By voting 83 to 36 with one abstention for parliamentary business to continue on November 30, it seems the SNP’s only whiff of solidarity in the last few days has been on the old membership card of its newest recruit.
Green MSPs Patrick Harvie and Alison Johnstone yesterday urged parliament to vote against Holyrood’s business motion for 30 November, the day multi-strike action against the Tories’ public sector pension grab has been scheduled. Labour escalated Harvie’s calls for members to “be out with the unions, supporting the Parliament’s hard-working staffâ€, with Paul Martin calling for MSPs to strike in solidarity. “Today the Scottish Labour party makes no apologies for standing shoulder to shoulder with workers across Scotland”.
But the Scottish Government said MSPs should attend Parliament on the day and debate a Scottish Government motion condemning the pension plans, and voted accordingly for business to continue.
The strikes on November 30 will be the biggest industrial action in the UK since 1926. With the GMB voting for walkouts over pension reform yesterday, and Unite members likely to declare today that they are joining the growing lists of unions taking action, over 3 million public sector workers across the UK should be out on St Andrews Day.
The strikes are protesting the triple whammy Westminster is levying on public sector pensions. The declaration by George Osborne in June 2010 that pension value will increase in line with the lower CPI measure of inflation, instead of RPI, wipes 15% off the value of public sector pension scheme benefits. When the mean average public sector pension is £7,000, with the majority of public sector pensioners receiving less than £5,000, this is a huge cut, made even worse when coupled with a forced increase in contributions and a rise in the normal pension age.
In the civil service, the pension scheme is unfunded – payments aren’t put in a fund, and invested and built up over time to cover future contributions, like other pension schemes. Payments which civil service staff make towards their pension from their salary instead goes straight to the Treasury, and is used to reduce current government expenditure. Pensions are then paid out of general taxation when civil servants are due them – hence screaming headlines about the burden these pensions levy on the ‘taxpayer’, as if civil servants haven’t also paid tax throughout their working lives. In fact, given their pension contributions are used as immediate government income, it’s like they’ve paid an additional tax for the privilege of being a civil servant.
But a civil service pension is supposed to be the reward for accepting lower pay throughout your career in comparison to the private sector. Arguing that public sector pensions are not in line with private sector equivalents tells me pensions should be leveled up, not down. I agree private sector employees have been hit hard by the employer retreat from good pensions. But this doesn’t justify punishing public sector workers.
And I think Scotland’s MSPs should show a bit more solidarity with our public sector workers. Why not keep the parliamentary business opposing and condemning Osborne’s outrageous cash grab, but also keep parliament empty (except presumably for the Tories). Stand with the parliamentary staff on the picket but don’t cross it. And stand up to show a bit of real solidarity with Scottish workers being punished for an economic crisis not of their making.
UPDATE: As the comments point out, the parliamentary vote was 83 to 36, not 83 to 60. Bad typo, corrected now. Kirsty
#1 by Jeff on November 17, 2011 - 8:57 am
I’m split on this one really. I can be cynical and even scornful of trade unions but I absolutely agree that pensions should be levelled up and not levelled down so the unions have at least one, and I’m sure many, deep grievance to air.
Should politicians join in when they can perhaps effect more change in their day jobs? It’s a tough one but I reckon they’ll struggle to say anything more powerful than the sight of MSPs marching or placarding on the streets with the people.
Also, I find it ironic that the SNP has been looking for a day off on Sr Andrew’s Day for years, an opportunity presents itself and they vote No. (there’s that cynicism I wa talking about!)
#2 by R.G. Bargie on November 17, 2011 - 10:34 am
“Should politicians join in when they can perhaps effect more change in their day jobs?”
No, clearly they shouldn’t. A Scottish Parliamentary statement protesting about the cuts carries far more weight – particularly in the UK as opposed to Scotland – than a bunch of MSPs nobody’s heard of standing around outside in the cold.
People want their politicians behaving like mature lawmakers they’re supposed to be. If politicians have an issue with something, Parliament is the proper place to raise it, because Parliament has far more power than a protest.
It’s like Lionel Messi discovering a Scottish granny, and then Craig Levein putting him in the stands to be a supporter rather than a midfielder. (Which, dismayingly, is probably what would happen. Bloody Levein.)
