economic situation is dire

[hogso]

Fair play to those that didn't go out on strike today

...not that I do anything that would hinder 'the public' if I were to go on strike

......on the contrary in fact, I would probably be doing more people a favour if I were to be on strike today

[markavfc40]

the strikers wouldn't win ..

Win what exactly? no one makes the decision to strike lightly especially those in the public sector who have taken the decision to spend their working lives serving others. Many of them for relatively little reward. It should also be remembered these people striking are losing a days pay that many can ill afford. The Government can only push people so far though.

The job losses in the Public sector have put a strain on many of those left behind and, with more cuts to come, will continue to do so. A pay freeze over the last two years, another year to come and then 2 years of maximum 1% pay rises. The Government have totally demoralised many public sector workers with their actions. They don't feel appreciated and have been made out to be the enemy. The proposed pension reforms are just the cherry on the cake.

The Governments smear campaign against those that work in the Public Sector is absolutely disgusting. Thankfully I don't see many except their ardent supporters who are falling for it.

Don't make those striking out to be the enemy. They aren't.

[kidlewis]

so what is a realistic solution for the pension debate then?

give them RPI % pay rises and keep things as they are?

what do the unions want specifically?

there should be no debate on working an extra year, that should be a given. unless they plan on dying earlier than most other people.

[peterms]

...His plan was simple (and disagreed with the course laid out by A Darling before the last election, itself very similar to Osborne's plan): Borrow lots more and invest in growth. Very sensible on the surface until you remember that the money has to be borrowed from foreign investors...

Was the £275bn of QE borrowed from foreign investors?

Or was it just created?

'Printing' works to a point - and helps when you control your own national currency - but how far can you go without thoroughly debasing that unit of value? At that critical stage inflation goes wild with all its attendant problems and you end up in the same place, i.e. f*cked.

Precisely the reason Germany won't sanction the ECB to create enough Euros to buy up the soveriegn debt of Greece, Italy, Portugal etc.

There's a couple of things worth noting about this.

1. The notion that public spending and/or the creation of money is "funded" by "borrowing" from someone else is simply not the case. It's a convention, and nothing more, that governments sell bonds into the market. The creation of £275bn for QE illustrates this.

2. The money created by QE has however not done anything of note. It has disappeared into banks' balance sheets, disguising the fantasy valuations they had made of assets which were worth nothing like what they had claimed. It has papered over the cracks in the lies they told about what their assets were worth, and this has done precisely nothing to alleviate the financial crisis.

3. The problem facing the economy is lack of demand. That's why goods aren't being produced, why manufacturers won't borrow even at the lowest possible rates, why people are being laid off. The government's policies haven't addressed this problem, in fact they have made it worse by further reducing demand by throwing more people out of work, by announcing that austerity will continue for years, and thereby reducing consumer confidence still further.

4. The "sovereign debt" of Greece and other countries in large part consists of private debts which have been socialised. Instead of being paid by the public, these debts should be repudiated. Having stripped away the false debts which are no more than the mask over the banks' efforts to translate their overvalued balance sheets into real value by getting someone else to foot the bill, the financial problems facing Greece and others would be of a quite different scale.

5. There would continue to be some reluctance on the part of Germany and others to deal with these debts by issuing money, no doubt. That will always be the case in a monetary system where there is monetary union but not unity of fiscal policy. Germany seems to fear picking up more than its share of the tab, thinking that other countries won't pursue the fiscal policies it wants them to. It's interesting that the national budgets of Greece and Ireland are now being approved by Frau Merkel before the legislatures of those countries are permitted to see them.

6. Printing money is mostly done by the private sector, not by governments, contrary to what most people seem to believe. The larger problem we face is the overhang of private debt, far larger than sovereign debt. This has been created by banks pushing credit to fuel the Ponzi scheme of financial speculation and asset bubbles. In doing this, they really did "print money", on a scale which massively exceeds anything this or any other government has done. But this money creation did not reflect the creation of real goods, just an increase in the paper value of houses and other things.

7. If governments print money, that will be inflationary if it outstrips the capacity of the economy to deal with it. In a situation of significant underused capacity, it will not. That is exactly the situation we are in now. The notion that governments printing money always and everywhere leads to inflation is just wrong. However, in public debate, rather than an informed discussion of this based on proper analysis and evidence, we typically get absurd and hysterical references to Zimbabwe and the Weimar Republic.

[mjmooney]

Fair play to those that didn't go out on strike today

Fair play to those that did.

Personally, "I'm all right, Jack". As I was over 55 when the bet-welching was introduced, I still come under the "old" rules. I have nothing to gain by striking, and a day's wages to lose.

I am on strike.

[peterms]

what do the unions want specifically?

In terms of pensions, they want the contract they entered into to be honoured.

They want people to understand that their pensions can be funded for the future, and that government ministers have admitted (reluctantly) that this is so, and that the money being taken away is nothing to do with pensions being unaffordable and everything to do with reducing the deficit and bailing out the bankers.

They want discussion of the lack of proper pension provision in many parts of the private sector (outside the boardrooms, where provision is often staggeringly generous) to be conducted in terms of making proper provision for those that don't have it, not dragging everyone down to the lowest common level.

And those things seem entirely reasonable.

