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 answeer 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
11, 2005 (741 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 1,610 US - 88 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300 civilians
- 25 media
May
31, 2005 (761 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 1,657 US - 89 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300 civilians
- 25 media
June
3 , 2005 (765 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 1,670 US - 89 UK - >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.
|
PENSIONS:
THE GROWING GAP
The
Great Divide
The
growing gap between private and state pensions is bound to end
in tears
COMMENTARY
- By Leo McKinstry - Daily Mail, June 13, 2005
During
Margaret Thatcher's era, economists would often talk anxiously
about the country's North-South divide. But there's a far greater
divide today, based not on geography but on occupation. And it
is threatening to cause real resentment in our national workforce,
as well damaging the fabric of our public services.
A
nation split by its pensions
Comment
- Daily Mail, June 14, 2005
For
generations our pension system has been the envy of the
world, providing most of our citizens, whether working
for the state or the private sector with generous payments
linked to final salaries.
Then
came the £5billion annual stealth tax on pension
funds, followed by the stock market crash, which had a
devastating effect on the retirement incomes of those
working for the private sector.
No
such problems faced those working for the state, whose
pensions are guaranteed and paid for by taxpayers. Now
comes proof that in retirement we will now be split into
two nations. According to the Government actuary, only
15% of those working for private companies have pensions
linked to their final salary - while 90% of those in the
public sector do.
And
no group has been more adept at feathering its nest than
MPs. They get a far better deal than those working in
private business and have their fund propped up by £10million
from taxpayers.
Of
course in the past index-linked pensions used to compensate
public employees for a low salary - and that still applies
to people like nurses and teachers. But there are many
bureaucrats whose salaries at least match those in business
- yet they will receive a guaranteed pension despite facing
none of the risks of working in the private sector.
Make
no mistake. When those who have worked in companies see
that they have become second class citizens in their old
age to their public sector counterparts, they will be
increasingly bitter. And their resentment will be all
the greater because their children will have to pay higher
taxes to fund a state pension bill that has already climbed
to £690million and is certain to rise rapidly.
Such
sums are unsustainable. The private sector cannot create
the wealth to foot this bill. Ministers waiting for the
Turner Report into pensions this autumn have already said
they won't act for at least four years.
Such
pusillanimity is unforgivable. Government must address
this problem urgently.
|
There
is a growing chasm between those who work in the private sector
and those employed by the State. For most private employees, the
future could hardly look more bleak. Their prospective pensions
have plummeted in value, thanks to fluctuations in the stock market
and the closure of company defined benefit schemes - under which
people earn benefits for every year worked.
The
story is so different in the public sector, where gold-plated,
inflation-proof final salary schemes predominate. The gap is graphically
highlighted by a report from the Government's Actuary's Department.
It shows that while just 15% of workers in the private sector
have final salary pensions, the figure is 90% for the public sector.
Five years ago, the numbers were almost equal.
According
to Actuary's Department, this is the first time since the 1970s
(when Britain was the sick man of Europe) that public sector workers
with final salary pensions outnumbered those in the private sector.
Other statistics further expose the chilling prospects for non-state
workers.
For
example, only 30% are in any kind of occupational pension scheme,
compared with 85% of public employees. Moreover, a report from
the Pensions Commission revealed that although the public sector
employs only about 20% of the British working population, it has
36% of the notion's pensions entitlements.
Many
public employees pay little towards generous retirement benefits.
Most civil servants only have to contribute 1.5% of their salaries
to occupational schemes, while MPs, with, by far, the most generous
arrangements in Britain, only have to work 20 years to achieve
a pension worth half their salary.
Generosity
of public sector pensions is often justified on the basis that
state employees are more badly paid than their private counterparts.
But this is just a piece of myth-making. In truth, average pay
in the public sector is now marginally higher. Senior bureaucrats
in Whitehall and Town Halls earn salaries comparable to commercial
executives, although they take nothing like the same risks and
have secure jobs for life.
Despite
all the bleating from trade unions, most state employees have
far stronger workplace rights, with shorter hours, longer holidays,
more job security, greater patterns of flexible working and less
rigorous management. The relative cushiness of the public sector,
especially in central and local government, makes the injustice
of the pensions gap all the more glaring. Effectively, private
employees not only have to endure tougher working conditions,
greater chances of the sack and the prospect of a harsher retirement,
but are also being asked to subsidise through taxes, the generous
pensions of state workers.
For
most public sector schemes do not have pension funds. Instead,
they operate on a pay-as-you-go basis, with current liabilities
being met through funding from the taxpayer and contributions
from present staff. As the number of pensioners grows through
longevity, so the bill rises.
Just
imagine if the situation were reversed. If public employees had
to use a substantial part of their earnings to underwrite private
sector pensions, the trade unions would howl with rage. But the
union movement, once largely representing British industry, has
become the querulous creature of the public sector. The biggest
unions - UNISON, the TGWU and the GMB - are dominated by public
workers, so they see nothing wrong with punishing private employees
to boost the affluence of their own members.
Thanks
to the manifest iniquity of the current pension structure, the
amount of money that the Government is pouring into the public
sector is astronomical. In 2003, ministers estimated that public
sector pension liabilities would cost taxpayers a massive £425billion
over coming decades. This has proved a severe underestimate. According
to the actuary Watson Wyatt, the real figure could be £690billion,
because of the long-term decline in interest rates and the huge
recent expansion of the public payroll - since 1997, Labour has
recruited around 840,000 new employees.
Already,
the sums swallowed up by public sector pension schemes are proving
a huge drain on resources that could otherwise be used to improve
service delivery. Indeed, the diversion of funds to pensions is
one central reason why Gordon Brown's extra spending in recent
years has yielded such meagre results in terms of improvements
in public services.
In
local government, for instance, pensions bills for council workers
rises this year to £3.75billion, with council taxpayers
having to find an extra £246million to meet the increase.
Last year 20% of all the money council taxpayers contributed to
town hall coffers was used to fund staff pensions. Similarly,
extra funding for the police is now wasted on pensions. The total
bill for police pensions in 2004/5 was £1.303billion, and
is expected to rise next year by 12% - more than four times the
rate of inflation.
The
fire service, which, like the police, runs unfunded pension schemes,
is perhaps even more prodigal. In Greater Manchester, pension
payments for firefighters are £30.4million this year, compared
with salary costs of £74million. This represents a doubling
of the pension bill in eight years. During that period, despite
local council taxpayers being asked to pay 68% more for their
services, the fire authority's budget fell by 7% in real terms,
once enhanced pension payments are taken out. There could hardly
be a more powerful indicator of the way unreformed public pensions
are undermining vital public services.
The
Government has proved shamefully pusillanimous about tackling
the problem.
Apart
from the fact that such state pensions are unsustainable - the
private sector simply won't earn sufficient money to pay for the
old age of state workers - we cannot go on allowing this blatant
injustice. The Labour Government often talks a good game on equality
when it comes to race and gender. It can only be hoped that they
now demonstrate a spirit of equality towards our working population.
If you have suggestions
for additional subjects, or material to include in the pages linked
to the subjects listed, please contact
the webmaster.
