Pensions - Part 3
Continued from this link http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/pensions-part-2
So on power and politics, no Evan Soloman, Greg Weston, Kaddy O'Malley, some other guy, and some CBC announcer were talking about pensions. They were saying that one way out of this for the government would be to outline all the options people have already been given to prepare for retirement. So what?
I never heard such an obtuse sounding bunch of talking heads in my life. It's like they don't really understand how hard most people actually work. What, do they think eveyone sits on their ass or goes to the bar to drink like they do, and so what's the problem? Everyone has an easy job and will retire in good health? I mean, I never heard such cluelessness in my life.
Its also like they don't seem to be able to make a connection between the fact people's wages have either fallen or remained stagnant over the last 33 years, while the cost of everything has gone up. I mean how can these so called "pundits" expect anyone to take them seriously.
I stand by my feeling about the CBC. It is totally useless. I could care less what happens to it!
Comments
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
I hearsd that panel say changes to pensions are ten years away, and that Harper will likely form a study group to see where to go on this.
I stand by my feeling about the CBC. It is totally useless. I could care less what happens to it!
The corporate elite are destroying the CBC as a credible public broadcaster but that does not mean the left should give up on the goal of having the CBC be a strong public broadcaster. In order to mitigate corporate dominance, public broadcasting must be supported as much as possible. The NDP should support totally reforming the CBC to make it a truly public broadcaster. That would mean having no advertising and installing an independent board representing the public interest.
There's not much the right would like more than see the end of the CBC.
You are muddying a perfect example of "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face," JKR.:) It demonstrates why many on"the left" don't understand the forces at work out there, and clearly aren't about to bother finding out...in this case, why Cons want to "drown the remnants" of the CBC in their neoo-liberal bathtub.
Tories limit debate on pooled pensions bill, http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/01/31/pol-pooled-pensions-time-allocation.html. What's the damn hurry?
And the CBC is apparently not always "totally useless." :)
Neither is a broken clock.
E. May writes (on FB): "Yesterday was the first day back in the House of Commons. Four Conservative MPs presented petitions to remove all funding for the
CBC."
6 big Canada Pension Plan changes arrive in 2012
excerpt:
Ottawa is bringing in a raft of new or tweaked policies to reflect that retirement these days is more of a gradual transition for many people rather than a single event. Many of these changes either begin in 2012 or are entering the next phase-in period, and they'll have a direct impact on the retirement plans of Canadians.
In some cases, the changes are big enough that people nearing retirement may want to have a chat with a financial adviser before deciding exactly when to apply for a CPP retirement pension.
This is the true face of the Liberals, and quite frankly, thanks, but no thanks.
- from his facebook page.
Don Davies
Cons and Libs join together - AGAIN - to vote for private sector pooled pension plan. New Democrats stand alone for raising CPP, the largest, cheapest, most portable and strongest public pension plan in Canada....
I was just reminded of something I had forgotten, which is that the qualifying age for Old Age Pension used to be 70. It was reduced to 65 in 1965, when the Canada Pension Plan was brought in.
They've been too good to us all along. It's time to start earning our keep. And besides, who wants to start slacking off at 65, I mean, really?
Oh Fidel, LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, I got on Cross Country checkup just now. I rambled on again pretty uselessly but made my points. My take on this show today is it is setup with a particular frame in mind, that of supporting the government and trying to sell people on the idea that not everyone needs it. Did anyone hear me today, and how bad or ineffectual did I sound. I can't help it you know, that Rex is such an arrogant ignoramous, he just gets under my skin. I wish I had done better today. This is why I don't call very often.
I heard you, Arthur, and really appreciate the effort! Loved how you kept talking while Rex tried to take over.
Ignorant ignoramous is being kind. He's being even more defensive than usual as illustrated by the second caller with similar observations to yours.
You did good!
Ack, sorry I missed you Arthur. I can't stand listening to that show since that foul-smelling person took it over. But I'm sure I would have cheered your effort!
I heard a lady, I think her name is Ecknar, who discounted every try Rex made to say that OAS was going to be come such a drag on the economy that something had to be done. She said it would at worse be at 3.5% - 4% portion of the budget at its most extreme and that it was affordable. He didn't like that very much and basically dicounted it. The other thing you could tell is that every time someone didn't have the desired frame, Rex was dismissive. I mean really, what an ass!
I hate the CBC but I am willing to listen to how we fix it. But no question, what a bunch of jerks!
Great job Arthur on CBC. In an interview with Harper on Friday, John Ibbotson (who else) learned that they won't begin phasing the OAS changes in for ten years to give people time to adjust (and hopefully keep current 55 plus voters from voting against them on this issue). He said it would take about six years after this ten year period to fully implement the change. The interesting thing is that their "crisis date" is 2030. After that date as baby boomers die off and the smaller next generation hits retirement the percentage of GDP consumed by OAS actually declines from 3.2% to 2.4% in 2060, which is roughly where it is today. In other words, the change is only fully implemented near the point at which its cost as a percentage of GDP starts to reverse. This is the very definition of a manufactured "crisis". Note how the government never says anything about what happens after 2030. Naturally, it is the poor, the disabled and those working in fields such as construction and nursing (in which many jobs involve lifting patients etc.) where a minority make it past 60, let alone reach 67 on the job, that will be hit hardest. The result will be an increase in welfare payments and a downloading of costs onto the provinces.
The allusions to the pension crises in Europe and Japan are also misleading because their pension systems are consuming a minimum of 7% of GDP and often significantly higher. We will not even reach half these levels at anytime in the forseable future.
Rex Murphy's "nonpartisan ... expert" on pensions of course came from the financial services industry which will benefit greatly from poor public pensions when people feel they have to save under such schemes to have a respectable retirement. He of course used such "nonpartisan" words as "sense of entitlement" and "freebie" when referring to OAS. He forgot to mention his sector's entitlements: very low and falling corporate tax rates and capital gains taxes that are much lower than income tax rates.
Government revenue and expenditures are about choices. By not buying $150,000,000 a plane and climbing F-35s, by not building a prison system to match that of the US when even Texas (the most rabid jail and hang 'em state) is reducing its prison system because of its failure to reduce crime and its astronomical costs (we could give 3 people OAS for the cost of one prisoner), by not giving the world's richest industry, the oil companies, $1.5 billion in subsidies every year, and by raising corporate tax rates, the temporary increase in percentage of GDP costs of OAS could be covered.
