Protests in London following Conservative victory

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 15 of 19 < 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >

Johnny Eagles berlin 12 May 15 1.07pm
Quote silvertop at 12 May 2015 11.53am I am not going to argue this to the extent I can because your boredom would set in rapidly and I will kill yet another thread. However, being a professional person employed in the public sector I can tell you that the dubious rewards are a sh1tty salary [only one 1% rise in the last 5 years], poor reputation in the community and maybe a John Lewis gift token after the few colleagues remaining in employment have a whip round on your retirement. I earn about a third of what I could in private practise and that gap is widening. True, there are lifestyle advantages. However, the low income remains a sizeable price to pay for a lifetime of committed public service. To balance that, we do have one financial motivation: a really good pension. Society has deemed that if you spend a life working in the public sector on restricted income then it is only fair that it will look after you in your old age. This covenant has come under sustained attack from governments looking to reduce the eye-watering and increasing debt burden placed by an ever ageing population on future governments. Most public servants appreciate that their current pension arrangement is not sustainable and have accepted a degree of erosion, e.g. final salary morphing into average salary. I suspect there will be more attacks to come. For some reason, teachers and firemen etc. feel they are exempt from these changes which, I suspect, rankles with the rest of us lowly public servants. It certainly does with me. Thus, before you go out to tarnish the whole public sector with the same brush, you might want to temper those views by acknowledging that the vast majority of us have passively accepted the inevitable; and that there was a good reason why our pension used to be so attractive. Believe me, I have a very high boredom tolerance threshold when it comes to discussions about public sector pensions! But, you’re right, we don’t want to bore everyone else to death. A few points. 1. “the low income remains a sizeable price to pay for a lifetime of committed public service.” Ok, but you said it yourself: there are lifestyle advantages. You also said “we have one financial motivation: a really good pension”. Given that a “really good pension” nowadays is worth upwards of a million pounds, let’s not treat it as a trifling fringe benefit, like a carriage clock or something. I react badly to this “committed public service” argument, where people in the public sector paint themselves with a kind of artificial halo (in German it’s called “Scheinheiligkeit”). As though every last binman and IT contractor on the public payroll is somehow doing it out of the goodness of his heart. You pays your money, you takes your choices. There are plenty of things I’d rather be doing than my job, which pay much worse, but I do it for the money. Other people make a different choice. If you don’t like the low income, go do something else. But don’t use it as a pretence that you’re some kind of martyr. 2. “Society has deemed that if you spend a life working in the public sector on restricted income then it is only fair that it will look after you in your old age.” Has it? Even if it has, I’d say society has at least made it contingent on the fact that the rewards are reasonable. “Society” won’t put up with people milking the public purse. And I think it’s a bit much to call it a ‘covenant’. That strikes me as perhaps a myth that public sector workers tell themselves. It's a financial relationship between worker and employer at the end of the day. 3. “I suspect there will be more attacks to come” I object to the use of the word “attack”. Nobody is out to get you. It’s politics. You have to balance different interest groups. Public sector workers want a financial reward. Fair enough. Taxpayers don't want to be milked for the sake of a privileged caste. Also fair enough. We used to be able to afford generous pensions because they only got paid out for 8-10 years. Nowadays you’re looking at a 30-year or more liability. See what your reformed pension would cost you on the open market, and then tell me that “attack” is a suitable word to use. Finally, a quick thank you for bothering to write a reasoned and well-argued post. It’s nice to debate on here without resorting to sniping. I know I get a bit provocative on this subject, but I do it to make a point. I know not all public sector workers are militant Dave Spart types. ...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread...
Alert a moderator to this post

Johnny Eagles

berlin 12 May 15 1.07pm

Quote silvertop at 12 May 2015 11.53am

I am not going to argue this to the extent I can because your boredom would set in rapidly and I will kill yet another thread. However, being a professional person employed in the public sector I can tell you that the dubious rewards are a sh1tty salary [only one 1% rise in the last 5 years], poor reputation in the community and maybe a John Lewis gift token after the few colleagues remaining in employment have a whip round on your retirement. I earn about a third of what I could in private practise and that gap is widening. True, there are lifestyle advantages. However, the low income remains a sizeable price to pay for a lifetime of committed public service.

To balance that, we do have one financial motivation: a really good pension. Society has deemed that if you spend a life working in the public sector on restricted income then it is only fair that it will look after you in your old age. This covenant has come under sustained attack from governments looking to reduce the eye-watering and increasing debt burden placed by an ever ageing population on future governments. Most public servants appreciate that their current pension arrangement is not sustainable and have accepted a degree of erosion, e.g. final salary morphing into average salary. I suspect there will be more attacks to come. For some reason, teachers and firemen etc. feel they are exempt from these changes which, I suspect, rankles with the rest of us lowly public servants. It certainly does with me.

