• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Public sector v Private Sector

Status
Not open for further replies.

strange6

Established Member
Joined
9 Jan 2011
Messages
1,920
Location
Wigan, Greater manchester
Having worked all of my life in the private sector with no pension scheme, no perks and only a basic salary with a payrise perhaps every 8 years circa 2-3 percent, then I think the public sector are due for their comeuppance. I don't mean in terms of job cuts, but i feel there are too many people in the public sector who have had it too good for too long, particulalry all the tiers of management and my god there are some.
And why is it that the unions always seem to be more proactive when it comes to the overblown public sector?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
Having worked all of my life in the private sector with no pension scheme, no perks and only a basic salary with a payrise perhaps every 8 years circa 2-3 percent, then I think the public sector are due for their comeuppance. I don't mean in terms of job cuts, but i feel there are too many people in the public sector who have had it too good for too long, particulalry all the tiers of management and my god there are some.
And why is it that the unions always seem to be more proactive when it comes to the overblown public sector?

I disagree, as far as I am concerned the unions have been proactive regardless if it's the private or public sector for a example there's enough evidence showing that TSSA, RMT, ATCU and ASLEF unions do more then enough for their members employed by private firms.

Above all, all unions are going to be proactive for their members as it's what their members pay them for - no union is going to survive on being a non-active one.
 

142094

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2009
Messages
8,789
Location
Newcastle
I agree that at the top of the public sector there are a lot of people who have very good wages, good pensions and a whole host of other bonuses etc and these are the people that should be feeling the full force of the review. However when you look at people at the bottom of the pile, most of these get a small wage and the pension was one of the only things that make the job attractive. Certainly the pay in the public sector is much lower for the same type of job than it is in the private sector.
 

SS4

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2011
Messages
8,589
Location
Birmingham
I disagree, the media have gone after the public sector ever since the general election. In May/June 2010 Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) won a high court battle against the [Labour] government simply hacking away at their pension. Now they cite the public servants at the top and even make a reference to David Cameron (excuse me while I wash my mouth out with soap) which is spurious since civil servants don't get expenses.

The pay distribution is poor, those at the top earn a lot more than those at the bottom and for most jobs near the bottom pay is less, gold plated pensions is a myth except the senior public sector workers (the statistical outliers). Final Salary schemes were closed to new entrants a long time ago too which makes it frustrating because, as a young man, I am expected to foot the bill for the baby boomers who's last act is to strip me of the same rights they themselves had.

I suspect it's because the government and previous governments have been able to use divide and conquer in the private sector, either by splitting up industry or simply selling it abroad.
 

theblackwatch

Established Member
Joined
15 Feb 2006
Messages
10,889
I agree that at the top of the public sector there are a lot of people who have very good wages, good pensions and a whole host of other bonuses etc and these are the people that should be feeling the full force of the review. However when you look at people at the bottom of the pile, most of these get a small wage and the pension was one of the only things that make the job attractive. Certainly the pay in the public sector is much lower for the same type of job than it is in the private sector.

And even then the pension is hardly huge. The average is £7,800 and around half receive under £5,600 a year - I suspect Strange6 thinks it is much higher.
 

142094

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2009
Messages
8,789
Location
Newcastle
Exactly, most people hear from the news about the, in some cases, very large pension pots for senior managers, so assume that all public sector workers get a big pension.
 

strange6

Established Member
Joined
9 Jan 2011
Messages
1,920
Location
Wigan, Greater manchester
And even then the pension is hardly huge. The average is £7,800 and around half receive under £5,600 a year - I suspect Strange6 thinks it is much higher.