#3 by Craig Gallagher on November 17, 2011 - 3:47 pm
As a defender of Craig Levein, I do think Messi would get a game for Scotland in the Barry Bannan/Charlie Adam role, but only after he’s been in a few squads and got to know the lads and got used to the pressure that comes with being in the Scotland squad, and then only in a few cameo appearances, unless we’re losing to Spain at home…
#4 by Rev. S. Campbell on November 17, 2011 - 9:07 am
83 to 60, plus 1? I’m confused. Who was taking part in this vote? What does the SNP have 144 of?
#5 by Kirsty on November 17, 2011 - 9:14 am
Whoops, the parliament vote was 83 to 36 – will correct it on the post…
#6 by R.G. Bargie on November 17, 2011 - 9:48 am
It’s still rather poor reporting – your first sentence attributes that vote entirely to the SNP (“By voting 83 to 36 with one abstention for parliamentary business to continue on November 30, it seems the SNP’s only whiff of solidarity in the last few days…”).
But the SNP has 68 MSPs (plus PO), not 83, so that sentence should clearly read “it seems the Scottish Parliament’s only…”
What’s the actual breakdown of the numbers?
#7 by R.G. Bargie on November 17, 2011 - 9:52 am
(Also, 83+36+1 is 117 out of 129. Who didn’t bother to show up?)
#8 by R.G. Bargie on November 17, 2011 - 9:54 am
Eek, cold fingers this morning – 120, not 117. Still 9 short.
#9 by Kirsty on November 17, 2011 - 10:05 am
I’m glad I’m not the only one with numeracy issues this morning 😉
#10 by James on November 17, 2011 - 10:18 am
Both mine were there and voting. Better ask the larger parties who was absent, Mr Bargie, if that is your name, or you could go through the Official Report and find out for yourself.
#11 by R.G. Bargie on November 17, 2011 - 10:29 am
Why isn’t the Official Report just linked to in the piece? I haven’t the first idea where to locate such a thing.
#12 by CivilServant on November 17, 2011 - 10:08 am
I’ll be on strike, and frankly I think MSPs taking a day off would be a pretty hollow demonstration of solidarity, it would be like school children playing truent during a teachers strike.
If Patrick Harvie and Alison Johnstone do wish to show solidarity, I am sure a donation of a days pay would be well received by any of the unions.
#13 by James on November 17, 2011 - 10:20 am
Green MSPs weren’t proposing going on strike, they were proposing not holding Chamber business. They’ll be working for their constituents in other ways, notably those who are also civil servants on this occasion.
#14 by BaffieBox on November 17, 2011 - 11:03 am
James, I dont really follow this.
If you arent going on strike, what is the point? You certainly arent “standing shoulder to shoulder with workers across Scotland” – you seem to be advocating just going away and doing something else in the background. Not holding chamber business seems a little impotent in my opinion. How is this more effective than a parliamentary debate and vote, or doing what you wanted to do and stand shoulder to shoulder with Labour?
Either seems more effective than just avoiding the chamber?
#15 by CivilServant on November 17, 2011 - 2:26 pm
I’m not sure what the statement is then. I have a lot of respect for btoh Green MSPs, and I am sure that they do work very hard for their constituents. But I don’t see how choosing not to do that part of their jobs makes any difference, or is even particularly powerful as a statement?
Happy to give anyone credit for any action in solidarity with those on strike, but not happy for it to be used as an excuse for hollow grandstanding.
#16 by Erchie on November 17, 2011 - 1:43 pm
I’m another Public Sector worker who won’t be at work on the 30th, but sees no point in the MPSs not being at theirs
Firstly, if Holyrood Civil Servants do go on strike, how is the effect to be felt if the politicians are off
Secondly, Holyrood is not employed by Westminster, so who are they striking against?
Thirdly, last time this was done you had a report from Holyrood, with Iain Gray and 6 chums shuffling behind wherever the camera was pointed. It looked sad. Much better to have the debate in Chamber and condemn the COalition from there
#17 by itsyourself on November 17, 2011 - 10:12 am
Labour solidarity? That would be the solidarity on show when they imposed student fees? The solidarity when pension funds were stolen? The solidarity with George W Bush? That solidarity? Aye right.