Thus, before you go out to tarnish the whole public sector with the same brush, you might want to temper those views by acknowledging that the vast majority of us have passively accepted the inevitable; and that there was a good reason why our pension used to be so attractive.

Believe me, I have a very high boredom tolerance threshold when it comes to discussions about public sector pensions! But, you’re right, we don’t want to bore everyone else to death.

A few points.

1. “the low income remains a sizeable price to pay for a lifetime of committed public service.”
Ok, but you said it yourself: there are lifestyle advantages. You also said “we have one financial motivation: a really good pension”. Given that a “really good pension” nowadays is worth upwards of a million pounds, let’s not treat it as a trifling fringe benefit, like a carriage clock or something.

I react badly to this “committed public service” argument, where people in the public sector paint themselves with a kind of artificial halo (in German it’s called “Scheinheiligkeit”). As though every last binman and IT contractor on the public payroll is somehow doing it out of the goodness of his heart.

You pays your money, you takes your choices. There are plenty of things I’d rather be doing than my job, which pay much worse, but I do it for the money. Other people make a different choice. If you don’t like the low income, go do something else. But don’t use it as a pretence that you’re some kind of martyr.

2. “Society has deemed that if you spend a life working in the public sector on restricted income then it is only fair that it will look after you in your old age.”
Has it? Even if it has, I’d say society has at least made it contingent on the fact that the rewards are reasonable. “Society” won’t put up with people milking the public purse. And I think it’s a bit much to call it a ‘covenant’. That strikes me as perhaps a myth that public sector workers tell themselves. It's a financial relationship between worker and employer at the end of the day.

3. “I suspect there will be more attacks to come”
I object to the use of the word “attack”. Nobody is out to get you. It’s politics. You have to balance different interest groups. Public sector workers want a financial reward. Fair enough. Taxpayers don't want to be milked for the sake of a privileged caste. Also fair enough.

We used to be able to afford generous pensions because they only got paid out for 8-10 years. Nowadays you’re looking at a 30-year or more liability. See what your reformed pension would cost you on the open market, and then tell me that “attack” is a suitable word to use.

Finally, a quick thank you for bothering to write a reasoned and well-argued post. It’s nice to debate on here without resorting to sniping. I know I get a bit provocative on this subject, but I do it to make a point. I know not all public sector workers are militant Dave Spart types.

...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread...

Alert a moderator to this post

silvertop Portishead 12 May 15 4.29pm
Yes, I suppose the girl who prepares the flat white coffee is providing a public service. The only difference is that she is in the private sector. Too much is made of the difference and everyone has a choice, to a certain degree, as to what career path they take. However, there remain plenty of those in the public sector who actively chose the public way even though they would have earned far more had they taken the private route [and I include myself in this]. You take the poorer road to support essential front line services knowing you will never live the high life on a public sector salary. However, this used to be recognised by way of an unwritten covenant that you will be taken care of in your advanced years. The longer the public service, the greater the pension benefit. It seems that the British public no longer see the need to meet their side of that covenant and most of those in public service recognise that the public has good reason for this as to maintain pension arrangements in current form is not sustainable. It is a hit we are prepared to take just to remain in a job! However, if you are talking unsustainable, many things need to be looked at closely for the same reason including far more private sector involvement in health care [aggressive encouragement of health insurance etc.] and means-testing state pensions and associated benefits. Sadly, one will only happen in the most stealth like way [if at all] given the nature of the political sacred cow; and the other will impact those who have a greater propensity to vote and vote blue. So both obvious solutions to improved public finance will not happen. Instead, hits will continue to be made on those less able to resist including the unemployed, the disabled and the beleaguered public sector. The sword continues to swing over us and gets lower and lower and the thread that bears it thinner and thinner. In that context, your comments about fat cat pensions seems misguided.
Alert a moderator to this post

silvertop

Portishead 12 May 15 4.29pm

Yes, I suppose the girl who prepares the flat white coffee is providing a public service. The only difference is that she is in the private sector. Too much is made of the difference and everyone has a choice, to a certain degree, as to what career path they take.

However, there remain plenty of those in the public sector who actively chose the public way even though they would have earned far more had they taken the private route [and I include myself in this]. You take the poorer road to support essential front line services knowing you will never live the high life on a public sector salary. However, this used to be recognised by way of an unwritten covenant that you will be taken care of in your advanced years. The longer the public service, the greater the pension benefit. It seems that the British public no longer see the need to meet their side of that covenant and most of those in public service recognise that the public has good reason for this as to maintain pension arrangements in current form is not sustainable. It is a hit we are prepared to take just to remain in a job!

