Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

From UK-Analyst.com: Thursday 24th November 2011



The Markets

German chancellor Angela Merkel and French president Nicolas Sarkozy are to put forward modifications of EU treaties to improve governance of the eurozone. The leaders hope the proposal would lead to further financial integration and convergence, improving confidence. France and Germany do however disagree about whether the European Central Bank should be a lender of last resort and whether bonds should be issued by the whole of the eurozone instead of individual countries. Meanwhile, for the first time in two and half years, the UK 10-year bond yield fell below the German 10-year, standing 0.02 percentage points lower than its counterpart at 2.21%. It came as Germany failed to raise its 6 billion euro (5.16 billion pound) target at the latest bond auction, managing just 3.6 billion euros (3.09 million pounds).

Fred1new, ---thanks for your reply, I agree the unions were responsible for making not just miners working lives better but workers in a whole host of industries as well. However union leaders imo now regard themselves to be on a similar standing as that of top management, and with salary, expenses and privilege to match. The rank and file worker from whatever industry can only dream of such salaries, salaries which the union leaders will continue to receive whilst those on strike will lose part of theirs.

The private sector in the main has a by far inferior pension to that of the public sector, yet it is they that pay for the public sector pensions. So maybe like the vast majority of the electorate (perhaps), we cannot understand why Cameron has ringfenced money going to foreign aid whilst we are struggling, the same applies to private sector employees, ie why should I pay so much towards the public sector pensions when I cannot receive anything like the same for myself.

I also agree that a transfer of wealth is needed, I forget the current estimate but the saying '90% of the wealth of the country is held by 10% of the people, Whilst 90% of the people hold just 10% of the wealth'. You only have to look at the obscene pay rises over the last 12 months for CEO's and directors etc. to recognise that.
Crikey Fred, that's twice I have agreed with you, I'll try not to let it happen again ha! ha!
2517

It is understandable that there is this anti cameron/ Osbourne 'governmet' feeling,especialy the current hostility from the right wing newspapers led by the torygraph and fueled by the minor back bench tories who due to this being a coalition do not have the government posts that they covet.
The point is the tories did not win the election and to hold government they have to do what the libs allow. This is not a conservative cabinet and whoever had been tory leader at the last election would be suffering the same as the current leaders are now.

2517,

I will try and answer some of your points and add more later.

But I think that part of the reasoning for the "majority" of "low paid" workers being in the Public sectors, was that they saw their pensions and security of employment as part of their overall remuneration.

When the figures for these outrageous public service pensions are considered, I think you have to consider mean, median and lowest figures.

But I do consider the recent pay, severance pays and pensions of the higher paid public servants as extraordinary and open to question.

As far as union leaders pay is concern, one has to consider the number of individuals they represent and I suppose relate them to the income of the individuals they represent.

But again out of proportion.

But so have been some of the pension funds of our underpaid company board members.(sorry overpaid) .who utiilise them to dodge tax.

I utilised the latter myself to a minor degree.

I think the way the government presents figures is as reliable as a Goebbels' propaganda machine.

I enjoyed that! 8-)

-

mnamreh

I don't know what the hell you are talking about , can you please copy & paste what post you are referring to .

Just one other point.

How many of the posters on this board would work as "dustbin men", (sorry "refuge workers") or "sewerage" workers for their glorious pensions.

Those poor b.s keep society ticking over.

.

I would , I done harder and messier job's then dustmen but would drew the line at sewerage.

The miners unions were responsible for the destruction of the mining industry, British car companies and a large part of our once great manufacturing industry.

The problem with public sector pensions goes back a few decades. When I was president of the local branch of a public sector union the government was taking far more off our salaries in pension contributions than they were paying out in pensions. We did not ask for a reduction in contributions, instead we were agitating for the pensions to be a proper funded scheme, but the government steadfastly refused and just spent the money. Now our present government is trying to get that money back by taking it off those who have already paid more than they should have in the past. We could see what was likely to happen in the future.

mnamreh

I was referring to this in my post. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/profile-ernest-saunders-out-of-jail-and-back-in-business-1347932.html

.

mnamreh

Cheer's , I have never read that account of his appeal before in detail , interesting to know if you have a small brain you can get out of prison early lol

TIM.

