party.
I don't understand what Umunna and co. stand to gain by continuing to defy him. The only result is an easy ride for the Tories.
Maybe rather than simply tow a party line they are standing up for what they believe and/or what their constituents who they represent want. If more politicians were of their ilk the system and outcomes would be considerably better. It shouldn't be about whats in it for the party, they work for and represent the electorate for gods sake.
That isn't a particular dig at Labour, all parties do it, but in this instance it is the cause of the issue that clearly large amounts of Labour MP's don't really support Corbyn, he's slowly running out of people to put on the bench. Thats not good for the labour party nor politics in general and why i don't think he'll last more than a few years as leader.
Surely i'm not the only one who looks at the opposition bench, looks at the government bench and thinks..... jeez, one group run our country and the others are supposed to hold them to account.........
I believe the same as they do, that the single market is important and I'd much rather we stayed within it.
I'm not sure why you think I'm arguing about "whats in it for the party". I'm more concerned about what's in it for the country because if Labour aren't in power, they can't do anything about the wanton degradation of our public services but I'm sure you know how I feel about the nasty party. :-)
Labour MPs can continue to oppose Brexit and continue to be unelectable. That's their choice. Lib Dems stood on an anti-Brexit platform and barely made an impact at the General Election. Opposing Brexit is, unfortunately, electoral suicide in 2017. That doesn't mean it might not be next year or in 2019, when it would've been more sensible to have this debate within the party.
You wouldn't have the problem with looking at both benches and thinking that way if MPs were responsible and didn't put forward amendments they knew wouldn't pass, yet serve to sow division within their own party.
I believe the same as they do, that the single market is important and I'd much rather we stayed within it.
I'm not sure why you think I'm arguing about "whats in it for the party". I'm more concerned about what's in it for the country because if Labour aren't in power, they can't do anything about the wanton degradation of our public services but I'm sure you know how I feel about the nasty party. :-)
Labour MPs can continue to oppose Brexit and continue to be unelectable. That's their choice. Lib Dems stood on an anti-Brexit platform and barely made an impact at the General Election. Opposing Brexit is, unfortunately, electoral suicide in 2017. That doesn't mean it might not be next year or in 2019, when it would've been more sensible to have this debate within the party.
You wouldn't have the problem with looking at both benches and thinking that way if MPs were responsible and didn't put forward amendments they knew wouldn't pass, yet serve to sow division within their own party.
To be honest, regardless of anything else i'd struggle to look around the parliaments 650 or whatever MP's and find 20 to fill a cabinet that I would believe are up to to the job.
Didn't Corbyn put forward something recently to do with the queens speech that he knew wouldn't get passed?
I believe the same as they do, that the single market is important and I'd much rather we stayed within it.
I'm not sure why you think I'm arguing about "whats in it for the party". I'm more concerned about what's in it for the country because if Labour aren't in power, they can't do anything about the wanton degradation of our public services but I'm sure you know how I feel about the nasty party. :-)
Labour MPs can continue to oppose Brexit and continue to be unelectable. That's their choice. Lib Dems stood on an anti-Brexit platform and barely made an impact at the General Election. Opposing Brexit is, unfortunately, electoral suicide in 2017. That doesn't mean it might not be next year or in 2019, when it would've been more sensible to have this debate within the party.
You wouldn't have the problem with looking at both benches and thinking that way if MPs were responsible and didn't put forward amendments they knew wouldn't pass, yet serve to sow division within their own party.
To be honest, regardless of anything else i'd struggle to look around the parliaments 650 or whatever MP's and find 20 to fill a cabinet that I would believe are up to to the job.
Didn't Corbyn put forward something recently to do with the queens speech that he knew wouldn't get passed?
Haha hmmm, I'll disagree there. It was @cafcfan who thought they were being facetious with their "respectfully regret" wording etc.
There was a real and genuine danger for the Tories that his amendment would be voted for last night.
I believe the same as they do, that the single market is important and I'd much rather we stayed within it.
I'm not sure why you think I'm arguing about "whats in it for the party". I'm more concerned about what's in it for the country because if Labour aren't in power, they can't do anything about the wanton degradation of our public services but I'm sure you know how I feel about the nasty party. :-)
Labour MPs can continue to oppose Brexit and continue to be unelectable. That's their choice. Lib Dems stood on an anti-Brexit platform and barely made an impact at the General Election. Opposing Brexit is, unfortunately, electoral suicide in 2017. That doesn't mean it might not be next year or in 2019, when it would've been more sensible to have this debate within the party.