#18 by JPJ2 on November 17, 2011 - 10:19 am
I much prefer that MSPs get on with their jobs.
I, for one, have had enough of meaningless gestures from Labour politicians to last me a lifetime.
#19 by Indy on November 17, 2011 - 10:32 am
Let’s start from the basis that the strikes will make no difference. I understand why people are going to strike and of course they have a perfect right to but it will make absolutely no difference to the Tories/Lib Dems – or to the people who vote for them, who probably subscribe to the view that the public sector are a bunch of freeloaders who have it easy and don’t understand how things work in the real world etc – see any copy of the Daily Mail for further elucidation.
So MSPs going on strike too will just be a gesture. And, let’s face facts, MSPs voting against the UK Government’s policy would just be a gesture too.
So really it’s a question in the short term of which gesture you want to make and in the long term of whether we just want our politicians to go on making gestures and standing shoulder to shoulder with workers in a symbolic way (cos it’s not like MSPs pensions are being affected here is it?) or whether we want them to have real responsibility for pensions and have to take meaningful decisions instead of making meaningless gestures.
#20 by setindarkness on November 17, 2011 - 10:32 am
I want to know more about what was going on with Patrick Harvie and the PO ?
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/28862.aspx?r=6547&mode=html#iob_59500
#21 by R.G. Bargie on November 17, 2011 - 10:47 am
Cheers for the link, which reveals what I was looking for – the vote was carried by SNP, Lib Dem and Tory members, with Labour and Green against, one SNP abstention and no sign of Margo. By my reckoning four other SNP MSPs (not including the PO) were not present.
#22 by orpheuslyre on November 17, 2011 - 10:43 am
I’m a poorly paid public sector worker who actually can’t afford to pay into a pension scheme. I won’t be striking either, partly because the union I have just left sold many of us out without a backward glance.
And this “…makes no apologies for standing shoulder to shoulder with workers across Scotland†windbaggery is just embarrassing student politics.
#23 by R.G. Bargie on November 17, 2011 - 11:04 am
“And this “…makes no apologies for standing shoulder to shoulder with workers across Scotland†windbaggery is just embarrassing student politics.”
Yeah. As is the first sentence’s clumsily partisan misrepresentation of who took part in the vote. BN usually upholds higher standards.
#24 by Doug Daniel on November 17, 2011 - 11:23 am
“Why not keep the parliamentary business opposing and condemning Osborne’s outrageous cash grab, but also keep parliament empty (except presumably for the Tories)”
Because we elect them to run the country, not to pose in front of placards shouting “down with this sort of thing”?
If Labour MSPs feel so strongly about it, they can snub the chamber debate and go on strike instead. In fact they probably should do that more often – we might see an improvement in the overall level of debate in the parliament then.
#25 by Ken on November 17, 2011 - 12:38 pm
Surely a stronger symbol of opposition to cuts/pension changes would be a more visible one no? Imagine: politicians being in touch with what’s going on, interacting with the public on a matter of widespread importance, a public show of solidarity regardless of party affiliation… T’would be a refreshing change as opposed to, well… passing a symbolic motion that the general public /media won’t notice.
#26 by Indy on November 17, 2011 - 1:57 pm
Depends how you look at it. The SG is actively opposing the pension reforms. They will put the motion down. The Tories and Lib Dems will vote against it and Labour and the Greens won’t be there.
So the way I see it that’s an opportunity missed for the Scottish Parliament to make a clear statement which would actually get a fair bit of publicity (simply down to the fact that the SNP and Labour would be saying the same thing for a change).
#27 by Dubbieside on November 17, 2011 - 5:18 pm
Indy
That may be the reason that Labour will stay away, would not do to vote with the SNP, no matter the subject.
#28 by Doug Daniel on November 17, 2011 - 12:53 pm
Oh, and: “When the mean average public sector pension is £7,000, with the majority of public sector pensioners receiving less than £5,000, this is a huge cut, made even worse when coupled with a forced increase in contributions and a rise in the normal pension age.“
Err, you do realise, I take it, that it was Labour’s Pensions Act (2007) which put in place the changes to the pension age, and that the Tories are just moving the start date for that process forward four years?