The majority of the coal pits were on borrowed time before being Nationalised in 1946.

A large percentage of them were "worked out" and unprofitable.

Those pits were subsidised by the profitable ones and the "state" taxes.

One of the problems was that much of the management in the nationalised industry, were the pupils of the appalling managers, agents area managers inherited from the previously "private company management teams

Another problem was the attempt to over mechanise some pits when geological conditions were unsuitable.

(Would suggest you do a little research into that period.)

The problems with other "heavy" industry, was that many were using worn out plant of bygone ages and that there was distrust by the "work forces" of once again management, who hadn't it their opinions earned it.

One of the reasons for the Nationalisation was if it hadn't happen, there would have be mass unemployment and the ongoing promise a "country for heroes" expectation. There were fears of "social upheavals".

Please don't try to tell me about the Bevin Boys.

It was inevitable that the number of pits needed to be reduced to those profitable.

But the manner in which the "Witch" Thatcher did it, was inhumane and that and many of her other actions led to a country at "war" with itself.

The closures could have been over a more prolonged period allowing for retraining, refocussing and assimilation of those who were made unemployed.

Rather than producing a lost "generation" who felt disenfranchised. Their children still have that "grudge".

I won't question your experiences as an union representative, but I have equivalent to a public service pension and can't recall having difficulties like you describe.

But if you are reflecting on my previous remarks on public service pensions, then I think my position remains the same.

Don't forget the government's public sector pension reforms come from the Hutton Report. The current government appointed Lord Hutton to chair the Public Service Pensions Commission. John Hutton was a labour MP until 2010 and was a cabinet minister in the last Labour government holding three different posts. The coalition chose him to chair the report so that it would be seen to be independent.

The chart below show the reasons for the changes in the public sector pensions. In fact the current government policy doesn't go as far as the Hutton Report in many areas. The unions may not like it, but they are stuck with it.

You should have shown the3 above going back to around 1960 then you would have seen the huge excess of contributions over payments that the governments spent le3aving the current mess which public sector workers are unfairly being asked to pay for.

The past has little to do with it. The fact is that the public sector pensions are underfunded now. Any surplus would be used up at some stage due to underfunding so someone would have to pay for it at some stage. It just happens to be now. I can find no references to excess in pension funds in 1960. In fact it seems to have been the opposite.

http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-11.html#european

Mnamreh,

Your post 13381.
You say, 'it just seems such a pointless exercise for so many 'bright' individuals'.

Agreed 100%.

Stable,

Your post 13385.

Whilst agreeing that due to it being coalition government the Conservatives can't have as much say as they would in a none co government, I do feel that the Conservatives are allowing the Lib Dems to punch far above their weight.

The general public think the Lib Dems are pathetic, with even their support from Lib Dem members is at its lowest ever, so I am sure that Cameron would gain far more public support if he had the bottle to take them on a bit more.
If he did so, I am also sure that as is being proven by the monthly vote polls, which I tend to follow (yes, I agree I should get a life) he would carry more of the population as a whole with him.

Greek.

forget aids there is going a worse virus that will not be cured.

Greek
I am sure many conservatives share your view re the Liberal influence, but without that agreement and the terms agreed we would have had to have another election or a lib lab government, I do believe that the next election is goint to be very rough, as the tories will blame Libs for not letting them do what they wanted, will continue to blame labour for most of the problems(true) and the libs fighting to get credibility on the basis of ud being told how things would have been if they had not held the tories back. The labour will be sidelined unless they change their 'leader'
Cameron will still lead but he must move to the right to take his party with him, and that means being closer to the generasl public on the EEC, but he cannot do that currently for the Libs would break up the coalition and that would do our current financial problems no good whatsover.

i am a right wing tory along with many more i no .and we are fade up with cameron
is family get millions from land subsides from the eu .that is why we are going nowhere .we will with regret be voting ukip and make no mistake there are a lot of us ,
if right wingers like us are sick of is useles and ignorant views then the next election will not good for our once proud party.