You wouldn't have the problem with looking at both benches and thinking that way if MPs were responsible and didn't put forward amendments they knew wouldn't pass, yet serve to sow division within their own party.
To be honest, regardless of anything else i'd struggle to look around the parliaments 650 or whatever MP's and find 20 to fill a cabinet that I would believe are up to to the job.
Didn't Corbyn put forward something recently to do with the queens speech that he knew wouldn't get passed?
Haha hmmm, I'll disagree there. It was @cafcfan who thought they were being facetious with their "respectfully regret" wording etc.
There was a real and genuine danger for the Tories that his amendment would be voted for last night.
I don't think the vote was ever in danger, there isn't quite the division in the Torys as there is in Labour and last time I looked Corbyn needed Tory/DUP votes which is as likely as us signing a £70m player.
I believe the same as they do, that the single market is important and I'd much rather we stayed within it.
I'm not sure why you think I'm arguing about "whats in it for the party". I'm more concerned about what's in it for the country because if Labour aren't in power, they can't do anything about the wanton degradation of our public services but I'm sure you know how I feel about the nasty party. :-)
Labour MPs can continue to oppose Brexit and continue to be unelectable. That's their choice. Lib Dems stood on an anti-Brexit platform and barely made an impact at the General Election. Opposing Brexit is, unfortunately, electoral suicide in 2017. That doesn't mean it might not be next year or in 2019, when it would've been more sensible to have this debate within the party.
You wouldn't have the problem with looking at both benches and thinking that way if MPs were responsible and didn't put forward amendments they knew wouldn't pass, yet serve to sow division within their own party.
To be honest, regardless of anything else i'd struggle to look around the parliaments 650 or whatever MP's and find 20 to fill a cabinet that I would believe are up to to the job.
Didn't Corbyn put forward something recently to do with the queens speech that he knew wouldn't get passed?
Haha hmmm, I'll disagree there. It was @cafcfan who thought they were being facetious with their "respectfully regret" wording etc.
There was a real and genuine danger for the Tories that his amendment would be voted for last night.
I don't think the vote was ever in danger, there isn't quite the division in the Torys as there is in Labour and last time I looked Corbyn needed Tory/DUP votes which is as likely as us signing a £70m player.
Well I don't think the Tories wouldn't have let it go to a vote if they weren't confident of eventually winning that vote. They'd have sooner conceded earlier in the day, much like they did with the abortion amendment today. They were panicking for a while there though, or we wouldn't have had the statements coming out of Tory HQ that we did during the day. :-)
They should be trying to rid us of this disaterous government - that is best for the country and the party!
Thankfully many Labour MP's seem to disagree with you well at least 49 rebelled with Chuka this time against Corbyn.
As a committed remainer I am pragmatic enough to realise that we had a referendum on the subject. Many are not - in both parties and indeed on this board. I haven't given up on a reverse of that disaterous decision, but you do have to use your noddle and see this is not yet the time!
This has done Corbyn a favour as he knows where some people stand - and despite what you think, he is demonstarting that he is a strong leader. Things will go on behind the scenes and thi swill be sorted. but a lot of the London labour MPS feel it is their duty to oppose Brexit. Unfortunately, London is not the Country.
I believe the same as they do, that the single market is important and I'd much rather we stayed within it.
I'm not sure why you think I'm arguing about "whats in it for the party". I'm more concerned about what's in it for the country because if Labour aren't in power, they can't do anything about the wanton degradation of our public services but I'm sure you know how I feel about the nasty party. :-)
Labour MPs can continue to oppose Brexit and continue to be unelectable. That's their choice. Lib Dems stood on an anti-Brexit platform and barely made an impact at the General Election. Opposing Brexit is, unfortunately, electoral suicide in 2017. That doesn't mean it might not be next year or in 2019, when it would've been more sensible to have this debate within the party.
You wouldn't have the problem with looking at both benches and thinking that way if MPs were responsible and didn't put forward amendments they knew wouldn't pass, yet serve to sow division within their own party.
Are you seriously suggesting that everyone who voted Labour voted for Brexit? Most of the big swings from Conservative to Labour happened in seats which were overwhelmingly Remain. She asked for a mandate for 'hard' Brexit and she was rejected out of hand by the electorate. I suggest you read the link to Alastair Campbell's blog (a man who knows a good deal more about getting a Labour Party elected and European politics than anyone on here) I posted in the Article 50 thread
They should be trying to rid us of this disaterous government - that is best for the country and the party!
Thankfully many Labour MP's seem to disagree with you well at least 49 rebelled with Chuka this time against Corbyn.
