First, the bad news: A man was stabbed to death in Paulet Road on Sunday.
Second, the neutral news: I’ve installed a new comments system; it needs tweaking but should be working properly. Let me know how you get on with it.
Third, the good news: It’s party time! The Camberwell Arts Festival kicks off on Saturday with The Big Event in Myatt’s Fields Park, and continues through the week until the Sunday after. I’ve contrived to be away for launch weekend (every damned year; I swear I don’t plan it that way) but I’ll hopefully have somebody reporting on it for me soon.
You can download all the details here (PDF, 530KB).
Also this weekend, the Marlborough pub (67–69 Sedgmoor Place) are hosting Marlborough Fest, a three day festival of music. They have a “large beer garden with two sheds, benches, flora & fauna, bbq, the occasional squirrel”.
Enjoy yourselves
Oh, OK. BTW, I don’t know why all of your comments get held for moderation; I’m not doing it on purpose.
Peter wrote “Oh, OK. BTW, I don’t know why all of your comments get held for moderation; I’m not doing it on purpose.”
Don’t worry mate I’m used to it.
yay for the piano and the scratch choir! i just spent some half an hour singing or whaling and it’s great fun!
i’ll be back i think
x
Gordon Brown is a man of integrity who is Prime Minister, the two do not necessarily marry well.
We went to the Myatts Fields event on Saturday — great fun and it was really good to see Camberwell people of all types having a good time.
Mumu — we saw a very pregnant lady on the corner of Denmark Rd and Paulet road surrounded by people and an ambulance when we were walking back — i had assumed she had just gone into labour but perhaps she was the person that was attacked — i hope not — what sort of person attacks a pregnant woman?
Mark wrote “Gordon Brown is a man of integrity who is Prime Minister, the two do not necessarily marry well.”
Sorry but you, as a man who is quite clearly an astute business man is also quite deluded by your politics.
@Chunters. Deluded? Rubbish. You have no idea of any of the detail of what I think or do. I’d like to see a competely different sort of political landscape than the one we have but as it is we must vote for those who are most likely to achieve something akin to our own aspirations and I see Labour as that for me.
My politics are guided and motiviated by a desire to see fairness done for all and an understanding, no matter how poorly informed, that changing society for the better for everyone is a monumental task. Whereas making it MUCH worse for the majority is very easy; Have no doubt that if the tories get in we will experience a substantial societal regression. Again.
I have a lot of problems with some of what Labour has NOT DONE but huge appreciation for what they HAVE done which, it seems, many people have too short memories to remember. I also have no illusions about the complexity of what politicians must deal with from day to day.
I assume you will not, Chunters, be considering taking up a position of action which may affect the lives of many for the better because you have better things to do for yourself, such as sitting on the sidelines making vague accusations about the motivations and aspirations of others.
Yes, for the billions spunked up the wall by Labour on its half-cocked schemes, and its unbelievably bad record on public sector productivity revealed this month, people are sadly going to claim that, despite it all, that’s progress of a sort, and the alternative would’ve been worse.
How do you know that? And what’ve we got to show for Labour so far? A minimum wage, gay weddings and some half arsed Freedom of Information laws?
Admirable things those, but what about the rest of it? What do I get for my 3 terms and billions of tax expenditure? Where’re the improvements in education and the rest?
It’s easy to slate the Tories, isn’t it. Thatcher, the bloody miners’ strikes, look how posh some of them are that must be bad, and because they’re not financially incontinent they make CUTS! CUTS! etc etc.
If they’re all about a minority interest then it’s looking like there’s a majority of the UK with such an interest.
What’s sad is that the Tories will get blamed for trying to clean up this fiscal disaster. Possibly even paving the way for Labour to return and do it all again.
Your socialist ideals are unlikely to be realised now Mark, since income disparities have gone mental under Bliar and Gordon, while boundless immigration has for many eroded faith in the welfare state and the sense of contributing towards a common cause.
If the Tories get in at least we might get some sane housekeeping. And how is it that London’s Conservative councils are generally recognised as being better run that the Labour ones? It’s not just about their catchments.
Anyway, I went to JJs and was disappointed. People here bigged it up but it wasn’t all that.
ps I voted Green last time.
The highly thought of and neutral OECD today points out that our state pensions system is the worst in the developed world.
Who else to blame on this crucial bit of social legislation but Labour and their bad decisions and missed opportunities.
Real progress eh. Cheers Gordon!
Don’t worry though, you and your state workers (ie voters) are all right Jack. You’ll fight to the end for your own cushy deals, I’m sure.