I agree with all the posts so far in this thread actually! I did word my OP to spark debate but on the whole, I do appreciate that the vast majority of public sector employees are on low wages and low pensions. The problem with the public sector is that middle to senior management is way too 'top heavy' and a lot of them simply do not deserve the perks that they get
 

Clip

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,821
I know a few coppers who have retired at 55 and now own boats and such like enjoying the life of riley.. some even took it at 50 too and still are getting a nice enough pension to sustain a life of never having to work again.. why is that?
 

sprinterguy

Veteran Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,567
Location
Macclesfield
Where I work at the moment (public sector), I wouldn't say there are a lot of levels of management, but the pay scale is very top heavy, weighted towards a select few. The union has very little power to affect anything, as they have less than 49% support from the employees. There appears to be a lot of flow in both directions of personnel between us in the public sector and the private sector consultanices we work with, which suggests there are benefits to both public and private sector work. The private sector consultancy workers we are involved with definitely get higher levels of pay when fufilling similar roles to our in house teams.
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
Having worked all of my life in the private sector with no pension scheme, no perks and only a basic salary with a payrise perhaps every 8 years circa 2-3 percent, then I think the public sector are due for their comeuppance. I don't mean in terms of job cuts, but i feel there are too many people in the public sector who have had it too good for too long, particulalry all the tiers of management and my god there are some.
And why is it that the unions always seem to be more proactive when it comes to the overblown public sector?

I don't believe those figures! Either you are wildly exaggerating, or you have made it up to try and justify your unjustified attack on the public sector!

If you actually believe that poorly paid public sector workers deserve some sort of comeuppance, then you have fallen for the drivel purveyed by certain sections of the media. If not, you are just intent on winding people up!

Perhaps my friend who is a supervisor in the NHS, on £15k a year, and who works around 7 hours a week unpaid overtime just to keep on top of the work, deserves her comeuppance? How much of a py cut or pay freeze does she deserve? How many more hours a week should she work for the same pay? She doesn't have any perks to lose either!
 

strange6

Established Member
Joined
9 Jan 2011
Messages
1,920
Location
Wigan, Greater manchester
I don't believe those figures! Either you are wildly exaggerating, or you have made it up to try and justify your unjustified attack on the public sector!

If you actually believe that poorly paid public sector workers deserve some sort of comeuppance, then you have fallen for the drivel purveyed by certain sections of the media. If not, you are just intent on winding people up!

Perhaps my friend who is a supervisor in the NHS, on £15k a year, and who works around 7 hours a week unpaid overtime just to keep on top of the work, deserves her comeuppance? How much of a py cut or pay freeze does she deserve? How many more hours a week should she work for the same pay? She doesn't have any perks to lose either!

You can believe what you like but those are my own personal figures so you will just have to accept them wont you? And if you had bothered to read my second post , you wouldn't have written the drivel that you have.
 
Last edited:

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
Why do you have to be so provocative? It's a shame you worded your first post in such an inflammatory way to get a reaction, maybe there could have been an interesting debate.

If you are going to use the word drivel, be careful, it could easily be applied to a lot of the posts you have made, and the threads you have started.

One of the things about the internet is that people can say anything they like when they are anonymous and hiding behind a keyboard. I choose not to accept the information you have put in your first post, and that is as much my right as it is your right to post it.
 

SS4

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2011
Messages
8,589
Location
Birmingham
I know a few coppers who have retired at 55 and now own boats and such like enjoying the life of riley.. some even took it at 50 too and still are getting a nice enough pension to sustain a life of never having to work again.. why is that?

Whereas bankers in the private sector get pensions worth £100,000s per annum. Those at the top will always get a good pension but this cowardly act by the government to strip the pensions of those who have worked and using the very few at the top as justification for robbing the public sector blind to pay for their chums the bankers and other rich men to live the life of riley.