Furthermore, by bringing in workers as landed immigrants, rather than the ever growing number of guest workers, we would reduce downward pressures on both salaries and pensions, thereby building a healthier pension system. in addition, this would reduce the risk of the social strife found in Europe as the children of "temporary" guest workers rebel against their non-citizen or second class citizen status.
Kathleen, Unionist and jerrym:
Thanks for the feedback. I still kind of wished I had handled myself a little differently but I was convinced that once Rex started talking he'd never shut up and cut me off. I think we pretty much have seen what the strategy is going to be. Deny that OAS and CPP don't really take all that much of GDP or in the years to come, talk about Greece and trying to perserve things we don't have "a Greece" here, and then try and sell it to Canadians. I wish the NDP would come right out and just call the government more directly on this. It is obvious that the right is trying to "put in the fix" on this and its going to take a really hard push back to stop it.
I agree with everything you said jerrym. These guys are trying to argue this without acknowledging the real facts on this. We are really going to have fight hard and push back on this. I think the other thing we need to do is to figure out a way to get people to see this as it is, simply another fight over ideology between the 1% and the rest of us!
Thanks again for the feedback. I feel a little silly I didn't try to engage with Rex more, but I kind of doubted I would have had the chance. As for their expert, did you notice how and Rex said, we understand people, we were poor once too. What a bunch of malarkey that was!
Arthur, I only caught the last hour so I'm thinking I might have missed your call.
The guest from the Rotman School of Business didn't offer anything substantive but I did catch him rail against one caller who said that trusting the stock market for your security was a mugs game. He jumped on him for being anti-capitalist and accused him of being against wealth creation.
I was amazed that the caller didn't just hang up and said that he wasn't against meaningful wealth creation but what was currently on offer was a total failure.
Rex also had the audacity to suggest that military and other in the firing line professions deserve extra special considerations and enhanced benefits.
Rex is an ideologue. He nevers fail to dissapoint. As for the guest, you nailed it. Lots of talk about market solutions, blah, blah, blah. But really got me saying he happy he was at 70 to be working. I pointed out when I called that both he and Ibbitson had desk jobs, and it was easy for them to say that considering they didn't go home in pain, sore and tired at the end of the day. The CBC is so hopeless.
Rex is an ideologue. He nevers fail to dissapoint. As for the guest, you nailed it. Lots of talk about market solutions, blah, blah, blah. But really got me saying he happy he was at 70 to be working. I pointed out when I called that both he and Ibbitson had desk jobs, and it was easy for them to say that considering they didn't go home in pain, sore and tired at the end of the day. The CBC is so hopeless.
Arthur, great job sticking up for workers!
We should also remember that an NDP government could revamp the CBC. IMHO, replacing corporate advertising revenues with secured public funding and having an independent board that represents all kinds of Canadians, including workers, run the CBC would be the two most important steps in fixing the CBC.
Saw the latest ad for Canada's Action Plan. One of the vignettes was two seniors talking about how GREAT it was to go back to work.
Surprisingly, it was on during RIck Mercer Report; I wondered for a moment if it was a spoof or not.
I think the party needs to focus on this issue. First and foremost, from a social justice point of view. However, it plays very well politically and not just from the point of view of those who lose their pensions. John Ibbotson in his interview on Cross Country Checkup noted that the Conservatives had been planning this for some time. In other words, they were not transparent about where they were going on this issue during the election despite stating that their platform identified all the major issues they would deal with. In BC, this approach is what led to the great fall in Liberal Party support when they introduced the HST after denying they were going to do it in the election. However, it took Bill Vanderzalm leading the initial attack, while at first the provincial NDP held back, to rile up the public because most of the media and people just said how can you change a government policy when they have just been elected.
While there is no referendum to directly overturn the rule, the party should clearly state it will reverse this policy if elected in 2015, which wont't be hard, since it will not even be implemented at that time. It also needs to point out that this is an artificial crisis. Initially, the % of GNP used to support OAS rises less than 1% from 2.4% now to 3.2% of GNP in 2030. Since Ibbotson said that Harper told him this policy won't start to be implemented for 10 years and will take 4 to 6 years to fully implement, it will not be in full effect until the cost of OAS is almost at its highest percentage. No wonder the Cons never discuss what is going to happen to this percentage after 2030. Then it starts to decline as the baby boomers die off until it is roughly back at the current rate in 2060. Meanwhile those who are disabled, poor, or working in jobs where they are laid off late in the careers or where few last to 60 because of the physical and/or mental strain of the work (for example, construction and nursing) have only welfare to fall back on. Instead of spending billions on prisons (which even American conservatives now admit rob education and social programs of money without preventing drug dealing - the biggest source of prisoners in the US and soon to be in Canada - or improving living conditions ), $150,000,000 F-35 jets, and oil company subsidies and low corporate tax rates, this money could fund OAS until its % of GNP falls back down.
Governing is about making revenue and expenditure choices. OAS is a far better expenditure choice than those listed above. I believe we can win this argument from a social justice, transparency and judicious spending point of view if we persist in explaining the alternative path in a rational , straightforward manner over time.
I think the party needs to focus on this issue. First and foremost, from a social justice point of view. However, it plays very well politically and not just from the point of view of those who lose their pensions. John Ibbotson in his interview on Cross Country Checkup noted that the Conservatives had been planning this for some time. In other words, they were not transparent about where they were going on this issue during the election despite stating that their platform identified all the major issues they would deal with. In BC, this approach is what led to the great fall in Liberal Party support when they introduced the HST after denying they were going to do it in the election. However, it took Bill Vanderzalm leading the initial attack, while at first the provincial NDP held back, to rile up the public because most of the media and people just said how can you change a government policy when they have just been elected.