Screw the rest of us, right?
Again, a minority (public worker unions) against the majority (the taxpaying public, the other 80% of the workforce). Is that equality?
The government’s Bill introduced by Harriet Harman yesterday proposes establishing a body to be known as the “Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority” and an officer known as the “Commissioner for Parliamentary Investigations”.
The five members of the IPSA will be
“appointed by the Queen upon an Address of the House of Commons. A motion may only be made only with the agreement of the Speaker for a candidate selected on merit on the basis of fair and open competition and approved by a Speaker’s Committee. Members will be removable only in response to an Address of both Houses. There will be requirements that one member of the IPSA should have accountancy experience, that one member should have Parliamentary experience, and that one member be a holder of or have held high judicial office.”
The Commissioner will be appointed the same way. There will, according to the Bill
“be a Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority charged with exercising the functions given to it under the Bill – in particular, approving the selection of persons to be members of the IPSA and the Commissioner.”
Do you see the flaw in this “independent” Comissioner and Authority? Members will be drawn from the establishment and their selection approved by the Speaker’s appointees. Would we permit criminals to choose their own judge and jury?
This is a stitch up, we don’t need more rules and self-selected regulators, we need reform of the expenses system, together with clarity, transparency and enforcement of the rules. The voters will kick out MPs if they can identify crooks, in this sense in a democracy voters are the ultimate regulator of politicians. This whole idea is ill-founded, we don’t need to intermediate democracy with another quango or committee, this approach has already failed.
We need only to empower voters with enough information so that they can determine the truth about those who seek to represent them. The truth is all we need, not redactions, not more quangocrats.
Hat tip Guido
Mark, I’ll be back to reply to your post soon, It’ll be long so may take some time to put together.
“Gordon Brown has promised “root and branch” reform of Parliament.
The government is preparing to outline new laws to regulate MPs’ conduct and expenses. An external body is expected to authorise future expenses claims and discipline MPs.”
Yet another bloody quango because they can’t be trusted to do the honourable thing themselves. It’s going to be a very long eleven months. The only consolation is the destruction of Labour under Brown. Note the disappearance of Fondlebum recently? What’s he up to whilst Jim is let loose again?
I knew that the charm offensive and the restaurant reviews would come to an end at some stage, Phil G. Welcome back!
Public sector employees can expect to gain four times higher pensions.
The stories on pension funding I’ve been reading over the last week are truly scary.
My own money purchase pensions have put in returns between ‑15 and ‑18% this year. Gordon Brown’s stealth taxation and destruction of wealth is starting to be noticed.
How is a society going to insist on lavish taxpayer funded extortion to fund gold plated public sector pensions when those who earn the money we all spend in doing the productive things live out their retirements in poverty ?
I listened with incredulity to an item on the BBC this morning. It concerns the utterly farcical Home Office scheme to help failed “asylum seekers” (Welfare tourists) return home that has resulted in just one family leaving the country, whilst costing us, the Brits £1m. Listen to Evan Davies blithely dismiss the waste of £1m on “an idea that was good” on this “pilot”. It’s all about “being nice” to “children”, you see.
The BBC brought on some liberal bozo from the Children’s Society on to argue that more time should have been given and more should have been spent on this madness. And where was the counter-balance? Oleaginous Labour spiv Keith Vaz was there to to superficially criticise the particular scheme but simultaneously shill for Labour’s risible immigration policy. To listen to Vaz one could be forgiven for wondering WHICH government has been in power since 1997?
Most bizarre of all was Evan Davies constant refrain about the need to be “nice” and not “nasty” when it comes to dealing with welfare tourists, sorry, I mean children. How about having someone on to comment who believes that the bigger issue is how these people get INTO our country in the first place and then how can government recklessly waste £1,000,000 of our money? I guess those dimensions fall outside “the narrative”?
NOW YOU SEE WHERE I’M GOING MARK?
ALL THE ABOVE I HAVE POSTED ARE UNDER ZANULABOUR.
@Chunters. No I don’t. Why don’t you stand for parliament?
Chunters — as soemone who has workign in the public, private and third sectors i can see advantages and disadvantes of all three sectors.
I currently work in the public sector and understand i am lucky to enjoy a final salary pension and a lot of rights when it coems to redundancy etc.. However many of us a relatively low paid compared to the private sector and often toil away in difficult jobs with little thanks and even abuse from the people we serve — i feel some sections of society would only be happy when we public sector workers did our jobs for free wearing only sack cloth and ashes!