However, if you are talking unsustainable, many things need to be looked at closely for the same reason including far more private sector involvement in health care [aggressive encouragement of health insurance etc.] and means-testing state pensions and associated benefits. Sadly, one will only happen in the most stealth like way [if at all] given the nature of the political sacred cow; and the other will impact those who have a greater propensity to vote and vote blue. So both obvious solutions to improved public finance will not happen. Instead, hits will continue to be made on those less able to resist including the unemployed, the disabled and the beleaguered public sector.

The sword continues to swing over us and gets lower and lower and the thread that bears it thinner and thinner. In that context, your comments about fat cat pensions seems misguided.

Alert a moderator to this post

Johnny Eagles berlin 12 May 15 4.52pm
Quote silvertop at 12 May 2015 4.29pm Yes, I suppose the girl who prepares the flat white coffee is providing a public service. The only difference is that she is in the private sector. Too much is made of the difference and everyone has a choice, to a certain degree, as to what career path they take. However, there remain plenty of those in the public sector who actively chose the public way even though they would have earned far more had they taken the private route [and I include myself in this]. You take the poorer road to support essential front line services knowing you will never live the high life on a public sector salary. However, this used to be recognised by way of an unwritten covenant that you will be taken care of in your advanced years. The longer the public service, the greater the pension benefit. It seems that the British public no longer see the need to meet their side of that covenant and most of those in public service recognise that the public has good reason for this as to maintain pension arrangements in current form is not sustainable. It is a hit we are prepared to take just to remain in a job! However, if you are talking unsustainable, many things need to be looked at closely for the same reason including far more private sector involvement in health care [aggressive encouragement of health insurance etc.] and means-testing state pensions and associated benefits. Sadly, one will only happen in the most stealth like way [if at all] given the nature of the political sacred cow; and the other will impact those who have a greater propensity to vote and vote blue. So both obvious solutions to improved public finance will not happen. Instead, hits will continue to be made on those less able to resist including the unemployed, the disabled and the beleaguered public sector. The sword continues to swing over us and gets lower and lower and the thread that bears it thinner and thinner. In that context, your comments about fat cat pensions seems misguided. Are you not trying to have your cake and eat it? You say, "Too much is made of the difference" [between the public and private sector] yet you bemoan the British Public for not sticking to their part of a bargain, sorry, 'covenant'. Which is it? Do public servants deserve special treatment or not? I'm skeptical about so-called covenants. I'm even more skeptical, not to say downright cynical, about people who claim they selflessly sacrifice things (eg, financial income) for the "public good". Eg, there was a lecturer at my university who claimed he could be a billionaire hedge fund manager, but he loved the "public service" of lecturing. Yeah, right. The relative comfort, low levels of stress, high job security and working in a nice leafy campus full of 20 year old girls wasn't a factor. Doctors are another example. They claim they are in it for the love of patients, but I've worked with enough of them to know they are seriously into having the esteem and respect the job engenders, not to mention the money. Which is not to say the two things are mutually exclusive. But when a doctor claims all he cares about are his patients but goes on strike for his pension then I think actions speak louder than words. In short, I think there is a lot of cant and humbug dished out by people who work in 'public service' and the 'not-for-profit' sector. I respect people who work in those areas, but when they start to sneer at the rest of us who take the corporate dollar (which happens to pay their salary) then it gets a bit much. (N.B. I know you are NOT doing this, but I've met plenty of people who do.) I don't accept that the British Public is reneging on their part of a bargain. I doubt whether such a bargain ever existed. Maybe in some Dixon of Dock Green type world it once did. But not anymore. I agree with your last couple of paragraphs. Britain needs to decide whether it wants Scandinavian public services or American levels of tax. It can't have both. But the answer is to make rational and smart policy, not harp on about some mythological "covenant" where selfless public servant Bob Cratchetts martyr themselves only for Scrooge to cruelly take away the only thing they have in the world (which just so happens to be worth several million pounds.) Edited by Johnny Eagles (12 May 2015 4.55pm) ...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread...
Alert a moderator to this post

Johnny Eagles

berlin 12 May 15 4.52pm

Quote silvertop at 12 May 2015 4.29pm

The sword continues to swing over us and gets lower and lower and the thread that bears it thinner and thinner. In that context, your comments about fat cat pensions seems misguided.

Are you not trying to have your cake and eat it?

You say, "Too much is made of the difference" [between the public and private sector] yet you bemoan the British Public for not sticking to their part of a bargain, sorry, 'covenant'.

Which is it? Do public servants deserve special treatment or not?

