Silent Majority Speaks
Rescuing Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected Dictatorship
|
Spin,
not face-to-face confrontations with the voters, is the Government's
chosen method of communication. Ordinary people are dangerous. Ordinary
people might ask a question which throws a politician 'off message';
the Cabinet member might reveal himself or herself to be a human being
like us, and not a programmed android. Worse still, he or she might
tell the truth.
Ann Leslie - Daily Mail, September 16, 2004
Blair wants to leave his
mark on history - looks more like a stain to me.
Peter Thorndyke, Diss,
Norfolk - Daily Mail, May 23, 2005
I know I'm me - why do I
need an ID card?
"Sorry, officers, I
don't have an ID card. I never applied for one. It seemed a bit steep
at 300 quid. I do have my free passport, my driving licence and my
London freedom travel pass, each with my photograph. I have my NHS
medical card, with its lengthy number, given me at birth, my RAF
service book with my Armed Forces number, and a chit authorising me to
wear a few gongs -including a General Service Medal with Malaya bar,
for fighting communist terrorists on behalf of my country, or so they
told me.
"I've also got various credit
cards and store cards, all with my signature on the back, generally
good for buying the everyday requrements for life as well as the odd
luxury. If you decide to arrest me, I suppose I'll have to be
photographed and given another number, besides my PINs.
"I'm afraid I haven't got a
pension book; it was taken away."
"By thieves, sir?"
"No ... well, not exactly. By the
Government. By the way, may I see your warrant cards please, gentlemen?"
Oh dear, they've disappeared. E.
Harry Gumer, Romford, ESSEX - Daily Mail, June 1, 2005
NO means NO
When does NO mean MAYBE?
When it's not the answer the EU wants.
With the
courageous French NON resounding in their ears, shabby, undemocratic
self-interested leaders of Europe propose ignoring the part of their
precious constitution that requires ratification by all members and
continuing without one of the biggest founder members to prevent
derailing the gravy train.
As in Ireland,
they refuse to accept any NO votes, ignoring the will of the people,
and re-stage votes until they can engineer the 'correct' answer. Sadly,
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw dances to their tune like a puppet on a
string. With tactics such as these, how can anyone really believe the
EU has our interests at heart. Letter from Steve Penny, Kingsnorth, Kent - Daily
Mail, June1, 2005
Surely
the French result makes the £1million the EU recently spent on a
treaty signing ceremony seem a trifle premature and extravagant. Letter from Keith Wiseman, Bury, Lancs. - Daily Mail,
June1, 2005
|
May 31, 2005 (761 days since war
ended)
Death Toll: 1,657 US - 89 UK - >6,164?
Iraqi - >17,300 civilians - 25 media
June 17, 2005 (779 days since war
ended)
Death Toll: 1,716 US - 89 UK -
>6,164? Iraqi - >17,300? civilians - 25 media
June 26, 2005 (788 days since war
ended)
Death Toll: 1,737 US - 89 UK -
>6,164? Iraqi - >17,300? civilians - 25 media
July 6, 2005 (798 days since war
ended)
Death Toll: 1,751 US - 90 UK -
>6,164? Iraqi - >17,300? civilians - 25 media
August 24, 2005 (847 days since
war ended)
Death Toll: 1,869 US - 93 UK - >>6,164?
Iraqi - >>17,300? civilians - 25 media
September
29, 2005 (883 days since war ended)
Death Toll: 1,928 US - 96 UK - >>6,164?
Iraqi - >>17,300? civilians - 25 media
October
11, 2005 (895 days since war ended)
Death Toll: 1,956 US - 96UK - >>6,164?
Iraqi - >>17,300? civilians - 25 media
October
20, 2005 (904 days since war ended)
Death Toll: 1,986 US - 97UK - >>6,164?
Iraqi - >>17,300? civilians - 25 media
October
25, 2005 (909 days since war ended)
Death Toll: 2,001 US - 97UK - >>6,164?
Iraqi - >>17,300? civilians - 25 media
Britain has
traditionally been one of the biggest net contributors to the EU
because we do not get as much money back from Brussels in farm and
regional subsidies as our rivals.
According to
Treasury figures, between 1995-2002, Britain's average contribution
taking the rebate into account, was £2.6billion, or £43.55
per head of population.
The French -
the biggest recipient of farm subsidies - contributed £1billion a
year or £16.08 per head of their population.
|
November
17, 2005 (932 days since Iraq war ended)
Death Toll: 2,080 US - 97UK - >>6,164?
