Danny Alexander repeats the ‘big lie’ that pension reform needed to stop spiralling costs

Danny Alexander repeats the 'big lie' that pension reform needed to stop spi: http://bit.ly/oASpUd : writes @danielelton #pensions

Danny Alexander repeats the 'big lie' that pension reform needed to stop spi: http://bit.ly/oASpUd : writes @danielelton #pensions

Danny Alexander repeats the 'big lie' that pension reform needed to stop spi: http://bit.ly/oASpUd : writes @danielelton #pensions

Danny Alexander repeats the 'big lie' that pension reform needed to stop spi: http://bit.ly/oASpUd : writes @danielelton #pensions

Danny Alexander repeats the 'big lie' that pension reform needed to stop spi: http://bit.ly/oASpUd : writes @danielelton #pensions

Danny Alexander repeats the 'big lie' that pension reform needed to stop spi: http://bit.ly/oASpUd : writes @danielelton #pensions

Danny Alexander repeats the ‘big lie’ that pension reform needed to stop spiralling costs l Left Foot Forward – http://j.mp/mS4O9i

Danny A confirms that public sector workers will be asked to pay £3,000 more pa towards pensions http://is.gd/Y5QvmO Left Foot Forward

RT @leftfootfwd: Danny Alexander repeats the 'big lie' that pension reform needed to stop spiralling costs http://t.co/lOD5UeN

@dannyalexander you should read this (or have it read to you) http://t.co/NuFCCFb @leftfootfwd

Don'y buy danny's big spin on increasing pension costs: http://t.co/eEeQr3k @unisonmv @unisonscot @unisontweets @unisonwestmids

RT @leftfootfwd: Danny Alexander repeats the 'big lie' that pension reform needed to stop spiralling costs http://t.co/OVIhr5N

Danny Alexander repeats the 'big lie' that pension reform needed to stop spi: http://bit.ly/oASpUd : writes @danielelton #pensions

Danny Alexander repeats the 'big lie' that pension reform needed to stop spi: http://bit.ly/oASpUd : writes @danielelton #pensions

Danny Alexander repeats the ‘big lie’ that pension reform needed to stop spiralling costs l Left Foot Forward – http://j.mp/mS4O9i

Danny Alexander repeats the 'big lie' that pension reform needed to stop spiralling costs: http://t.co/foNnBTA : writes @danielelton

Danny Alexander repeats the ‘big lie’ that pension reform needed to stop spiralling costs l Left Foot Forward – http://j.mp/mS4O9i

The “increased costs of people living longer” don’t solely relate to the cost of pensions. It also relates to the increase in NHS and social care costs. What are the projections for this, and therefore the total cost of an ageing population?

Pension costs may be projected to fall, but if this isn’t enough to compensate for faster rises in NHS and social care spending, then it could be argued that further cuts are needed in pensions are needed to balance the overall cost.

Danny Alexander repeats the ‘big lie’ that pension reform needed to stop spiralling costs, via @leftfootfwd http://fb.me/14necJ16T

Danny Alexander repeats the ‘big lie’ that pension reform needed to stop spiralling costs, via @leftfootfwd http://fb.me/14necJ16T

Danny Alexander repeats the ‘big lie’ that pension reform needed to stop spiralling costs, via @leftfootfwd http://fb.me/14necJ16T

Danny Alexander repeats the ‘big lie’ that pension reform needed to stop spiralling costs, via @leftfootfwd http://fb.me/14necJ16T

Danny Alexander repeats the ‘big lie’ that pension reform needed to stop spiralling costs, via @leftfootfwd http://fb.me/14necJ16T

Danny Alexander repeats the ‘big lie’ that pension reform needed to stop spiralling costs, via @leftfootfwd http://fb.me/14necJ16T

@1. Duncan you seem to be forgetting that public sector workers do pay for the pensions and latest figures show that all of them are financially sound. You seem to be arguing that only public sector workers should have reduced pensions when they retire because as you put it “…don’t solely relate to the cost of pensions. It also relates to the increase in NHS and social care costs…”. What about the private sector pensioners, don’t they have to accept a reduced pension if following your own rationale, or are you forgetting them and solely having a rant against poorly paid public sector workers?

Danny Alexander repeats the ‘big lie’ that pension reform needed to stop spiralling costs, via @leftfootfwd http://fb.me/14necJ16T

@1, Duncan
If the reason the public pension pot needs to increase is to cover increased NHS and social care costs not increased pension costs then surely what should be done is taxes be put up so everyone pays not public pension costs get put up so just public sector works pay, as of course we all know public sector workers earn more anyway so they would be paying more in increased tax!

