economic situation is dire

[PauloBarnesi]

Stop trying to compare apples with oranges and stick to the matter in hand - the government are trying to claw back money that the bankers pissed up the wall by taking it off those who had nothing to do with the mess we are in. Once a Tory, always a Tory. They look after their mates. Well, given the very limited means to do so, so do we.

But didn’t the bankers piss it up the wall because they could? Because they weren’t regulated, and whose fault was that? Previous governments both Labour and Conservative. And who elects the governments? The people. So who is responsible in the end?

And should the government (both Labour and Conservative) have bailed out the banks? If we hadn’t what would have happened? No one would have had a pension at all probably, private or public.

The whole situation is a sorry story of which very few come out with any distinction. And no one I can see has a solution.

[snowychap]

I am getting well pissed off with the constant mantra of: "Well private sector pensions are worse, we pay for your big pensions with our taxes", etc.

It's not just that, it's the even more divisive suggestion (repeated by Maude again just on C4 News) that the private sector are 'the taxpayer(s)'.

[PauloBarnesi]

rumour was that London was actually hit harder than most ..

Not true. Toby Young tweeted that West London Free School was operating as normal...

[blandy]

Bit hard to comment without knowing a bit more about what the economist was saying, but perhaps they were talking about "base money" which is indeed created by the Bank of England. The larger part of the money supply is "broad money", or commercial bank money, and is created by private banks not on the authority of government.

I'm afraid I don't know what else he was saying - the only bit that stuck was the part that I typed. It was to do with whether an option for more Quantative Easing would be a good thing or bad thing, a month or two ago, I guess. He seemed to be saying this was a Government/BoE decision and it was about the Gov't buying its own Gov't bonds and the BoE printing money (not actually printing bank notes, mind) and that it was a central thing, not a bank by bank thing and that the consequences could be negative and it could be ineffective anyway, making comparisons with the last round of it - it was only partially helpful and you can't keep doing it...etc.

Speaking of the creation of "broad money", a director of the BoE said here

Subject only but crucially to confidence in their soundness, banks extend credit by simply increasing the borrowing customer’s current account, which can be paid away to wherever the borrower wants by the bank ‘writing a cheque on itself’. That is, banks extend credit by creating money. This ‘money creation’ process is constrained: by their need to manage the liquidity risk – from the withdrawal of deposits and the drawdown of backup lines – to which it exposes them.

Some textbooks still suggest that money is first deposited and is then lent out on a multiplier model, but this is incorrect.

The power to create money has largely been devolved, unchecked, to private banks. They do not lend out what people have first saved with them, but create new money at will, as credit. They have an incentive to do so, as it expands their balance sheet and secures them interest payments on something they have created at virtually nil cost.

One of the necessary steps for sorting out the economy is taking away this power, and returning it to government - where almost everyone believes it to sit in any event.

Bit more

on money creation, and here on proposals for monetary reform. And a whole book on it here.

I've learned something today, and it's not reassuring, but thanks for the links.

[PauloBarnesi]

It's not just that, it's the even more divisive suggestion (repeated by Maude again just on C4 News) that the private sector are 'the taxpayer(s)'.

It seems the nature of politics at this time is to be divisive? to play to the crowd...

[peterms]

And should the government (both Labour and Conservative) have bailed out the banks? If we hadn’t what would have happened? No one would have had a pension at all probably, private or public.

If our pensions are based on the mirage of a continually inflating Ponzi scheme, that won't be a lot of comfort to us in our old age. And much of the banks' apparent wealth is exactly that mirage, disconnected from any real wealth.

Governments here and elsewhere should have brought into direct control the banking operations which deal with savers and loans, letting the casino operations crumble like sand.

The banking sector needs to be built up again, properly regulated and controlled, and preferably based on mutual models which served us well for a very long time until carpetbaggers undermined them for the sake of a fast buck.

As for it being our fault that governments failed to take them in hand, I think that's a bit rich. Politicians are often in hock to financiers. Look at Cameron and Blair, their circle of friends, where they get their money. Same in other countries. Part of the reason for the lack of engagement of so many people is severe disillusionment with the main political parties, and the apparent lack of real policy differences between them on the big and important issues.

[blandy]

I'm still not sure why you [tonyh] think the unions should have called their members out on strike.

Just a point of order - certainly for my Union, the Union doesn't and can't "call their members out to strike". I'm sure it's just a typo, and you know, but maybe some people don't - they might wrongly think the leaders of the Union tell the members what to do. They absolutely don't. The members tell the Leaders what to do in a secret ballot vote - the members of 17 Unions told their leaders that they wished to strike to try to protect their pensions, because they felt so strongly about it.

I've been to Union meetings where we (the members) have told the Leaders to "go back to the company, we don't accept your (our leaders) view that we should accept what's on offer" and what you say is the best you can negotiate. Other times it's been the case that we've accepted what's been offered without any dissent at all.