As a committed remainer I am pragmatic enough to realise that we had a referendum on the subject. Many are not - in both parties and indeed on this board. I haven't given up on a reverse of that disaterous decision, but you do have to use your noddle and see this is not yet the time!
This has done Corbyn a favour as he knows where some people stand - and despite what you think, he is demonstarting that he is a strong leader. Things will go on behind the scenes and thi swill be sorted. but a lot of the London labour MPS feel it is their duty to oppose Brexit. Unfortunately, London is not the Country.
True, London is not the country. It just pays for the rest of the country.
Yes, there has been a report that has been kicked into the long grass and letters warning of a disaster to housing ministers leaked which suggest there is a case for the government to answer. One it looks like the enquiry will steer clear of. The Blair Labour government needs to take blame too, but it depends on knowlwdge of risks and assessment of those risks. We need to look everywhere for the blame and people to push the government to do so.
I can't wake up and enjoy the mess the likes of you and other tory voters have done to the country. I would rather go to sleep and pretend it didn't happen.
I wouldn't blame the voters - I blame the politicians. There have been some decent Tories over the years (there I've said it) but May rivals Thatcher in my book and in many ways is far worse - at least the wicked witch of East Finchley was consistent.
I feel your pain, Mutts, but Corbyn is not the answer. I'm a lifelong Labour man so it pains me to say it - Labour are even more dysfunctional than May's Tories.
Why did the amendment have to mention Grenfell and recent terror attacks. This vote was all about Labour trying to get one up on Tory's and the Tory's not letting Labour get one up on them. Lose Lose for the country and politics in general.
The Tory's downfall (on this subject, there are many others to come no doubt) will be when the independent report comes out with it's recommendations. My understanding is despite the pay freeze the report will recommend a level regardless. If the Tory's don't take heed of that then they are even bigger fools than I think right now.
As i've said previously, 'public sector' is all well and good, but that makes up around 17% of the working population of this country. If any party was really for making the lives of those less fortunate/lower paid (or however you wish to describe it) better then they'd be looking at doing something for all of them, not try to score political points or carry favour with the public.
I've no doubt a lot of the public sector deserve to earn more, but so do many, probably more (due to the 83/17% split), in the private sector, what about them? 'For the many not the few' yer right.
I've never been so engaged in politics but also never been so saddened as to what a complete joke they all are. The quicker we get rid of both May & Corbyn the better.
Chop chop @bobmunro with @cobbles running your campaign you've my vote, i'll even register in your constituency so that I can vote for you even if I have to buy a flat there (we can rent it to @cabbles sorry cobbles, to run the campaign from).
Of course including reference to our emergency services in the amendment was political point scoring and it served its purpose. There was zero chance of the amendment going through, everyone knew that. It was to drive home the point that these are the sorts of public sector workers who have been subject to the ideologically driven cuts to pay and conditions.
Most of the public, frankly, don't give a monkey's if a social worker or a EHO or a planning inspector or a teacher or a carer or a refuse collector effectively take a pay cut year after year for 15 years (because that's what we are talking about after all). And that's because we in the UK utterly undervalue our public services on the whole and if we don't use them then we're not bothered if they get treated poorly by our government.
But when you start pointing out that this deliberate attack on public sector pay also impacts on nurses, ambulance staff, firefighters and the police then the message starts to get through. Look at the police officer interviewed yesterday. He'll quite rightly get all the plaudits and awards he deserves but the amazing bravery and selflessness he and his colleagues demonstrated isn't valued enough by this shower of a government to give them a decent pay award
The public are starting to see that at long last and I think that's what we are seeing in the latest social attitudes survey that came out.
As pointed out, Labour presented other measures to address the stagnent pay within the private sector but it shouldn't be a case of either/or anyway.
Bournemouth, do you work in the public sector by any chance?
Yes. So what? Am I not allowed to express an opinion on what I've seen and experienced? Should my and millions of others views be ignored on the basis that it's apparently or exclusively based on self-interest? I can assure you its not and I'm as pissed off at what I see as the public getting a poorer service than they should do as my own personal situation.
Not one person goes into the public sector to earn a fortune and frankly, I'm getting a bit fed up being told by others earning 6 figure salaries at how the tax situation is somehow compensating for the lack of anything approaching an adequate pay award.
This government says that it's alleged plan for a balanced budget won't now happen until 2025. For that read more pay "restraint" in the public sector. It's been 7+ years already, do you think that's a fair deal for people doing some of our most important jobs in society?
I think you assumed I meant something by my question that I did not.
