trousers

I was led to believe that the Royal Wedding (and other such events) had a net positive effect on the UK economy (not just on the day but over a period of time)? I don't have the stats to hand so can't substantiate that (feel free to correct me via provision of said stats). To compare something that is also an income generator with something that is purely destructive (in economical terms) is "comparing apples with oranges" terriotory. Just an opinion mind you.

Yep. None of those things would ever have happened without the unions.

"I can't see how the club can be deducted points. There's no football debts," he told BBC Radio Solent. That's a good sign. He's following the 'Mark Fry guide to Administration' to the letter thus far.... ;-)

We've all known for years, nay decades, that people are living longer, so we've always had the knowledge that pensions would have to be reformed at some stage. Some might say that to assume the pension you originally signed up for at the time wouldn't need to evolve at some point in the future to accomodate the changes in human life expectancy was avoiding looking at the big picture. Some might say that, some might not. But we didn't need to be an economist 10 - 20 years ago to foresee what would need to happen to pensions in the future. Successive governments (red and blue) simply put off the inevitable until it could be put off no more.

http://www.publicservice.co.uk/feature_story.asp?id=18198 Union pension spin ignores the big picture 30 November 2011 David Davison feels ''immensely sad'' that the leaders of the trade union movement and successive governments have failed to get to grips with the unsustainable cost of public sector pension provision The trade union Unite has published a 'Dossier of hypocrisy' which rightly highlights a disconnect between the government's desire to reduce the level of public sector pensions and the rather generous pensions payable to the very cabinet ministers proposing the change. Few would argue that MPs benefits are excessive and not having made any pre-emptive moves to reduce their value could undermine the strength of the arguments the government are putting forward to address the long term issue over public sector pensions. The document points out how 'Unite supports good pensions for all workers including MPs, what we don't support is a cabinet of millionaires attacking the very modest pensions of the men and women who care for our sick, teach our children and keep our streets safe.' This statement raises some interesting points. Is it purely the fact that the proposals are being made by 'millionaires' that make them unsupportable? I somehow doubt that all the cabinet ministers mentioned would fit in to this category. It also ignores the crucial point that the steps being taken to make public sector pensions sustainable are based squarely upon independent proposals made by the former Labour pensions minister John Hutton. Hutton's proposals sought to put in place a sustainable framework to protect the value of pensions for a very significant proportion of the people highlighted as being at risk. While I agree there should be a major reduction in the pensions offered to MPs, the impact of even a significant reduction on 600 people will not have the same financial impact as a more modest reduction for hundreds of thousands of public sector workers across the nation. Another problem is the term 'gold-plated' when used to refer to pensions. The focus here seems to be based upon the amount payable rather than on the fact that no matter what the state of the scheme or the wider financial environment the pension will be paid in full and the implicit funding risk this entails. It would be interesting if the same people were asked if they considered a pension fund to the value of £150,000-£200,000, with two thirds of this provided by the state was considered excessive in comparison to those provided in the private sector. This is, by the way, the equivalent fund value required to produce a £6,000 pension, index linked with spouses protection in a private scheme. The surveyor may have received a slightly different answer. The government has already yielded significant ground on this issue, possibly too much ground. If we see little or no change on public sector pensions where does this leave us? The government were seeking something sustainable for the future but a continual watering down of the proposals just means we're likely to be back in the same place in a few years, shoring up huge problems which will be left to future generations to sort out. Ultimately the money has to be found from somewhere – it will mean further reductions in education, police, health budgets or higher taxes. How many public sector workers will be happy if they keep their pension but lose their job? The Unison document suggests that the government must 'stop trying to turn people against their neighbours' but isn't that the very thing they are doing through their stance on pension reform? Failure to compromise on this issue risks further alienation and disconnection between the public sector and their private sector counterparts, many of whom can only dream of having such generous pension provision. For the unions to deny that change is necessary to create sustainable pensions for the future, seems totally divorced from the environment we are faced with. This is a generational, not class, issue. It's about how much we're prepared to mortgage our children's future to maintain current levels of pension benefits. I look at my young sons and their friends and I feel immensely sad that the leaders of the trade union movement and successive governments have failed to get to grips with the unsustainable cost of pension provision. Continued failure to address this issue will saddle future generations with a legacy of debt. While I would hope that reason may prevail and we will avoid this situation, unfortunately I'm not hopeful. David Davison is head of public sector, charity and not for profit practice at Spence and Partners

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....