um pahars

Serious subject on quite a few levels, so think your poor attempt at humour would be best suited to other threads

The Cabinet are due to make changes to their pension contributions that will cost them a decent wedge. However, it is somewhat relative and probably not going to hit the 13 millionaires on Cameron's front bench!!!! All in it together!!!

To mention the disasters at Ibrox, Bradford and Hillsborough in that response displays a serious lack of understanding, empathy and nous from this cretinous individual. I do hope he gets taken to task over this.

Not the first report to suggest there were underlying issues at play as both the Government's Interim Report and the Met itself have alluded to tension betwen the Police and certain communities. However, as the OP says the issues are complex and multi faceted, but today's findings won't sit well with The Daily Mail (who are still struggling to understand that their "middle class" rioter profile was extremely wide of the mark).

Tony Wilson of the Evening Standard wrote this on the very subject: "The real scandal in pensions is the way a combination of misguided accounting standards and crassly ill-considered government tax and regulatory policy has destroyed private-sector pension provision over the past 20 years. But rather than seek to right that wrong, the Government has embraced the notion that it is "unfair" that public-sector schemes have not been similarly destroyed. Why else should it be a criticism that public-sector pensions are "more generous" than those of the private sector?" I do agree that there is a very real danger of there being a race to the bottom and all we are doing is solving our short term debt crisis, only to be hit by a much larger problem in the years to come. I think there have to be changes to the Public Sector pension schemes, but I am very concerned that the current short term quest for austerity has overshadowed a more realistic and honest debate on the future of the Public Sector pensions issue (as well as creating an even bigger problem if increased contributions and a downgrading of pensions means peopl opt out or do not sign up).

Matthew 6: 1-8 (I think)

TBF I think we should be building a team for promotion and then take stick when we get there. I wouldn't have a problem with a journeyman centre forward (not necessarily Beattie) as cover for Lambert, who then gets discarded once get promoted.

As a lone striker/target man???? I certainly wouldn't have played him upfront on his own. Lambert on his own, yes, but not Guly. Personally would have gone with Barnard and stuck 4-4-2 or with Guly behind Barnard maybe. Not sure either way and one thing it does is highlight that we are a bit short up top.

Certainly not a wrist slitter and still 100% supportive on Adkins and the team, but: That's the third game on the trot where we've been misfiring and the loss of Chappers and Lambert has added to the woes. A win against Blackpool will cancel this bad memory out (a bit like the Hull win did), but I don't think it's something we can ignore. Was always worried we were a bit lightweight squadwise, just hope I'm not proved right!!! Barnard and De Ridder aren't starters for me, and was always worried if we got an injury (or even a suspension) up front or at the centre of the defence. I know some will say we were always going to lose at some point, but we really do need to be beating teams like Donny home and away (or at the very least getting a point up there). Grind out some results up until January and then give Adkins the freedom to strengthen. Who to buy and making sure it doesn't impact on the balance and spirit of the team is where he will earn his corn.

That really is a fccking p1ssser. Wasted a chance to stretch our lead and now in danger of being closed down to 5 points. Need to have a good hard look at our away performances

Well methinks we need to rely on Brum and Brizzle City doing us a favour tonight and tomorrow. Not impressed (and being honest a bit worried!!!!).

This has to be down as one of away wins. Dropping points here wouldn't be too good IMHO, particularly having lost at Ashton Gate.

For me, Brown and Major were just never cut out to be Prime Ministers. As someone else said about Major, probably good at something else, but should never have been handed the keys of No. 10. Have to say I think Blair will be better judged by history than most give him credit for (even though I had and still have huge issues over Iraq and Afghanistan) and if only Thatcher had showed more her compassionate side then I don't think she would be so vilified as she is today. Heath and Callaghan for me were sort of nothings. One termers, stooges of others and presiding over s rather shiite period in history. I fear Cameron will be seen as similar to these last two. Left on the watch during a tempestuous period in history, not particularly heavyweight or tough enough to be his own man, affable but not the man we need in these austere times.

Unrepresentative, unaccountable, unelected, unnecessary and for me unwanted. In very simple terms it should be left up to sovereign countries to decide how they run their financial affirs, so if they want to a high tax and high welfare spend that's their choice (or the electorates choice) just as it would be their right to run a low tax economy.

I think Mr Brown (and his advisors) have a lot to answer for regarding their pension raid back in 1997, and his actions certainly reduced the value of the funds, in turn reducing pensions that would be paid out to many would be pensioners. It also saw the death knell of the defined benefits pension for many in the Private Sector. I certainly don't think it panned out as he first imagined!! But it is only one part of a much larger problem that included the original reduction in tax relief by Norman Lamont, pension holidays in the good times, an overall reduction of pension schemes in the Private Sector etc etc etc. With the reduction of the number of workers in a private pension of any "merit", it just seems to me that more and more pressure will be put on to the state in the future. I don't want this to get in to a Party Political debate, although I accept that politcial decisions, political ideology, political priorities etc will have influenced and will continue to influence policy.

Indeed, when I read it I immediatgely thought, well thanks for the history lesson, but how about projecting forward? They do try and caveat the piece with the last paragraph, but what would have been beneficial to me would be to say as of today, under the defined benefit scheme we have the following liabilities. I have no idea whether this "historical surplus" could cover these or not, but as you say it's only half the story. However, as with private sector defined benefit schemes I do think they should be honoured to all existing members, whilst looking for an alternative for new entrants. (does anyone know of any Private Sector schemes where companies pulled promised defined benefits pensions from existing members???)