The banks are in profit now so why aren't we taking some of our money back? Reason: the Tories need their votes for the next election and it's in their interests to enhance and perpetuate the rich/poor divide
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
21,175
Location
0035
The banks are in profit now so why aren't we taking some of our money back? Reason: the Tories need their votes for the next election and it's in their interests to enhance and perpetuate the rich/poor divide
Sorry but I don't buy this at all. It was thanks to policies brought in by the previous Conservative Government which meant that the hard work of my parents before and shortly after I was born paid off and that they are no longer struggling financially and that I have been able to live a reasonable life.
 

thefab444

Established Member
Joined
27 Oct 2006
Messages
3,688
Location
The New Forest
I personally think the problem is on both sides. The private sector could be doing more to provide for its workers, as many companies did in the past, rather than treat them as a simple commodity. Both sectors need to reign in spending on high level management, where the private sector sets the benchmark.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

strange6

Established Member
Joined
9 Jan 2011
Messages
1,920
Location
Wigan, Greater manchester
I personally think the problem is on both sides. The private sector could be doing more to provide for its workers, as many companies did in the past, rather than treat them as a simple commodity. Both sectors need to reign in spending on high level management, where the private sector sets the benchmark.

Yeah but the private sector can obviously afford to spend on that high level management; the public sector can't
 

j0hn0

Member
Joined
20 Jan 2009
Messages
563
Location
St Albans, England
I ve suffered 4 redundancies in my career and wouldnt wish it on anyone. I dont feel that any comeuppance is necessary, just the realisation that the reason most people work in the public sector, no longer applies. And that is job security.

Sure they take lower wages and get A pension, but that was in return for job security, which was sadly lacking in the private sector. Times how now changed.

I now work for a registered charity, whose profits are invested directly back into the company. Hopefully I will now enjoy a few years of stability as I really enjoy what I do and who I do it for.

I consider myself to be lucky, especially at a time when jobs are scarce
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
I ve suffered 4 redundancies in my career and wouldnt wish it on anyone. I dont feel that any comeuppance is necessary, just the realisation that the reason most people work in the public sector, no longer applies. And that is job security.

Sure they take lower wages and get A pension, but that was in return for job security, which was sadly lacking in the private sector. Times how now changed.

I now work for a registered charity, whose profits are invested directly back into the company. Hopefully I will now enjoy a few years of stability as I really enjoy what I do and who I do it for.

I consider myself to be lucky, especially at a time when jobs are scarce

Well said. Job security is now a distant memory for almost everyone, whether they are in the private or public sector. The whole private v public thing is largely created by the media.
 

9K43

Member
Joined
1 May 2010
Messages
558
I was in the NUR/Rmt and held various positions on thre Union at local level, and proud of it.
When asked I took industrial action against ruthless companies.
I had to pay for my house it started at £63 and ended up 25 years later at £138.
My wage did not keep pace with inflation.
After paying my dues I sometimes had £1 spare for my spend.
We had to work overtime to live.
No big bonus, or company car, or an expense allowance.
I do get 16 instances of free travel on the railway per, which I have earned by going to work at 0300hrs on a Sunday morning and coming home at 01:30hrs for many years
 

theblackwatch

Established Member
Joined
15 Feb 2006
Messages
10,889
Well said. Job security is now a distant memory for almost everyone, whether they are in the private or public sector. The whole private v public thing is largely created by the media.

Redundancies in the public sector aren't a new thing either - I was made redundant when working in the civil service back in 1995. Yet there are those who belive that, up to now, it has always been 'a job for life'.
 

Old Timer

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
3,702
Location
On a plane somewhere at 35,000
Lot of misinformation and lack of knowledge in some posts on here.

Final Salary Pension contributions are based on either 40ths or 60ths depending upon the employer. The 40 or the 60 are contribution years

Public sector were generally based upon 40ths

The final pension entitlement is then based on the final salary divided by x/40 or x/60 where x is the number of years at work and paying into the scheme.

So if a person is enrolled in a 1/40th based pension scheme and has worked for fourty years, and is receiving a final salary of £100,00 their pension calculation becomes

40/40 x (40/100 x 100,000) =
1 x (40/100 x £100,000) =
1 x 0.4 x £100,000 = £40,000

If they worked for say 15 years the calculation becomes
15/40 x (40/100 x 100,000) =
0.375 x (40/100 x £100,000) =
0.375 x 0.4 x £100,000 = £15,000

Thus in the first case an employee would be on a guaranteed pension of £40,000 and in the second a guaranteed pension of £15,000. Both would rise in line with inflation, or whatever calculator is used by the employer.