Unions are not nearly as antagonistic as is often made out. There's the odd tube in charge (you may spot an intentional pun, there) but mostly the union people and reps in my experience are highly reasonable people, who try to protect the interests of their members. There's much less of an "agenda" than there is for example with any Government actions, most times. This pensions dispute being a good example.

Sorry. tangential and pedantic.

[blandy]

I'm not really persuaded by some of the arguments the public sector people have made, we didn't cause the crash" for example - to me it's irrelevant who caused it.

For me, the relevance of this argument is that the spin of Cameron and Osborne is about the pensions being unaffordable, though as you recognise and as journalists have demonstrated, this is a lie. The purpose of the changes is to help with the government's wider financial targets - which in turn are what they are because of the financial crisis. That remains the case whether you agree with these targets or think they are delusional and criminal.

In other words, the changes to the pension schemes constitute a tax levied only on these workers, to meet a policy goal for the economy as a whole. It is both a lie, and unfair. To rub salt in the wounds, the government attempts to drive wedges between public and private employees, as though one is trying to steal a march on the other.

All in it together my arse.

Absolutely! Well said.

[peterms]

It was to do with whether an option for more Quantative Easing would be a good thing or bad thing, a month or two ago, I guess. He seemed to be saying this was a Government/BoE decision and it was about the Gov't buying its own Gov't bonds and the BoE printing money (not actually printing bank notes, mind) and that it was a central thing, not a bank by bank thing and that the consequences could be negative and it could be ineffective anyway, making comparisons with the last round of it - it was only partially helpful and you can't keep doing it...etc.

Yes, if it was in connection with quantitative easing, that would make sense. The money created for this purpose is base money rather than commercial bank money.

[snowychap]

It's not just that, it's the even more divisive suggestion (repeated by Maude again just on C4 News) that the private sector are 'the taxpayer(s)'.

It seems the nature of politics at this time is to be divisive? to play to the crowd...

Isn't it ever, Paulo?

I do think this is an even more cynical (and nasty) tactic than usual.

You'll hear ministers (both Tory and Tory-lite) and their backbench acolytes slipping this in to their comments but, when challenged, they'll backtrack and stop short of actually accusing, say, a headteacher from Redditch of being 'left-wing, weak and irresponsible'. Occasionally you may get the likes of Gove (no stranger to being on the picket line, I believe) almost unashamedly looking to inflame tensions but generally it is, though not subliminal, just 'seasoning' in the lie pies.

[blandy]

And should the government (both Labour and Conservative) have bailed out the banks? If we hadn’t what would have happened? No one would have had a pension at all probably, private or public.

If our pensions are based on the mirage of a continually inflating Ponzi scheme, that won't be a lot of comfort to us in our old age. And much of the banks' apparent wealth is exactly that mirage, disconnected from any real wealth.

Governments here and elsewhere should have brought into direct control the banking operations which deal with savers and loans, letting the casino operations crumble like sand.

The banking sector needs to be built up again, properly regulated and controlled, and preferably based on mutual models which served us well for a very long time until carpetbaggers undermined them for the sake of a fast buck.

As for it being our fault that governments failed to take them in hand, I think that's a bit rich. Politicians are often in hock to financiers. Look at Cameron and Blair, their circle of friends, where they get their money. Same in other countries. Part of the reason for the lack of engagement of so many people is severe disillusionment with the main political parties, and the apparent lack of real policy differences between them on the big and important issues.

Sorry for doing this, but I completely agree, again. With the added part that the media has also failed - We simply weren't permitted to know that what was going on, even if we'd wanted to. The media (as the Levenson thing has revealed) has been largely indulging in illegal practices to do with Slebs and Actors and people in the public eye. Yes, the public (not me, mind) buys those rags, and stuff about financial shenanigans may not be as colourful, but it's way way more important.

Fill our heads with who is shacking up with who and carry on with their back scratching in the shadows.

At least it's coming into the open now, and hopefully the appetite for change is growing. I wouldn't bet on anything significant happening, though. The vested interests are huge and hugely powerful.

[peterms]

I'm still not sure why you [tonyh] think the unions should have called their members out on strike.

Just a point of order - certainly for my Union, the Union doesn't and can't "call their members out to strike". I'm sure it's just a typo, and you know, but maybe some people don't - they might wrongly think the leaders of the Union tell the members what to do. They absolutely don't. The members tell the Leaders what to do in a secret ballot vote - the members of 17 Unions told their leaders that they wished to strike to try to protect their pensions, because they felt so strongly about it.

I've been to Union meetings where we (the members) have told the Leaders to "go back to the company, we don't accept your (our leaders) view that we should accept what's on offer" and what you say is the best you can negotiate. Other times it's been the case that we've accepted what's been offered without any dissent at all.

Unions are not nearly as antagonistic as is often made out. There's the odd tube in charge (you may spot an intentional pun, there) but mostly the union people and reps in my experience are highly reasonable people, who try to protect the interests of their members. There's much less of an "agenda" than there is for example with any Government actions, most times. This pensions dispute being a good example.

Yes, I've often seen cases where the union leadership have been lagging behind what members are asking for.