However while we are on the subject of Public Sector employees with gilt edged pensions may I just point out that I know lots of people that would, literally, rip your arms off for a pay freeze with a guaranteed pension that is close to half their last years salary with three times that as a lump sum - opposed to having lost their jobs and come close to losing their homes.
Might I also point out that it is a myth that everyone outside of the Public Sector earns in excess of £100k a year and I know many people in the Public Sector that earn more than the equivalent Private Sector.
Ultimately what tends to happen is that during times of hardship the Public Servants all tend to see their pay reduce in real terms where as the Private Sector tend to see the numbers of employees reduce while those that survive the cull tend to be better off. Those that do not survive the cull are significantly worse off. I would suggest that it has always been thus. Both of my parents are in their 70s (and retired) but they both worked in Local Government their whole careers and that is how they describe it - ans they are amount the wealthiest retirees I know!
Far be it from me to float the idea that we all get to choose what career path we take.
If you are not happy with yours I don't see that as a reason to snap at me for, literally, asking if you work in the public sector!
The notion of public sector pensions being gold plated, or gilt edged is repeated as often as the idea that Charlton fans drove Curbishley out. One question is do public sector workers pay in to their pensions while in work, and is that system in some way a privileged one? Do workers in the public sector accept generally lower pay in return for the conditions (financial) of employment. I read a little while ago that the teachers pension scheme is unfunded and is paid from government coffers. However it was started in the 1920's I believe, and what I read is that if it was a stand alone managed fund, collecting the money in and paying out what it pays out, and the fund had simply been kept on deposit on the base rate of interest since it started, then there would now be enough money in the teachers pension pot to pay off the national debt in full! Is that an impossible concept mathematically?
I believe the same as they do, that the single market is important and I'd much rather we stayed within it.
I'm not sure why you think I'm arguing about "whats in it for the party". I'm more concerned about what's in it for the country because if Labour aren't in power, they can't do anything about the wanton degradation of our public services but I'm sure you know how I feel about the nasty party. :-)
Labour MPs can continue to oppose Brexit and continue to be unelectable. That's their choice. Lib Dems stood on an anti-Brexit platform and barely made an impact at the General Election. Opposing Brexit is, unfortunately, electoral suicide in 2017. That doesn't mean it might not be next year or in 2019, when it would've been more sensible to have this debate within the party.
You wouldn't have the problem with looking at both benches and thinking that way if MPs were responsible and didn't put forward amendments they knew wouldn't pass, yet serve to sow division within their own party.
Are you seriously suggesting that everyone who voted Labour voted for Brexit? Most of the big swings from Conservative to Labour happened in seats which were overwhelmingly Remain. She asked for a mandate for 'hard' Brexit and she was rejected out of hand by the electorate. I suggest you read the link to Alastair Campbell's blog (a man who knows a good deal more about getting a Labour Party elected and European politics than anyone on here) I posted in the Article 50 thread
No I am not suggesting that at all. I myself voted for Labour, I also voted for remain. My main reason for voting Labour was their anti-austerity policies.
By the same token, are you suggesting that 80% of Remain voters then voted Labour in reaction to the referendum result?* I think that's a bit of a stretch. Labour's vote was made up of both Leave and Remain voters and Labour cannot risk losing the support of Leave voters going forward. That will leave them in the political wilderness.
That's completely leaving aside the fact that Labour's manifesto explicitly stated that they accept the referendum result. I think any Labour MP or voter would be one of two things to be suggesting this issue in the current climate. Either a) silly or b) malicious.
I've no idea on your second point @seth plum , but I would be surprised.
Yes staff generally pay into their 'gold plated' pensions and the cost varies. However it's generally accepted within the actuarial/pension arena that a final salary pension is a considerable benefit, one that 99% of the private sector closed in the 90's and 00's due to the spiralling cost.
I think it varies by profession (for instance I suspect police pay more than teachers as they can draw it much earlier). teachers I know pay between 7% & 10% dependent on their salary level.
My wife as a teaching assistant pays about 5% I think, but her employer (Council) pays over 30%, it's 37% in total between them anyway (as I ask for written confirmation each tax year). You'll find most private sector (larger companies) let the staff pay anything from 0% upwards and the company pays around 10%. Some pay more some pay less but somewhere around 8-10% is the usual in my experience.
So you can see a difference, roughly 30% paid by the employer on final salary pensions v's 10% on defined contribution pensions.
I think some might have changed to average earnings now rather than final salary, still good but not quite as gold plated.
I've no idea on your second point @seth plum , but I would be surprised.
