DaveR

"I am no expert on any of this, as indeed are none of you." " I am sad however, to be in the current position I am in, and see people's jobs torn to shreds, because literally management don't actually understand the roles people play." Is that your expert opinion? Or just more emotive nonsense? I've worked in the public sector and the private sector as an employee, and on a self-employed basis for public and private clients. I've also been a consumer of public sector services for many years and in many capacities - patient, parent, driver, taxpayer etc., and similarly of private sector services. I have a passing knowledge of economics, and (God help me) a more thorough understanding of modern organisational management theory than I would wish. I also have certain core beliefs which are largely libertarian i.e. I think people are capable of making the best decisions for themselves far more often than prevailing wisdom might suggest. None of that makes me an expert, and in fact it probably makes me no better informed than many who post on here, but it does allow me to say "b*llocks" when people spout drivel like "declaring war on the public sector". Save it for the soapbox - it makes zero contribution to any serious debate. Similarly, to talk about "the public sector, its workers and its ethos" in such simplistic terms reveals an idealism and/or simplicity of thought that, whilst slightly touching in its naivety, is similarly unworthy of serious consideration.

"Im very suprised to see such an anti-hunt react from people, whats the difference between hunting and killing a fox and keeping a cow in a shed all its life and then cutting its throat? " Steak.

"...or indeed miles from the centre of UK political opinion, if you factor in the whole of the UK rather than just 'people I regard as sound on these sort of issues'" Supposition" Whereas you have clearly polled extensively before deciding that, happily, you sit comfortably in the middle, with the majority. Quote: Politics is about choices, Is it that simple? I thought politics was actually about finding the right pragmatic solution to the problems at hand? History has shown that politics and which version is implemented has enormous consequences. It's not just about "choice" surely?" Which do you want, the pragmatic solution or the 'right' one? The argument here is not about whether reducing public sector pensions will 'work' because the desired end is a smaller tax bill to pay for them, and that will definitely flow from the proposed changes. The argument is about whether it is 'right' i.e. fair. That's a political argument, based on values, and in particular (as I've already said, but no harm in repeating) your view as to the right balance between collective and individual interests and responsibilities. And, right on cue, d_c arrives with 'war on the public sector' and 'slash and burn politics', thereby proving that he has nothing to add to the debate beyond soundbites that are too crude and formulaic even for the trades unions who are actually going out on strike. Or Ed Milliband. Which is worse.

"but that does not mean I am, personally, miles from the objective centre" ...or indeed miles from the centre of UK political opinion, if you factor in the whole of the UK rather than just 'people I regard as sound on these sort of issues' Anyway, haven't we got to the end on the substance of the issue? Politics is about choices, and this is a classic political issue. Our politics differ, our positions differ, no surprise there. A bunch of soft left types are desperate to portray a perfectly valid and sensible position as somehow immoral, illogical etc. - no surprise there either. BTW have you asked d_c whether he'd rather be associated with MM or Huguenot?

"MM wants a smaller state than anywhere currently in existence. Much smaller. That's an opinion but it isn't based in experience or evidence" I would dispute that, but in any event, the basic point remains - challenging an argument on specifics by saying either (i) it's ideologically driven or (ii) it's 'fringe' is pointless and unworthy of a serious debate. The pension issue is an ideological one in the sense that where you sit is likely to be determined by your instinctive feelings on public vs private provision of services, and the 'right' amount of government intervention in markets.

SJ, the point is that to you, MM is way out on the fringe. That view defines where you are, and IMHO reveals your blinkered view of the political spectrum in a classic liberal way i.e. I don't know many people who think like that ergo it's a fringe view. D_C is every bit as hidebound to his own dogma, but is, dare I say it, both, less open about it and less articulate. MM is only unusual in that he sets out his views clearly and unashamedly, and they are based on evidence and experience.

I always turn to Leonard Cohen for an original take on macroeconomics "Carnell might be many things but a fringe player he ain't. Whereas by his own admission marmora man is out there on the libertarian, small-state edges" How 'out there' you are depends largely on where you start. If you start as a smug, relatively comfortable, educated, middle-class, urban, Guardian reading, trendy specs wearing South of England liberal cliche then MM probably looks like Newt Gingrich.

I'm not actively pro-hunting, but I'm very pro-freedom, and I've never been entirely persuaded by the anti arguments. Bear baiting (for example) is predicated on cruelty and exploitation, and is essentially, indefensible; fox hunting isn't. So, Tom, what are your views on badger culling? Badger cull

Crikey, those Aussies are pretty sensitive too!

