trousers

http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=17455 Hutton: unions ''mistaken'' over pensions 15 September 2011 The trade unions that are planning a series of strikes in protest at the reforms to public sector pensions are doing so on false grounds and being "fundamentally dishonest", according to Lord Hutton, the ex Labour Cabinet minister who produced the report that the government is acting on. Hutton said the unions don't appear to understand that a table in the report that seemed to show the cost of funding pensions would come down over the next 50 years was based on the assumption that government changes – which the unions oppose – would go through. These changes are that public sector workers will work longer and pay more into their pensions. But the unions are arguing that the reforms are not necessary and that without them the pensions would still be affordable – and they are quoting Hutton's report to back up their stance. In particular, they are pointing to the table that indicates the future cost of public sector pensions as a share of national income would fall from 1.9 per cent in 2011 to 1.4 per cent by 2060. Hutton told The Guardian: "If I thought that the current arrangements were fine and didn't need changing I wouldn't have made 27 recommendations for changes. "People are looking at that table in my report and saying that as a share of GDP the cost of public service pensions are likely to fall over the years without understanding the context. I say we shouldn't bet the house on this. There are many economic assumptions contained in that table, not least that the reforms previously agreed under the 'cap and share' system are successfully implemented. "It's fundamentally dishonest for people to cite those figures and reach the conclusion in my report that everything is fine. That completely misreads the entire report. I was trying to talk about sustainability. That can be measured as total cost proportion of GDP. Affordability is a different judgement, a political judgement. The economics, looking at the future costs of pensions is not. That's objective. The thing that is wrong is for people to say that because there is this one table predicting it to fall over 50 years that the reforms are wrong. It includes the assumptions that people work longer and pay more." He went on: "If government were to implement what I suggested, it would mean a better chance of hitting the figures in the graph. It basically assumed the proposals I suggested were introduced. If we don't implement they won't fall as quickly. If we don't do the reform we won't hit the numbers. "There is every good reason that without long term reform the future sustainability is in doubt and that is because of rising longevity. Unless we are able to pay a lot more or work a bit longer we are going to have a problem. It's plain common sense." Hutton also told the Financial Times: "The fundamental mistake the trades unions are making is that the chart assumes that the reforms have taken place. They are the post reform costs. That chart does not show that public sector pensions are sustainable as they stand. People are choosing the facts that most suit them from the report and then torturing the data until it confesses." He added: "[The unions are objecting to] things that [they] agreed to before as necessary changes. What I did was build them directly into the schemes."

Smoked salmon bagel and bucks fizz going down a treat here. Might treat myself to a lamb shank at lunchtime...

I never said you did. SIGH

So, all 'shadow' companies designed to give the impression CSI are running PFC as "just another subsidiary of a parent company"...?

As they were all acquired recently could it not be argued that they were purely acquired as a cover up for the 'main' acquisition, that of PFC? Yes, these other subsidiaries may well be going concerns in their own right but I'm guessing they aren't huge revenue streams. If the acquisition of these companies was simply a pretence to give the impression that PFC was just one of several companies under CSI wouldn't that take the PFC situation a little closer to the Lowe / SLH model of 'creating' a series of small subsidiaries (radio station, catering firm, etc)....?

Anyway, it's a good start to my day. A nice lie-in followed by a relaxed work from home whilst spending some quality time with my son. More strikes please!

Are you saying there wouldn't have been a 'pension gap' if the nasty bankers hadn't screwed up? And there was me thinking that people living longer had nothing to do with the banking crisis... ;-)

Good cut and paste from Facebook that... ;-)

Stop moaning about people moaning FFS! ;-))

@jordansibley: Gaffer confirmed post match that Rickie was brought off due to "a little niggle with his hip, precautionary & nothing too serious" #saintsfc

And the date today is: 29/11/11...29 + 11 + 1 + 1 = 42 Cripes

Is this bit doffing a cap to the 'cheats' sentiment on this forum...? "Pompey fell into administration in February 2010 after Sacha Gaydamak, who had funded huge losses for Harry Redknapp to take a star-stocked team to victory in the 2008 FA Cup final, pulled out."

^This ;-)

Erm...I mislaid the 2 tickets that were sent to me for the Notts forest game and phone up the ticket office begore I left. They said "no problem, we'll issue duplicates when you get here". At no point did I get told about a £10 replacement charge. I'm now off to check my card statement in case they deducted anything without telling me!

Don't we already have a thread covering all this somewhere?

I always said Lowe was a man with great foresight... ;-)

That's the proverbial $64,000 question...

The Football League ruled that Lowe 'invented' our parent company as a crafty way of trying to protect the "football club" from the financial trouble it was in. Like it or not, CSI appears to be genuine parent company with self sustaining independently trading companies operating beneath it. SFC was not self sustaining from SLH. PFC, in theory, are self sustaining from CSI. In theory...

He was being vague...a bit like not being able to put any specific figures on the number of parents who use schools as a glorified creche... ;-)

No, as long as the 'child' company can trade solvently under its own steam....

Exactly. 'Saint' was saying that parents were exagerating the level of inconvenience they would experience tomorrow, but my point is, surely you have to get to a level of inconvenience that the parents would be justified in complaining about if you're going to stand any chance of getting the government to change their stance? However, I got the feeling 'Saint' was against significantly inconveniencing people, which is where my catch-22 observation comes in....

That sounds like parental "Facebook-esque bluster" to me. You're right, the inconvenience level pales into insignificance compared to the affect this has on the children. Talking of the "inconvenience factor" though, isn't there a slight paradox here in that you (teachers) probably need to start causing a significant amount of inconvenience if you're going to get anywhere with your protest? If no-one is seriously inconvenienced then the status quo is likely to prevail. It's a fine balance between not wanting to seriously inconvenience parents and needing to do so to get your message heard....

That's the crux of the matter. The key question to me is how long does a 'child' company have to prove that it can trade solvently without the support of it's ailing parent company before it is put out of its misery? Days, weeks, months, years? Or is it entirely up to the administrator's discretion as to when that moment arrives? And who is it that acts as judge? The Office of Fair trading? The football authorities? The administrator alone?

Anyone following any Pompey players on Twitter? Probably a good source of information right now...

Maybe the administrator of the parent company will loan the wages to the 'going concern' that is Portsmouth Football Club 2010 and claw it back later through either the proceeds of a sale or liquidation?