Yes staff generally pay into their 'gold plated' pensions and the cost varies. However it's generally accepted within the actuarial/pension arena that a final salary pension is a considerable benefit, one that 99% of the private sector closed in the 90's and 00's due to the spiralling cost.
I think it varies by profession (for instance I suspect police pay more than teachers as they can draw it much earlier). teachers I know pay between 7% & 10% dependent on their salary level.
My wife as a teaching assistant pays about 5% I think, but her employer (Council) pays over 30%, it's 37% in total between them anyway (as I ask for written confirmation each tax year). You'll find most private sector (larger companies) let the staff pay anything from 0% upwards and the company pays around 10%. Some pay more some pay less but somewhere around 8-10% is the usual in my experience.
So you can see a difference, roughly 30% paid by the employer on final salary pensions v's 10% on defined contribution pensions.
I think some might have changed to average earnings now rather than final salary, still good but not quite as gold plated.
Thank you for this post. I suppose my point (about the National Debt) is largely conceptual. For example, if all road tax paid over the years by motorists had only been used for building and maintaining the roads we would have the best road system in the world by now.
Your examples of public v private sector pension arrangements indicate that there are shades of grey amongst the gold platedness. I looks like there is a move to now dig in to the public sector pension arrangements by complaining that they are 'gold plated', despite that being what the public sector workers signed up to at the start of their careers. I suspect the pensions issue in all sectors is more a problem of a population living longer than because the range of arrangements out there.
I've no idea on your second point @seth plum , but I would be surprised.
Yes staff generally pay into their 'gold plated' pensions and the cost varies. However it's generally accepted within the actuarial/pension arena that a final salary pension is a considerable benefit, one that 99% of the private sector closed in the 90's and 00's due to the spiralling cost.
I think it varies by profession (for instance I suspect police pay more than teachers as they can draw it much earlier). teachers I know pay between 7% & 10% dependent on their salary level.
My wife as a teaching assistant pays about 5% I think, but her employer (Council) pays over 30%, it's 37% in total between them anyway (as I ask for written confirmation each tax year). You'll find most private sector (larger companies) let the staff pay anything from 0% upwards and the company pays around 10%. Some pay more some pay less but somewhere around 8-10% is the usual in my experience.
So you can see a difference, roughly 30% paid by the employer on final salary pensions v's 10% on defined contribution pensions.
I think some might have changed to average earnings now rather than final salary, still good but not quite as gold plated.
Thank you for this post. I suppose my point (about the National Debt) is largely conceptual. For example, if all road tax paid over the years by motorists had only been used for building and maintaining the roads we would have the best road system in the world by now.
Your examples of public v private sector pension arrangements indicate that there are shades of grey amongst the gold platedness. I looks like there is a move to now dig in to the public sector pension arrangements by complaining that they are 'gold plated', despite that being what the public sector workers signed up to at the start of their careers. I suspect the pensions issue in all sectors is more a problem of a population living longer than because the range of arrangements out there.
Exactly right Seth, nobody expected 40 years ago that people would retire at 65 and live for 20+ years after that,so pensions are being paid for much longer than envisaged.
On the move to dig into them, i'd add that as far as I am aware the public sector one's in some instances have been tweaked and staff asked to pay a bit more also. In the private sector they were simply stopped completely.
There have actually been a couple of polls since the GE suggesting that the public are slowly moving awayfrom the referendum majority. It's too early to say this is not a blip, but if you believe, as I do, that the trend will continue as the Centre ground gradually works out what. Brexit actually means, then the question is, whom should they vote for? For Corbyn? Currently he stands not just for Brexit, but a hard Brexit. He is personally anti-EU. He is one of those hard lefties who thinks the EU is a means by which the dirty capitalists subjugate the masses right across Europe, or some such bollocks. I am not sure actually what Omuna has actually done, I must have missed it, but if he tried to make the Pro Europe Labour case then good for him.
There have actually been a couple of polls since the GE suggesting that the public are slowly moving awayfrom the referendum majority. It's too early to say this is not a blip, but if you believe, as I do, that the trend will continue as the Centre ground gradually works out what. Brexit actually means, then the question is, whom should they vote for? For Corbyn? Currently he stands not just for Brexit, but a hard Brexit. He is personally anti-EU. He is one of those hard lefties who thinks the EU is a means by which the dirty capitalists subjugate the masses right across Europe, or some such bollocks. I am not sure actually what Omuna has actually done, I must have missed it, but if he tried to make the Pro Europe Labour case then good for him.
Hi!
I would agree with you that there appears to be a slight and slow movement away from the referendum majority. I still don't think the movement is strong enough to be confident that that is truly the case, rather than just a feeling subject to personal bias. Flipping their position at this stage has the potential to be a disaster for Labour.
