um pahars

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.

Just think they are trying to limit the number who go and perhaps more importantly who goes. Think the Club may have pushed OB to allow a select few non STH regaular travellers to go (probably in response to pressure from fans), but OB don't want "general" fans just going along for this one game. There's still just undcer three weeks to the game, so why stop making tickets available if they're not sold out??

As I said a while back don't think they will open it up to a general sale. They've relaxed it a bit to allow "non STH regular away fans", but I reckon that will be about it.

Best quote of the day from me (and very insightful journalism from my former employers at Meridian). "I don't agree with the strike, I've never had a pay rise in 20 years". Now either: a) He was on a mega wedge in 1990 and it's been slowly "decreasing in worth" ever since, or b) He has a really crap job, or c) He has a really horrible employer, or d) He has terrible negotiating skills, or e) He was making it up

It's not about the Unions not being forthcoming, it's about the sancity of a secret ballot enshrined in Law (early 80's under Thatcher). It is the legal right in a secret ballot that you, and you alone know how you voted. There are a number of reasons why secret ballots were brought in, one being to stop any attempts of intimidation from either fellow workers or employers. The headteacher would only know after the event, never before. Even then, there are limitations and protection for both those who either went on strike or who continued to work.

And as I have pointed out for someone so interested in the nuances of whys and hows regarding keeping a school open it is somewhat alarming that they are not even aware of the most basic issues regarding a secret ballot and calling lawful strikes. The biggest problem for Heads is that unless staff volunteer whether or not they are going on strike then they are in an absolute nightmare of a position of not knowing how many staff will not turn up on the day. As our Head did, they may have infomarlly tried to canvass anticipated numbers, but she was never going to be in a position of knowing one way or the other until 8:30 this morning. Of course they are going to assess potential problems, local and national Government advice, assessing whether they could open some Year Groups, whether they could provide some alternative would suggest that this head didn't take this decision lightly and went about it in a conscientious manner. Given your ignorant, somewhat "busy body" and second guessing I actually think the reply was rather pleasant. The results of all the ballots are published in line with the current employment law. Any further analysis of that and you start to undermine the sanctity of a secret ballot.

They might be valid questions, but they were questions that the Head was never going to be in a position to answer and given your interest, you really should have been aware of that. I certainly wouldn't want someone so ignorant of these basic details to be second guessing a senior teaching professional as to whether or not they shoud take the serious and wide reaching decision of closing a school. If you still feel that strongly, then you might need to write another letter, but this time address it to Chris Grayling seeking changes to employment law, secret ballots and how industrial disputes are regulated so that your questions might have a chance of being answered next time around.

Let's not let thsi ridiculous thread descend in to any serious exchange of opinion.

Because the Head was not involved in organinsing the various ballots. Because the Head would not be informed of the result of the various ballots (other that at a national level). Because the dispute is not with the school. Beacuse teachers, support staff and administrative staff have no obligation to tell anyone whether or not they voted. Because teachers, support staff and administrative staff have no obligation to tell anyone how they voted. because teachers, support staff and administrative staff have no obligation to inform the school whether or not they were withdrawing their labour. Given your ignorance of these obvious facts, I struggle to understand your motivation or intention with regards posing these questions.

Because it should be patently obvious that the Headteacher would not be privy to that information.

STH mate of mine rang up a few days ago and was told he needed 4 aways, which is not correct as far as I was aware. Seems like we're doing all we can not to shift these tickets!!!!

Is this one of my three questions?

I didn't read the reply as being "arsey" and reading it again, I still can't see that. Having said that, given the absurd, second guessing and ignorant questions, i think the reply received was actually quite polite. i would have been minded to either ignore the fishing or told him it had nothing to do with him (in a nice polite way of course).

Trouser's a,b and c questions all relate to the vote and the Head will never have that information. As for d), while I certainly wouldn't be sharing that with someone who would at best be second guessing from a position of ignorance.