A lot of the public sector retain good rights as we are unionised and fight hard for what we think every worker should be entitled to — that option is also open to private sector workers many private sector wcompanies are cutting workers pay and pensions to preserve shareholders dividend — i’m baffled by the current trent of some workers who insist everyone should sink to the lowest level rather than all fighting for better conditions.
Finally try workign for a better company — for example John Lewis are private sector but give their workers better rights than most retailers
Hannah, well put, and I see what you’re saying. However, pay in the public sector no longer lags the private. In many cases it is higher.
Forget for a minute the rights and wrongs of the final salary schemes and look only at the costs. It is unaffordable.
These deals were set up in a postwar era where pay and conditions and lifespans were very different.
A public sector female retiring at 60 now, with the mortgage paid and the kids left home, could live another 25, 30 years. And to pay them a possible 2⁄3 of their final salary over the period is:
a) unnecessary
b) unsustainable
c) unfair on the taxpayers who cannot afford anything like that for themselves.
These schemes were built on fantasy maths, don’t exist anywhere else in the world and will see some sort of reform. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the public sector doesn’t deserve good pensions, just maybe not this good.
The problem in the UK is that there is this gulf between the 2 schemes. Generous vs shit. There should be a better system for all, but no. Again, thanks Labour!
@Chunters:
‘Welfare tourists… hat tip Guido… ZanuLabour.’
Now I feel I have a proper measure of you.
@Phil G: “pay in the public sector no longer lags the private. In many cases it is higher.” Not that I don’t believe you, but where are you getting these figures from? Let’s have some stats, everyone!
Mushtimushta, thanks! I’ve missed you too.
You’re right. Enough of my Gordon hate. Back to some food reviews. I enjoy it more.
I can see where Chunters is coming from but I probably won’t be voting for you mate. Keep the views coming though.
JJs — greasy, meat curry shy of meat, it was OK, just not that good. Great service and cool music.
Lamoon — don’t forget this useful standby folks. There’s a special dish of roast duck wrapped in prawn stuffing and deep fried that is awesome.
Hannah makes a good point. All work sectors have their pros and cons. Some types of work are well managed and run across all sectors others simply are not. IN the private sector work conditions experienced by employees are very often a reflection of the ethical outlook of the owners of a company.
By and large public sector working conditions should be a benchmark for private sector behaviour. It is only through mandatory legislation brought in by Labour that workers’ rights in the catering industry have improved in recent years and there still is widespread abuse of workers in the private sector.
Chunters at 8.09
You’ve lifted your post in its entirety from this (risible) website
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/
Any views of your own?
florian wrote “You’ve lifted your post in its entirety from this (risible) website”
Why waste time typing when all in the article is exactly what you think?
“A white person cannot fully understand the concerns of a disabled person, a Black person or a woman.” — Harriet HARM man — Deputy Leader of the Labour Party.
I find this statement a disgrace.
Accusing all white folks to be unable to understand my black and disabled friends?
This woman(clearly white) is a bloody fool.
Now you all must admit i’ve got you all discussing things other than food.
This blog has suddenly become interesting.
Did you hear the item on R4? I did. And this is an inaccurate representation of it, by a backwoods blowhard called David Vance.
And chuff all to do with Camberwell.
Hannah says:
06/25/2009 at 9:39 am
Try being self employed and finance your own pension.
I have had to invest a very large amount of the money I have earned over the years into a pension which will in the end actually make me a very small amount of income.
I’ve come to realise that I rely on the state for nearly nothing.
I have private medical insurance as I cannot afford to be in hospital for more than a minute, so waiting for the NHS is a big no no.
I rely on the police to keep law and order but then I pay for that.
I get my rubbish collected but I pay for that as well, and as for running a vehicle, just don’t go there.
florian says:
06/25/2009 at 12:08 pm
“Did you hear the item on R4? I did. And this is an inaccurate representation of it, by a backwoods blowhard called David Vance.
And chuff all to do with Camberwell.”
Harriot Harman nothing to do with Camberwell?
No Chunters, the R4 item.
Speak your own branes is what I’m suggesting.
Hi Peter, I think they’re office of national statistics stats. Basically average public sector pay is above average private. This is a crude measure, I agree. This is an interesting area as of course there are many fine and much-needed public service jobs with no private equivalent. Teachers, nurses, social workers, pigs etc.
However, behind that there’s an army of folk using those good people as a sort of human shield against cuts and pay restraint. These people have jobs which exist in the private sector. I’m talking HR managers, accountants, IT spods etc. So more detailed studies of like-for-like jobs show there’s no gap.
