Plebs 1 Toffs 0

[ahinton]

Pension Trusts are predominantly 'staffed' by employees with a low level of representation from the employer. Staff are appointed by ballot. The whole conduct of them is one of co-operation between the employees and employer. My experience of the one I'm in is that when a shortfall in funding was reported by the Trustees the emploer made large, lump-sum contributions to the fund to bring it back to an even keel. Pensions are not a thing of the past at all, but the private sector has faced up to the fact that with current market conditions they can no longer be based on final salary but will have to be based on contributions. They reach those conclusions based on reports provided by their appointed actuaries and pension fund advisiors (bodies appointed by the Trust, not the employer). Pensions will not be as generous as they were in the past, but will still be adequate.

I'm surprised that you exude such confidence in the future of pensions. Not only has the potentially lethal combination of the vagaries of market conditions and the certainty of increasing longevity make it impossible to continue with final salary schemes (as you have correctly observed), those conditions that have brought about the wholesale axing of such schemes are not about to settle down at any time in the future - they will continue to take their toll and it will accordingly become increasingly hard for anyone to provide adequate pensions as time goes on; one has only to add in the factor of potential inflation for those on non-indexed pensions and one can hear the death-knell for pensions sounding from a long way off. Already, many pensioners are seeking work to supplement their pension incomes and a few are even regarding their pensions as a necessary top-up to the salaries that they still need to receive; the consequences of these facts additionally have the unwelcome knock-on effect of making youth unemployment an ever greater problem as more and more people of so-called "retirement age" who are in receipt of pensions simply cannot manage without having an income stream from work.

I cannot comment on the number of teaching unions but, in any case, this subject goes way beyond the teaching profession to affect people in many walks of life who have been raised with - and who have worked in - the misleading expectation of being able to afford to retire on an adequate pension, which it is clear that fewer and fewer people can do any more - and that's in a time of long-term low inflation; it's easy to imagine just how much graver this issue would already have become were rates of inflation considerably higher than those to which we have lately become accustomed.

An additional problem with all of this is the understandable indignation on the part of employees in pension schemes at the prospect of being asked to contribute ever greater percentages of their salaries for an ever-decreasing pension benefit; this also affects the employers whose profitability and consequence future stability is likewise affected adversely by their obligation to keep increasing their side of pension contributions on their employees' behalf.

Do also bear in mind that, although you are writing about employees in employers' pension schemes, the problems of adequate pension provision affect the self-employed equally and likewise.

[amateur51]

I suspect a much simpler story is closer to the truth: he pissed them off but because he's an MP, obviously someone in authority, obviously upper middle to upper class, they didn't dare arrest him or go through the whole 'you don't talk to me like that I could nick you for obstructing the police you could get two years for that that's right isn't it Sarge yeah two years easy' routine so they got their own back via the press. Attributing much subtlety to the police isn't a good idea. Start basic and work down from there.

Good points, HN

Isn't it also likely that any eager reporter worth her salt would have been on to the union pdq for its side of the story?

[PhilipT]

I suspect a much simpler story is closer to the truth: he pissed them off but because he's an MP, obviously someone in authority, obviously upper middle to upper class, they didn't dare arrest him or go through the whole 'you don't talk to me like that I could nick you for obstructing the police you could get two years for that that's right isn't it Sarge yeah two years easy' routine so they got their own back via the press. Attributing much subtlety to the police isn't a good idea. Start basic and work down from there.

I suspect you may be right. I do hope the police learn the right lessons quickly, though. The CCTV recording of the Mitchell incident has been labelled 'inconclusive'; the mobile 'phone video of the Ian Tomlinson incident certainly brought the police into disrepute. The quantity and quality of the recording equipment in public hands is getting better all the time, and the next time there is such a recorded confrontation the police may not find the DPP so willing to delay and obfuscate as in the past. That's the trouble with pissing off people in power. There will be such a recorded confrontation, I have no doubt. Let's just hope it's not at the level of the Rodney King incident.