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But Mamora Man, is that not symptomatic of your > general political dogma rather than anything more > objective? Pot. Kettle. Guess what colour? Two separate issues. No need to run them together. Both good ideas. 1. Incentivise both employers and employees in the private sector to improve pension provision. 2. Amend pension provisions for public sector employees to better reflect current and future economic realities and share the burden between taxpayer and employee more equitably.

"Even allowing the recent ish economic collapse, this hostility to public sector workers is odd" This is not hostility to public sector workers. It is hostility to those public sector workers taking strike action to oppose a proposed pension provision that remains generous at a time of economic collapse. The clue is in the title of the thread.

"I also refuse to take lectures on a democratic mandate from this government." And let me guess, you're taking your ball home too?

The article in the Telegraph (by a trade unionist) is spot on. The key quote was this one: "Nor, despite efforts by ministers to hang next Wednesday?s action around Ed Miliband?s neck, is this essentially a political dispute. It?s a good old fashioned dust up about pay and conditions. Or specifically what the TUC is calling the ?Triple Squeeze? on public sector pensions; namely the shift in calculating uprating from RPI to CPI, the increase in individual contributions and the proposed increase in the retirement ceiling. Some may see these as perfectly sensible changes, which reflect modern economic and social realities. That?s a matter for debate. But what?s not debatable is they mean an erosion of the existing pension entitlements of public sector workers. And however moderate or far sighted, trade union general secretaries get paid to improve their members conditions, not sit idly by as they decline. Again, some may question why trade unionists should expect better pension provision than the rest of the population. But that?s the whole point of collective bargaining; to obtain better terms collectively than you can individually." This is a strike for one purpose only - to protect the economic interests of union members. If you agree that that should take precedence over what the author recognises can properly seen as 'perfectly sensible changes which reflect modern social and economic realities' then you will support it. I don't. And in response to SJ "if that's the case, then why don't all those people in the private sector apply for the public sector jobs they are so jealous about?" They do - in their thousands. Ask anyone who has been recruiting externally into the public sector recently.

Animal rights. I mean, deliberate cruelty is clearly wrong, and minimum standards of animal husbandry are necessary, but otherwise? Human society is predicated on the exploitation of animals, but animal 'society' is predicated on predator and prey, and tbh we're just a bit more sophisticated about it. Either you accept that (in which case you can't pick and choose - leather is OK, fur isn't) or you go the whole hog - go live amongst the lions and take your rightful place in the food chain.

"Think of all the money we would've saved had HMRC not let Vodafone and Goldman Sachs off the tax hook so easily. Not to mention all the money we would've saved had we not got ourselves involved with toppling Gaddafi." Definitely. Because that money would have paid for public sector pensions forever.

The idea of a 'race to the bottom' is a little misleading. An assumption built up during the 60s, 70s and 80s that economic growth would fund generous pensions for all and both public and private sector organisations took on future pension liabilities based on a very rose-tinted view of the future. The reality check on pensions started some time ago, hence big changes to both public and private sector pension terms over recent years. The basic union objection - work longer, pay more, get less - unfortunately applies to everybody and is a result of demographic and economic realities. The current proposals to change public sector provision are not about essential affordability, but about fairness and value. Public sector pensions are paid out of taxation - that's obvious because public sector employees work for the government (one way or another) and tax provides the majority of government income - and that doesn't in itself mean anything. However it is right to consider whether it is fair for private sector workers to fund more generous pension terms than are generally available to them (particularly where the money could otherwise be used for things that more obviously benefit everybody). It's also right to consider whether public sector employment gets the best value for money - if the current pension terms, together with salary, are way above the market rate for any job, then that's an inefficient use of public money. I disagree with the strike; despite the best efforts of d_carnell and others to portray it as somehow in the wider public interest, it's not. It's selfish - I want to keep more money at your expense. Hutton is cited above; this was his comment on publication of his final report: "These proposals aim to strike a balanced deal between public service workers and the taxpayer. They will ensure that public service workers continue to have access to good pensions, while taxpayers benefit from greater control over their costs. ?Pensions based on career average earnings will be fairer to the majority of members that do not have the high salary growth rewarded in final salary schemes. ?The current model of public service pension provision is clearly not tenable in the long-term. There is a clear need for reform. Getting the decisions right on the most appropriate structures and designs will be crucial to making any changes work in the future. This will only be achievable if there is effective dialogue between public service employers, employees and unions.?