I'm skeptical about so-called covenants. I'm even more skeptical, not to say downright cynical, about people who claim they selflessly sacrifice things (eg, financial income) for the "public good".

Eg, there was a lecturer at my university who claimed he could be a billionaire hedge fund manager, but he loved the "public service" of lecturing. Yeah, right. The relative comfort, low levels of stress, high job security and working in a nice leafy campus full of 20 year old girls wasn't a factor.

Doctors are another example. They claim they are in it for the love of patients, but I've worked with enough of them to know they are seriously into having the esteem and respect the job engenders, not to mention the money. Which is not to say the two things are mutually exclusive. But when a doctor claims all he cares about are his patients but goes on strike for his pension then I think actions speak louder than words.

In short, I think there is a lot of cant and humbug dished out by people who work in 'public service' and the 'not-for-profit' sector. I respect people who work in those areas, but when they start to sneer at the rest of us who take the corporate dollar (which happens to pay their salary) then it gets a bit much. (N.B. I know you are NOT doing this, but I've met plenty of people who do.)

I don't accept that the British Public is reneging on their part of a bargain. I doubt whether such a bargain ever existed. Maybe in some Dixon of Dock Green type world it once did. But not anymore.

I agree with your last couple of paragraphs. Britain needs to decide whether it wants Scandinavian public services or American levels of tax. It can't have both.

But the answer is to make rational and smart policy, not harp on about some mythological "covenant" where selfless public servant Bob Cratchetts martyr themselves only for Scrooge to cruelly take away the only thing they have in the world (which just so happens to be worth several million pounds.)

Edited by Johnny Eagles (12 May 2015 4.55pm)

...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread...

Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall 12 May 15 10.39pm
Quote silvertop at 12 May 2015 11.53am To balance that, we do have one financial motivation: a really good pension. Society has deemed that if you spend a life working in the public sector on restricted income then it is only fair that it will look after you in your old age. This covenant has come under sustained attack from governments looking to reduce the eye-watering and increasing debt burden placed by an ever ageing population on future governments. Most public servants appreciate that their current pension arrangement is not sustainable and have accepted a degree of erosion, e.g. final salary morphing into average salary. I suspect there will be more attacks to come. For some reason, teachers and firemen etc. feel they are exempt from these changes which, I suspect, rankles with the rest of us lowly public servants. It certainly does with me. On highlighting my previous private sector job's inferior salary and non existent pension an infamous HoL lefty's ironically capitalist suggestion was that I move jobs. It really is wanting your cake and eating it. Embrace it, accept the blessings of the socialist voters, take what is still a decent pension, enjoy the set hours and all the rest or work elsewhere. It's the frontline staff you've got to feel sorry for. They have fewer private sector alternatives. Their only perks i.e. the pension and the fulfillment of the service they provide are likely the only reasons they signed up but then they still have the backing of the wider public. And mathematically a lot of them will even have voted Tory. It goes to show who really is self serving. Another contradiction being those who wish to fight for the NHS but would never sanction taking a penny away from any other less significant public sector worker or even the unemployed to pay for it. Edited by johnfirewall (12 May 2015 10.41pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall

12 May 15 10.39pm

Quote silvertop at 12 May 2015 11.53am

On highlighting my previous private sector job's inferior salary and non existent pension an infamous HoL lefty's ironically capitalist suggestion was that I move jobs.

It really is wanting your cake and eating it. Embrace it, accept the blessings of the socialist voters, take what is still a decent pension, enjoy the set hours and all the rest or work elsewhere.

It's the frontline staff you've got to feel sorry for. They have fewer private sector alternatives. Their only perks i.e. the pension and the fulfillment of the service they provide are likely the only reasons they signed up but then they still have the backing of the wider public. And mathematically a lot of them will even have voted Tory. It goes to show who really is self serving. Another contradiction being those who wish to fight for the NHS but would never sanction taking a penny away from any other less significant public sector worker or even the unemployed to pay for it.