#29 by Kirsty on November 17, 2011 - 1:04 pm
Err, I do, and I refer you to the reference to Westminster in the first line of the same paragraph.
#30 by Doug Daniel on November 17, 2011 - 1:32 pm
“The strikes are protesting the triple whammy Westminster is levying on public sector pensions.”
Nothing there about it being the previous government that kicked off the rise in the state pension age. The way you’ve worded it, it sounds like you’re trying to blame the Tories for all three, when in actual fact it’s just the change from CPI to RPI and the increase in contributions that they’re responsible for. Far be it from me to try and let the Tories off the hook with anything, but let’s not (appear to) accuse them of things they’ve not done…
#31 by Tormod on November 17, 2011 - 1:58 pm
MSP’s have a duty to perform and should go to work.
#32 by Tormod on November 17, 2011 - 2:06 pm
I haver very little time for unions as in when my dad needed his union they shat all over him and yet he still supported the unions and labour his entire life go figure!
#33 by Robbie Pennington on November 17, 2011 - 2:13 pm
“Real solidarity with Scottish workers” is best shown by MSPs using their Parliament to oppose Westminster. MSPs standing on picket lines is empty gesture politics.
#34 by Colin Dunn on November 17, 2011 - 3:44 pm
Heartily agree.
Picketing is what you do if you have no other vehicle for protest or resistance. Holyrood has other options, and getting on with business as usual will ultimately have far more impact.
#35 by Robbie Pennington on November 17, 2011 - 2:41 pm
…meant to say too, that all I see is Labour and Greens running away from having to make common cause with the SNP government.
#36 by R.G. Bargie on November 17, 2011 - 5:13 pm
Not sure you can accuse the Greens of that. Labour, sure. They’ll even vote down their own amendments to avoid agreeing with the SNP…
#37 by Craig on November 17, 2011 - 5:07 pm
They aren’t even solely responsible for them either.
The Unions are being extremely disingenuous about the cost of public sector pensions figures they’e quoting from the Hutton Report – specifically that there is no need for reforms as the cost was expected to peak at 1.9% GDP last year and decline to 1.4% GDP by 2059-60. Those figures, however, specifically take into account the change from RPI -> CPI.
If you go back to the Treasury’s December 2009 forecasts, the cost is predicted to increase over the next two decades and then remain stable until 2059-60 – quite a big difference in budget terms.
But even that doesn’t tell the full story of the unions’ duplicity. You have to ask yourself why did the Treasury expect the cost of pensions to remain stable post 2030 at a time of increasing longevity, a large bulge in the public sector workforce passing into retirement, and smaller active public sector workforce?
Part of the answer lies in employee turnover and previous changes to the retirement age – existing employees with lower retirement ages are replaced with new employees with higher retirement ages, all with the agreement of the unions. But this rather begs the question, if it’s okay for new employees to work longer while isn’t it okay for older employees of about the same age?
But that’s still not the meat of the issue. The same 2005 agreement that increased the retirement age also included a “cap and share” agreement. All future improvements in longevity will be shared between employee and employer, subject to a cap on the employer’s contribution. Beyond that benefits must take the strain.
A 2009 GAD report explains that it is assumed that two-thirds of the cost pressures that fall on employees will be met by reductions in employee benefits. The remaining third is assumed to come from increases in employee contributions.
So in other words, the figures the Unions use to claim that public sector pension costs are under control (“affordability” is a different matter altogether) are based on the assumptions that employees work longer, pay more and get less generous indexation. In all respects, bar timing, these are the issues the unions are opposing. But they certainly can’t argue that the system established before the Coalition entered government should continue, since significant reforms (like the ones the Coalition are now carrying out) were built into the cost estimates of that system.
Perhaps the Scottish Parliament should debate that on November 30.
#38 by Alec on November 17, 2011 - 5:52 pm
Are public sector employees, of whatever stripe, somehow more of a cut above, say, shelf-stackers in major supermarkets that they get designated as those swarthy sons of toil, the “workers”?
#39 by Erchie on November 17, 2011 - 8:45 pm
I suppose that you would see no difficulty or problem should your employer change your conditions for the worse, on a whim?