The docs on Southwark's website are a bit confusing The application is clearly the original application (it is dated in May) that appears to have been re-submitted in September. It is for an illuminated hoarding 11m x 8m. The Officer's Report refers to an application for a 10m x 7m non-illuminated hoarding, but there is not a copy of the application there. The original application was for external illumination, so I think James B above may be mistaken.

Having had a look at the docs it is apparent that the plan that is now being considered is for a hoarding without lights, and with a surround that reproduces the facade of the building. The recommendation is that permission is granted for 12 months only. One question I would have for the applicant is what they intend to do if the application is refused i.e. would you cover the scaffolding with something especially ugly (out of spite) or not cover it at all, or cover the whole lot with something that matches the facade of the building (which clearly could be done and would be the most aesthetically pleasing outcome IMHO)

"The current crisis has exposed some serious faults in the current system. It's not good enough to say it's too difficult a subject to think about so lets carry on as before." That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is these are not camping-protest type issues. This not Greenham Common - say no to nukes! This is "how do you incentivise institutional investors to be more interventionist in the companies that they own to improve corporate governance and long-term planning?" "How do you regulate OTC derivatives trading to achieve robust risk pricing without stifling genuine creativity in capital markets?" Call me a cynic but I doubt I am going to get interesting answers to those questions from a moonlighting social worker in Peruvian knitwear.

"In terms of re-engineering the system, clearly this needs to be looked at very carefully and needs to follow a full, public debate. But, basically, it needs to ensure that markets are more balanced, that they deliver outcomes that are for the benefit of more than a small minority...." Fine words, but what does this actually mean? What does a balanced market look like, and how do you regulate to achieve it? Delivering outcomes are what (in modern speak) organisations do, but markets are not single entities - they are messy bunches of transactions involving lots of different individuals and organisations. I looked at the Occupied Times, and it's a none too impressive. I'm trying not to be too harsh but touchy-feely pseudo New Age bullshit will not take anybody any closer to understanding, let alone dealing with the genuinely complicated issues that the current economic situation has thrown up.

For a new TV I would always go to Richer Sounds They always win prizes for best customer service etc., and they will give you honest advice rather than trying to sell you something OTT.

Just bought a 6' trampoline from here: Rebo trampolines Assembling it was a bit of a mission, but it seems to be very sturdy so hopefully will last. The kids (8 and 5) love it, and although its hardly unobtrusive, it doesn't take up too much space.

"these short term problems created predominantly by a credit squeeze, not the Euro. " H, this is the bone of contention, and this is where you are wrong. These are not short term problems and they are 100% the result of the establishment of the Euro, the risks that it created (i.e. a lack of fiscal and monetary discipline in weaker economies) and the failure to effectively address those risks. It took a serious economic downturn to reveal the problems, and the causes of that downturn are many and varied, but it is simply not sustainable to say none of this is to do with the euro. What people think about the euro and european integration is frankly irrelevant.

"The democratic bit is in the parliamentary voting that signs off the legislation" "Italy remains as democratic as it ever was" This is so obviously wrong that something ought to be said. Pay attention H. Italy, like most Western parliamentary democracies has a legislature and an executive. Te executive is commonly known as the 'government' and is responsible for proposing legislation to the legislature and carrying out other functions under inherent powers (foreign policy for example). In Italy, like the UK, the executive is formed as a result of parliamentary elections, conducted on the basis of policy positions, and there is therefore a democratic mandate to govern. However, Italy now has an entirely appointed executive who will govern not on the basis of policies voted on by the electorate but on the basis of what they think is best. They will almost certainly do a better job of it than the last elected government, and that is the problem identified in the article. The euro created a scenario where sucessive governments in Italy, Greece and elsewhere had little incentive to consider the likely long term consequences of unsustainable public and private debt, and therefore little incentive to be straight with the electorate. That is bad for democracy.

"How am I not championing the environment? Do explain" When you start a thread entitled "Halal and Kosher Meat, your thoughts", it is not immediately apparent that the argument you intend to make is "everybody should turn vegan, it's good for the environment". That's why I accused you of being disingenuous You invite me to start a thread about eating meat, but why should I? I'm not a pro-meat proselytising bore, I'm just someone who likes sausages. And steak. And pork pie. I come out with all sorts of rubbish on this forum (as many will undoubtedly testify) but I'm not a single issue fanatic who constantly starts threads not obviously about vegetarianism that somehow turn out to be about ......vegetarianism. That's you.