strike

[StraferJack]

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

[StraferJack]

Unilever profits

up 18% to 5.2 billion UK pounds

Unilever pension deficit currently 640 million UK pounds

and they see fit to offer golden hellos of ?3 million or so

I think the money is there

[Huguenot]

And such are the fantasies about business and 'profits' that sustain the myths of 'easy money' to solve pensions.

That Unilever 'profit' isn't free money - it's committed to reinvestment, growth, hedging against future markets, hedging against commodity prices and so on.

Citing exceptional deals, as with the Ford example, will do nothing to solve any crisis in public sector pensions.

This is a red herring.

[StraferJack]

H - it was YOU that came up with the line

"some completely bizarre idea that private sector workers can demand higher pensions and early retirement too!! With f**king WHAT money???"

so I answered it. If you want to call it a red herring, the fishy smell is coming from you

I didn't say it was FREE money - I said it was money that existed. If someone WANTED to they could make the situation less drastic for the employees. If they WANTED to. Of course there are other considerations to take into account - but there is money there

[Chippy Minton]

There will be even more money there soon once they've cut the final salary pension ;-) http://www.unitetheunion.org/news__events/latest_news/unilever_told__hands_off_our_p.aspx

[Huguenot]

This is a joke.

95% of UK employees work in companies with less than 100 staff, not bloody Unilever.

There is this completely delusional image that's been built up of a private sector populated by mega-coporates, bankers and billionnaires.

It's insane - it's completely divorced from reality. The UK runs on SMEs and little guys.

These are the guys you're asking to pay for public sector early retirement.

[Marmora Man]

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

The small state argument that I deploy is based on the experience of running SMEs - I believe it's scaleable.

Small companies, with minimal bureaucracy and low overheads operating in an environment where regulatory imposition is low tend to be the most successful. As companies grow to become the Unilevers thatyou want to take a pop at are generally overburdened with wasted cost and resource. For exaample I'll bet that Unilever has a large dept dedicated to PR & marketing - but I'll also bet they have very little idea of how successful, or otherwise, much of the staff and activity in that dept are.

However, I'm with Hugenot on this pensions argument - which is about government spending and the cost of sustaining it. There are three options for the country as a whole:

a. Taxes go up

b. Other gov't spending goes down

c. The public sector pays for their own pensions.

[Chippy Minton]

95% of UK employees work in companies with less than 100 staff

Your "facts" are a joke!

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) accounted for 59.1 per cent of employment last year - source Department for Business Innovation and Skills http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/statistics/docs/b/bpe_2010_-_statistical_release.pdf

[Huguenot]

Sorry, my mistake - I meant 95% of the companies in the UK are small companies, I hadn't checked it as it was from a previous conversation about SMEs I had.

Having said that... your 'perfect' figure of 59.1% says it all!

It's a huge number in it's own right!

[DaveR]

"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.

[StraferJack]

Oh I'm not challenging his argument because I think he's fringe - I'm just saying that to compare him with DC isn't quite accurate. It would be fairer to compare Huguenot and DC in that respect. Fundamentally opposed on the issue but not that far apart fundamentally

But as you dispute my other point, can either you or MM provide examples of the small states in existence which show the benefits of that argument?

[StraferJack]

oh and I possibly regret uusing the word "fringe" if anyone thinks I'm employing it dismissively. I'm really not. I'm just using it in the sense of the spectrum

[Marmora Man]

But as you dispute my other point, can either you or MM provide examples of the small states in existence which show the benefits of that argument?

We've rehearsed this argument before. You know I cannot point to any state that operates as I would wish. That doesn't mean that I cannot dream of, propose or argue in favour of such a state. The socialist utopia that many on the left dream of doesn't exist anywhere either. It is by proposing new ideas, challenging ideas and thought provoking ideas that political thought and debate moves on.

As you know I've been arguing for a small state since well before the current recession revealed the structural deficit problems that are now being tackled. Had UK been closer to my ideal and opted for a small low tax, state (or even just a sllightly smaller, slightly lower tax and less over burdening state) in say 2008 then arguably, we would not have such a structural deficit.

However, my particular libertarian instincts do not preclude me from making my points on this forum, nor do they render my thoughts valueless - unless you feel such instincts have rendered me brain dead?