Edited by johnfirewall (12 May 2015 10.41pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 12 May 15 10.49pm
Quote johnfirewall at 12 May 2015 10.39pm Quote silvertop at 12 May 2015 11.53am To balance that, we do have one financial motivation: a really good pension. Society has deemed that if you spend a life working in the public sector on restricted income then it is only fair that it will look after you in your old age. This covenant has come under sustained attack from governments looking to reduce the eye-watering and increasing debt burden placed by an ever ageing population on future governments. Most public servants appreciate that their current pension arrangement is not sustainable and have accepted a degree of erosion, e.g. final salary morphing into average salary. I suspect there will be more attacks to come. For some reason, teachers and firemen etc. feel they are exempt from these changes which, I suspect, rankles with the rest of us lowly public servants. It certainly does with me. On highlighting my previous private sector job's inferior salary and non existent pension an infamous HoL lefty's ironically capitalist suggestion was that I move jobs. It really is wanting your cake and eating it. Embrace it, accept the blessings of the socialist voters, take what is still a decent pension, enjoy the set hours and all the rest or work elsewhere. It's the frontline staff you've got to feel sorry for. They have fewer private sector alternatives. Their only perks i.e. the pension and the fulfillment of the service they provide are likely the only reasons they signed up but then they still have the backing of the wider public. And mathematically a lot of them will even have voted Tory. It goes to show who really is self serving. Another contradiction being those who wish to fight for the NHS but would never sanction taking a penny away from any other less significant public sector worker or even the unemployed to pay for it. Edited by johnfirewall (12 May 2015 10.41pm) Why can't the money come from elsewhere? Why is it always us plebs that suffer?
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 12 May 15 10.49pm

Quote johnfirewall at 12 May 2015 10.39pm

Quote silvertop at 12 May 2015 11.53am

On highlighting my previous private sector job's inferior salary and non existent pension an infamous HoL lefty's ironically capitalist suggestion was that I move jobs.

It really is wanting your cake and eating it. Embrace it, accept the blessings of the socialist voters, take what is still a decent pension, enjoy the set hours and all the rest or work elsewhere.

Edited by johnfirewall (12 May 2015 10.41pm)

Why can't the money come from elsewhere? Why is it always us plebs that suffer?

Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall 12 May 15 11.30pm
Quote nickgusset at 12 May 2015 10.49pm Quote johnfirewall at 12 May 2015 10.39pm Quote silvertop at 12 May 2015 11.53am To balance that, we do have one financial motivation: a really good pension. Society has deemed that if you spend a life working in the public sector on restricted income then it is only fair that it will look after you in your old age. This covenant has come under sustained attack from governments looking to reduce the eye-watering and increasing debt burden placed by an ever ageing population on future governments. Most public servants appreciate that their current pension arrangement is not sustainable and have accepted a degree of erosion, e.g. final salary morphing into average salary. I suspect there will be more attacks to come. For some reason, teachers and firemen etc. feel they are exempt from these changes which, I suspect, rankles with the rest of us lowly public servants. It certainly does with me. On highlighting my previous private sector job's inferior salary and non existent pension an infamous HoL lefty's ironically capitalist suggestion was that I move jobs. It really is wanting your cake and eating it. Embrace it, accept the blessings of the socialist voters, take what is still a decent pension, enjoy the set hours and all the rest or work elsewhere. It's the frontline staff you've got to feel sorry for. They have fewer private sector alternatives. Their only perks i.e. the pension and the fulfillment of the service they provide are likely the only reasons they signed up but then they still have the backing of the wider public. And mathematically a lot of them will even have voted Tory. It goes to show who really is self serving. Another contradiction being those who wish to fight for the NHS but would never sanction taking a penny away from any other less significant public sector worker or even the unemployed to pay for it. Edited by johnfirewall (12 May 2015 10.41pm) Why can't the money come from elsewhere? Why is it always us plebs that suffer? Suffering is having to work 50 hours a week for it, not getting a bit less for doing nothing. I think a lot of people actually had faith in the Conservative's support of those who do the former. And I won't apologise for a vote in favour of a real terms fraction of a percent pa income decrease for anyone else, whichever sector. It may be fair to take a bit more from the people who already contribute the most but you wouldn't stop it there would you. It'd extend to anyone who earns more than a teacher, except obviously anyone else in the public sector. I can't deal with the sort of mindless socialism that without offering justification for a particular benefit, or a valid objection to its capping, will instead insist that bankers must cover the cost. Please don't go for bedroom tax though. We can probably all agree it was too stupid for them to even admit with a U-turn on. Although arguably implemented by some councils in intentionally controversial cases and required as a result of their own poor administration. Edited by johnfirewall (12 May 2015 11.49pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall

12 May 15 11.30pm

Quote nickgusset at 12 May 2015 10.49pm

Quote johnfirewall at 12 May 2015 10.39pm

Quote silvertop at 12 May 2015 11.53am

On highlighting my previous private sector job's inferior salary and non existent pension an infamous HoL lefty's ironically capitalist suggestion was that I move jobs.

It really is wanting your cake and eating it. Embrace it, accept the blessings of the socialist voters, take what is still a decent pension, enjoy the set hours and all the rest or work elsewhere.

Edited by johnfirewall (12 May 2015 10.41pm)

Why can't the money come from elsewhere? Why is it always us plebs that suffer?