Iraqi - >>17,300? civilians - 25 media
Sorry,
you've got to work longer
A
government that wrecked private pensions now has the nerve to
say you must work until you're 67 (unless you're a state employee),
then you'll pick up an inflation-proof pension at 60)
By
James Chapman and Alex Brummer - Daily Mail, November 18, 2005
Millions
of workers would see their dreams of retiring at 65 shattered
under radical plans to tackle the pensions crisis. A blueprint
drawn up by Government's pensions tsar, Lord Turner, would see
state pension age rise to 67. There would also be a national savings
plan into which workers would be automatically enrolled when they
started a new job - although they could opt out at any time.
This
betrayal of our dreams
Analysis
- By Alex Brummer, City Editor, Daily Mail, November 18,
2005
Labour's
greatest betrayal of the British people is the retreat
from the dream of an early, comfortable retirement. The
Pensions Commission headed by Lord Turner, former chief
of the employers' organisation, the CBI, has struggled
manfully to come up with an equitable solution which spreads
pain of providing for retirement of future generations
as wide as possible.
But
Turner has found himself caught in a political vortex,
with the Cabinet split and employers and trades unions
pulling in different directions. Result: the commission
comes up with an unpalatable cocktail of ideas to resolve
the perceived pensions crisis.
Among
the least acceptable of Turner's proposals is that official
retirement age be lifted from 65 to 67. Although this
may look better than the 'work until you drop' ideas that
have been floated in the past, it must now be regarded
as a ridiculous proposal because of government's own flaccidly
in the face of the power of the public sector unions.
In
an agreement earlier this year Trade Secretary Alan Johnson,
with the backing of Downing Street, bowed to disruption
threats by public sector workers and preserved in aspic
their rights to retire at age 60 and collect inflation-proofed
pensions based upon final salaries. It was not unexpected,
given Johnson's history as leader of the Communications
Workers Union. But its impact on the work of the Pensions
Commission and the rest of government has been enormous.
When
Downing Street realised how disastrously the deal was
playing in the media, it disassociated itself from the
whole package - while refusing to unpick it. Meanwhile,
Treasury ministers have been privately seething at the
idea that huge new liabilities were placed on the national
purse - with all the potential consequences for public
finances and taxation, without any serious costing exercise.
Even
before the Johnson compact with public sector unions,
it was absolutely clear that the government was being
overgenerous towards its future retirees at the expense
of everyone else in the economy. The Pension Commission's
interim report, released last year, noted starkly that
36% of accumulated pension rights in Britain were owned
by the public sector (including Cabinet and Parliament),
though it only represented 18% of employees.
The
commission took the view that the only way to force reforms
would be if pensions in the public sector and those in
the wealth-creating part of the economy could be more
aligned. Instead government chose to march in exactly
the opposite direction, undermining the work of the very
body it had set up to resolve the pensions crisis in a
non-partisan manner. No wonder Turner is thought to be
fuming.
Broadly
speaking, the commission is heading in the right direction.
It wants to replace Gordon Brown's complex and bureaucratic
system of 'means-tested' pension credits with an improved
'citizens pension' which every man and woman is entitled
to collect. It is the funding of such a system which is
the problem.
The
commission believes it might be possible to use up to
£11bn, currently provided to the private sector
as compensation for second state pension, to support the
new improved state pension. Employers groups fear, however,
that the loss of this cash might impose undue burdens
on smaller companies. It would also undermine private
sector schemes conservatively estimated to be in deficit
by £690billion.
Turner's
big new idea to resolve the pension crisis for those born
after 1955, the group facing the most serious difficulties,
is to create a new pensions plan, 'Britsaver', on the
New Zealand/Swedish model.. Under this plan a worker would
be required, on employment, to join a pension scheme into
which they would pay a fixed proportion of their salary
- say 5%. This is known as automatic enrolment and would
reverse the current position where employees have to opt
in rather than out. It stops short of the compulsion used
in Australia, Chile and some other countries.
Clearly,
compulsion would be a huge problem as it would be regarded
as yet another tax in addition to National Insurance contributions
which, on paper at least, are meant to fund state pensions.
Auto-enrolment
does offer flexibility. The employee could opt not to
join or could pull out at any time. The cash collected
would be invested by big City insurers and fund managers
with individuals given a list to choose from, as with
the Child Trust Fund.
There
is a huge downside too. Although the scheme would be intended
to capture those people in smaller firms outside the main
corporate employers, it would offer a temptation to some
firms to escape traditional obligations, by abandoning
workers to the new state-run plan. It would unpick the
golden bond between employer and employee which helped
create in Britain one of the best-funded corporate pensions
systems in the world.
It
would risk putting the final nail in the coffin of a system
built on Victorian values of thrift and a duty of care
vested in corporations towards their work force. That
surely is not what the Government or Pensions Commission
want to happen.
|
The
recommendations would widen the inequality of what critics have
already branded a two-tier system. Last month, under pressure
from unions, the Government dropped plans to raise the retirement
age for millions of existing public sector workers from 60 to
65. Critics say it will now be impossible for ministers to tell
workers in the private sector to postpone retirement.