The above is a DEFINED PENSION BENEFITS scheme, otherwise known as the Final Salary Scheme, the type that Labour destroyed.

A Private or DEFINED PENSION CONTRIBUTION scheme is what we are now left with in most cases.

This simply means that an employer and an employee pay defined contributions to a pension scheme which is based upon investment in the stockmarket through bonds and shares.

A typical Railway Infrastructure Contractor will generally match an employee's contributions to a maximum of between 8 and 12 percent of salary, so if you pay 12% contributions, then the employer will also pay 12%. If you pay above that, say 20% then the employer will match it to their maximum 12%. In that case your total contributions to the pension scheme will be 32% of your salary.

Note you would only pay 20% of your salary, the employer pays the value of 12% or your salary.

Again using a £100,000 salary.

Matched at 12% and paying 20%

Employer contributions = £12,000
Employee contributions COST employee £20,000
Total paid into employees pension account = £32,000

This amount is then invested each year into the stockmarket.

On retirement the total amount of money that has accrued through investment is used to buy an ANNUITY.

When you reach retirement you have to convert the capital built up in your personal pension policy into a regular pension. You can take up to 25% of your pension pot as a tax-free lump sum, but the rest must eventually be converted into an annuity.

The insurance company that sells you the annuity estimates how long you will live and then uses this as a basis for the amount it will pay you each year. The idea being that your total investment is not reached before you die. If you die early then they win if you die much later, they lose.

Over the past few years, annuity rates have fallen sharply and a 65-year-old man now earns a typical return of just 8% from his pension fund. Therefore, with a pension fund worth £100,000 he would receive an annual income of £8,000.

So there we have it. One of the best pension arrangements in the world destroyed to enable Labour to go on their massive spending spree, and as always the lowest paid suffer the most.
 

Clip

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,821
Whereas bankers in the private sector get pensions worth £100,000s per annum. Those at the top will always get a good pension but this cowardly act by the government to strip the pensions of those who have worked and using the very few at the top as justification for robbing the public sector blind to pay for their chums the bankers and other rich men to live the life of riley.

The banks are in profit now so why aren't we taking some of our money back? Reason: the Tories need their votes for the next election and it's in their interests to enhance and perpetuate the rich/poor divide

But top bankers pay an awful lot more towards their pension and taxes then anyone else and hence they have big pensions which many of them have built up before the financial crash.

You still nicely avoided my question though as to why policemen and women - who do a very commendable job no less - can afford to retire at 50 or even 55 and not have to work again in their lives..

Do you think that as a country we as taxpayers should really pay this amount of money out from our taxes? When an average pension scheme would not only keep the skills and experience in the force for longer and also lessen the burden on us- the taxpayer?

People can bang on about this coalition government - the previous labour government or even the previous tory government all they like but I will ask all of you


Where do you think this money all comes from and how can you actually justify it and how are you going to sustain the levels of taxpayer money needed to fund these pensions.

As yet you have not shown anything to try and sustain your arguement. You are failing to realise that we, as a country are skint and even if we did sell the banks back to the private sector it still wouldnt make a dent in the debt that we have.
 

jrhilton

Member
Joined
13 Apr 2009
Messages
116
The above is a DEFINED PENSION BENEFITS scheme, otherwise known as the Final Salary Scheme, the type that Labour destroyed.

Not sure it was only Labour's fault to be honest.

The reality of what has happened over time is very different from theory though. The problem is the old PCSPS schemes were largely unfunded and any contributions that were actually made were pocketed by the Treasury at the time to reduce annual expenditure and not put aside and invested for the future. The logic was that pensions could then just be paid out of taxation when they fall due, and this had the added benefit of shunting the problem onto future generations and future parties in power.