Often the pay is higher when you’re on Gordon’s payroll, and also of course these folk are actually getting paid an unflagged 30% or so MORE because of pensions, which – amazingly – the government is not setting cash aside for. Before someone says I pay for my public service pension, well yes public workers do contribute to their pensions but nowhere near the amount they get back. Taxpayers are expected to fill that gap later.
Now, those in the most senior public sector jobs are comfortably remunerated but they often, and quite rightly, point to the private sector pricks like Fred the Shred as justification of what’s possible. It’s arseholes from the City and FTSE boards and Simon Cowell that have screwed any sense of proportionality, and basically give carte blanche to some institutionalised, local government type to get £150K+ for mismanaging social services etc.
I think I’ve said my bit on this. And it’s not got a lot to do with SE5.
We’ve talked food. Maybe we can talk pubs instead.
florian says:
06/25/2009 at 12:39 pm
“No Chunters, the R4 item.
Speak your own branes is what I’m suggesting.”
I do apologize florian, my posts, for some obscure reason get modorated always so they are not in order.
…and Branes make faggots.
Peter says:
06/25/2009 at 10:18 am
@Chunters:
“‘Welfare tourists… hat tip Guido… ZanuLabour.’
Now I feel I have a proper measure of you.”
As you have never met me, or may not have, how can you get the measure of me?
Untill you have met me you really should not assume.
Well one final stab at this issue before we get back to camberwell issues:
1. I work on energy industry issues for the public sector and i well know that my private sector colleagues get paid much more than me!
2. Whilst i agree there are some very highly paid people in national and local government this is not generally the case. Also the person that complained about IT, HR and accounts people we nee them in the public sector too and i for one think they should be paid properly!
3. As Peter said the public sector should be the exemplar of best employment practice not matching the worst examples of the private sector.
Finalyl chunters i’m well aware of the pitfalls of being self employed — my dad’s a tenant farmer.
I don’t doubt you get paid less then your private counterparts Hannah. But the private sector has changed its pensions not because they are mean and callous, though partly that, but because they can’t AFFORD it. Check out the pensions deficits at BA and Barclays. They don’t have a choice.
So, you seem to think the public sector is carrying an admirable torch of good practice, but it isn’t. It only continues because, instead of being funded by companies, the state treats their funding as a bottomless pit.
Course, this isn’t just a public vs private thing. It’s also young vs old.
@Phil G
There’s a bit of mis-information in your postings on pensions. I work for what was British Rail, which was, as I’m sure you’re aware, privatised in 1994. My employer still offers a final salary pension scheme, but there’s a valuation undertaken every 3 years, to ensure the liabilities of the scheme match the resources. If they do, there’s no change, if they fall short, the employee & employer contributions rise and if they exceed, these can fall. I pay 11% of my salary into the scheme and my (private sector) employer pays 15%. Even with the recent stock market dips, the scheme is still pretty much on track. Similar arrangements exist in Local Authority & Health Authority schemes. With 26% of my salary going in each year and with maximum benefits only being secured after 40 years of contributions at 60 years or over, why would that not meet the average life expectancy of scheme members? The vast majority of people don’t live into their 90s, which is what they would have to do to live the “high-life” on the taxpayer that your earlier posting implies.
And Chunters — “I’ve come to realise that I rely on the state for nearly nothing.”
So you don’t use the roads, traffic lights, pavements or zebra-crossings? You never travel on public transport, cross the river by bridges? You don’t visit parks, libraries or swimming pools, not even for the free festivals during the summer? You don’t vote, won’t claim your pension when you turn 65 and will decline your Freedom Pass when you retire?
Previous generations invested zillions in the infrastructure of this brilliant city/country in which we all live, built motorways, bridges and viaducts, erected sea defences to stop the river flooding us out of our homes. We have a duty to maintain and update that infrastructure for the generations ahead of us as well, you know.
According to Southwark councils own 2007 — 2008 accounts they collected £79 800 000 in council tax and paid out £38 735 000 in pensions (this does not include contributions towards those still at work this was a further £26 903 000). A quick calculation will reveal that this is 78.76% of all our council tax is spent on pensions. You can argue that the council has many other sources of income and that this is an over simplification — but make of it what you will.
… also while i am on the subject of well spent public money — did any one else read the article about the blue help point discs outside stations around the borough. These were not thought out and never finished but still cost us £98 000… Oh and its going to cost a further £24 000 to take all 23 of them away again…
Phil G you could argue that the likes of BA and Barclays could have paid teir top peole and shareholders a little less and looked after their staff. Whislt people may complain about public sector wages the wage disparity is no where near what it is in the private sector — our lowest grade employess take home £20,000 p/a our Chief executive £80,000 p/a
The wage disparity we hear about within companies is disgusting, as I’ve already said.