An
increase in the state pension age would also mean hundreds of
thousands of people dying before they could claim. Lord Turner
is understood to be furious that the Government cave-in to NHS
staff, teachers, civil servants effectively neutered his report
on closing a £57billion-a-year shortfall in public and private
pension provision.
The
Pensions Commission, which he chairs, is due to report in two
weeks' time. It will set out a range of options based on longer
working lives, higher taxes and encouraging people to save more.
Lord Turner, the former head of the Confederation of British Industry,
is expected to suggest the state pension should rise from the
current £80 a week to around £100 and increased each
year in line with earnings. In return, the age at which it can
be claimed should rise from 65 to 67, starting in 2020. Further
rises from 67 are likely as life expectancy increases.
The
proposed 'Britsaver' scheme would see a chunk of workers' earnings
saved for their old age. Allowing workers to opt out means it
stops short of making saving compulsory. There is likely to be
a fierce debate on all the suggestions. Any suggestion from Lord
turner that taxes should rise to pay for better state pension
provision will set alarm bells ringing at the Treasury. There
were also warnings last night that the Britsaver scheme could
sink many small businesses if they are compelled to contribute.
Critics also fear that a national savings fund could give larger
companies an excuse to scrap more generous private schemes.
On
the central issue, the retirement age, business leaders and Tory
MPs said the Government had no chance of pressing ahead unless
it grasped the nettle on public sector pensions. Tory spokesman
Sir Malcolm Rifkind said: "It is grossly unfair and unjust.
Unlike anyone else, public sector workers will be able to retire
at 60 with a full occupational pension, guaranteed and paid for
by the taxpayer. They won't be too worried by the fact that they
won't be getting their state pension until 67. The rest of the
population will be required to work beyond 65 to get much lower
benefits."
John
Cridland, deputy-director general of the CBI, said it would be
'very, very difficult' to persuade people in the private sector
to work beyond 65. "We're ending with a two-tier pensions
system," he said. "We've taken the view that people
need to work beyond 65. We take no pleasure in that, but people
simply need to save more and one way of making them do that is
for them to work longer. There are difficult negotiations to be
had with the workforce. If they're saying 'look what example the
Government has set', it makes it very, very difficult. It won't
be sustainable if retirement ages are rising in the private sector
by staying the same in the public sector."
Steven
Hill, of the British Chambers of Commerce, said: "We're in
favour of the state pension age increasing as longevity increases.
But the Government's decision to allow public sector workers to
retire at 60 has sent incredibly confused messages to the public.
We need tell people that the economic reality dictates they will
have to work longer. It remains to be seen if the Government can
now persuade people of that, given the deal struck with the public
sector."
In
Parliament, Government faced further warnings not to raise the
state pension age following its 'collapse' over public sector
pensions. Former social services secretary Lord Fowler said such
a move would be 'a further kick in the teeth of the millions of
people who do not have the benefit of index-linked final salary
schemes. It creates two nations in retirement - a privileged minority
who, ironically, are supported by a majority who do not have the
same benefits. It is unjust and unfair and is a policy which must
be changed."
Treasury
sources insisted that the deal struck with public sector unions
would make most of the savings the Government had wanted - £13billion
over the next 50 years. Although current civil servants aged 21
will still be able to retire at 60 in the year 2044, new staff
joining from next year have to make larger contributions or accept
lower benefits if they want to give up work before 65.
Chancellor
Gordon Brown will resist calls for tax rises to help plug the
pensions black hole. He also wants a national debate before any
major reforms are introduced. But Pensions Minister, Stephen Timms
confirmed yesterday that Government thought working longer was
the key to solving the crisis. Speaking at the autumn conference
of the national Association of Pension Funds, he said: "To
meet the challenges of supporting an ever-older population, we
cannot afford to be denied the skills and contributions of all
those who can and want to work. The age of retirement is going
up as people want to work longer."
Downing
Street said 'a fundamental issue' had to be addressed. A spokesman
said: "When the welfare state was created, there were ten
people in work for every one in retirement. Today, it's four for
every one in retirement and in ten years time it will be two people
working for every one in retirement."
On
the deal given to current public sector workers, he said the rate
of turnover meant that in seven years, 5-% of staff would be subject
to the new arrangements. In the Lords, Work and Pensions Minister
Lord Hunt said: "We always intended to provide existing staff
with plenty of notice of pension age change, to allow them to
adjust their retirement plans."
There
are six million employees in the public sector - a 13% increase
on 1997. The pensions agreement covers roughly half - arrangements
for the rest have yet to be decided.
If you have
suggestions for additional subjects, or material to include in the
pages linked to the subjects listed, please contact the webmaster.
|
