A response to Ed Milliband’s blog
Wow. I’ve not felt such disappointment in a statement by the leader of Labour party since the removal of clause 4. Whilst I agree with a lot of what he has to say in the post regarding the mishandling of the process by the Conservative led Government, I cannot hide my disappointment and dismay at his criticism of striking teachers.
The Labour party which you lead Ed, may very well “be the party of the parent trying to get their children to school, the mother and father who know the value of a day’s education”; and that is very commendable and I share those sentiments. But when spouting rhetoric, don’t forget that those teachers you criticise are parents. Parents who want to be able to provide an education for their children that is consistent, engaging and world class. Who better than a teacher, who strives at the coal face day in, day out to understand the value of a day’s education?
Unfortunately, with the aggressive tone that has been used by this Government, Danny Alexander leading the way, telling us striking is “a colossal mistake” and that this is the best deal the Government will offer “for many years to come”. The teachers and indeed other members of the public sector have been left with very little choice. It is clear from his tone that actually, there will be no negotiation from the Government. Indeed given the fact that the Government has made so many u-turns on policy in recent months, I’m sure they feel they need to dig their heels in somewhere. This would appear to be that spot. We hear them vilifying public servants for wanting to stand up for their rights. This is fundamentally wrong.
The Labour party and it’s leadership should be rallying around our teachers and giving them the support they need, not criticising them for taking the only action they can to protect their rights. I believe the following replaced clause 4 in 1995:
‘The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.’
Before we jump on the populist, poll improving bandwagon, criticising strikes, let us make the difficult decision and remember our roots and heritage and look at that statement above. Let us support our Teachers & civil servants, and make their common endeavour, OUR common endeavour. When we have bankers like Sir Fred Goodwin, who played fast and loose with our money, sitting back and enjoying not only an excellent pension but a golden goodbye payment as well, lets remember the Teachers, tirelessly striving to improve our children’s education.
And a final thought. One of the proposals teachers have before them is for their final salary pension to become an average earnings pension. MP’s currently have final salary provision. Will they loose their final salary pensions in these reforms also? Or is that a little too much like turkeys voting for Christmas.
If this is simply a rant at the labour party because you disagree with their position on ideological grounds then have at it. But I wanted to give my point of view and perhaps we can go from there.
ReplyDeleteWhile I consider myself a socialist and believe the rich should be helping the less well-off through taxation, I view public sector pensions as a great injustice and believe that public servants striking simply over pensions are a symptom of institutionalised greed. As a full-time worker in the private-sector and a as tax payer I resent having to pay so that public servants receive significant contributions to their pension that I do not. You cannot dress-up such redistribution of wealth as socialist or fair. Public servants already have better pay, working conditions, holidays and benefits than their counterparts in the private sector and I think a state-sponsored pension scheme for public servants is a kick in the bollocks for people who work very hard and sacrifice their own lifestyle (and that of their children) to contribute to their own pensions, or even those who are unable to work or have been made unemployed and so don't have a cushy pension fund accruing.
There could be ways of addressing this injustice through law-making and balancing, but I still don't think public servants are going to like the final result.
However, I support anybody's right to strike absolutely and oppose any government changes to law in an attempt to curtail it. However, I cannot support any public servant in a strike over pensions. I'm sure they feel that they're getting a bad deal relative to what they have had previously, but relative to what people in the private sector get, they're taking the piss. I will now quote a couple of things you said:
"But when spouting rhetoric, don’t forget that those teachers you criticise are parents. Parents who want to be able to provide an education for their children that is consistent, engaging and world class."
I'm not sure what pensions have to do with them providing education for their children. Please explain. We're not talking pay and conditions here.
"The teachers and indeed other members of the public sector have been left with very little choice."
They do have the choice to suck it up like the rest of us.
"When we have bankers like Sir Fred Goodwin, who played fast and loose with our money, sitting back and enjoying not only an excellent pension but a golden goodbye payment as well, lets remember the Teachers, tirelessly striving to improve our children’s education."
You accuse Ed of using rhetoric and yet you do battle with the same sword.
"And a final thought. One of the proposals teachers have before them is for their final salary pension to become an average earnings pension. MP’s currently have final salary provision. Will they loose their final salary pensions in these reforms also?"
I agree. If there are to be cuts to public servant pensions then MPs should be having theirs cut also. They too are public servants, after all.
This is a big issue because so many people work in the public sector (over 50% of the population in Wales and NI I believe) and therefore changes in such a massive pension scheme have massive consequences for the country as a whole. The moral legitimacy of such strike action is bound with public opinion because it is the public who suffer in all of this. Unfortunately, although I support their right to strike, I do not support their cause this time.
Ok. Firstly, when talking about Ed using rhetoric, I'm not criticising him for using it, it's a political tool, hence I use it later on. His point tho tries to suggest that Labour are the party of parents, who work to provide for their children and understand the value of education, putting the strikers in the position of robbing the sweets from the baby and sending our education system back to the stone age. He seems to completely forget that a lot of teachers are parents who want to provide for their families as well, and who I'd think have a pretty good understanding of the value of education. Plus increases in contributions will reduce the amount teachers/civil servants take home, so it does impact pay & conditions.
ReplyDeleteI didn't say teachers are left with no choice, but very little choice ie strike or "suck it up".
Already covered rhetoric.
Glad you agree on MP's.
I have a friend who is a teacher. She is currently paying 6.4% into a final salary pension. New proposals means she'll be paying 9.8%, but getting less than she is now. Another friend in the foreign office will have to work in to his 70's pay an extra £90 per month and still loose £100k off his pension.
Just because you are getting a raw deal in the private sector (as am I) doesn't mean that everyone should get a bad deal. Not all civil servants are on council chief exec pay! If you think it is unfair why not work in the public sector, you chose the private sector.
But generally the post above is a dig at Labour, who I feel are grandstanding and abandoning core values in an attempt to win the next round of the "X-factor", as the next general election is set to become.
"Just because you are getting a raw deal in the private sector (as am I) doesn't mean that everyone should get a bad deal."
ReplyDeleteTrue, in the case of other workers not getting a taxpayer-funded pension. My argument isn't that we should all be suffering. The question is about the just nature of the redistribution of wealth.
"Not all civil servants are on council chief exec pay!"
But it is a fact that public servants, on average, receive higher pay than their counterparts in the private sector (hence the moves to privatise everything).
"If you think it is unfair why not work in the public sector, you chose the private sector."
WTF Steve. How does that answer my charge of an unjust redistribution of wealth? "If you can't beat them, join them" is not a sensible answer. Perhaps everybody should work for the public sector? I wonder what would happen to the economy then?
"But generally the post above is a dig at Labour, who I feel are grandstanding and abandoning core values in an attempt to win the next round of the "X-factor", as the next general election is set to become."
I guessed as much. Stick it those red bastards!
WTF Steve. How does that answer my charge of an unjust redistribution of wealth? "If you can't beat them, join them" is not a sensible answer. Perhaps everybody should work for the public sector? I wonder what would happen to the economy then?
ReplyDeleteObviously all would be right with the world!!! :)
But it is a fact that public servants, on average, receive higher pay than their counterparts in the private sector (hence the moves to privatise everything).
ReplyDeleteNot trying to argue, as really don't know. I would like to see the figures to support that.
You're right, I should always cite my sources: http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/assets/publicsectorpayPR.pdf
ReplyDeleteBut I didn't think this was news to anybody to be honest. Also, a lot of figures quoted say something like "public sector are better off when pensions taken in to account", which can confuse the issue. But there has been a gap in the increases in pay over the years.