While there is no referendum to directly overturn the rule, the party should clearly state it will reverse this policy if elected in 2015, which wont't be hard, since it will not even be implemented at that time. It also needs to point out that this is an artificial crisis. Initially, the % of GNP used to support OAS rises less than 1% from 2.4% now to 3.2% of GNP in 2030. Since Ibbotson said that Harper told him this policy won't start to be implemented for 10 years and will take 4 to 6 years to fully implement, it will not be in full effect until the cost of OAS is almost at its highest percentage. No wonder the Cons never discuss what is going to happen to this percentage after 2030. Then it starts to decline as the baby boomers die off until it is roughly back at the current rate in 2060. Meanwhile those who are disabled, poor, or working in jobs where they are laid off late in the careers or where few last to 60 because of the physical and/or mental strain of the work (for example, construction and nursing) have only welfare to fall back on. Instead of spending billions on prisons (which even American conservatives now admit rob education and social programs of money without preventing drug dealing - the biggest source of prisoners in the US and soon to be in Canada - or improving living conditions ), $150,000,000 F-35 jets, and oil company subsidies and low corporate tax rates, this money could fund OAS until its % of GNP falls back down.
Governing is about making revenue and expenditure choices. OAS is a far better expenditure choice than those listed above. I believe we can win this argument from a social justice, transparency and judicious spending point of view if we persist in explaining the alternative path in a rational , straightforward manner over time.
jerryM:
I couldn't agree with you more. When I was on I said almost at the beginning that I believed the government had intended to do this before the election and didn't tell anyone about it. I don't understand where the NDP is on this. They need to really go after this harder and non stop, along with Atawpiskat. Those are really key issues, and the party's chance to show how it is different, and why people should support it.
There is no question, these guys want to take away our pensions. Partially in response from their Bay Street buddies, and also because ideologically, they just think people should stand on their own, regardless of the consequences. Stupid, nasty fools that they are!
I also see OAS as a wedge issue for us. We are so use to having wedge issues used against us, such as the gun registry where even on this website some have questioned NDP policy on this topic (although I fully support it), that I sometimes wonder if we fully see the opportunity pensions presents. Conservative support is strongest amongst those over 50, even some of those who are not so well off. This issue provides the party with an opportunity to get some of these people to question their support of the Cons if presented properly, which is the first step in a voter deciding to vote for someone else.
The Parliamentary Budget Office has demolished the Con argument for changing OAS as shown below in its report. Here are excerpts from the an article on the report showing why.
Hill Dispatches: Non-partisan report contradicts Harper on pensions
By Karl Nerenberg
| February 8, 2012
The Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) does not use dramatic language. It takes the "just-the-facts-m'am" approach.
And so, when the PBO decided to issue a report on pensions, it called it, blandly: "Federal Fiscal Sustainability and Elderly Benefits." The PBO reports to parliament, and not the government. Its role is to provide independent, non-partisan analysis. The purpose of the PBO's sustainability reports is to assure that Canada can afford to pay for programs to which it is committed, in the short, medium and long term. And so, when the PBO decided to take on the question of pensions and other elder benefits is did so without a dog in the race. Its interest is in whether or not these benefits are affordable.The PBO does not recommend political choices. That is up to the elected representatives.
The PBO's newest report states, in essence, that the OAS and GIS are sustainable in the long term, even if we assume what it calls a "modest enrichment" of the benefits, that is, increases greater than inflation.
OAS will grow, then decline
The PBO report starts out by citing the fact that "federal elderly benefits" ( the OAS and GIS) will grow from 2.2 per cent of GDP in 2010-11 to 3.2 per cent of GDP 24 years from now, in 2036-37, an increase of one percentage point. (And this is based on an assumption of enriched benefits. The PBO says that if benefits merely rise in line with inflation, the increase, in percentage of GDP terms, will only be .8 per cent not 1 per cent). The report then goes on to consider the affordability of elderly benefits in terms of projected federal revenues. It does this because, in the report's words, "the elderly benefits program should be assessed in the broader framework of fiscal sustainability, which requires that government debt cannot ultimately grow faster than the economy."
The PBO starts out by assuming a federal tax "burden" of 15 per cent of GDP, which is what it is projected to be for 2015-16. (And which is, by the way, 2 percentage points of GDP lower than the average over the last 50 years.)Under this scenario, elderly benefits are projected to increase from a little under 16 cents per dollar of tax revenue in 2010-11 to nearly 20 cents in 2030-31 -- an increase of about 4 cents per dollar of tax revenue. However, the PBO report adds that, in the years following 2036-37, there will be a steady decline in the cost of elderly benefits to 12.8 cents per dollar of revenue by 2080-81. But the government keeps saying it is concerned about long-term sustainability, here. Human Resources Minister Finley repeated that mantra about five times during today's question period.
And so, the PBO has given the government a long-term picture. And that picture shows that there is no financial, "bookkeeping reason" to cut OAS or other benefits, either directly or by raising the eligibility age. The PBO is a prudent and small-c "conservative" agency. It is not in the business of spinning optimistic, fiscal fairy-tales.
And so, when the Parliamentary Budget Office says that it "estimates that the federal fiscal gap is -0.4 per cent of GDP," it is not kidding! Note that the "gap" is a negative number. Were it positive, that number would indicate the amount one would have to increase revenue or decrease spending to prevent the debt-to-GDP ratio from continuing to rise. In Canada's current case, the negative number indicates the increased amount that we can spend (either directly or through reduced revenues) and still have the debt-to-GDP ratio go down.
Here is a video of Harper promising in 2005 to never change the pension system:
http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/indepthanalysis/atissue/story/2012/02/08/national-atissue-020812.html
Here is the link for the petition against Harper's proposed changes to OAS
http://petition.liberal.ca/oas-old-age-security-pension-retirement-benefits-cuts/
I'd have preferred that the "petition against Harper's proposed changes to the OAS" was not created by the Liberal Party of Canada. :)
As I said, the NDP is just missing every opportunity. The leadership of this party is just not doing its job. Where the hell is Turmel?
Arthur, I agree totally.
As I said, the NDP is just missing every opportunity. The leadership of this party is just not doing its job. Where the hell is Turmel?
Maybe she's here?
Pension protest: Seniors, labour activists occupy 22 Ontario Tory MP offices
..bravo!!!!
Maybe she's here?
Pension protest: Seniors, labour activists occupy 22 Ontario Tory MP offices
No, no. We can't have parliamentarians mingling with social activists. It's just, just ... unparliamentary!
Ok, I don't get it. I can't find a reference otherewise, was Trumel at one of these?
No, Arthur. Read what Spector said. It's not dignified for big shots to get involved in lowly occupations next to seniors and workers. Just wait till 2015, elect an NDP government, and don't misbehave in the meantime, or all those "centre" voters might think we're a bunch of wild-eyed radicals.