[Marmora Man]

oh and I possibly regret uusing the word "fringe" if anyone thinks I'm employing it dismissively. I'm really not. I'm just using it in the sense of the spectrum

But SJ - as daveR has pointed out the distance to the ends of a spectrum depend upon where you yourself sit upon it. We may be personally / politically miles apart - but that does not mean I am, personally, miles from the objective centre.

[StraferJack]

Hmm - sorry MM - I haven't done a very good job of clarifying that although I find your libertarian beliefs to be on the edge of the political spectrum, I have no beef with you expressing them and us arguing them

Again if you think I've been trying to prevent you from expressing them, my apologies

But back to 2008. If the government hadn't stepped in post-the run on Northern Rock, and they hadn't been shored up by the big state how do you think events would have unfolded? To my mind, the whole system would have collapsed - to the point of people not being able to access money from cashpoints, spreading panic.

I also disagree with the idea of a socialist utopia. But I do believe in tempering teh excesses of capitalism. And I think most of the last 100 years have been a good example of how a capitalist society works, and works best when it is married to a concept of fairness and inclusion. Left to it's own devices, we would still be in the 21st century equivalent of the victorian era of mill-owners

Weekends

Working Weeks

Health Service

Minimum Wage

I don't see these as a prelude to a socialist utopia - I see them as basic building blocks for a decent society

So no - I don't wish for a socialist utopia - whereas you do advocate an idea that nobody dares to implement in any country - despite the massive differences in cultures

[StraferJack]

"But SJ - as daveR has pointed out the distance to the ends of a spectrum depend upon where you yourself sit upon it. We may be personally / politically miles apart - but that does not mean I am, personally, miles from the objective centre."

Hmm - well I see the centre as where the large majority of people sit, with smalls shifts to left or right - and many with a mish mash of the two. Whereas, and I'm possibly doing you another disservice, but I'm not sure THAT many people genuinely wish for the kind of state you describe

I don't see that as controversial - is it?

[DaveR]

"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?

[StraferJack]

ooooh should I?

"...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

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?

[david_carnell]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> BTW have you asked d_c whether he'd rather be

> associated with MM or Huguenot?

Do I have to choose?

On an aside, I'm sure there will be a similar split of opinion on the Autumn statement by the Chancellor today (following a previously announced pay freeze) announcing that public sector pay rises will be capped at 1% for two years, job losses in the public sector will increase from 400,000 to 710,000.

He's certainly declared war on the public sector.

[Marmora Man]

On an aside, I'm sure there will be a similar split of opinion on the Autumn statement by the Chancellor today (following a previously announced pay freeze) announcing that public sector pay rises will be capped at 1% for two years, job losses in the public sector will increase from 400,000 to 710,000.

He's certainly declared war on the public sector.

Or is reducing the size of the public sector that that which the country can afford. Diffrerent views of the same issue.

I might have described G Brown's expansion of the public sector and tax hikes in much of the last decade as "war on the private sector" but I refrained.

[david_carnell]

This is slash and burn politics. The economy is stagnating at best, there are already record numbers of unemployed and yet Osborne thinks the solution to the problem is to sack more public sector staff and demoralise those who survive this further cull with a real terms pay cut (a cumulative cut in benefits of around 11 per cent plus the increased pension contributions), thus removing spending power from the economy. Regressive.

Meanwhile, he cuts tax credits for those in work and yet rise with CPI for those unemployed. Schizophrenic.

And the idea that this is going to help reduce the deficit is difficult to understand when it results in further borrowing, more than Labour's projections, getting us further into debt. Absurd.

[Loz]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> On an aside, I'm sure there will be a similar

> split of opinion on the Autumn statement by the

> Chancellor today (following a previously announced

> pay freeze) announcing that public sector pay

> rises will be capped at 1% for two years...

I *dream* of a 1% pay rise. I've had nowt for three years now.

[david_carnell]

You ought to come and work in the public sector Loz - it's amazing. We have chairs made of clouds and desks of gold. Free beer and sausages for all and as much holiday as you want.

[Otta]

And you don't actually have to go to work.

[Chippy Minton]

And even when you do, you don't actually have to do any work when you get there.