Suffering is having to work 50 hours a week for it, not getting a bit less for doing nothing. I think a lot of people actually had faith in the Conservative's support of those who do the former. And I won't apologise for a vote in favour of a real terms fraction of a percent pa income decrease for anyone else, whichever sector.

It may be fair to take a bit more from the people who already contribute the most but you wouldn't stop it there would you. It'd extend to anyone who earns more than a teacher, except obviously anyone else in the public sector.

I can't deal with the sort of mindless socialism that without offering justification for a particular benefit, or a valid objection to its capping, will instead insist that bankers must cover the cost.

Please don't go for bedroom tax though. We can probably all agree it was too stupid for them to even admit with a U-turn on. Although arguably implemented by some councils in intentionally controversial cases and required as a result of their own poor administration.

Edited by johnfirewall (12 May 2015 11.49pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 12 May 15 11.51pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 12 May 2015 10.45am Quote Hoof Hearted at 12 May 2015 10.35am Exactly. All this furore over pensions from the police, firebrigade, teachers etc when necessary changes to cope with demographics were implemented says it all. Lloyds Bank made a massive change to their pension scheme last year by freezing pensionable salary. This means that all future pay increases don't qualify for your final salary to calculate entitlement. The staff had to accept it, because it was necessary and the company needed to do it to clear the deficit between assets and liabilities. It's going to cost my Mrs about £2K a year on her retirement income and for a lot of her younger colleagues, a hell of a lot more. They didn't strike, but many will move elsewhere to achieve better working conditions/pay/benefits. What your saying essentially is that LloydsTSB offered pension schemes it could not cover, because it couldn't balance assets and liabilities. Its a bank, you'd think someone there would understand accountancy. What galls me is the incompetence in offering unsustainable contracted offers, that are then withdrawn because the first party can't afford it. Especially given the profits and bonuses that the good times brought those industries. They failed in their commitment and responsibility to deliver on their side of the agreement. You'd think financial companies would understand profit and loss, assets and liabilities. People should be angry. Even if the changes have to be made. Lloyds reported a profit in 2014 before tax of £1,762 million compared to £415 million in 2013... Edited by legaleagle (12 May 2015 11.52pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

12 May 15 11.51pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 12 May 2015 10.45am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 12 May 2015 10.35am

Exactly.

All this furore over pensions from the police, firebrigade, teachers etc when necessary changes to cope with demographics were implemented says it all.

Lloyds Bank made a massive change to their pension scheme last year by freezing pensionable salary. This means that all future pay increases don't qualify for your final salary to calculate entitlement.

The staff had to accept it, because it was necessary and the company needed to do it to clear the deficit between assets and liabilities.

It's going to cost my Mrs about £2K a year on her retirement income and for a lot of her younger colleagues, a hell of a lot more.

They didn't strike, but many will move elsewhere to achieve better working conditions/pay/benefits.

What your saying essentially is that LloydsTSB offered pension schemes it could not cover, because it couldn't balance assets and liabilities.

Its a bank, you'd think someone there would understand accountancy.

What galls me is the incompetence in offering unsustainable contracted offers, that are then withdrawn because the first party can't afford it. Especially given the profits and bonuses that the good times brought those industries.

They failed in their commitment and responsibility to deliver on their side of the agreement. You'd think financial companies would understand profit and loss, assets and liabilities.

People should be angry. Even if the changes have to be made.

Lloyds reported a profit in 2014 before tax of £1,762 million compared to £415 million in 2013...

Edited by legaleagle (12 May 2015 11.52pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 12 May 15 11.59pm
Quote Johnny Eagles at 12 May 2015 11.05am Quote imbored at 12 May 2015 10.58am left = moron right = clever and civilised is such a silly statement it's hard to know where to begin. It's a generalisation. But it's basically true. As evidenced by the higher preponderance of silly abusive and/or venomous (and not to mention moronic at times) comments on here emanating from a number of those on the "right" as opposed to the "left"
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

12 May 15 11.59pm

Quote Johnny Eagles at 12 May 2015 11.05am

Quote imbored at 12 May 2015 10.58am

left = moron
right = clever and civilised

is such a silly statement it's hard to know where to begin.

It's a generalisation. But it's basically true.