Good for them, there needs to be much more of this kind of thing.
I really wish the NDP would pay attention to and borrow from the economists at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Turmel and gang should not only be supporting pension protesters, they should be condemning the Harper Government™ for creating a tempest in a tea pot over a non-issue. Harper is trying to intimidate the public into accepting all sorts of austerity measures that are NOT required.
I think you are all being ridiculously unfair to our MPs, who, along with the Liberals have been hammering the government in question period on this, and being visible in other ways, and it is being reported in the media. And I think, as with Mulroney's attempt to deindex old age pensions (also with a majority government), the government seems to have backed off.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/02/10/pol-flaherty-oas-2020.h...
NDP deputy seniors critic Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe said the government still hasn't said what measures it will take to change the program.
"It's been weeks that we've been asking the same questions," she said.
"Are you going to touch the age at which people can access Old Age Security, yes or no? It's a very simple question."[.quote]
I don't have time to read Hansard but if this is the strongest rebuttal from the NDP, it's not that impressive. As someone who is not yet 57 years old but close enough, this is not a comfort.
NDP deputy seniors critic Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe said the government still hasn't said what measures it will take to change the program.
"It's been weeks that we've been asking the same questions," she said.
"Are you going to touch the age at which people can access Old Age Security, yes or no? It's a very simple question."[.quote]
I don't have time to read Hansard but if this is the strongest rebuttal from the NDP, it's not that impressive. As someone who is not yet 57 years old but close enough, this is not a comfort.
That's not even the strongest rebuttal I've heard or seen on the CBC. Peter Julian has made statements as well.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/02/08/pol-old-age-security.ht...
That second article does present a stronger position but it still is not as straight forward a condemnation that I would have liked to hear. In fact, why not specify what kind of stronger commitment to seniors they wanted by stating an increase to the CPP and OAS?
Because they have gotten used (over 6 years) to Harper setting the agenda and framing all issues. It's a tough habit to kick. Besides doing what you say, laine, why don't they just announce: "Any planned reductions you make that hurt seniors will be reversed after we win the next election - and doubling CPP/QPP benefits is just a start."
You're absolutely right about Harper framing the agenda, Unionist. It just pisses me off to no end. It's bad enought that we have that agenda parroted by the media but you would think there would be a centre left party willing to challenge it.
NDP deputy seniors critic Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe said the government still hasn't said what measures it will take to change the program.
"It's been weeks that we've been asking the same questions," she said.
"Are you going to touch the age at which people can access Old Age Security, yes or no? It's a very simple question."
I don't have time to read Hansard but if this is the strongest rebuttal from the NDP, it's not that impressive. As someone who is not yet 57 years old but close enough, this is not a comfort.
The usual opizishin response to Harper's outrages is to demand more information. It's almost as if they're saying "We're unable to take a position until we know exactly what Harper intends to do." By which time, of course, it will be too late to take any initiative in educating the public, mobilizing public opinion, or putting forward an alternative vision for the country.
They did the same thing on Afghanistan: Instead of calling for an end to the war they demanded details of the mission from the government, and insisted on a debate in Parliament. Likewise on the "Combined Defence Plan" to integrate Canada into the US homeland security and military establishments, the current opizishin "strategy" is to file access to information requests.
How many times has the uzual opposizhin party lost it's leader to cancer three months after an election? If this was the Lieburros, they might shove any prominent white male politico to the head of the party and be done with it. But this is the New Democratic Party, and the emphasis is on democratic.
And when the NDP demanded to know what the new colonial administrative task would be in shifting the troops from Kabul to Kandahar by 2005, the Libranos did more hummina hummina'ing in Parliament than Ralph Kramden under a hot lamp and grilled by Alice. Then they produced the Manley Report on how exactly the vicious toadying would unfold. But before that, Canadians on a whole were clueless as to what Paulie Pockets and Manley were up to, which we know now that they were volunteering Canadian soldiers' lives to the new American style aggressive combat mission.
Every country was sympathetic to the U.S. after 9/11. Even Iran and Russia offered assistance. And some of us are still under the illusion that 9/11 was perpetrated by a handful of Arab proles striking back at the empire, and for what? "Tit for tat" for the imperialism in Gaza and West Bank etc? lol! That's pretty sad imo.
Tories overestimated OAS costs by hundreds of millions
"There are always going to be slight differences, but it continues to line up," Alyson Queen said. "There will be, with any financial forecasting, a difference between your projections and your actuals."
But NDP finance critic Peter Julian said the difference serves to further undermine the government's long-term predictions that the OAS system is unsustainable.
"It certainly doesn't help the government spin that has been in contradiction to all the forecasts about the viability of the OAS in the long Term," he said.
What's a few hundred million bucks when you're trying to kick the tires on OAS?
Tories overestimated OAS costs by hundreds of millions
"There are always going to be slight differences, but it continues to line up," Alyson Queen said. "There will be, with any financial forecasting, a difference between your projections and your actuals."
But NDP finance critic Peter Julian said the difference serves to further undermine the government's long-term predictions that the OAS system is unsustainable.
"It certainly doesn't help the government spin that has been in contradiction to all the forecasts about the viability of the OAS in the long Term," he said.
What's a few hundred million bucks when you're trying to kick the tires on OAS?
While an difference between actual and forecasted payouts of $410 million sounds like a lot it's actually only 1.4% of the forecasted payouts. Sounds like they did a good job of estimating payments.
The talking heads at the CBC are clueless, it is true, and I feel for Arthur Cramer's sentiment.
The thing is, the CBC is owned by us, and yes it is filled with corporate suck ups and know nothings, but unfortunately they work for us. If you let the Tories slash it then we'll lose that asset too, such as it is. But I know how you feel I think - there hasn't been decent news reporting there in 25 years - it's all basically what you can get on Global, CTV, even Fox where world news is concerned. And their coverage of political matters is right wing, imho.
Budget Cuts To Affect MP's Pensions PM Says
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/budget-cuts-to-effect-mps-p...
"Stephen Harper put Conservative MPs on notice this week that changes are coming to their generous pension plans..."