Another way of looking at it, all the contributions being paid today by people working in the civil service are in reality just helping to pay current obligations of people who have already retired, for which there is no pot of already invested money. And the same will be the case when people contributing today come to retire unless something changes.

The blame really is with all governments who have been in power since the 1960s. As it always the way, the people currently in the system are paying dearly for the mistakes of the people in power before them. If they had been properly funded since inception we would not be in this situation now.
 
Last edited:

Old Timer

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
3,702
Location
On a plane somewhere at 35,000
Not sure it was only Labour's fault to be honest. .
No I am sorry but history and fact disprove this theory.

In 1997 the Pension funds were in such good health that thye were in surplus, to the extent that many Companies were reducing the amount of money they were paying in to the fund.

This fact like so many associated with pensions has been twisted by Labour and their followers as some sort of cynical capitalist theft. It was nothing of the sort.

HM Treasury has for decades put an upper limit on how much can be invested in a person's pension and had the pension funds continued in surplus they would have been in breach of Law.

In a hotel just before the GE, Brown, Ed Balls, Charlie Whelan, Geoffrey Robinson, and a number of other of that cynical group met and decided that they would take this surplus, they also decided to impose an iniquitous tax on pension funds.

The nett result of this has been threefold, firstly it has taken tens of £billions out of the pension funds, it has caused the cost of funding them to become so great that employers have either stopped the final salary scheme or in some cases closed them down. Secondly it meant that the resultant loss of revenue would have to be met by increases in contributions from either members or employers, or both. Remember however that the HM Treasury rules place a maximum on how much an employee may pay into a pension fund. Thirdly it not only reduced the amount of pension that could be paid, but it also meant that many funds would ultimately run out of money and become bankrupt.

As one would expect, these issues affected those on lowest earnings most, those who in true sheep-like fashion continue to support Labour :roll:

The need to finance the increasing gap in pension funds means that about a quarter of Council Tax now goes to prop up pension funds for Council workers. That is one reason why Council Tax has shot up so much since 1997.

The need for Councils to make as much money as possible was the reason that so many of them (as recommended by Brown and his Treasury Ministers) invested their money in foreign banks, particularly the Icelandic banks, and were then dealt a hammer blow by the Icelandic banking crisis.

Four internal Civil Service reports which predicted exactly what has happened were ignored by Brown and buried in the files until Labour were forced to make them public in 2003, about which time the true extent of our economic woes were being realised.

Labour KNEW that in actual fact pension funds were going to go into a crisis from the early part of the 21st Century. This had been known and discussed in the mid 1990s when the Conservative Government introduced changes to pension arrangements, and attempted set up a cross-party group to work out how to deal with the anticipated crisis - due to an ageing population and a decreasing working population, thus bringing about a reduction in pension income. Cynically Labour elected NOT to work in this manner but stood on the sidelines gainsaying any and every proposed change and using these for cynical short term Political purposes by issuing disingenuous statements and factually incorrect propaganda.

The only groups who have benefited from the pensions crisis are the Banks and the Insurance Companies, all of whom were being courted by Brown and his cabal, and who have since looked after those who gave them so much.

The greatest loser of course as always has been the normal working man who typically votes Labour, but for the rest of you young people, YOU will be feeling the pain of this right to your dying day as it will take generations to even get us back to where we were even were this possible.
 

strange6

Established Member
Joined
9 Jan 2011
Messages
1,920
Location
Wigan, Greater manchester
No I am sorry but history and fact disprove this theory.

In 1997 the Pension funds were in such good health that thye were in surplus, to the extent that many Companies were reducing the amount of money they were paying in to the fund.

This fact like so many associated with pensions has been twisted by Labour and their followers as some sort of cynical capitalist theft. It was nothing of the sort.

HM Treasury has for decades put an upper limit on how much can be invested in a person's pension and had the pension funds continued in surplus they would have been in breach of Law.

In a hotel just before the GE, Brown, Ed Balls, Charlie Whelan, Geoffrey Robinson, and a number of other of that cynical group met and decided that they would take this surplus, they also decided to impose an iniquitous tax on pension funds.