Sadly trimming boardroom pay would not go any real way to filling some of these pensions holes. Though it would be a welcome message.
No misinformation whatsoever. Your case is a very interesting one, Mushtimushta, but is not comparable to the bulk of public pensions.
As an aside, this isn’t all about public vs private, as final salary pensions do of course exist in the private sector, it’s just that they’re on the wane in a big way, and most schemes are shut to new joiners. Thus we have the gross situation where 2 workers sat next to each other in a private company are doing the same job but one got in on the deal, and one (usually younger) didn’t. This should be challenged in the courts one day, as it’s a form of inequality. Hannah might say that both workers should get the good deal, but that view does not appreciate the demographics and costs of the situation. I’m not saying that both should get the shit deal, merely that the status quo is grossly unfair. A 3rd way is needed. Anyway, I digress.
Mushti, some thoughts on the details you have offered.
- Your scheme is relatively expensive. While it is great that you are continuing to accrue, I bet this same scheme isn’t open to new joiners in your organisation. If it is then that is very rare indeed. Only Tesco and a few others do so now.
— You yourself are putting a lot more in than the average pension contributor, and more than in most public sector schemes.
— Yes, your scheme sounds well-run and seems to be working, but extrapolate the cost of your scheme over 20% of the workforce and you can see how this is a growing issue.
— You say the scheme is not in deficit, which is great. Again, this is not the private sector norm. Out of the 7,400 schemes analysed in the PPF 7800 Index 6,389 are in deficit, which puts 83% in the red. Some are seriously in the red, despite throwing many millions at their schemes – millions that could’ve gone on investment or jobs. BA is often referred to as a pension fund with an airline attached. So the question arises, Hannah, is BA there to look after its current and future pensioners, or is it there to service the rest of us, and try to compete with global outfits who don’t have these pensions?
In short, Mushti, you and your employer are both trying to fund a relatively generous scheme, and that’s admirable. Your scheme also seems very flexible in that all parties understand the need to raise contributions if there is a deficit. This is the sort of thing that would have folk striking in the public sector.
Your situation differs from the vast majority of the public sector in that:
— Your scheme is funded and transparent and seems flexible. If there is a deficit then you know about it. Accounts don’t exist in this way for most public schemes.
— You are paying for your pension from profits or whatever, not from the taxpayer’s pocket.
— You are plugged into the stock market. The great majority of public schemes are conveniently not so.
— You contribute more of your pay than many public sector workers, and much more than the national average.
— Your employer contributes more. Remember, in the public sector there isn’t this funding. A lot of it goes on the tab for later and is conveniently forgotten about.
— Though I don’t know the ins and outs of your scheme, perhaps it is not as generous as, say, MPs and Police.
Now, local authority pensions are different in that they are funded and a bit more transparent. Perhaps this is what you’re referring to, in which case you do have a point of sorts. However, they remain just as expensive, as NickW has noticed, and the employer contributions are rising and taking more of our council tax. So yes, the schemes are funded a bit like your’s but as the tax take needed for this goes up and up then I’m sure more folk will start to question their sustainability, particularly if they’re giving 20 year olds these deals. Whether local councils would ask employees to fill any deficit gap is an interesting thought. Incidentally I myself have a local authority scheme. Maybe I should’ve stayed there, eh.
If your scheme became the public sector norm then the liabilities that are being shored up would suddenly go on the balance sheet and government expenditure would rocket (yes, even further). People would become more aware of the costs of public pensions, the labour market (already cocked up in parts of the UK thanks to this issue) would react, and I suspect people might wise up a bit about their own pensions too, which would only be a good thing.
I hope this might conclude what has been an interesting discussion as I fear I may get banned if I post further on this issue. 🙂 I welcome any other thoughts though.
And remember, Michael Jackson never reached retirement.
Your friend
Phil G
Mushti
On a bad day on the trains I indulge fantasies of renationalisation. I’m interested in your experience.
By and large, are things better now? Or is it difficult to say.
@Phil G
I appreciate your response & you raise some interesting points. I did leave out that the final salary scheme is being closed for new entrants from 1 July 2009 in favour of a fixed value fund. So I accept the points you make on this issue.
I could give you my thoughts on whether rail privatisation has been a success or a failure, but it would be a long one! In one sentence, it isn’t really working.