Glad as I am that all the evil talkshop deadwood in Ottawa will take a haircut, it likely suggests the coming butchery on the rest of us will be painful indeed..
dp
NDP MP Cleary's Call for Bigger MP Pension Criticized
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2012/03/03/nl-...
"Federal New Democrat Ryan Cleary is coming under fire for saying MPs deserve a larger pension after serving for six years. 'Would I deserve a pension of $28,000 after six years? Probably not...it should be more than that' the St John's South Mount-Pearl MP said."
This guy Cleary is a really bad distraction. How the hell could he be so stupid. I know I rant a lot. But look, I'm no genius but even I realize that this just looks unbearable bad. Turmel ought to take him aside and smack up side of the head. Man, do we need more discipline in the ranks. Rookies I know, but come on!
NDP members in St. John's should replace Cleary before the next election so he can never even get the $28,000/year pension he feels is so inadequate.
Yeah, let's all join in with the Conservative pile-on, in support of a token reduction of MP benefits to help sell the voters on the necessity of slashing public servants' pensions! Very progressive.
yes, their strategem is obvious, still Cleary is a stupid slaphead...
Ryan Cleary is 45 years old. As a former journalist, he probably has no pension plan. In another six years, if he's not an MP, he will be a 51-year-old unemployed journalist. $28,000 is not enough to support a household in St. John's. It's also chump change for the federal government. It might pay for a hood ornament on an F-35.
Do we want to have a parliament in which only the independently wealthy can afford to give up their careers in order to be members, with no job security?
We might have to begin referring to Webgear as 'Silent Cal' if this keeps up.
I am not advocating Cleary have to struggle. All I was saying is I wish he'd think more clearly before speaking about this. I don't begrudge him a pension. I do for all the old Reform phonies who railed against the pension plan and have one now. like that creepy Chuck Strahl, or that no good for nothing Monty Sollberg. But I don't begrudge the pension. Now where it is excessive. like Sheila Copp's 135K annual pension, that galls me. Especially as she was part of a government that continuosly screwed poor and working people. That is so hypocritical! She supported Martin's war on the poor while growing the size of her own pay-out. What a farce. Frankly, when the Libs start crying about the OAS given how they have generally screwed us, it makes me want to choke!
I don't think being a politician for a few years renders one subsequently incapable of ever performing meaningful employment, even if the person had previously been a journalist. If anything I'd say politiking opens up many more doors of opportunity than most people have available to them.
Ryan Cleary is 45 years old. As a former journalist, he probably has no pension plan. In another six years, if he's not an MP, he will be a 51-year-old unemployed journalist. $28,000 is not enough to support a household in St. John's. It's also chump change for the federal government. It might pay for a hood ornament on an F-35.
Do we want to have a parliament in which only the independently wealthy can afford to give up their careers in order to be members, with no job security?
Great comment - fully agree. Presenting MPs as the enemy, as overprivileged, is music to the ears of the real 1%.
Wasn't it the Chartist movement in 19th century Britain that had as one of its key demands a salary for MPs, so that working people could afford to run for office - and not just the propertied wealthy aristocracy?
We ought insist on a connection between these two issues:
Generally speaking, we ought insist that any discussion of the first of these issues must also speak to the second. The employment and retirement incomes of MPs and MPPs (and civil servants) must be reasonably related to the employment and retirement incomes of the public who elect and who are served.
We need to discuss the pernicious health and social well-being consequences of income inequality and we need to focus on steps to reduce the income gap. We can do this without characterizing either elected officials or people employed in the public service as good-for-nothings.
Public sector unions, by facilitating such discussions and by assisting such focusing, may garner support for their own efforts to counter attempts to slash public servants' pensions. Imagine that: public servants and their unions seeking to promote themselves as allies of the public rather than as adversaries.
We ought insist on a connection between these two issues:
Generally speaking, we ought insist that any discussion of the first of these issues must also speak to the second. The employment and retirement incomes of MPs and MPPs (and civil servants) must be reasonably related to the employment and retirement incomes of the public who elect and who are served.
How about just one bullet point that reads "The NDP supports pensions for workers". Later on, yes, we should reform MP pensions, because currently it is unreasonable for MPs, and the upper salaried public service and military, imho.
Quite obviously, Canada's incentive system for MPs is malfunctioning, if it is now having to cope with election rigging - it suggests we've turned our public service into a prized plum.
Great comment - fully agree. Presenting MPs as the enemy, as overprivileged, is music to the ears of the real 1%.
Agreed, but what if the MP pensions are disproportionate in terms of (a) qualifying period and (b) payout? What then? Do we ignore the injustice out of adherence to ideology, or do we correct it?
Why shouldn't a machinist fixing aircraft parts get the same qualifying period and payout as an MP? In principle, the machinist and MP should be entitled to the same qualifying period and payout. But because the qualifying period and the payout are an unreasonable burden on the public purse for the machinist, they're also unreasonable for the MP. At least one of the two has to be adjusted, qualifying period or payout, regardless of what we feel the Tories 'might' say. A 40 year pension at a high payout for two terms of MP work is unreasonable and it is attracting the wrong people.
Thank you Spector for saying what needs to be said. Cleary was right but just needed to say it better and differently. We often get sucked into the unprogressive vortex and don't even know it. This is one of those moments. That said, Cleary really needed a much better communication messaging here.
Ryan Cleary is 45 years old. As a former journalist, he probably has no pension plan. In another six years, if he's not an MP, he will be a 51-year-old unemployed journalist. $28,000 is not enough to support a household in St. John's. It's also chump change for the federal government. It might pay for a hood ornament on an F-35.
Do we want to have a parliament in which only the independently wealthy can afford to give up their careers in order to be members, with no job security?
OAS and Provincial Benefits
Every Province and Territory has provincially or territorially funded welfare, disability and old age supplement programs. Changing the retirement age of either CPP pr OAS does not mean that seniors age 65 to 67 will either be able to have a job or be medially able to work. These individuals will then be eligible for the corresponding provincial program. Further those already on these programs will stay on them at least 2 years longer. The net result is a significant increase in downloaded costs to the Provinces and Territories.
I don't think being a politician for a few years renders one subsequently incapable of ever performing meaningful employment, even if the person had previously been a journalist. If anything I'd say politiking opens up many more doors of opportunity than most people have available to them.