[teamsaint]

AH makes some good points in his post. The future of pension provision , how much it will cost, and how it will work, is still far from obvious...and the economies of the west may have bigger things to worry about , short term.
A couple of things I would say though. The population certainly will age over the next couple of decades, but there is every chance that the rise in life expectancy will start to level off, not least since we will soon be at a point where almost everybody has lived their entire life under the NHS.

also, since decent private and company pensions are likely to be for the few, its up to the rest of us to fight for decent provision, in a way that allows people to work longer if they want to, provides opportunity for the young, and can be afforded by the tax payer. A bit of government honesty around things like public sector pensions would be a start to a sensible debate.

This has gone a bit off topic, except for the business of honesty in public life !

[teamsaint]

AH makes some good points in his post. The future of pension provision , how much it will cost, and how it will work, is still far from obvious...and the economies of the west may have bigger things to worry about , short term.
A couple of things I would say though. The population certainly will age over the next couple of decades, but there is every chance that the rise in life expectancy will start to level off, not least since we will soon be at a point where almost everybody has lived their entire life under the NHS.

also, since decent private and company pensions are likely to be for the few, its up to the rest of us to fight for decent provision, in a way that allows people to work longer if they want to, provides opportunity for the young, and can be afforded by the tax payer. A bit of government honesty around things like public sector pensions would be a start to a sensible debate.

This has gone a bit off topic, except for the business of honesty in public life !

[ahinton]

AH makes some good points in his post. The future of pension provision , how much it will cost, and how it will work, is still far from obvious...and the economies of the west may have bigger things to worry about , short term.
A couple of things I would say though. The population certainly will age over the next couple of decades, but there is every chance that the rise in life expectancy will start to level off, not least since we will soon be at a point where almost everybody has lived their entire life under the NHS.

Whilst such a levelling off of life expectancy may indeed occur eventually (although this is by no means guaranteed, especially given that the life expectancy of the youngest among us is likely to become considerably greater than that of those of us for whom some of those chances have already begun to evaporate), it will be far too late to be of much if any use to pension provision, particularly because a levelling off of life expectancy at a particular age - say, 105 for women and 100 for men in a couple of decades or so's time - will still mean that there will be a large proportion of the population who would expect to be in receipt of pensions for at least as long as they were previously in receipt of salaries; you can't get blood out of a stone, however large the stone may be.

also, since decent private and company pensions are likely to be for the few, its up to the rest of us to fight for decent provision, in a way that allows people to work longer if they want to, provides opportunity for the young, and can be afforded by the tax payer. A bit of government honesty around things like public sector pensions would be a start to a sensible debate.

Whilst the increasing shortage in the availability of "decent private and company pensions" is a given, how might "the rest of us" - which in any case will increasingly and inevitably come to mean "most of us" - "fight for decent provision"? One cannot successfully "fight" for something that isn't there and can't be put there! Also, with the increase in numbers of part-time employees and the self-employed, the opportunities for people even to join company pension schemes, however inadequate they might turn out to be in practice, will continue to decrease in any case.

[teamsaint]

Whilst such a levelling off of life expectancy may indeed occur eventually (although this is by no means guaranteed, especially given that the life expectancy of the youngest among us is likely to become considerably greater than that of those of us for whom some of those chances have already begun to evaporate), it will be far too late to be of much if any use to pension provision, particularly because a levelling off of life expectancy at a particular age - say, 105 for women and 100 for men in a couple of decades or so's time - will still mean that there will be a large proportion of the population who would expect to be in receipt of pensions for at least as long as they were previously in receipt of salaries; you can't get blood out of a stone, however large the stone may be.


Whilst the increasing shortage in the availability of "decent private and company pensions" is a given, how might "the rest of us" - which in any case will increasingly and inevitably come to mean "most of us" - "fight for decent provision"? One cannot successfully "fight" for something that isn't there and can't be put there! Also, with the increase in numbers of part-time employees and the self-employed, the opportunities for people even to join company pension schemes, however inadequate they might turn out to be in practice, will continue to decrease in any case.

