Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Quote of the day 11th January 2016

"I am opposed to fracking and to new nuclear on the basis of the dangers posed to our ecosystems."


(Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of the Labour party, in his leadership campaign policy document,

"Protecting Our Planet.")

5 comments:

Jim said...

great set of options.

Red party want to end the main industry in Copeland.
The blue party don't but want to steal their PRIVATE SECTOR pensions.

Great incentives to win votes huh?

Chris Whiteside said...

I am entirely open to persuasion on whether the nuclear industry pension proposals can be improved but I do not agree that they can reasonably be described as stealing.

We need to find a solution for the pensions of nuclear industry employees which is effective, sustainable and affordable, and there is no question of raiding their pension scheme

When I was handed my initial contact of employment a little over thirty years ago, I laughed at the section on retirement ages and pensions. It was obvious to me as far back as 1985 that by the time I reach the age of sixty it was never going to be sustainable to have everyone retiring on a full final salary pension at that age.

When the inevitable happened, my employer scrapped any mandatory retirement age and then I was told that, surprise surprise, I will not get my full pension until I'm 66, I wasn't delighted but did not go around accusing anyone of theft.

If anyone has been dishonest towards workers in the nuclear industry, the telecoms industry, the public or private sector it was the people who made unrealistic, impractical and unfunded promises about their pensions. We have to stop doing that and set up a properly funded and affordable system

Jim said...

"We need to find a solution for the pensions of nuclear industry employees which is effective, sustainable and affordable"

- that is exactly what they did almost 10 years ago when they privatised them

"I laughed at the section on retirement ages and pensions. It was obvious to me as far back as 1985 that by the time I reach the age of sixty it was never going to be sustainable to have everyone retiring on a full final salary pension at that age."

- I also noticed this in 2008, but by november of that year the CPS was abolished, and the CNPP was created, new starters could have a career avarage pension and current members could opt for either the Career average or the final salary PRIVATE TRUST CNPP.

"If anyone has been dishonest towards workers in the nuclear industry, the telecoms industry, the public or private sector it was the people who made unrealistic, impractical and unfunded promises about their pensions. We have to stop doing that and set up a properly funded and affordable system"

That is exactly what they did in 2008, and the CNPP private fund is not in deficit, is not forcast to ever be in deficit and is performing rather well.

Jim said...

I know the media may portray the CNPP as "gold plated" and also follow this up with contractors entering site in a top of the range Range Rover, but that is not the truth.

The truth of the matter is that the CPS needed to be reformed and moved out of the public sector, it was also realised that not everyone could realistically have a Final Salary pension, so that was ended for new starters. To ensure the privatisation of the pension fund was not unfavourable and to ensure its success, protection was written into the Engery act.

So whilst the media may state "gold plated final salary pensions of the nuclear industry" - that has not been the case for almost 10 years. The current proposals only go after the pension pot of those staff members who started before 2008 and were protected by law. Its hard to see how it can be described in any other way than theft.

Chris Whiteside said...

Thanks for your comments, Jim, I have been thinking about what you said and doing some further research.

There does appear to be some real confusion, as I think your earlier posts were suggesting, in the minds of successive authorities about whether these pensions are private sector or public sector.

We need a fair and sustainable solution which certainly should not mean comparing what is offered by the private and public sector and giving people who thought they had provided for their retirement whichever is worst.