Exactly. An ex col in the military retires and gets $60K. That is a lot of money for someone who later consults to McDonnel Douglas for 20 years, whose contribution to society was dubious. Politicians too - they later go on to get mega dollars in the public and private sector consulting, again with a dubious contribution to society.
So 10 years of being an MP is worth their pension? No way, unless the machinist gets exactly the same qualifying period. We are elitist where political contribution to society is concerned -- we think they are 'special', more special than us. CEO pensions are the same in terms of qualifying as MPs - brief qualifying period, whereas workers have to put in their 25 years before they get their pension.
I think the NDP is pretty much like any liberal or conservative - they all believe that these people, CEOs and politicians, are special too, and deserve brief qualifying periods for good paying pensions.
So only MP's who can get re-elected consistently for 25 years should qualify for pensions? How many 50-year-olds are you going to be able to persuade to give up their careers (and pensions) and run for parliament?
So only MP's who can get re-elected consistently for 25 years should qualify for pensions? How many 50-year-olds are you going to be able to persuade to give up their careers (and pensions) and run for parliament?
I don't think it's a question of giving up their pensions at age 50, or having to get re-elected for 25 years straight to get a pension. In Ontario, anyway, post-1987 service vests in two years, or less. See:
http://www.pensionsbenefitslaw.com/2010/05/articles/another-category/imm...
MP's have a much richer pension plan than would be permitted by CRA for any private sector employer. People notice this and draw unflattering conclusions about the self-interest of MP's.
That link doesn't work. And if it's about Ontario pension law, it doesn't apply to MPs' pensions.
Rabble Incognito thinks MPs should have to put in 25 years before they qualify for pensions. Do you agree?
That sounds like the senate: Older white males rejected by voters, corporate lobbyists, and full-time party fundraisers on the take from taxpayers. Except they are made members of the stoogeaucracy for life.
That link doesn't work. And if it's about Ontario pension law, it doesn't apply to MPs' pensions.
Rabble Incognito thinks MPs should have to put in 25 years before they qualify for pensions. Do you agree?
Thanks for the heads-up on the link. With any luck a shortened one will work:
http://bit.ly/xsM0Ix
And no, I don't think that MP's should have to work 25 years before they get a pension - after all, in Ontario, as I pointed out, benefits vest much more quickly than that - why should MP's get a worse deal than the private sector? Whether they should get a full pension with much less than 25 years service is a different issue, and is, I think, closer to the point that Rabble Incognito is making.
So only MP's who can get re-elected consistently for 25 years should qualify for pensions? How many 50-year-olds are you going to be able to persuade to give up their careers (and pensions) and run for parliament?
No I believe I've clearly articulated my views sir, what is good for the politicians should be good enough for other workers. So, supposing 10 years (just convert 'terms' to 'years') is good enough for the Tier 1 humans (politicians) then it should be good enough for the Tier 2 humans (everyone else). If not, then a new term is required. In other words, take the qualifying period for Tier 1 (First Class Humans) like politicians and CEOs, and you convert that same qualifying period to an equivalent period for Tier 2 (Second Class Humans) who aren't politicians and voila, it's like magic, and the class distinction you treasure evaporates. The evaporation of the two tier system was my intent (as you now know since being updated by a colleague here).
Saying I said '25 years' (a preposterous amount given that we know few politicians exceed 10 or 15 years work) looks like an attempt to make a straw man and knock down that straw man and could explain why you asked me a question but failed to await my response, see above. I'll reserve making a preemptive conclusion for the present.
The key issue in my approach is not the number of years it is the equality between the politican, CEO and worker pension qualifying periods that I was attempting to describe. This means the number of years qualifying for politicians and CEOs should be the same as workers. The point was, that the injustice is any two tier pension system - one for the poor folk and one for the rich folk. Any system that attempts to narrow that gap is creating, in my view, a more 'just' and equitable system.
I think I've also said that the payouts for MPs and CEOs are huge, and disproportionate, when compared with the payouts for worker pensions. I mean, you give a full time salary for 30 years to MPs who work for 10 years, how is that reasonable/sustainable? I don't expect answers from the two tier folks - as they would prefer status quo (=conservative) higher payout for special people like MP/CEOs and less time to qualify than (sniff) the 'lesser folk'.
That link doesn't work. And if it's about Ontario pension law, it doesn't apply to MPs' pensions.
Rabble Incognito thinks MPs should have to put in 25 years before they qualify for pensions. Do you agree?
I never said that. Somehow those words were placed in my mouth but I never said them - fascinating. Well, mea culpa!
However, now that 25 years pensions qualifying period for politicians has been offered up, (by someone using my identity) let's work with that! Let's suppose we take a 25 year pension, and we pro rate that pension for the actual tenure of employment of the MP/CEO (let's say two terms, 8 years) now let's take the payout amount, say $2400/month (that's an ok pension) and we'll do some math - let's put the worker rate (25 years pension qualifying period) and make it the denominator, 8 years is the numerator, now let's multiply that against the payout and we get 8/25 x $2400 = circa $800/month, payable for the lifetime of the MP. Plus, at that rate, taxes are insignificant. Add that to your CPP circa $800, plus OAS circa $300 and you've got $1900 a month, tax free, before consulting gigs. That's pretty good coin, my friend, and I'd call it a 'living wage'. It also fits with austerity as a value and a virtue - something like this is something Canada can afford.
I'm not saying this is the only way to go, and surely the corporate inclined will suggest the payout to CEO/MPs isn't enough, an entitlement argument, I can only say my offering here is only one possibility among many. The point being, it is more equitable and more just than the existing two tier pension system. Is the system above the best? No, I'm not proposing it, I'm supposing it. I'm suggesting there are other computational methods that the elitists (the politicians who made the MP pension system) have never explored. Since the number of other possible computational methods is, in practical terms, infinite, cut me some slack and don't make me enumerate each possibility.
The key issue in my approach is not the number of years it is the equality between the politican, CEO and worker pension qualifying periods that I was attempting to describe. This means the number of years qualifying for politicians and CEOs should be the same as workers. The point was, that the injustice is any two tier pension system - one for the poor folk and one for the rich folk. Any system that attempts to narrow that gap is creating, in my view, a more 'just' and equitable system.