The nett result of this has been threefold, firstly it has taken tens of £billions out of the pension funds, it has caused the cost of funding them to become so great that employers have either stopped the final salary scheme or in some cases closed them down. Secondly it meant that the resultant loss of revenue would have to be met by increases in contributions from either members or employers, or both. Remember however that the HM Treasury rules place a maximum on how much an employee may pay into a pension fund. Thirdly it not only reduced the amount of pension that could be paid, but it also meant that many funds would ultimately run out of money and become bankrupt.

As one would expect, these issues affected those on lowest earnings most, those who in true sheep-like fashion continue to support Labour :roll:

The need to finance the increasing gap in pension funds means that about a quarter of Council Tax now goes to prop up pension funds for Council workers. That is one reason why Council Tax has shot up so much since 1997.

The need for Councils to make as much money as possible was the reason that so many of them (as recommended by Brown and his Treasury Ministers) invested their money in foreign banks, particularly the Icelandic banks, and were then dealt a hammer blow by the Icelandic banking crisis.

Four internal Civil Service reports which predicted exactly what has happened were ignored by Brown and buried in the files until Labour were forced to make them public in 2003, about which time the true extent of our economic woes were being realised.

Labour KNEW that in actual fact pension funds were going to go into a crisis from the early part of the 21st Century. This had been known and discussed in the mid 1990s when the Conservative Government introduced changes to pension arrangements, and attempted set up a cross-party group to work out how to deal with the anticipated crisis - due to an ageing population and a decreasing working population, thus bringing about a reduction in pension income. Cynically Labour elected NOT to work in this manner but stood on the sidelines gainsaying any and every proposed change and using these for cynical short term Political purposes by issuing disingenuous statements and factually incorrect propaganda.

The only groups who have benefited from the pensions crisis are the Banks and the Insurance Companies, all of whom were being courted by Brown and his cabal, and who have since looked after those who gave them so much.

The greatest loser of course as always has been the normal working man who typically votes Labour, but for the rest of you young people, YOU will be feeling the pain of this right to your dying day as it will take generations to even get us back to where we were even were this possible.

This is one of the reasons you don't see Gordon Brown anymore. Unlike Blair, I don't think has the audacity to show his face in public anymore now that the books have been opened
 

jrhilton

Member
Joined
13 Apr 2009
Messages
116
No I am sorry but history and fact disprove this.

I am sorry but history has not disprove this, as I said it was not only Labour's fault, other things had an impact too.

Was it their fault many of Britain's biggest companies took pensions holidays in the late 80s and early 90s? They also took advantage of the trend of reducing the sizes of their workforces, and very often redundant employees left their pension benefits in their old employers' schemes.

Was it Gordon's fault they had invested their assets in the stock market just before the dot-com bubble burst which did more damage to them then Gordon ever did?

It certainly was not his fault that Norman Lamont cut the rate of ACT from 25 to 20 per cent in his 1993 budget.

Nor was it Labours fault that people are living longer, though I suppose they did spend more on the NHS.

FRS17 came along in 2002, and a lot of companies all of a sudden found that they had to disclose far more than before and people started to take note about deficits more, espcially as assets had to be measured using market values and pension scheme liabilities had to be measured using a projected unit method and discounted at AA corporate bond rates and then presented too.

For what it is worth Endowment funds have done similarly badly over the years and there was no "Brown effect" on them.

Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to say Gordon didn't do damage at all, in fact I think Labour and Gordon did damage wherever they could in general, but to say he is the only reason we are in the state we are today is nonsense.

It's ironic that a Conservative chancellor also delivered a smaller but very similar blow to the pension system in 1993, which goes to show, they are all guilty somewhere!
 