But what we hear in the press is all about a cadre of militant Trots trying to hoodwink people into pointless disputes. Or as Harold Wilson famously said, "a tightly knit group of politically motivated men". Which as someone soon pointed out, could be a description of his Cabinet. Well, except for the "tightly knit" part.

[tonyh29]

Well, I thought the same as Peter has said, Tony. Must be two of us misunderstood what you were meaning.

Nah you are both right my brain has fried and I've got all jumbled and confused the heck out of myself and everyone else

My bad ... Normal service will be resumed tomorrow .. Once Mr health and Safety has been successfully hoodwinked ...

[VILLAFC2000]

I am getting well pissed off with the constant mantra of: "Well private sector pensions are worse, we pay for your big pensions with our taxes", etc.

OK, why doesn't everybody flock to be a nurse or a teacher instead of a financial analyst or a lawyer, then? The fact is that that argument is a total red herring.

I started my I.T. career in the private (insurance) sector. My pension plan wasn't as good as the one I have now as a university employee, true. But I did get very nice profit sharing bonuses that I don't get now - swings and roundabouts.

We all pay taxes for the services that public sector workers provide, not especially the pensions (which are arguably the only "perk" of the job). We don't "think we're worth more than others", but we do think we're worth what the employers (the government) agreed we are worth.

Stop trying to compare apples with oranges and stick to the matter in hand - the government are trying to claw back money that the bankers pissed up the wall by taking it off those who had nothing to do with the mess we are in. Once a Tory, always a Tory. They look after their mates. Well, given the very limited means to do so, so do we.

I agree with a lot of this. The people who are in the private sector who are moaning that public sector workers get paid too bigger pension are going down the wrong avenue. All. we should be fighting for better pensions for ALL and not worse pensions for all, With this attitude its a race to the bottom not to the top.

You simply cant compare the two as SCAMERON has been trying to. The reason why Pubilc sector pensions have traditionally been better than private sector pensions is because pay in the public sector is worse so to compensate this public sector workers have got a better pension.

Even still Public sector workers rarely get company cars, mobile phones and bonuses, when comparing the two to make out that the public gets it better is laughable. Dave and his fat cat chums do not believe in the public sector and they never have done. Hence the reason that the public sector are reviving a the fair whack of the brunt when it has come to financial hardship is down to ideological studies.

[PauloBarnesi]

As for it being our fault that governments failed to take them in hand, I think that's a bit rich. Politicians are often in hock to financiers. Look at Cameron and Blair, their circle of friends, where they get their money. Same in other countries. Part of the reason for the lack of engagement of so many people is severe disillusionment with the main political parties, and the apparent lack of real policy differences between them on the big and important issues.

Well if it isn’t the government who should be setting the laws who is supposed to be? I am confused?

[blandy]

As for it being our fault that governments failed to take them in hand...[it isn't]

Well if it isn’t the government who should be setting the laws who is supposed to be? I am confused?

I think pms is saying it's not our fault, the public, that the Gov't didn't do what they should have done - i.e. it IS the Gov'ts fault. Isn't he?

[Risso]

You simply cant compare the two as SCAMERON has been trying to. The reason why Pubilc sector pensions have traditionally been better than private sector pensions is because pay in the public sector is worse so to compensate this public sector workers have got a better pension.

Wrong. On average, public sector salaries are higher, and their pensions are a lot, lot higher.

[PauloBarnesi]

But it is in part our fault; we are the electors of these governments? I think this is one of the key things we are dealing with; the disconnection between people and politics, whether it be on a local or national level. People feel they can’t change the system, yet the only way to change the system is for people to do it. For me the issue is that Britain has become such a divided place, thats its hard for the people to work together to achieve something. I am not suggesting that we were ever a nation where we all agreed, far from it, but it seems more divisive than its been, and everyone is keen to pass the buck. I watched Newsnight on Monday and the Tory and the Labour guy seemed keener on blaming the other, rather than sorting out the problem.

[Xann]

Wrong. On average, public sector salaries are higher, and their pensions are a lot, lot higher.

Maybe that's because private companies have slashed pensions to their more numerous rank and file to concentrate on paying out to shareholders and directors.

Don't think the majority of public servants got a fat pay rise over the last year, but the directors of many a failing company did.

[snowychap]

But it is in part our fault; we are the electors of these governments?

And on what basis does the electorate choose their MPs who then go on to have little say in the actual make up of the government and, often, little power to check (and even hold to account) the decisions of that government?

Do we expect them to stay true to their manifesto commitments or are these just 'aspirations'?

Perhaps the electorate's decision can only actually be best viewed (even when it may take what has happened in to account) as a retrospective assessment of the performance of the incumbent (or the incumbent's position relative to the government of the day)?

It is 'our' fault if we continue to elect people labouring under the misapprehension that they will do as they claimed when they stood for election and will represent anything more than the vested interests and self-interest that counsel them once elected.

p.s. Francis Maude is a slimey little **** - puts me as ill at ease listening to him as it used to listening to Gerald Kaufman.

Edited for spelling mistakes and poor grammar.