I think I've also said that the payouts for MPs and CEOs are huge, and disproportionate, when compared with the payouts for worker pensions. I mean, you give a full time salary for 30 years to MPs who work for 10 years, how is that reasonable/sustainable? I don't expect answers from the two tier folks - as they would prefer status quo (=conservative) higher payout for special people like MP/CEOs and less time to qualify than (sniff) the 'lesser folk'.
R_I's statement above makes his point very succinctly: justice demands that we narrow the gap between the best and the worst retirement incomes. The evidentiary base for this demand: decades-long research showing the close association between equality in a society and the general health and well-being of its people.
So 10 years of being an MP is worth their pension? No way, unless the machinist gets exactly the same qualifying period. We are elitist where political contribution to society is concerned -- we think they are 'special', more special than us. CEO pensions are the same in terms of qualifying as MPs - brief qualifying period, whereas workers have to put in their 25 years before they get their pension.
I didn't put those words in your mouth. Clearly, you want MP's to have the same qualifying period as machinists and other workers, who you say have 25-year qualifying periods.
But when oh when are the enemies of market capitalism going to stop playing the 1% game and fault the now-total reliance on The Market for all pensions? Raise the sights and debate above the irrelevant game being played out here,foisted on us by the populist Cons?
Surely they have something structural in mind to ease us all into that more independent state of being? Something the 99 % can "move forward" with?
So 10 years of being an MP is worth their pension? No way, unless the machinist gets exactly the same qualifying period. We are elitist where political contribution to society is concerned -- we think they are 'special', more special than us. CEO pensions are the same in terms of qualifying as MPs - brief qualifying period, whereas workers have to put in their 25 years before they get their pension.
I didn't put those words in your mouth. Clearly, you want MP's to have the same qualifying period as machinists and other workers, who you say have 25-year qualifying periods.
Spector -
I guess this means I should be asking you what I want for supper.
That's not gonna happen, brother. ;)
I don't care what qualifying period for MPs should be right now, but I'd suggest others in the public service should get the same, by fiat.
That's a shame. I was so eager to impress you!
[a comment that made much more sense before R.I. re-edited his post]
Rabble_I:
One small correction, people working at comfortable, non physically demanding jobs are living longer. There has been no change in life expectancy of people working physically demanding labour for some time. In fact in the US, a recent study suggested women are living shorter lives now.
Spectory? Who knew?
That's a shame. I was so eager to impress you!
Do you like fish? I'm happy you do.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/mp-benefits-taxpayers-group-atta...
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/mp-benefits-taxpayers-group-attacks-mp-pensions-137655033.html?viewAllComments=y
Throwing the Canadian Taxpayers Federation at us? Remind me again: which of us is the Tory?
And this ex-senator will prolly enjoy $79,000 a year pension courtesy of tax-paying taxpayers regardless. I guess he was just tired of showing up for work a few afternoon shifts per year and cutting into liquid luncheons with his other semi-retired white male friends of leisure. Talk about crooks laughing all the way to the bank.
If well-funded public pensions are good enough for fat-cat senators and MPs, they should be good enough for ALL Canadians.
If well-funded public pensions are good enough for fat-cat senators and MPs, they should be good enough for ALL Canadians.
I agree entirely. And Harper is hoping to take away that argument by cutting back MPs' pensions, as a prelude to an assault on all public service pensions, and by extension, pensions in the private sector as well.
Harper knows there are plenty of knee-jerk stooges on the left who will gladly join in his assault on MPs' pensions. It's all part of building a social consensus that "we all have to take a hit to our extravagant pension plans" in order to pay for the massive transfer of wealth to the super-rich that has occurred before, during, and after the world financial crisis.
If well-funded public pensions are good enough for fat-cat senators and MPs, they should be good enough for ALL Canadians.
I agree entirely. And Harper is hoping to take away that argument by cutting back MPs' pensions, as a prelude to an assault on all public service pensions, and by extension, pensions in the private sector as well.
Oh I see you've read his mind too! Do you do it from a distance, or do you have to wear something like an antennae to delve deep within the mind?
This is just a bad reason for accepting a policy that was made by Liberals and Tories. If you want responsible pensions, then you make responsible pensions. You don't stop being a progressive because of fear of what the Tories will make of it and a half-baked non action plan.
Use the MP pensions to introduce a CPP program that bridges the gap, and adjust MP pensions because they attract the wrong kind of person.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/mp-benefits-taxpayers-group-attacks-mp-pensions-137655033.html?viewAllComments=y
Throwing the Canadian Taxpayers Federation at us? Remind me again: which of us is the Tory?
If I had to choose, you. But I don't 'know' it. I infer it based on the fact that You're the one defending elitist pensions, a 'loser' proposal.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120125/ndp-review-mp-pension-plan-120...
Read link above about NDPers Nicole Turmel and Joe Comartin asking for an independent review of MP pensions. They're not tories either, smarty pants, but they're proposing what I'm proposing, namely, NDP style pension reform and a mechanism for it.
You seem to be alone all wrapped up in the status quo. Basically that's why you smell like a Tory, so I'm not accusing, but you smell, sir, like a Tory. I can smell them from afar - it is a 'special scent'.
The reason your proposal reiks, Spector, is because it proposes 'status quo', do nothing, for a real problem, inequity, makes NDPers 'look bad', it makes us 'look guilty' of running an entitlement platform, it's called 'bad optics' to support giving money to rich people, the 'entitled' crowd of MPs and CEOs - it lingers in the room like gas.
So in running scared and putting your head in the sand, Spector, and arse in the air, as if to avoid the scent of yourself, you actually send a message to voters "The NDP doesn't care about pensions" and that's the wrong message - that's the Tory message.
I'm listening to the leader of our party, who wants what I want, and you're just ejecting gas as far as I can see, trying to muddy the waters with a do nothing' posture. So as far as party loyalty goes too, you're suggesting we let the Tories 'lead' which the public will see as 'supporting outrageous rewards for the 1%' and quite rightly so! We will be seen as guilty of supporting the inequality.
Turmel is taking the centre court position, which is the most intelligent. Her approach - don't let the Tories be the innovators here or the public will back them up. The tories want change. Well let's beat them at their own game. I think she's right. That's why she's leading the party and not you, sir, because her ideas are better than yours. She is a breath of fresh air. She sees Tory posturing and she kicks them in the fat ass a priori.
I think we need to get behind pension reform for Canadians in the spirit of Tommy Douglas.