Old Timer

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
3,702
Location
On a plane somewhere at 35,000
Was it their fault many of Britain's biggest companies took pensions holidays in the late 80s and early 90s? .
You were given the reasons behind this, and they have had no impact upon the Pensions Black Hole

They also took advantage of the trend of reducing the sizes of their workforces, and very often redundant employees left their pension benefits in their old employers' schemes. ...
Redundant rights are irrelevant

Was it Gordon's fault they had invested their assets in the stock market just before the dot-com bubble burst which did more damage to them then Gordon ever did?
Where is your proof of this ? Source please.

It certainly was not his fault that Norman Lamont cut the rate of ACT from 25 to 20 per cent in his 1993 budget.
This was done because the profits that the Pensions providers were making profits that exceeded the HM Treasury rules. He also introduced Private Pension provision. Brown did neither. He treated the pensions funds as a bottomless wallet for Political not economic reasons.

Nor was it Labours fault that people are living longer, though I suppose they did spend more on the NHS.
Labour were well aware that (a) people would be living longer and would thus reverse the pension fund surpluses, and (b) increases in funding would be necessary. Labour also refused to co-operate with a cross-Party attempt to address the situation, using this for cynical Political gain. Money spent on the NHS has resulted in all the NHS property being in hoc for the next 30 odd years. Hospitals now find that despite having new hospital premises they cannot afford the rent, and are thus not employing nurses or are making staff redundant to meet costs. Pretty good Labour own-goal there.

FRS17 came along in 2002, and a lot of companies all of a sudden found that they had to disclose far more than before and people started to take note about deficits more, espcially as assets had to be measured using market values and pension scheme liabilities had to be measured using a projected unit method and discounted at AA corporate bond rates and then presented too.

For what it is worth Endowment funds have done similarly badly over the years and there was no "Brown effect" on them.
to quote back some of the lifted facts from the website page, "FRS17 was the final nail in the coffin".

The damage was done in 1997, four independent Civil Service reports bear this out as does practically every unbiased economic commentator. Stockmarket fluctuations just made a bad situation into a disaster.

Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to say Gordon didn't do damage at all, in fact I think Labour and Gordon did damage wherever they could in general, but to say he is the only reason we are in the state we are today is nonsense.
An opinion not served by a considerable number of economists and pensions specialists.

It's ironic that a Conservative chancellor also delivered a smaller but very similar blow to the pension system in 1993, which goes to show, they are all guilty somewhere!
There was no "blow" to the system and to suggest that the action taken, for which there was clear economic reason is comparable to Brown's actions is disingenuous in the extreme.

Despite your denials there appears to be an undercurrent of diverting blame away from Brown. Labour under Bliar and Brown went on a the equivalent of a drunken spending spree, and in doing so they destroyed an economy that had taken years to recover from Labour's last destruction, and made the UK economy incapable of riding out the storms which subsequently occurred. And for the avoidance of doubt, no-one now disputes (except Balls and his Deficit Deniers) that the changes to financial oversight of the banks and building societies which effectively left them uncontrolled was a key factor in helping to bring the economy to its present state.

The subsequent "Quantative Easing" i.e. pumping money into the economy has simply put back any chance of an early recovery in the pensions industry. Again something now being more widely accepted, along with a growing realisation in the economic community that QE was not the answer.
 

jrhilton

Member
Joined
13 Apr 2009
Messages
116
Where is your proof of this ? Source please.

This is quite a good summary produced by Watson Wyatt Worldwide that examines the impact of the dot-com bubble on pension funds, and what has happened since. The annual impact of Gordon's pension robbery here in the UK looks small in comparison.

http://www.watsonwyatt.com/pubs/directions/media/2009_EU_12059_Directions_04_dot-com_web.pdf

You talk about my denials in your second to last paragraph, but the only person who seems to actually be in denial is yourself that nothing apart from Labour is to blame. I quite clearly stated I didn’t believe they were the only cause of the problems, and offered some support for it. At no point did I deny they had any part to play and were innocent on all counts. And that is all from me, I’m not going to argue any further on something that has perhaps occurred due to a misunderstanding of posts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top