#40 by Keith Roberts on November 17, 2011 - 6:04 pm
………and if your office was funded in part by the unions or you happened to be involved in a leadership contest and needed union support……..
cycnical, moi?
The only reason they should not be working is if St Andrews Day were finally declared a holiday.
#41 by Scottish republic on November 17, 2011 - 6:26 pm
The scottish parliament passing a motion will be ignored too but at least it’s an official record unlike Labour preferring to play British politics as if they really are standing shoulder to shoulder with workers.
It is interesting how quiet Miliband and his fellow Labour members are on almost everything the Tories do.
Today in the Guardian he urges ‘responsible capitalism’ as a way forward – sounds like a Republican senator.
#42 by Allan on November 17, 2011 - 10:00 pm
Well… it is a point I have made on more than one occasion. At (ahem) a rival blog i did point out that the Shadow Chancellor seemed to be condemning the cuts on the one hand yet admiting in his conference speech that they would have made the same cuts. Rather than make speeches to the city promising a return to “Light Touch Regulation” – the best (first) thing Balls can do is go after Dave Hartnett (the head of HMRC) over his conduct over the sweetheart deals with Vodaphone & Goldman Sachs.
There is an alternative to George’s not so marvelous medicine. Unfortunately it’s not being put forward by Brenda’s official opposition.
#43 by Barbarian on November 17, 2011 - 7:17 pm
It doesn’t really matter who implemented the pension issues, the bottom line is that the Tories are in power, with the Klingons, sorry Lib Dems.
I have little time for unions, but this is a major event, and I’m split whether the SNP MSPs should show solidarity or not. This time, I think they should. After all, Big Eck himself marched through the streets of Kilmarnock. Sitting in a chamber debating will have zero impact since no one will be watching. Having the SNP MSPs on the street might put the fear of god into Westminster.
#44 by Indy on November 18, 2011 - 9:22 am
It’s not a question of people “showing solidarity” and that idea frankly annoys me. For a lot of people who will be going on strike losing a day’s pay is a big deal because they get paid peanuts to begin with and losing pension rights is also a majorly big deal because their pensions are already going to be quite low.
For me, the idea that well-paid MSPs, who could easily afford to lose a day’s pay, with pretty fantastic pensions which are not going to be affected by these changes would go out and stand on picket lines saying self-righteously we are standing beside you brothers and sisters is just a little bit nauseating.
The only power they have is the power of being members of parliament and, for some, members of the government. I would far rather see them try and use what little power they have to represent public sector workers through parliamentary means rather than through gesture politics.
#45 by Craig Gallagher on November 17, 2011 - 7:52 pm
There’s a few reasons why I don’t have any problem with the SNP not striking on November 30th. Firstly, they’re a party of government, which means in part that the unions are out striking against policies they either have to uphold or are advocating. For them to join the picket line against the wider issue of public sector pension reform would just be ludicrous, given that they’re part of the group having to renegotiate the settlement with the unions.
Secondly, as much as I support the general tenor of the strikes, everyone knows it’s not going to achieve an awful lot. On a scale of irrelevant to politically explosive, neither the strikes nor any motion passed by the Scottish Parliament will rank very high, but the latter will certainly be worth more than the former. If the SNP government wants to rebuke the Con/Lib coalition, the best way that they have within their power is a motion condemning them passed by Parliament. Though it’ll be partisan, it will also be a matter of public record and, despite the way you have positioned it Kirsty, a mark of solidarity with the Unions.
Finally, there’s a general issue of good governance. The reason the Unions – and the Labour party – are taking to the picket line is because they have no other means of making the Coalition government sit up and take notice. The SNP do, however, possess more responsible, and quite frankly useful means to do so. To abrogate those means in favour of a publicity stunt would be to abandon their responsibility.
#46 by Nikostratos on November 17, 2011 - 9:23 pm
The snp dont like unions never have never will so why support them (and by implication the Labour party)
on the plus side this is emblematic of where the snps true loyalty lie (not with the ordinary working scot)
and as Iain Gray said
Mr Gray said: “Between last year and this George Osborne cut capital budgets by 11 per cent. Alex Salmond cut them by 21 per cent. George Osborne got rid of 3.8 per cent of public-sector jobs. Alex Salmond got rid of 4.1 per cent. George Osborne cut colleges by 3 per cent or 4 per cent. Alex Salmond cut ours by 10%.
the snp the party for’ ALL’ the Scottish peoples
They are just having a laugh at the Scottish peoples expense.
