bridge too far

Oh no! I've been rumbled!

I'm looking forward to hearing from some of the extreme right wing of the Tory party. What a shame Clegg didn't have the guts to be present, although, TBF, he always looks like he wants to distance himself from Dave at every PMQ

Great response from Ed!

Nick's not in da House

I thought it was going to be about cake

It seems Nick Clegg is 'very angry' and there are some thoughts the coalition might not see out the full term of government. Some very interesting articles here http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/dec/10/nick-clegg-david-cameron-europe-veto including one on the dismay of enterprise in the UK at Cameron's actions.

I'm slightly uneasy about a private company effectively dictating world politics. They're funded by investors and those investors have a vested interest in downgrading because they can charge higher interest rates for their loans.

So let me get this straight - their attendance and income comprises free tickets, season ticket for life holders, kids come free and now free food and drink. And they still only get 14K ish attendance! No wonder they're insolvent

Why do I always think of David Mitchell when I see your little winky thing

That'll be a first (almost) since most private intrusion into the NHS seems to exist to rip off the service.

And water. These essential industries and commodities should be answerable to the users and not the shareholders.

Railways (OK not manufacturing, but definitely in need of joined up thinking and control).

What a great site - have bookmarked it. Thanks for posting it.

There's one thing I don't understand. One of the aims is to increase the number of clinical trials taking place. If this data is anonymous, how will the clinical trials teams know who to contact? I participated in clinical trials because I'd seen a poster on the staff bulletin board at the hospital at which I worked and volunteered. I'm also a bit worried that the plan is to speed up the time it takes to get from research to availability for treatment. Consultants and doctors are to be given the right to prescribe these drugs if they think they are pertinent, before they've necessarily cleared the licencing authorities. Now I know as fact and not hearsay that medics are targetted by pharma companies (conferences at ski resorts anyone?). I hate to say it really, but it would cause me to doubt the reason for a doctor prescribing a new drug treatment. The licensing authorities are there for a very good reason. Mr TF has to jump through hoops testing new drugs over and over again to prove both efficacy and purity before they're licensed.

The pharma industry does indeed have loads of cash and I used to criticise the industry for, as an example, charging huge amounts for drugs especially for third world countries. But it's been pointed out to me just how expensive research is. The equipment used in research and testing is very, very costly and a large number of drugs never get past the FSA (in the US) and the equivalent regulating body in the UK. So companies may have spent millions developing a new drug only for it to fail in the approval process. Having said all that, it irritates me the way their PR departments manipulate people who are ill into pressurising NICE for approval for drugs that have little efficacy.

What a strange thing to say! Why do you say this?

I've got mixed feelings. Mr TF works in the pharma industry and I can see that his future would be more secure if there were more clinical trials. I've taken part in two clinical trials and I also 'belong' to the UK Biobank. As far as I know, my data is anonymised and I'm happy to be a guinea pig if the trials hasten treatments. But I'm concerned about my data going astray if it were given to a drugs company. At the very least I would hope, if security could be absolutely guaranteed, that the NHS gets paid for this information. I wonder how much influence the pharma lobby has with the government though and I do think the control for the research that the drugs companies do should be hospital / university research teams and not the companies themselves.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16026827 Are we happy about this or not?

Oh sorry! Can I just add something, though. Whilst it would probably be difficult, it is possible for an 'at home' woman (or man) to continue to pay into a private scheme, albeit the 'employee' element only. AFAIK that isn't the case with a public sector pension. I suspect that there aren't that many public sector employees that work the full 40 years. The exception might be doctors (GPs as well as consultants) and nurses. Both groups can retire earlier than 60 / 65 ATM, although I think the proposals would mean a nurse has to work until s/he is 68 as would a therapist, such as a physio (I can see that that would be difficult, physically).

The cut off point for reckoning is 40 years' service.

Easy to do. For the NHS, the maximum number of years used for the calculation is 40. And it is calculated on the basis of 1/80th per year of contribution. So, let's say someone retires on a final salary of £25K and has contributed for 40 years. The pension would be £12,500. Most people earning £25K would be at junior management level. Now let's look at another example, that of a clerical worker (outpatients clerk, medical records clerk for example). Their final salary at retirement might be around £16K. Let's assume that they too have completed 40 years' service. The pension would be £8K. However, and this is where it becomes very important, a large number of NHS workers are female and most will not have completed 40 years' service because they will have taken time out for family reasons (either looking after children or elderly parents) and a large number of these female workers would also work part-time. My own pension is a case in point. I left the NHS before retirement, so my pension contributions were frozen. I worked for 11 years for the NHS and finished on an above average salary as a senior manager. My pension is £4K a year. NHS staff contribute between 5 - 8% of salary to the pension scheme although, like a private sector pensioner, there is tax relief and a lower NI contribution. In the last 3 years, the NHS scheme has changed. It is no longer a final salary scheme but is based on an average salary over the years of employment.

Not my words, but underlining many of the points I've made already: [h=4]The facts[/h]Pensions in the civil service are far from generous and have been changed recently to a career average scheme. The growing gap between public and private sector pensions is the fault of private sector employers retreating from decent pensions. The real divide is between executives in the boardroom securing for themselves large pensions with low retirement ages, and their workforces suffering repeated cuts. It is counterproductive to degrade pensions because it will force more people into poverty and onto state benefits in their retirement – this is more costly and will have to be met by future taxpayers. We all help to pay for private sector pensions through the price of goods and services. And we all help to contribute to public sector pensions through taxation. Excluding the very highest earners, the average civil service pension is £4,200 a year. More than 100,000 people receive a civil service pension of £2,000 or less a year: over 40,000 receive less than £1,000, and more than 60,000 get between £1,000 and £2,000. Two and a half times as much public sector money is spent subsidising private sector pensions through tax relief than paying for public sector pensions – 60% of this goes to earners at the higher rate. The Treasury’s estimate of the cost of public sector pensions as a proportion of the UK’s national output shows a modest increase from 1.5% to 2% by 2027/28. After this, projections show a slight decline.

So, AA takes OldCo through the administration process and, in effect, sells the club to himself!!!!! Is that legal?

From that article, Lord Hutton says "I don't think you can build long-term reform on forcing people out of saving for pensions, that is a crazy way to do it." It'lll be our children and grandchildren that will pick up the tab for this 'crazy way' because they're the ones that'll have to pay more tax to fund the state support for all these OAPs in their poverty in years to come

When Thatcher allowed a pensions holiday for a decade (where employers were permitted to pay no contributions but the employees had to continue to do so) were the employers asked to then pay the missing contributions when the 'holiday' was over? If not, how did that affect the pensions of the employees who had continued to contribute?