This is interesting, if off topic !
I think we should discuss elsewhere, If anybody is keen to do that. (re plebs and Toffs, though, we can make a fair guess that the Toffs will be ok for pensions/income in old age.....) !!
I think this should also, for all of us, be part of a much wider debate about how we work and live.

[ahinton]

This is interesting, if off topic !
I think we should discuss elsewhere, If anybody is keen to do that. (re plebs and Toffs, though, we can make a fair guess that the Toffs will be ok for pensions/income in old age.....) !!
I think this should also, for all of us, be part of a much wider debate about how we work and live.

I do agree that it's off topic and accordingly apologise for cluttering up space with it in this thread!

To return to the subject, however, one may presume that at least a decent proportion of the "Toffs" (and also some non-Toffss, for that matter!) will already be in possession of assets of sufficient value as to obviate the need for pension provision other than for the benefits that it offers them as a neat government-(i.e. taxpayer-)sponsored tax avoidance scheme...

[teamsaint]

I do agree that it's off topic and accordingly apologise for cluttering up space with it in this thread!

To return to the subject, however, one may presume that at least a decent proportion of the "Toffs" (and also some non-Toffss, for that matter!) will already be in possession of assets of sufficient value as to obviate the need for pension provision other than for the benefits that it offers them as a neat government-(i.e. taxpayer-)sponsored tax avoidance scheme...

Don't think apologies are needed for cluttering up this thread...only for personal abuse, and obviously you don't do that !
I may start a thread, re pensions.

[heliocentric]

The future of pension provision , how much it will cost, and how it will work, is still far from obvious...

So many debates about the future of pensions seem to revolve around the question of "where is the money going to come from"? Which brings us back to plebs and toffs. There was no shortage of cash to invade Afghanistan or Iraq, no shortage of cash to bail out the recklessly greedy gamblers who caused the present financial crisis, no shortage of cash to reduce the top rate of income tax. Yet when it comes to ensuring a reasonably comfortable and as healthy as possible life for older people, most of whom have in numerous small ways made an infinitely more positive contribution to society than parasites like Cameron and Osborne, it's always oh no, the average age in British society is creeping up, such a burden on the taxpayer and all that sort of blah. It's not a "burden" on the taxpayer, however much it costs. It's an opportunity to show what a well-organised democratic society should be able to achieve and an indicator of the moral standards on which it's based. Plus all of us will be old some time, if we're lucky enough to last that long. The people who don't have to worry unduly about what will become of them are of course once more the toffs.

Returning to the topic (really this time), I can't say I much care how Mitchell's comments were brought to light. The more of these people who are outed as nasty egocentric snobs, whose concern for human beings less privileged than themselves extends only as far as extracting money from them, the better. Is the whole affair an example of something completely trivial being blown up out of proportion, as some have claimed? Surely it's a symptom of something more widespread and suggestive - as Rafael Behr points out in last week's New Statesman, at present "anything that appears to support the worst interpretation of what it means to be a "typical Tory" in the Cameron-Osborne mould is newsworthy." That is at least a start.

[ahinton]

So many debates about the future of pensions seem to revolve around the question of "where is the money going to come from"? Which brings us back to plebs and toffs. There was no shortage of cash to invade Afghanistan or Iraq, no shortage of cash to bail out the recklessly greedy gamblers who caused the present financial crisis, no shortage of cash to reduce the top rate of income tax.

No, indeed there was sadly no shortage of cash at least for the first two of these, but you're referring here specifically to taxpayers' cash; the only taxpayer cash that helps to fund private and company pension contributions is that which is stumped up as a direct consequence of such pension schemes being the government-sponsored tax avoidance schemes that they are and as which I described them. I don't therefore perceive the connection that you're making here, so perhaps I'm missing something.

Yet when it comes to ensuring a reasonably comfortable and as healthy as possible life for older people, most of whom have in numerous small ways made an infinitely more positive contribution to society than parasites like Cameron and Osborne, it's always oh no, the average age in British society is creeping up, such a burden on the taxpayer and all that sort of blah. It's not a "burden" on the taxpayer, however much it costs. It's an opportunity to show what a well-organised democratic society should be able to achieve and an indicator of the moral standards on which it's based. Plus all of us will be old some time, if we're lucky enough to last that long. The people who don't have to worry unduly about what will become of them are of course once more the toffs.