#47 by Allan on November 17, 2011 - 10:09 pm
The problem here is that there is a lot of people who resent what Clegg described as “Gold Plated Pensions” within the public sector. There are well paid civil servants who will do very well when it comes to retirement time. There are also people who have retired, taken their retirement at their early 50’s and then gone back into employment. This practice should be looked into.
It’s not that the points raised by Kirsty are not valid points, they are. Its just that the request for solidarity is rather hollow given firstly the unions attitude towards democracy and secondly those unionised public service workers attitude to private sector workers who had their final salary pensions taken away in recient years. One wonders whether there were some “Maxwellesque” practices at play there – with not a wimper from the unions or the New Labour government… or the Labour administration at Holyrood.
#48 by DougtheDug on November 17, 2011 - 11:01 pm
The strikes are protesting the triple whammy Westminster is levying on public sector pensions.
Well there is one way to protest which will really get up Westminster’s nose and that is to campaign for independence. No more triple whammies from Westminster after that.
Remind me again. Which party campaigned in 2010 for continued Tory Westminster rule for Scotland? Of course. Labour.
#49 by Erchie on November 18, 2011 - 10:00 am
what gold-plated pensions?
Average pension is £4,200 pa
http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/facts-about-civil-and-public-services/
#50 by M G on November 17, 2011 - 11:35 pm
Nikostratos, judging by the decline in union numbers there are a lot of people disenchanted by ‘the unions’-however there is no evidence the SNP “have never liked unions” thats just a rant. Please ask yourself this ? The coalition are implementing some policies originally devised by Labour and the SG by having a fixed budget are having too as well, so by’ implication’ Iain Gray is arguing against policies devised by his own party so who is “having a laugh at the Scottish people’s expense?
#51 by douglas clark on November 18, 2011 - 4:50 am
Just to put a little realism into this discussion.
I have a Local Government Pension. It is funded partly by me and partly by the employer. As I recall, around 6% of my salary wnet towards it. It was the responsibility of the employer to meet or match that contribution. So, if i earned £10,000 a year in my pay packet, my actual benefit in kind was sometimes more than that – through payments to my pension fund – but never less than that. Sometimes, when the stock market was booming, they took ‘pension holidays’. Apart from that, It was, frankly, an invisible benefit.
It is pretty clear that actuarial advice has never been taken seriously by anyone actually running a public sector pension fund. It is pretty obvious that increased longevity didn’t get the attention it deserved when it may have been possible to deal with the issue, by small rises over time in contributions by both employer and employee. The employee, who is statistically going to live a lot longer, should see it as an investment in their old age.
I think that that would have been ‘sellable’ to both parties back then.
Now we have a situation where massive pension funds may not be able to meet their liabilities. This is a ridiculous situation for them to be in.
It is just another example of the short termism of politicial double think as it actually applies to Joe public. “We can’t tell them the truth when it matters, lets’ just pretend it will go away.”
_________________________________
I have suggested to my daughter that she sticks a tithe, one tenth of her income, into an ISA and forgets about anyone else bailing her out.
And tries to forget about the tithe too.
The income off that should see her all right throughout her old age: it’s her money and she can pass it on to whoever she likes. Usual caveats apply. But they apply to pension funds too.
But it is hard to do. Because we are hard wired nowadays to spend more than we earn.
#52 by Craig Gallagher on November 18, 2011 - 7:32 am
Plus interest rates have effectively plummeted on savings accounts, even ISAs. If you have a high rate one to use, great, but try getting one if you’re not especially noted for your good credit history. One of the reasons I decided to go back to university to do a PhD was simply because I didn’t see the value of saving for a house or the future in general when there was such a death of respectable plans to allow me to do so in any meaningful way.
Instead, I’m living on a PhD stipend, which is enough to live comfortably but not really to put anything away. Hopefully when the economy picks up there will be better savings options available and I can make as much in interest in a few years as I might have made in ten were I to start now.
