After a long period in which the polls have been in a 'holding pattern', they have delivered a Christmas present for Dave Cameron in terms of a jump in the ratings: Polls
As the experts at Nottingham University point out, this is undoubtedly related to the exercise of the European 'veto' and probably involves an erosion of UKIP support. However, they also doubt whether the boost will be an enduring one, given the low salience of the EU in British politics and the fact that UKIP voters have other concerns.
Nevertheless, it does once again raise the issue of why the Labour Party is not doing better given the overall economic and political situation. One reason is that the polling evidence suggests that the electorate have no confidence in their economic competence, a reasonable given view given the way in which they spent what would have been a substantial budget surplus after 2001.
The other factor is Ed Miliband who continues to fail to impress. There are situations in which he could made more off. For example, the 'We are the 99 per cent' claim of the Occupy movement does resonate, even though it is ultimately spurious given that it assumes that the 99 per cent have a homogeneous set of interests and values which is clearly not the case. Nevertheless, Miliband could have recognised that they had an emotional case which required some intellectual development.
What instead we get is a lot of dithering and sitting on the fence as he tries to steer a course, for example, between the public sector unions and those who work in the private sector. In the dispute over public sector pensions, the Government has had to make some concessions but has largely got what it wanted in terms of higher contributions, later retirement ages and smaller entitlements.
Labour loyalists seem determined to stick with Ed to the last, however.
Showing posts with label public sector pensions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public sector pensions. Show all posts
Wednesday, 21 December 2011
Tuesday, 5 July 2011
Public sector pensions
Last Friday The Times carried an interview with a teacher from my old primary school, St.Margaret's Plumstead Common. This 59-year old complained, 'I'd like Michael Gove to come and spend a week doing my job .. When he does that he can come and tell me about cutting my pension.' Given that she is near retirement age, her pension is unlikely to be affected much.
Even if the Government's proposed changes go through in full, those in the public sector will still be much better off than those most of those in the private sector, many of whom do not have a pension worth speaking of or have to make their own provision in schemes which are vulnerable to stock market fluctuations. If vox pop and radio show texts are anything to go by, many in the private sector resent what they see as the privileged treatment of the public sector.
There are two answers to that view. One is that relatively good pensions form part of an overall renumeration package which public sector workers signed up to as part of their contracts. But that is an argument for phasing in the changes not abandoning them which is what is proposed anyway. And if the grass is greener on the other side ...
A second argument is that poor private sector pensions need to be tackled rather than reducing those in the public sector. Employers should be 'required' to provide them. In other words labour costs in the UK should be substantially increased which wouldn't do much for competitiveness.
Career average pensions could actually benefit the less well off and the unions seemed to be prepared to concede that point. As for working longer before pensions become available, trade unionists complain that they are being made to pay for the banking crisis.
But the banking crisis didn't lead to people living longer. It's one thing to pay a pension for seven years after someone has worked for forty years and another thing to pay it for thirty years.
Where the unions do have grounds for complaint is the increase in contribution costs at a time when the pay of their members is frozen for all except the lowest paid. In other words this means a further cut in take home pay.
It is actually not as much as the figures suggest because of the generous tax treatment of pensions - something that is never really discussed. Even so, it is substantial and it is here that the Government may need to give way, although by doing so they place at risk their deficit reduction strategy. But a hot autumn could damage the Government's standing. In other words, there might be a political price to pay for failing to give concessions.
It's a tricky tightrope and while David Cameron is good at tactics, he may be less good at strategy. Given the recent proposals on paying for care, one thing that does need to be thought about is whether those of pensionable age should continue to be exempt from National Insurance contributions.
Even if the Government's proposed changes go through in full, those in the public sector will still be much better off than those most of those in the private sector, many of whom do not have a pension worth speaking of or have to make their own provision in schemes which are vulnerable to stock market fluctuations. If vox pop and radio show texts are anything to go by, many in the private sector resent what they see as the privileged treatment of the public sector.
There are two answers to that view. One is that relatively good pensions form part of an overall renumeration package which public sector workers signed up to as part of their contracts. But that is an argument for phasing in the changes not abandoning them which is what is proposed anyway. And if the grass is greener on the other side ...
A second argument is that poor private sector pensions need to be tackled rather than reducing those in the public sector. Employers should be 'required' to provide them. In other words labour costs in the UK should be substantially increased which wouldn't do much for competitiveness.
Career average pensions could actually benefit the less well off and the unions seemed to be prepared to concede that point. As for working longer before pensions become available, trade unionists complain that they are being made to pay for the banking crisis.
But the banking crisis didn't lead to people living longer. It's one thing to pay a pension for seven years after someone has worked for forty years and another thing to pay it for thirty years.
Where the unions do have grounds for complaint is the increase in contribution costs at a time when the pay of their members is frozen for all except the lowest paid. In other words this means a further cut in take home pay.
It is actually not as much as the figures suggest because of the generous tax treatment of pensions - something that is never really discussed. Even so, it is substantial and it is here that the Government may need to give way, although by doing so they place at risk their deficit reduction strategy. But a hot autumn could damage the Government's standing. In other words, there might be a political price to pay for failing to give concessions.
It's a tricky tightrope and while David Cameron is good at tactics, he may be less good at strategy. Given the recent proposals on paying for care, one thing that does need to be thought about is whether those of pensionable age should continue to be exempt from National Insurance contributions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)