Re: Corbyn's stance. It is well known that he has been anti-EU in the past and it is the one thing that I struggle with. I just don't see how Labour's very successful manifesto would've come about without Corbyn. Pre-Corbyn, Labour's policies were "austerity-lite".
Umunna submitted an amendment to the Queens Speech, namely "but respectfully regret that the Gracious Speech does not rule out withdrawal from the EU without a deal, guarantee a Parliamentary vote on any final outcome to negotiations, set out transitional arrangements to maintain jobs, trade and certainty for business, set out proposals to remain within the Customs Union and Single Market, set out clear measures to respect the competencies of the devolved administrations, and include clear protections for EU nationals living in the UK now, including retaining their right to remain in the UK, and reciprocal rights for UK citizens."
I've no idea on your second point @seth plum , but I would be surprised.
Yes staff generally pay into their 'gold plated' pensions and the cost varies. However it's generally accepted within the actuarial/pension arena that a final salary pension is a considerable benefit, one that 99% of the private sector closed in the 90's and 00's due to the spiralling cost.
I think it varies by profession (for instance I suspect police pay more than teachers as they can draw it much earlier). teachers I know pay between 7% & 10% dependent on their salary level.
My wife as a teaching assistant pays about 5% I think, but her employer (Council) pays over 30%, it's 37% in total between them anyway (as I ask for written confirmation each tax year). You'll find most private sector (larger companies) let the staff pay anything from 0% upwards and the company pays around 10%. Some pay more some pay less but somewhere around 8-10% is the usual in my experience.
So you can see a difference, roughly 30% paid by the employer on final salary pensions v's 10% on defined contribution pensions.
I think some might have changed to average earnings now rather than final salary, still good but not quite as gold plated.
I can only speak for certain about the Northern Ireland Civil Service, but one of the first things that the Coalition Government did on foot of the Hutton Report was close off final salary schemes for everyone, admittedly with some tapering, not just new entrants (who had already lost it). So career average it is from now on (though I have a sneaking suspicion that Senior Civil Servants may do better than the rest of us.
Even the final salary scheme was not all that terribly wonderful for those (strangely, the majority) in the lower grades, and it is unlikely that many can afford to live it up and/or retire early (the Civil Service pension, IMHO, only seems reasonable if you are getting a full state pension as well).
Why did the amendment have to mention Grenfell and recent terror attacks. This vote was all about Labour trying to get one up on Tory's and the Tory's not letting Labour get one up on them. Lose Lose for the country and politics in general.
The Tory's downfall (on this subject, there are many others to come no doubt) will be when the independent report comes out with it's recommendations. My understanding is despite the pay freeze the report will recommend a level regardless. If the Tory's don't take heed of that then they are even bigger fools than I think right now.
As i've said previously, 'public sector' is all well and good, but that makes up around 17% of the working population of this country. If any party was really for making the lives of those less fortunate/lower paid (or however you wish to describe it) better then they'd be looking at doing something for all of them, not try to score political points or carry favour with the public.
I've no doubt a lot of the public sector deserve to earn more, but so do many, probably more (due to the 83/17% split), in the private sector, what about them? 'For the many not the few' yer right.
I've never been so engaged in politics but also never been so saddened as to what a complete joke they all are. The quicker we get rid of both May & Corbyn the better.
Chop chop @bobmunro with @cobbles running your campaign you've my vote, i'll even register in your constituency so that I can vote for you even if I have to buy a flat there (we can rent it to @cabbles sorry cobbles, to run the campaign from).
That 17% you mention above is the lowest since comparable ecords began in 1999. In the last five years it has dropped from 21%. That means far less people providing public services as well as them experiencing stagnant wages.
Not only does that inevitably affect the quality of frontline services but it's a lot less spending in the economy. That is just one factor in the failure to boost aggregate demand. Another is the failure to take advantage of the lowest interest rates in living memory with the government building "stuff". Or lending to those who will - like councils / housing associations.
The leave campaign last year might have blamed immigrants and Brussels but their main focus was the poor quality of public services.
Cutting the headcount and budgets year after year was a decision taken by this government, supposedly to bring the deficit down to 0% by a certain date.
That's the biggest lie in the modern political economy. Firstly we do not need to cut the deficit to zero - that's called austerity and is precisely the wrong approach. It hasn't worked anywhere. And second, this government keeps cutting corporation tax but they don't cut pensions nor raise the retirement age.
The largest bill by far for the government is pensions. So they get 2.5% per annum increase whilst public sector jobs get just 1% and vacancies aren't filled.