Hopefully.
#53 by R.G. Bargie on November 18, 2011 - 10:23 am
“Because we are hard wired nowadays to spend more than we earn.”
Partly that, but partly also that we HAVE to as fuel costs, heating costs, transport costs, housing costs and food costs all rocket far beyond wages. A person working a full-time job on minimum wage in about half of the country already has zero chance of making ends meet without benefits of some sort, never mind saving.
#54 by M G on November 18, 2011 - 5:51 pm
Douglas Clark, like you I have a’ public ‘pension.It has crossed my mind,why would I pay an extra £30-£40 a month to the same group who were supposed to be looking out for my pension in the first place?Also would’nt it be fun if a statement had to be sent out yearly ?
I have seriously debated whether the penalties would be worth it in the long run to take my contribution and plonk it in an Isa .
#55 by douglas clark on November 19, 2011 - 6:39 am
Craig Gallacher, thanks for your reply. I haven’t suggested that she gets a ‘cash’ ISA, I’ve suggested she looks at broad based Unit and Investment Trusts. If they go down the swanee over thirty odd years everyone is going to be suffering.
The point is that you invest all income throughout your working lifetime, in other words your dividends are reinvested in additional shares. It takes a long time for that to become significant, but a thirty year term was long enough, I thought. Admittedly back of a fag packet stuff, but the numbers do add up over a reasonable term. If you stick to the idea of a tenth, so when you are earning ten thousand a year, you invest one thousand, twenty thousand you invest two thousand and so on ad infinitum. You try to live on 90% of your income and disregard the rest. Frankly it is easier said than done…..
Best of luck with the PhD by the way.
____________________________
R G Bargie, thanks for your reply too. You strike a nail squarely on the head. It is pretty plain that most organisations are now avoiding proper pension provision for their employees and the dual funding I mentioned becomes very hard, if not impossible, at the bottom of the economic ladder. Frankly, rather than always just raising the paid minimum wage in line with inflation, perhaps, over time there could be a minor percentage beyond that that went towards a pension pot? It wouldn’t have to start out big, but it could work it’s way up……
_____________________________
MG,
I am already in receipt of a pension.
Yeah, that old.
Reading between the lines I assume you are still contributing?
I’d have liked to have said to you that, what with the extra contribution from your employer, you are guaranteed an inflation proofed pension until you die (sorry, that is not meant to come across as brutal, it was supposed to be one of those damn facts, and a positive one).
But my inflation measure has altered, I assume to my detriment, and to the governments’ advantage. What guarantee had I when I took the pension on? Well, one that appears to have had a coach and horses run through it. In principle rather than in immediate effect. It just makes you (me) wary of UK government commitment to people like us.
So, you have to make provision for your future, one way or another.
I am not a financial advisor, but I’d suggest you find a good one and remember the pensions mis-selling fiasco when people were encouraged to leave their public sector schemes for a hill of beans. What you will find is that your standard of living doesn’t plummet as much as you thought, if you were fully funded and get a half pension.
But, oddly, the older you get, I’m 63, it is the future, your future, you look to and securing that becomes a lot more urgent and option poor than it is at a younger age.
Sadly, my State Pension will be used exclusively to work down my debt. When I get it in April 2013. Roll on 65!
Thanks for your comments too.
___________________________________
Bet there’s not a soul out there reading this :-;
#56 by Bob Dobbalina on November 19, 2011 - 5:22 pm
I can only hope the Westminster Parliamentary Labour Party will be out on the streets too, standing firm, holding the line, supporting their fellow workingmen and women, as they always have done, and always will. Miliband The Youngerhas an especially proud history in this regard. His vocal backing of the teacher’s strike, and the civil servant’s strike, will go down in the history of the labour movement worldwide as… as things that nobody wants to talk about.
Personally I want the SNP MSPs to strike, though. Why not? They’ve got no reason to sit quiet. If they stay in the Parliament it’ll just be them and the Tories, sitting about staring at each other, and where’s the fun in that?
Then again, i would like everybody to strike, generally, for as long as they can manage, with very few exceptions, and keep striking until real and lasting changes in our systems of governance are made, or at least negotiated.