Clempo – If you look back to Brown’s first budget and his outrageous raid on pensions you will see it was the private sector with their mainly DC schemes that took the brunt of the hit then. It is time for the public sector to also share some of the pain rather than having these gold plated DB schemes underwitten by the tax payer

http://t.co/Un5WYeJ Danny Alexander repeats the ‘big lie’ that pension reform needed to stop spiralling costs

Danny Alexander repeats the ‘big lie’ that pension reform needed to stop spiralling costs, via @leftfootfwd http://fb.me/14necJ16T

Duncan,you are missing the point, are you suggesting that private sector pensioners do not use the NHS or Social care?

In answer to you comment about Brown’s first budget: if you go even further back to time to the last Tory Government, which Chancellor allowed firms to take pension holidays. That was the start of the outrageous attack on pensions and how the DC pension schemes were shafted by the Tories.

lso I can’t understand how you can call public sector pensions “Gold Plated” when you know very well they are not. My pay was reduced by 19% to pay for my Civil Service pension and after 40 years working at the coal face (as it were) my pension is only just under £1,000 a month. Hardly Gold Plated, when I could have got a lot more pay in outside industry with a final salary pension and less dangerous working conditions.

Selohesra. Sorry I should have addressed my last to yourself. Bye the Bye, when I joined the Civil service I took a 60% pay cut. Why you ask, I thought that as a Civil Servant I could give something back to my country.

“Duncan you seem to be forgetting that public sector workers do pay for the pensions and latest figures show that all of them are financially sound.”

Then privatise them, you can’t lose. Oh wait, you don’t want that do you? Because you know they aren’t fully funded by participants.

The Hutton report is quite clear on this, stating on page 9 of the summary that “present schemes involve too much risk for government and the taxpayer… There should be a fairer sharing of risk between government (and ultimately taxpayers) and scheme members than exists within the present schemes”

How odd that Left Foot Forward missed this section of the report!

Danny Alexander repeats the 'big lie' that pension reform needed to stop spiralling costs: http://t.co/foNnBTA : writes @danielelton

I’m a little unclear why you keep trotting this graph out as evidence of either affordability or growing affordability. It neither addresses the point Alexander is making nor says much about whether the reforms are justified.

UK GDP today is @£1.5trillion, in 2050 it is estimated @£5trillion. 1.9% today then is around £28bn, 1.4% in 40 years time will be £70bn, a substantial increase. Both large numbers.

But even if that wasn’t the case what surely matters in respect of pensions affordability is the gap between contributions and expenditure not the overall cost, let alone the cost relative to the size of the economy? On your definition replacing Trident is perfectly ‘affordable’ as is any other form of public expenditure that consistently consumes less than the entire tax take in any year.

It is then a meaningless link, we have no idea what other calls there will be on the public purse in 2050 or what level of tax the public at the time will accept. We cannot assume their generosity.

Most public sector pension schemes are not close to being fully funded and have not been for some time. The contributions do not cover payments. The general tax payer then is expected to bail out the difference, either through higher taxes or cutting spending elsewhere. However ‘affordable’ it seems a very silly and unfair historic privilege that is entirely unnecessary and unwarranted.

Your concerns about withdrawals are noted, but seem remarkably unlikely given the proposed average salary system is still more generous than the defined contribution schemes dominant elsewhere.

Burke’s concerns about opening the door to privatisation just look weird and extreme. Since when did public ownership trump fairness as a progressive value?

Danny Alexander repeats the 'big lie' that pension reform needed to stop spi: http://bit.ly/oASpUd : writes @danielelton #pensions

Danny Alexander repeats the ‘big lie’ that pension reform needed to stop spiralling costs, via @leftfootfwd http://fb.me/14necJ16T

Danny Alexander repeats the ‘big lie’ that pension reform needed to stop spiralling costs, via @leftfootfwd http://fb.me/14necJ16T

Danny Alexander repeats the ‘big lie’ that pension reform needed to stop spiralling costs, via @leftfootfwd http://fb.me/14necJ16T

Selohesra – So, instead of fixing private pensions, more people need to pay more now to be poorer in retirement, even though the pensions are affordable and sustainable?

What a nasty, bitter worldview. I hope you’re kept away from the sharp objects, let alone anything important.

All that will happen if the costs are pushed up in the way the Tories want is that the schemes will be abandoned by new entrants and the lower paid, leaving their costs spiralling and millions not saving sufficiently for retirement. But they don’t matter right, they’re not the rich. Nasty Party.

(Certainly retirement /ages/ should rise. There should be a mechanism not *directly* controlled by the government (perhaps based on some ONS measures) for this. Anything else? Er…)

Leon – I dont think I have ever suggested not fixing private pensions – was merely pointing out that when everone has to make sacrifices to make up for Labour’s financial incompetence we can’t ring fence the bleating public sector and their pensions. I suspect you were one of those cheering on brave Gordon when he raided the private sector pensions though. Most sane people realise some cutbacks need to be made – lets just try and do that fairly rather than pretending you can push it all on the bankers and other City workers.

Selohesra – No, because they’re already “fixed” in your view, right. I get it.

And everyone needs to be sacrificed on the altar of “more profits for big companies”. I understand completely.

