Alexander's not for turning
Peter Hoskin 9:02am
After the vacillations of recent days, the government could do with a show of
hardheadedness — and Danny Alexander is delivering just that today. He is announcing the government's plans for public sector pension reform later, and they're exactly the sort of plans that will set the union bosses frothing: an
increase in the public sector retirement age to 66, an increase in contributions, that sort of thing. But the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is unapolgetic. In an article for the Telegraph, he effectively says that this is a take-it-or-leave-it
offer for the public sector. "It may be that those who oppose change think they can force the Government to change its mind," he writes, with his pen pointed accusingly at the unions
planning strikes for next month. "This is a colossal mistake."
Part of Alexander's resolve is down to the details of the government's plans: they have made provisions to exempt the poorest public sector workers — as well as those working in the army,
police or fire service — from some of the new measures. But part of is down to the fiscal realities of the matter. As Alexander puts it in his Telegraph article:
Even putting aside some of the misleading numbers that are being forwarded by both sides of the argument, the simple fact is that the system is riddled with inconsistencies and iniquities — and is becoming more unaffordable by the day. Already, the government's pension liabilities are thought to top £1 trillion. That is not a position to take unthinkingly into future decades."[The] case is simple. People are living much longer — the average 60 year old is living ten years longer now than they did in the 70s. This advance comes at a price. It is unjustifiable to ask the taxpayer to work longer and pay more so that public sector workers can retire earlier and receive more themselves."
Another line from Alexander's article stands out. "Only one in five members of the Public and Commercial Services union voted on Wednesday for strike action," he writes, "the vast majority realise that such a step is unjustifiable" — which is much the same point that Boris makes when arguing for redrawn strike laws. After Cable's hazy warning a couple of weeks ago, the coalition is clearly eager to maintain a squeeze on the brothers, even if only rhetorically.
Previous
Tiberius
June 17th, 2011 9:24am Report this commentThat's my boy, Danny.
There's little else other than having the responsibility of a financial controller to sharpen the mind when the sums don't add up. Except of course if you're a member of the Labour party.
les
June 17th, 2011 9:33am Report this commentGo Danny!!!
GDT
June 17th, 2011 9:40am Report this commentI suspect all U-turns have been leading to this end. The Government has been keeping it powder dry for the really important battle, which must be won at all costs.
Forget the NHS that can wait and can be done via gradualism.
Wheelie bins and forests - who cares?
Pulling the public sector into the 21st century is the most important topic the UK has faced in nearly 25 years.
Perry
June 17th, 2011 9:49am Report this commentU-turning H2B and assorted hangers-on : to avoid fuelling the notion that you are a pretentious set of vacillating PR–driven self-defeatists, try learning from someone who remains faithful to his brief.
Perry
June 17th, 2011 10:07am Report this comment(Off-topic – but regarding public staff and spending) I thought that the excellent Mr Pickles had banned the waste-of-money ‘County Council’ self-congratulatory ‘News Letters’.
How come then that Essex has just sent out an issue, and containing an even more ridiculous item about the gay-lesbo-tranny staff group?
Follow their lead
June 17th, 2011 10:22am Report this commentThis will require leadership by example. I trust the salaries, pensions and allowances of MPs are all being adjusted accordingly? Serious question, I don't know, can anyone shed any light on this?
We live in strange times, the government reneges on its employment contracts in the name of fairness and the crowds cheer.
Why is foreign aid and strict adherence to the rules that force us to fund millions of immigrants with welfare, health care and housing non-discretionary? Yet honouring the most important contracts of all, between government and its existing government servant can be torn up mid stream, and the crowd cheers it on. Be careful what you wish for.
TomTom
June 17th, 2011 10:22am Report this commentSomething is seriously wrong here when one looks at the very generous pension plan (unfunded) for Danny Alexander of Cairngorms National Park PR Department.
In fact the Treasury has had a beautiful revenue stream from teachers to squander on vacuous projects. A properly constituted fund like CALPERS or Ontario Teachers Pension Fund could have bought up FTSE companies and Utlities as these two entities do.
Instead we have the Treasury collecting payroll taxes for "Pensions" yet having Non-Contributory Pensions for its own staff indexed-linked, and using Pensions as a Tax Levy for extra funds. Ireland has already raided the National Pension Fund to cover its deficits and it ooks as if ALL Pension Funds are to be stuffed full of Gilts as in the 1950s so inflation can erode liabilities yet revenue can be maximised from payroll taxes.
There is a major Scam for this Ponzi Scheme but interestingly enough EUrocrats and Politicians seem to be exempt from the pain.
Jackal
June 17th, 2011 10:33am Report this commentGDT - spot on. You tell 'em Danny.