No, it's not a burden on the taxpayer per se - it's a burden on the contributing employers, employees and self-employed people. I'm not about to comment upon the relative merits or otherwise of each individual's or corporation's "contribution to society", either in general terms or in financial terms, except that I imagine that Messrs Cameron and Osborne (why just them?) contribute a good deal more in taxes than I do. If by "the Toffs" you mean those who, as I indicated in a previous post, have assets of sufficient value to enable them not to have to worry about or even need pensions, then your statement about such people is obviously correct, but that doesn't help those who depend upon salaries, profits or pensions for their income needs; frankly, had the money spent on those illegal invasions that you mention not been spent and had proper regulation managed to avoid the mess into which the banks got themselves and the rest of us, the extra money freed up - whilst considerable - would hardly have been made available to private companies to support their pension funds or to self-employed people to support their private pensions, so I still don't really get the logic of your argument here.

Returning to the topic (really this time), I can't say I much care how Mitchell's comments were brought to light. The more of these people who are outed as nasty egocentric snobs, whose concern for human beings less privileged than themselves extends only as far as extracting money from them, the better. Is the whole affair an example of something completely trivial being blown up out of proportion, as some have claimed? Surely it's a symptom of something more widespread and suggestive - as Rafael Behr points out in last week's New Statesman, at present "anything that appears to support the worst interpretation of what it means to be a "typical Tory" in the Cameron-Osborne mould is newsworthy." That is at least a start.

I happen to think that both are correct to some degree; it's been blown up out of all proportion but is also an unwelcome instance of patronising rudeness from someone in a position of high office who ought to know better (subject to what it was that the ex-Chief Whip actually said, which still seems to be in question).

[teamsaint]

excellent post Helio
Things like the ageing population are always used as a stick to beat us with.

There is money for these chaps...

http://www.channel4.com/news/uk-spending-2bn-unmanned-drones-troops

and imagine the potential for controlling the UK population.....

Less reliance on the apparently unreliable plod....

(neatly back on topic there I thought...)

[ahinton]

excellent post Helio
Things like the ageing population are always used as a stick to beat us with.

That's all very well, but it's nevertheless either true or it isn't and, if the former, then the burden upon the contributor in order to maintain past standards and values of pensions is inevitably going to increase.

There is money for these chaps...
http://www.channel4.com/news/uk-spen...-drones-troops

Sadly so - but the fact that it's almost all taxpayers' money's enough to make one start thinking that one is taking advantage of far too few tax avoidance schemes and thus contributing far too much towards the not inconsiderable purchase and operating costs of these devices!

Less reliance on the apparently unreliable plod....

(neatly back on topic there I thought...)

Not especially! - the plod, however reliable, does not, after all, go around 24/7 with a permanent search warrant!...

[teamsaint]

The problem with the age thing, just for starters, is getting at something like the truth.
The government, especially this government , has a huge vested interest in "inflating" life expectancy.
So, step one, for me, is to disregard what they say, and find some figures that look realistic, or to find somebody to do it. Not easy, but nobody said it is !
The government want people indebted very young, and working for a very long time. Ignore what they say, watch what they do. And this is what they are doing, or trying to do.

AH, not quite sure what you mean about the unreliable plod..my point was that the fewer hands on power the better..the police might just "turn" if push comes to shove.

[heliocentric]

the burden upon the contributor in order to maintain past standards and values of pensions is inevitably going to increase.

Here comes that "burden" again. Why should it be thought of as a "burden" to organise a society such that those advanced in years are treated as less deserving of a comfortable standard of living than younger people? Well, I've already said this: you're obviously more interested in footling details than in how grossly uncivilised this "burden" concept is.

As for the police, when even they take the opportunity to put a spanner in the works of government (like they didn't when Thatcher used them as an offensive weapon against the miners) the ruling class might have reason to be concerned that they could end up in a lonely corner with piles of cash but no friends to protect it for them. The sooner the better.