[mjmooney]

And to think that all this may even cost the country 1/10 of the royal wedding.

[tonyh29]

In terms of pensions, they want the contract they entered into to be honoured.

Was that contracts prior to 2006 when tax on pensions cost every pension holder ? or renegotiated contracts ? that they wish to have honoured ?

[peterms]

In terms of pensions, they want the contract they entered into to be honoured.

Was that contracts prior to 2006 when tax on pensions cost every pension holder ? or renegotiated contracts ? that they wish to have honoured ?

What they want to have honoured is the deal they were given regarding what they pay in and what they get out.

[Eames]

the strikers wouldn't win ..

Win what exactly? no one makes the decision to strike lightly especially those in the public sector who have taken the decision to spend their working lives serving others. Many of them for relatively little reward. It should also be remembered these people striking are losing a days pay that many can ill afford. The Government can only push people so far though.

The job losses in the Public sector have put a strain on many of those left behind and, with more cuts to come, will continue to do so. A pay freeze over the last two years, another year to come and then 2 years of maximum 1% pay rises. The Government have totally demoralised many public sector workers with their actions. They don't feel appreciated and have been made out to be the enemy. The proposed pension reforms are just the cherry on the cake.

The Governments smear campaign against those that work in the Public Sector is absolutely disgusting. Thankfully I don't see many except their ardent supporters who are falling for it.

Don't make those striking out to be the enemy. They aren't.

I never thought I'd type this as it appears we are political opposites and hold widely different views however I fully agree with everything you have written.

Top Post.

(Although I am not on strike as I cant think of anyone I would want to represent me less than Brendan Barber and the rest of the Trade Union Gang)

[tonyh29]

In terms of pensions, they want the contract they entered into to be honoured.

Was that contracts prior to 2006 when tax on pensions cost every pension holder ? or renegotiated contracts ? that they wish to have honoured ?

What they want to have honoured is the deal they were given regarding what they pay in and what they get out.

so why didn't they strike in 2006 ..or sorry let me rephrase that ..why didn't the unions encourage them to strike back in 2006 ?

[mjmooney]

(Although I am not on strike as I cant think of anyone I would want to represent me less than Brendan Barber and the rest of the Trade Union Gang)

Then get involved in your union and elect a leader you do want. Or have a go yourself. Don't just moan about it.

The government are very keen on encouraging trade union members to disobey our democratically elected leaders if we don't agree with their policies.

So would it be OK for us to do the same with government policies we don't like?

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

the strikers wouldn't win ..

The fact you typed the above means they have.

[PauloBarnesi]

And to think that all this may even cost the country 1/10 of the royal wedding.

I am no economist, but that sounds a bit strange? What are the actual figures? Its like me saying I am a fast marathon runner without quantifying it

[tonyh29]

Seems

twitter poll "is it right to strike " is showing 72% in favour of the strikes

and

Torygraph poll has 67 % saying "The strikers are wrong and their action is damaging "

so can we conclude from this that twitter is home to barking mad guardian reading loony leftists

or

that the Torygraph is home to barking mad millionaire bankers

??

[mjmooney]

Seems

twitter poll "is it right to strike " is showing 72% in favour of the strikes

and

Torygraph poll has 67 % saying "The strikers are wrong and their action is damaging "

so can we conclude from this that twitter is home to barking mad guardian reading loony leftists

or

that the Torygraph is home to barking mad millionaire bankers

??

I think Twitter covers a pretty even spread. The Torygraph assumption is a given.

[TrentVilla]

Fair play to those that didn't go out on strike today

heard that management at Gatwick have been manning the immigration desk as they were determined not to let the public down and that the strikers wouldn't win ..

Doesn't manning the immigration desk mean waving people through to keep the que down these days?

[PauloBarnesi]

I think Twitter covers a pretty even spread. The Torygraph assumption is a given.

I doubt it; both represent certain sections of the population more prolifically; Twitter has a greater adaption by the young and that pompous twit from Uppingham who likes the Mac, the Telegraph by elderly people from Tunbridge Wells....

Hardly proper representations of the country.

[TrentVilla]

Seems

twitter poll "is it right to strike " is showing 72% in favour of the strikes

and

Torygraph poll has 67 % saying "The strikers are wrong and their action is damaging "

so can we conclude from this that twitter is home to barking mad guardian reading loony leftists

or

that the Torygraph is home to barking mad millionaire bankers

??

You could.

You could also consider that one of the two has an editorial policy.

I would also point out (having not seen either original) that the questions are quite different. One is asking are you in favour of the strikes or not? The other is asking 'are the strikers wrong and is their action damaging?'.

Now the later is clearly a loaded question in line with editorial policy with a view (in my view) of getting the desired response.

Obviously the strikes are damaging few would say they aren't if any it would be interesting to see a straight 'Do you agree with the strikes?' question of the Torygraph readers because I'm not sure the result would be the same.

Twitter as has already been pointed out has limited reach and is also not really representative, it is though without editorial policy and a more straight yes or no question.

[peterms]

so why didn't they strike in 2006 ..or sorry let me rephrase that ..why didn't the unions encourage them to strike back in 2006 ?

Could it be because the changes which were made in 2006 (to make the pensions schemes affordable over the long term, a goal which all agree was achieved) were negotiated and agreed? What's your view?