As evidenced by the higher preponderance of silly abusive and/or venomous (and not to mention moronic at times) comments on here emanating from a number of those on the "right" as opposed to the "left"

Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall 13 May 15 12.14am
Quote legaleagle at 12 May 2015 11.59pm Quote Johnny Eagles at 12 May 2015 11.05am Quote imbored at 12 May 2015 10.58am left = moron right = clever and civilised is such a silly statement it's hard to know where to begin. It's a generalisation. But it's basically true. As evidenced by the higher preponderance of silly abusive and/or venomous (and not to mention moronic at times) comments on here emanating from a number of those on the "right" as opposed to the "left" The left on here are quite intelligent as are the right. The left and right I encounter on social media have the propensity to share completely fictitious articles and graphics. The left at these protests would like to think they've done their reading but reduce their ideas to careless tropes. The right I can only think of participating in this sort of thing in the form of the EDL who clearly haven't done any reading. Overall as stated by a few here, before it descended to wild stereotypes, the more moderate 'right' don't really have such an outlet. Personally if I ever encountered this sort of thing I would end up swinging off a posh cnut swinging off a war memorial or joining the TSG. I've heard the tales of the Carnival Against Capitalism's encroachment in to the LIFFE and their bloody encounters with rowdy East-end / Essex boys. Posh kids fighting the working class in the name of erm.. what exactly? I'd say it's even more ironic and ridiculous than Cameron's love of Eton Rifles. There are obvious examples of uprisings and such but in 21st century England if you're resorting to violence and destruction you've not really thought about what you're doing or what you want (or when you want it) and are likely a bit of a cnut who doesn't really represent any cause. Society is at fault for creating this trust fund guilt though. In the old days you just enjoyed being rich. In turn this just fuels consumerism and means people like myself spend cash they haven't got being flash, hopefully goading poshies into revealing their true colours and thus defeating their own argument. Edited by johnfirewall (13 May 2015 12.43am)
Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall

13 May 15 12.14am

Quote legaleagle at 12 May 2015 11.59pm

Quote Johnny Eagles at 12 May 2015 11.05am

Quote imbored at 12 May 2015 10.58am

left = moron
right = clever and civilised

is such a silly statement it's hard to know where to begin.

It's a generalisation. But it's basically true.

The left on here are quite intelligent as are the right. The left and right I encounter on social media have the propensity to share completely fictitious articles and graphics. The left at these protests would like to think they've done their reading but reduce their ideas to careless tropes. The right I can only think of participating in this sort of thing in the form of the EDL who clearly haven't done any reading.

Overall as stated by a few here, before it descended to wild stereotypes, the more moderate 'right' don't really have such an outlet. Personally if I ever encountered this sort of thing I would end up swinging off a posh cnut swinging off a war memorial or joining the TSG.

I've heard the tales of the Carnival Against Capitalism's encroachment in to the LIFFE and their bloody encounters with rowdy East-end / Essex boys. Posh kids fighting the working class in the name of erm.. what exactly? I'd say it's even more ironic and ridiculous than Cameron's love of Eton Rifles.

There are obvious examples of uprisings and such but in 21st century England if you're resorting to violence and destruction you've not really thought about what you're doing or what you want (or when you want it) and are likely a bit of a cnut who doesn't really represent any cause. Society is at fault for creating this trust fund guilt though. In the old days you just enjoyed being rich. In turn this just fuels consumerism and means people like myself spend cash they haven't got being flash, hopefully goading poshies into revealing their true colours and thus defeating their own argument.

Edited by johnfirewall (13 May 2015 12.43am)

Alert a moderator to this post

Seth On a pale blue dot 13 May 15 1.54am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 12 May 2015 11.05am Quote imbored at 12 May 2015 10.58am left = moron right = clever and civilised is such a silly statement it's hard to know where to begin. It's a generalisation. But it's basically true. [Link] "You can feel the stadium jumping. The stadium is actually physically moving up and down" FA Cup MOTD 24/4/16
Alert a moderator to this post

Seth

On a pale blue dot 13 May 15 1.54am

Quote Johnny Eagles at 12 May 2015 11.05am

Quote imbored at 12 May 2015 10.58am

left = moron
right = clever and civilised

is such a silly statement it's hard to know where to begin.

It's a generalisation. But it's basically true.

[Link]

"You can feel the stadium jumping. The stadium is actually physically moving up and down"
FA Cup MOTD 24/4/16