It's nonsense and they now spend the next two years trying to implement an advisory vote on the EU which was in part brought about by these cuts to services.
As the deadline for Brexit approaches there is likely to be more political chaos. And for what? So as to leave the biggest single market on the planet? And it appears that 65% of our trade is either with the EU or with countries that have free trade agreements with the EU.
Comments
No I clearly don't have the first fecking clue about the public sector as i'm just about the only person in my family who works in the private sector rather than public, of course i'm not married to anyone in the public sector, clearly don't have many friends who are policeman, teachers (had 20+ teachers at mine for a BBQ last week) and nurses (I am missing a fireman to be fair)
What evidence is there that there has been a shift in public opinion that would justify this position on Brexit? There isn't one. Like I say, wait for public opinion to change, then you can push for it without worrying about creating disillusion among half of eligible voters.
You make it sound as though the Labour party are being held back by a minority and in this case, they are: by Chuka Umunna and co. who propose this amendment.
Otherwise i've absolutely no idea why any Labour politician would be voting against anything right now........
I don't understand what Umunna and co. stand to gain by continuing to defy him. The only result is an easy ride for the Tories.
That isn't a particular dig at Labour, all parties do it, but in this instance it is the cause of the issue that clearly large amounts of Labour MP's don't really support Corbyn, he's slowly running out of people to put on the bench. Thats not good for the labour party nor politics in general and why i don't think he'll last more than a few years as leader.
Surely i'm not the only one who looks at the opposition bench, looks at the government bench and thinks..... jeez, one group run our country and the others are supposed to hold them to account.........
I'm not sure why you think I'm arguing about "whats in it for the party". I'm more concerned about what's in it for the country because if Labour aren't in power, they can't do anything about the wanton degradation of our public services but I'm sure you know how I feel about the nasty party. :-)
Labour MPs can continue to oppose Brexit and continue to be unelectable. That's their choice. Lib Dems stood on an anti-Brexit platform and barely made an impact at the General Election. Opposing Brexit is, unfortunately, electoral suicide in 2017. That doesn't mean it might not be next year or in 2019, when it would've been more sensible to have this debate within the party.
You wouldn't have the problem with looking at both benches and thinking that way if MPs were responsible and didn't put forward amendments they knew wouldn't pass, yet serve to sow division within their own party.
Didn't Corbyn put forward something recently to do with the queens speech that he knew wouldn't get passed?
There was a real and genuine danger for the Tories that his amendment would be voted for last night.
This has done Corbyn a favour as he knows where some people stand - and despite what you think, he is demonstarting that he is a strong leader. Things will go on behind the scenes and thi swill be sorted. but a lot of the London labour MPS feel it is their duty to oppose Brexit. Unfortunately, London is not the Country.
I feel your pain, Mutts, but Corbyn is not the answer. I'm a lifelong Labour man so it pains me to say it - Labour are even more dysfunctional than May's Tories.
One question is do public sector workers pay in to their pensions while in work, and is that system in some way a privileged one?
Do workers in the public sector accept generally lower pay in return for the conditions (financial) of employment.
I read a little while ago that the teachers pension scheme is unfunded and is paid from government coffers. However it was started in the 1920's I believe, and what I read is that if it was a stand alone managed fund, collecting the money in and paying out what it pays out, and the fund had simply been kept on deposit on the base rate of interest since it started, then there would now be enough money in the teachers pension pot to pay off the national debt in full!
Is that an impossible concept mathematically?
By the same token, are you suggesting that 80% of Remain voters then voted Labour in reaction to the referendum result?* I think that's a bit of a stretch. Labour's vote was made up of both Leave and Remain voters and Labour cannot risk losing the support of Leave voters going forward. That will leave them in the political wilderness.
That's completely leaving aside the fact that Labour's manifesto explicitly stated that they accept the referendum result. I think any Labour MP or voter would be one of two things to be suggesting this issue in the current climate. Either a) silly or b) malicious.
*12.8m voted Labour, 16.1m voted Remain. Roughly 80%.
Yes staff generally pay into their 'gold plated' pensions and the cost varies. However it's generally accepted within the actuarial/pension arena that a final salary pension is a considerable benefit, one that 99% of the private sector closed in the 90's and 00's due to the spiralling cost.
I think it varies by profession (for instance I suspect police pay more than teachers as they can draw it much earlier). teachers I know pay between 7% & 10% dependent on their salary level.