Even though I am a member of the NUT, I do think it needs to come with a health warning as it's obviously going to be pushing at things from their position. I'm sure the Government of the day would put their side out giving the contra view, and as usual the truth will be somewhere in the middle. I've come away from the last few days a bit more enlightened with regards information from all sides and my overwhelming thoughts are: 1) The gold plated pensions story has been severely over egged. Whilst they are of good value to the public sector employer and whilst en masse they add up to a fair whack for the state, with an average of about £6,000, they're not the champagne swigging, globe trotting, holiday home retirement sum I thought they would be. I'd be jealous of Freddie Goodwin's £703,000, not sure that frothy at the mouth over a £6,000 one. 2) The lack of provision of Private Sector pensions is an absolute disgrace, and perhaps more worrying it's a timebomb that will come back to haunt us as a society.

As much as Clarkson is a bigotted, mysoginsitic, hypocritical and at times purposefully provocative individual, I'm not sure i'd bracket him in with the Glen Beck's of this world. His rants and exposure is different gravy. He's the light entertainment answer to Jim Davidson to me.

As I thought, the £46bn figure comes from the NUT (got this piece off mumsnet - forst result on the Google search) This note explains the basis for the NUT's calculations on payments into and from the Teachers' Pension Scheme (TPS) since its establishment in 1923. One of the justifications given by the Government for its reforms of public sector pension schemes is that, each year, more money is being paid out in pensions than is being paid in through employer and employee contributions. Those who make this argument usually ignore the fact that, for most of the history of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme, substantially more money was paid in through contributions each year than was paid out in pensions. In the first year of the TPS, teachers paid £4.1 million in pension contributions but received just £5,840 in pensions and lump sums. The NUT has therefore sought to calculate total income and expenditure from 1923 to the present. For the period from 1923 to 2004, the data has been obtained from the periodic TPS actuarial valuation reports carried out for those years as presented to Parliament. Since the Government Actuary's Department has not yet carried out an actuarial valuation for the period since 2004, the TPS’s annual Resource Accounts have been used to provide the relevant data for the years from 2005 to the present. To present these figures in terms of current values, the relevant figure for each individual year has been revalued in line with real growth in GDP across the period since 1923. The Government itself carries out a similar exercise when revaluing the notional assets and liabilities of the TPS during the periodic actuarial valuations of the scheme, using a "discount rate" (for the 2008 valuation, a proposed rate of RPI plus 2.25 per cent) as a proxy for GDP growth in future years. The NUT is therefore using the Government’s own logic in carrying out this exercise but is able to use actual rather than predicted GDP growth data. If the figures for each year are revalued in line with GDP growth, then contributions paid into the TPS exceed pensions and other benefits paid out from the TPS by £46.4bn. The data series used is a TUC series with GDP expressed in 2005 prices. The income received by Government during the early and middle years of the scheme – when money was being taken in and little paid out – easily outweighs, when revalued appropriately, the payments it has been making more recently. The NUT is not arguing that this sum of money is available to hand. The information is merely offered to illustrate the long term nature of pensions funding and the complexity of the arguments involved. Nevertheless, it can fairly be said that the Government has benefited from a long series of cheap loans from teachers’ pension contributions; but is now complaining about paying the pensions promised in return, now that they have fallen due. National Union of Teachers November 2011

I think you're right in that we all seem to be so short term nowadays (that said, I remember waiting a while in my late teens to join the mega generous 15% company TVS Pension Scheme as it meant I had to give up 7% of my drinking fund). I just can't see how we will change the culture of saving, even with the new NEST scheme. I just think people will just try and put off the inevitable as long as they can and not think about it.

Some interesting responses and Dubai Phil and Johnny Bognor have sought of hit on what I thought, in that the days of large companies, jobs for life, decent employer contributions and widespread pension schemes have decreased massively and that for whatever reasons SME don't seem to be as able (or willing) to be as "generous". So how will this be resolved, as I haven't seen or heard anything that convinces me that the Private Sector will step up to the plate with regards providing support for their employees in their retirement? Should the Private Sector be more generous with its provision (can they be more generous given the current economic climate?)? All I can assume is that the State will be left picking up a large benefits tab as so many people will retire in future years with insufficient pension schemes to cover them through retirement. How do other European countries manage to do better with regards pensions? (although that might be up for debate when Europe implodes!!!).

Being offended by Clarkson is akin to being offended by Dune on here, ridiculously over sensitive.

I believe the NUT claim of £46billion surplus is an historical figure and is the net surplus of contributions vs payments over a 90+ year lifespan of the scheme (i.e. in early years millions must have been paid in and not much drawn out). Of course this would not be available to be given to the NUT as it's just been put in to the coffers of the Exchequer over the decades. Additionally, I'm not sure how robust that figure is, but not seen it rebutted anywhere.

Not a thread to reignite the ridiculous Public v Private Sector debate, but one to discuss what I thought was one of the startling "facts" that was trumpted so much yesterday. Namely, the number of Private Sector employees who do not have a "company pension". All the Private Sector companies I worked for provided decent pensions from General Motors, TVS, Meridian, Granada, Guinness World Records, Britt Allcroft and at one point my TVS Pension had 22% contributions per month going in to it (7% me & 15% co.). So I suppose my two questions would be: 1) Why aren't companies providing pension contributions anymore? Has the Private Sector moved away from large multinationals more towards SME who find it "difficult" to afford contributions? 2) What is going to happen when this large rump of the working population hit retirement? Will they be able to survive on just the state pension? Will people have made their own provision to support themselves in retirement? Will the state have to contribute more over and above the pension on other things (heating allowances etc)?

I love the way the anecdotes and individual experiences are quickly repackaged in to broad, catch all generalisations stuffed with FACTS. It do miss StuRomseySaint as he was the master of this fine art. Always good value watching him proclaim stuff from his afternoon expereinces in town.