Canada needs leadership right now. Probably 70% of Canadians don't have an employer sponsored pension. Those who do have to work 5 times longer than politicians in order to get one.
CPP is not enough for Canadians. Canadians deserve a reformed CPP and a reformed MP pension plan.
Reduce the gap - improve CPP for regular people, just like Tommy Douglas, and you refer to Tommy Douglas when ya do it; We need to normalize MP pensions, and reduce the gap between those who only have CPP and those who have these expensive plans and low (6 year) qualifying periods.
To ignore workers with 10-15 years work but give pensions to MPs / CEOs with 6 years, is flagrantly a 'rich person's culture of entitlement' that any working person can relate to. Tories are aware of this and we would be wise to get ahead of the Tories on this one and do the job right - in a way that helps build a better more equitable society and rewards the right kind of person (e.g., the kind of politician who isn't in it for the money) but instead is in it for the betterment of ALL people.
Some roll over credits arrangement should suffice, taking what they banked and being allowed to apply it to any pension fund or RRSP once they're gotten rid of from office, which is usually the only way the public incurs any gain from it. But this fast tracked gold plated fiesta just stinks to high heaven.
<Double post deleted by me>
First, I think we should have a system built into MP pensions whereby:
1. Reduce MP pension payouts 10%, 20%, whatever the Independent NDP panel thinks is reasonable.
2. Canadian Quality of Life Improvement Bonuses - MPs can't take their retirement till they're 55, so ok, we tie a 1% bonus to their overall End Of Life retirement if they improve the Quality of Life for Canadians, as the NDP Independent Panel pros attempt to define it.
What I submit the NDP needs is to get academics on board now, from good Canadian universities, who have actuarial expertise, and they need to cherry pick a panel of very smart principled academics to find the math needed to get the NDP panel ahead of this game.
That, and my previous post here, which I enjoyed this morning with a cup of coffee, are how you kick Tory ass, in my view, for the next election. It totally fits with Tories as robbers and theives. It's just educating the public.
In a previous thread someone calculated the cost savings of abolishing the Senate altogether. Could that person re-post it here?
In a previous thread someone calculated the cost savings of abolishing the Senate altogether. Could that person re-post it here?
Can't find it, Boom Boom. But did you know that I once proposed saving even more money by abolishing the Commons too - and Fidel agreed with me? Source.
Yay! Smaller government and bigger warplanes!
Howza bout just smaller gravy trains at the top.
Well naturally. A reduced government could hold joint cabinet and parliamentary sessions in the cockpit of an F-35. Both legislative and executive functions could be dramatically facilitated.
Under the heading There's no comparison, this letter in the Sunday Star takes McGuinty to task for equating "a wage freeze at his salary of $202,974 a year to [the salary of] a person working as a personal support worker at a long-term care facility making $30,000 a year." Writer Steve Gora makes two points relevant to our discussion:Faced with this situation, supporting an increase in the salaries and pensions of MPPs is far from progressive. Instead, surely part of what must be supported is to Close the Gap between the highest and lowest public sector earners. Public sector unions have an opportunity to lead such an effort.
Teachers unions, for example, might introduce contract demands on behalf of all who work in the Ontario's education system, including the Ministry of Education, the Council of Regents, all colleges and universities, and of course elementary and secondary schools:
Teachers themselves are somewhere in the middle, neither the highest nor the lowest earners. Such demands, which in effect show teachers unions to be supportive of the common good rather than just the good of their own members, might respond to the oft-stated need to stop the erosion of union prestige, influence, and membership.
Hard to see any justification for keeping a Senate full of Liberal and Conservative party hacks. And it's not just a one-time deal - as long as the Senate exists, it's a considerable expense every year - and then there are Senator's pensions - for just being party hacks. Quite some time ago I read a funny comment that said the Senate should be turned into a Day Care. I responded - it's already a Day Care - for Conservatives and Liberals that couldn't make a living in the real world.
Teachers unions, for example, might introduce contract demands on behalf of all who work in the Ontario's education system, including the Ministry of Education, the Council of Regents, all colleges and universities, and of course elementary and secondary schools:
Teachers themselves are somewhere in the middle, neither the highest nor the lowest earners. Such demands, which in effect show teachers unions to be supportive of the common good rather than just the good of their own members, might respond to the oft-stated need to stop the erosion of union prestige, influence, and membership.
Yes, in the interests of supporting "the common good" and increasing "union prestige", our trade unions should offer to throw their highest-paid (i.e. most senior) members under the bus to help pay for the F-35s, the corporate tax cuts, and the bank bailouts.
That'll get workers flocking to join unions in no time!
Ah, Spector, literalism will be the undoing of both of us! I would yield to your withering sarcasm, save that there are important things to be said--and done!
In my neck of the woods, unionized workers in the ed biz aren't among the highest paid province-wide. Surely the highest paid are the Minister of Education and some (but not all) ministry bureaucrats, college and university presidents and the like, consultants of one sort or another, directors of education, etc.
Capping and rolling back incomes (including retirement benefits) of the highest paid province-wide and, simultaneously, increasing incomes (including retirement benefits) of the lowest paid province-wide Closes the Gap, which is part of what we must do to reduce income iequality and improve the health and well-being of all of us.
Unless I'm mistaken, this thread, on the general subject of pensions, is currently discussing the differences in pension eligibility provisions and payouts between MPs/MPPs and the rest of us. You're in favour of the gross inequality that currently exists; some of us aren't. Your attempt to bolster your case by mentioning F-35s, corporate tax cuts, and bank bailouts is amusing, but not persuasive.
..this one of the ways they are trying to protect their pensions in london.
Monday 12 March 2012
London Unite the Resistance meeting 15th March
The pensions strike is back on. The date for the next strike is wednesday 28 March.
All the unions involved in the action are holding consultation ballots, and they will be asking their members to vote to reject the offer and strike on the 28 March.
The London Unite the Resistance public meeting is one of a number being held around the country. It will take place the day after the results of the ballots are announced.
We are delighted that Mark Serwotka, the PCS general secretary, has agreed to speak. He will be outlining the next phase of the campaign and a strategy to defeat the government and defend public sector pensions.
Sean Vernell is an activist and a member of the UCU NEC. He will give a rank and file view of the fight....
CFL