My wife as a teaching assistant pays about 5% I think, but her employer (Council) pays over 30%, it's 37% in total between them anyway (as I ask for written confirmation each tax year). You'll find most private sector (larger companies) let the staff pay anything from 0% upwards and the company pays around 10%. Some pay more some pay less but somewhere around 8-10% is the usual in my experience.
So you can see a difference, roughly 30% paid by the employer on final salary pensions v's 10% on defined contribution pensions.
I think some might have changed to average earnings now rather than final salary, still good but not quite as gold plated.
I suppose my point (about the National Debt) is largely conceptual. For example, if all road tax paid over the years by motorists had only been used for building and maintaining the roads we would have the best road system in the world by now.
Your examples of public v private sector pension arrangements indicate that there are shades of grey amongst the gold platedness. I looks like there is a move to now dig in to the public sector pension arrangements by complaining that they are 'gold plated', despite that being what the public sector workers signed up to at the start of their careers.
I suspect the pensions issue in all sectors is more a problem of a population living longer than because the range of arrangements out there.
On the move to dig into them, i'd add that as far as I am aware the public sector one's in some instances have been tweaked and staff asked to pay a bit more also. In the private sector they were simply stopped completely.
Private sector pensions stopped/sold off and inflated bonuses for some = wrong
Lets not allow ourselves to get divided.
There have actually been a couple of polls since the GE suggesting that the public are slowly moving awayfrom the referendum majority. It's too early to say this is not a blip, but if you believe, as I do, that the trend will continue as the Centre ground gradually works out what. Brexit actually means, then the question is, whom should they vote for? For Corbyn? Currently he stands not just for Brexit, but a hard Brexit. He is personally anti-EU. He is one of those hard lefties who thinks the EU is a means by which the dirty capitalists subjugate the masses right across Europe, or some such bollocks. I am not sure actually what Omuna has actually done, I must have missed it, but if he tried to make the Pro Europe Labour case then good for him.
Politics can get a bit emotional and everyone has different points to get across.
It doesn't need to be a high speed war of bile, ridicule and counter claims based on dubious or no information....
(Eh, sorry my editor has just popped over, told me I'm wrong and modern day politics is more or less that in a nutshell)
Sorry carry on....
I would agree with you that there appears to be a slight and slow movement away from the referendum majority. I still don't think the movement is strong enough to be confident that that is truly the case, rather than just a feeling subject to personal bias. Flipping their position at this stage has the potential to be a disaster for Labour.
Re: Corbyn's stance. It is well known that he has been anti-EU in the past and it is the one thing that I struggle with. I just don't see how Labour's very successful manifesto would've come about without Corbyn. Pre-Corbyn, Labour's policies were "austerity-lite".
Umunna submitted an amendment to the Queens Speech, namely "but respectfully regret that the Gracious Speech does not rule out withdrawal from the EU without a deal, guarantee a Parliamentary vote on any final outcome to negotiations, set out transitional arrangements to maintain jobs, trade and certainty for business, set out proposals to remain within the Customs Union and Single Market, set out clear measures to respect the competencies of the devolved administrations, and include clear protections for EU nationals living in the UK now, including retaining their right to remain in the UK, and reciprocal rights for UK citizens."
Even the final salary scheme was not all that terribly wonderful for those (strangely, the majority) in the lower grades, and it is unlikely that many can afford to live it up and/or retire early (the Civil Service pension, IMHO, only seems reasonable if you are getting a full state pension as well).
Not only does that inevitably affect the quality of frontline services but it's a lot less spending in the economy. That is just one factor in the failure to boost aggregate demand. Another is the failure to take advantage of the lowest interest rates in living memory with the government building "stuff". Or lending to those who will - like councils / housing associations.
The leave campaign last year might have blamed immigrants and Brussels but their main focus was the poor quality of public services.
Cutting the headcount and budgets year after year was a decision taken by this government, supposedly to bring the deficit down to 0% by a certain date.
That's the biggest lie in the modern political economy. Firstly we do not need to cut the deficit to zero - that's called austerity and is precisely the wrong approach. It hasn't worked anywhere. And second, this government keeps cutting corporation tax but they don't cut pensions nor raise the retirement age.
The largest bill by far for the government is pensions. So they get 2.5% per annum increase whilst public sector jobs get just 1% and vacancies aren't filled.
It's nonsense and they now spend the next two years trying to implement an advisory vote on the EU which was in part brought about by these cuts to services.
As the deadline for Brexit approaches there is likely to be more political chaos. And for what? So as to leave the biggest single market on the planet? And it appears that 65% of our trade is either with the EU or with countries that have free trade agreements with the EU.
Lewis Carroll could not have dreamt this up.