LK
June 17th, 2011 10:38am Report this commentAh the irony. The one policy that could truly galvanise support for the Tories and it's being led by Mr Alexander. Irrespective of political hue however, bring it on.
Insatiable Angst
June 17th, 2011 10:44am Report this commentDid anyone ask Danny how his war was coming along?
You know the one, the conflict initiated by him and his Tory pals which we were told made us ‘proud to be British’.
oldtimer
June 17th, 2011 10:48am Report this commentAn overdue sign of some gumption from the coalition. Provided, that is, that someone higher up the pay scale does not grease his way to another ignominious climb down.
While they are at it, they should stop waffling and introduce measures to require a majority of not less than a 50% turnout of union membership to validate a union called strike.
oldtimer
June 17th, 2011 11:10am Report this commentOne further, not entirely charitable, thought. This could not be a ruse to deflect attention from the proposed £9 billion additional subscription by the UK to the IMF (to help bail out the Euro) could it? If this were so then Danny would be exposed as a very naughty boy indeed.
Cameo Parkway Kid
June 17th, 2011 11:12am Report this commentBring it on you Ginger gimp. When the streets resembles Naples and rubbish is piled 10foot high, pensioners are dying in their homes etc etc, folk will be singing a different tune. This Government, which believes in nothing and blows with the wind, has become a joke - even the CBI is putting the knife into Mr Pink Jelly Head. The sheer incompetence, contradictory and nonsensical behaviour points to me that it really hasn't got the stomach for a fight. Cave in by bonfire night when the Firemen go on strike.
Russell
June 17th, 2011 11:29am Report this commentWhy don't the media use a few 'real' eaxamples like a private sector Manager earning £50K and a Teacher earning the same.
Compare their holidays, pensions, responsibility, number of staff working for them etc.
I suspect there will be little sympathy for any teachers, headmasters, and particularly public sector admin jobs.
Lonesome Dave
June 17th, 2011 11:37am Report this commentGDT nailed it - bang on!! Let's sort the BBC also.
The public sector unions all need to be sobered up and smartly.
Alexander Pelling
June 17th, 2011 12:27pm Report this commentI predict that when things get tough Cameron will collapse on this and Danny Alexander will get shafted and dumped.
Ed P
June 17th, 2011 12:31pm Report this commentWill all the "Pilgrims" be striking too? (Pilgrims are public sector employees, allowed to spend 1 -2 days a week on union business, at public purse expense.)
commentator
June 17th, 2011 12:35pm Report this commentI will believe that there will be reform when I see it. Hamstrung by his coalition partners in Old Labour-for-the-Shires, Cave-in Cameron will do a handbrake turn at the sound of gunfire. In any case, what they are proposing is very modest given the £1 trillion of unfunded public sector pensions.
It must also be galling to the public sector to know that if they do end up paying more , our leaders will promptly toss the money on the Bonfire of Hellenic Vanities. One thing you can be sure of: nothing will be allowed to separate Cameron and Clegg from their fat Europensions.
Chris lancashire
June 17th, 2011 1:35pm Report this commentThe Coalition are on to a winner with this. Outside of the public sector this will have huge support. When one sector enjoys a privilege unaffordable to the rest - particularly when it is funded by the rest - the withdrawal of such a privilege will be hugely popular.
I wonder whether Balls-Milliband will come out in support of this overdue reform? And much credit to the Coalition for tackling this long running abuse completely dodged in 13 years of New Labour.
tom jones
June 17th, 2011 1:48pm Report this commentDanny Alexander doesn't get enough Tory praise IMO, but he's impressed me from day one because he doesn't hide from being unpopular, he just says it like it is. He & Clegg could've easily taken the easy option and stayed in opposition, but they were brave enough to do the right thing for the country. Yes people attack them for the student fees and stuff, but on the big issues the Lib Dems are on the right side of the argument (our side!) and they're help to make Labour look increasingly isolated. I'm pleased to have Alexander in the Coalition - he evens out some of the lefty Lib Dems like Cable & Huhne.
Iain
June 17th, 2011 3:16pm Report this commentThe usual trash from PR Alexander. The taxpayer does not pay to subsidise public ector workers to retire early. This whole debate is grossly ill informed and at the level of Daily Mail economics. Public sector workers get only what they have paid for [except the civil servants who get a free deal!], and those who do retire early get reduced pensions. Could we amke it a rule that everyone joining this debate cites proper evidence for his or her claims, insrtead of spurting out undigested groupthink!
I S
June 17th, 2011 3:18pm Report this commentWhy did Maude pledge to maintain public sector pensions at a level which would be among the best available?
AliC
June 20th, 2011 9:53pm Report this commentIain apart from Police, public sector workers don't pay for their pensions - they are paid for by the private sector, who pay them. Everyone is now living longer, so the public sector must now pay more.
Back to top