I know, not suspect, you’re a typical nasty assumption-making Tory.

Sane people know that slashing schemes which are supportable long-term and killing growth are the wrong places to cut. But the Tories can’t have any of that nonsense, company profits are at steak!

( http://wiki.onlinegamers.org/index.php?title=A_COMPANY_IS_AT_STEAK )

Danny Alexander repeats the ‘big lie’ that pension reform needed to stop spiralling costs, via @leftfootfwd http://fb.me/14necJ16T

Danny Alexander repeats the ‘big lie’ that pension reform needed to stop spiralling costs, via @leftfootfwd http://fb.me/14necJ16T

Leon
I agree wholeheartedly with your comments and views. As a Civil Service Pensioner I have paid many times over for my so called gold (I wish)plated pension, only to find at the last minute this incompetent government changed my contract without agreement and made the increments dependent upon CPI and not the contractual RPI. Just have to wait and see what happens in the courts or Europe.

Judging by the amount of Tory trolls on here, there are a few villages missing their ‘idiots’

Danny Alexander repeats the 'big lie' that pension reform needed to stop spiralling costs: http://t.co/foNnBTA : writes @danielelton

Danny Alexander repeats the 'big lie' that #pension reform needed to stop spiralling costs | http://ow.ly/5PUyN

‘I know, not suspect, you’re a typical nasty assumption-making Tory’

Now, now Leon. Given that you’ve criticised Anon E Mouse for calling you a New Labour voter (read “apologist”), perhaps you shouldn’t go overboard yourself when it comes to making assumptions?

Danny Alexander repeats the 'big lie' that #pension reform needed to stop spiralling costs | http://ow.ly/5PUyN

Given what Selohesra has actually stated? Erm?

And Anon can’t tell the difference between left-wing and moderate-right, true…what’s that got to do with the price of fish?

Quite clearly, the point I was making is that you were assuming things about Selohesra while criticising Anon E Mouse for making assumptions about you. If Selohesra has stated that he is a Tory voter, or if I accepted that all Tory voters were nasty and/or frequenly made assumptions, I’d agree that what you said was fair.

Jab,jab, jab.
Simple. At the age of sixyand having lived under tory and labour rule what I know is:
Conservative is not the friend of the working man but the friend of big internationals and investers.
Labour always wants something for nothing with no long term plan.

Leon – if you must know I have not voted for the Tories at the last three general elections – I used to but nowadays I see precious little difference between the parties. Of course they try and big up the difference between themselves to justify their existance but at the end of the day they are much the same. I seem to recall at the time of the last election a statistic revealing Tories planned to spend 698Bn & Labour 704Bn – ie Tories had 6Bn more cuts – sounds a lot – but <1% doesn't sound so much. In my view we need some more serious cuts – the EU money drain would be a good start and a real Conservative leader in the style of Thatcher to get the country out of this mess.

Selohesra – Thing is, the details MATTER. Cutting in different places, and avoiding certain specific tax rises – VAT – and not doing certain extremely expensive pet projects – the NHS semi-privatisation – would make a real difference.

The cuts going on are deeper and wider than Thatcher’s. You’re mistaking a right-wing drift under New Labour for the Tories going anywhere, afaik.

Also, calling for a massive trade barrier to be imposed on us in our major exports market (because no, France and Germany wouldn’t stand for us staying in the free trade zone) is laughable.

I won’t call you Tory in future, but instead far-right. Thanks for the clarification.

Thanks Leon – however I always find lables like far right and far left a bit meaningless. Afterall was there really such a big difference between Hitler and Stalin?

If it helps you frame a view of me I can confirm that I am not a racist, do not think our troops should be fighting wars for the US around the world and am not in favour of capital punishment. I would like to think I try and decide each issue on its merits and what really annoys me is the slavish devotion to party orthodoxy by professional politicians (of both the main parties)who dont.

If I had to apply a label to myself it would probably be Libertarian or English Nationalist – and before you bang on about Nationalist = far right just consider both SNP and Plaid Cymru neither of whom would consider themselves fascist

Finally – and of no particular relevance I note that many of your postings are in the small hours of the morning – would they be alcohol fueled by any chance.

Selohesra – I believe in calling people what they are.

Far-right doesn’t necessarily mean racist, if I felt you were then I’d call you that.

But no, you then have to throw away what was a reasonable post with a typically nasty, bigoted attack. I drink once in a blue moon, I’m actually working with West-coast Americans on their time, since that’s the work currently available to me.

So thanks for clarifying that having a reasonable conversation with you is impossible.

Leon – it was a light hearted flippant remark – I too like a drink. However if you really found it a nasty bigoted attack then I appologise – it was not meant that way

No, of course not. Right. I stand by my previous statement.

Danny Alexander repeats the ‘big lie’ that pension reform needed to stop spiralling costs, via @leftfootfwd http://fb.me/14necJ16T