Alert a moderator to this post

danboy Kidbrooke 13 May 15 4.37am
Quote matt_himself at 11 May 2015 10.20am Quote imbored at 11 May 2015 9.20am Quote matt_himself at 11 May 2015 9.06am Quote imbored at 11 May 2015 8.58am Quote matt_himself at 11 May 2015 8.52am Quote imbored at 11 May 2015 8.11am Quote matt_himself at 11 May 2015 8.05am Quote imbored at 11 May 2015 7.53am About the fifth time Matt's tried to get my attention since I stopped talking to him. This time with fantasy and/or malice but it's still not happening I'm afraid. I have no idea who this new person is, other than that they are magically familiar with newly yellow carded Nick and winding him up from the off. In his shoes I'd ignore and in a mods I'd ban. It's not fantasy nor malice to say you have used multiple usernames on here. You have. Therefore one has to question your agenda. The only other person on here I know of resorting multiple usernames was Delwboy. Fancy seeing you online. It's fantasy or malice to accuse someone of something that they themselves know they have nothing to do with. Like I said, I'd ban this person because it's clearly going nowhere constructive. It's not even a well disguised attempt to mess with Nick. I still have no interest in talking with you so stop jabbing at me and referencing me every other thread. It's boring. Edited by imbored (11 May 2015 8.24am) So its ok for you to troll me under multiple usernames, not ok for me to point out that you do this when someone else is suspected of doing it? You have a weird moral code. You crybaby. I have no interest in talking with you, whatever name you're under and whatever you have to say. Please stop endlessly talking to or about me. Thanks <-- If you don't want me to talk to you, then don't make allegations about me using multiple usernames. This is not interesting for other people to read Matt. The world doesn't revolve whatever conflict you dream up with people at any given moment. I'll ignore you again until I need to defend myself against your imaginings. If you're interested in actually using the forum in a manner that is considerate to others, you will have the common sense do the same with me. Bye. You said that you had no interest in talking to me 'whatever name you are under'. That is alleging that I am using multiple usernames. That is not an 'imagining'. You are losing it. I suggest you cease trolling and be man enough to acknowledge what you have said. For me reading all this s*** this is a right crease, matt your one of the biggest trolls out the lot you couldnt make this up R.I.P staffie
Alert a moderator to this post

danboy

Kidbrooke 13 May 15 4.37am

Quote matt_himself at 11 May 2015 10.20am

Quote imbored at 11 May 2015 9.20am

Quote matt_himself at 11 May 2015 9.06am

Quote imbored at 11 May 2015 8.58am

Quote matt_himself at 11 May 2015 8.52am

Quote imbored at 11 May 2015 8.11am

Quote matt_himself at 11 May 2015 8.05am

Quote imbored at 11 May 2015 7.53am

About the fifth time Matt's tried to get my attention since I stopped talking to him. This time with fantasy and/or malice but it's still not happening I'm afraid.

I have no idea who this new person is, other than that they are magically familiar with newly yellow carded Nick and winding him up from the off. In his shoes I'd ignore and in a mods I'd ban.

It's not fantasy nor malice to say you have used multiple usernames on here. You have. Therefore one has to question your agenda.

The only other person on here I know of resorting multiple usernames was Delwboy.

Fancy seeing you online. It's fantasy or malice to accuse someone of something that they themselves know they have nothing to do with. Like I said, I'd ban this person because it's clearly going nowhere constructive. It's not even a well disguised attempt to mess with Nick.

I still have no interest in talking with you so stop jabbing at me and referencing me every other thread. It's boring.

Edited by imbored (11 May 2015 8.24am)

So its ok for you to troll me under multiple usernames, not ok for me to point out that you do this when someone else is suspected of doing it?

You have a weird moral code. You crybaby.

I have no interest in talking with you, whatever name you're under and whatever you have to say. Please stop endlessly talking to or about me. Thanks <--

If you don't want me to talk to you, then don't make allegations about me using multiple usernames.

This is not interesting for other people to read Matt. The world doesn't revolve whatever conflict you dream up with people at any given moment. I'll ignore you again until I need to defend myself against your imaginings. If you're interested in actually using the forum in a manner that is considerate to others, you will have the common sense do the same with me. Bye.

You said that you had no interest in talking to me 'whatever name you are under'. That is alleging that I am using multiple usernames. That is not an 'imagining'.

You are losing it. I suggest you cease trolling and be man enough to acknowledge what you have said.

For me reading all this s*** this is a right crease, matt your one of the biggest trolls out the lot you couldnt make this up

R.I.P staffie

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 13 May 15 7.51am
Quote Seth at 13 May 2015 1.54am Quote Johnny Eagles at 12 May 2015 11.05am Quote imbored at 12 May 2015 10.58am left = moron right = clever and civilised is such a silly statement it's hard to know where to begin. It's a generalisation. But it's basically true. [Link] Seth quoting from the Daily mail - priceless! (Or rather cutting and pasting a link like all the 'intelligent' left do on here..
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

13 May 15 7.51am

Quote Seth at 13 May 2015 1.54am

Quote Johnny Eagles at 12 May 2015 11.05am

Quote imbored at 12 May 2015 10.58am

left = moron
right = clever and civilised

is such a silly statement it's hard to know where to begin.

It's a generalisation. But it's basically true.

[Link]

Seth quoting from the Daily mail - priceless! (Or rather cutting and pasting a link like all the 'intelligent' left do on here..

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 15 of 19 < 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Protests in London following Conservative victory

Site Map

Sponsors