Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You can force politicians to be honest by being informed on the issues and having a vote that actually counts.

I'm not sure it's possible to be informed on all issues, especially with so much garbage coming out of the press and politicians. It'd probably need some sort of reform and penalties for lying to the electorate. Currently, you can't even accuse a lying MP of lying in Parliament. You can only suggest they've mis-remembered or mis-spoke,

It's the Press we need to take to task.

They're the ones vomiting up outright lies. Politicians just take advantage of it.

Simple fix. Want to own a UK paper? Got to be a UK citizen, resident in the UK. Not Dingo Wucker. Not ex-pat.

Conversely, the deep extent of ignorance of most ordinary voters on nearly all issues, is a situation that could easily be remedied if people would pull their fingers out and read the BBC website.

We should not let the impossibility of achieving perfection be the enemy of good.

It's not about being well-informed as much as it is being well-educated enough to be able to separate the lies from the exaggeration from the propaganda. And that's something most adults, and even those with degrees struggle with.

I mean, how many people get economics? I grasp a handful of basic principles and am aware of just how little I know. Most of the population don't even have that; yet they vote for parties based on their economic policies. They have no hope for being able to separate the twaddle from the substance.

To take another one, what about social or administrative reforms? People usually have a vague understanding of the outcome of the ones that they've lived through, but they don't usually understand the bigger picture. Certainly not well enough to make an adequate judgement. Usually the only people who understand any given issue well enough to have a worthwhile opinion on it are specialists. The younger people meanwhile, don't even have past experience to draw upon.

I've long since come to the conclusion that our democracy is run by ill-informed people wrongly convinced that they have an opinion worth hearing; who vote for mostly vapid politicians that have small understanding of the departments they go on to manage.

Which means that the winner of the election is always the one who offers the most tasty looking political cake in the most attractive (or believable) box. All the cakes taste equally bad, but the electorate forgets after a decade or so how bad the cake in the other party's box was, and switches back. Yet the key thing remains that the cake usually gets you fed regardless of how bad it tastes. The Civil Service keeps beavering away, the teachers keep teaching, the doctors keep doctoring, and generally speaking, the system keeps functioning. But it's in spite of the electorate and their politician's cake for the most part, not because of them.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Simple fix. Want to own a UK paper? Got to be a UK citizen, resident in the UK. Not Dingo Wucker. Not ex-pat.

I honestly don't care where they are resident. I'd be all for that "retraction on the same page and font as the original headline" law though.
That should make things a lot clearer than a front page headline about how Corbyn is a Czech spy, with a retraction 2 days later at the bottom of page 32, under the classifieds.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Conversely, the deep extent of ignorance of most ordinary voters on nearly all issues, is a situation that could easily be remedied if people would pull their fingers out and read the BBC website...

Only if they want the current Govt line.
The problem is, in order to even start being politically aware, you have to make a great deal of effort, and be widely read outside if your political leanings.

Most people simply aren't interested, or have no inclination to research. They're just happy to plug along with what sounds about right, or what might annoy someone they're not keen on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Simple fix. Want to own a UK paper? Got to be a UK citizen, resident in the UK. Not Dingo Wucker. Not ex-pat.

I honestly don't care where they are resident. I'd be all for that "retraction on the same page and font as the original headline" law though.
That should make things a lot clearer than a front page headline about how Corbyn is a Czech spy, with a retraction 2 days later at the bottom of page 32, under the classifieds.

I absolutely agree that should be enshrined in law, it'd make the headlines rather more well researched for a start, but still allow full freedom of speech. Tbh, any party that chucked this in their manifesto might get my support, as long as the rest of what they say broadly matches my outlook too.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My daugher, recently turned 18 and has already voted in her first election -- Henley Town Council North Ward -- said we should consider taking the vote away from people over say 80, since they are deciding a future they likely won't be around to take part in.

(She is bitter about the Brexit referendum.)

Enter the slippery slope arguement.


Should we then take away the vote from people who have terminal illnesses then? As they too will be deciding a future that they take no part in.

But it does raise an issue. 16 year olds aren't given the vote under the assumption that they lack the ability or intent to inform themselves on the issues they are voting on. But there is no such assumption of the elderly, many of whom will be suffering the effects of diseases which affect their mental capabilities. 1 in 6 people over the age of 80 have dementia, for example.

I really don't understand why we don't allow 16 year olds to vote given all the other things they can do when they reach that age - although its a bit of a weird list:

Have sex with whoever you want who is also 16+
So you can be detained but not go to jail
Get married
move out of home
Consent for medical treatment
Drink with friends but not buy it
Join the armed forces.
Fly a glider
Invest in premium bonds
Do the pools/ lottery

but voting is too much? There is currently no measure of capability to understand who or what you are voting for so why discriminate against this age group?

Your parents are financially responsible for you until you are 18, they are in receipt for child benefit to suppport you. Unless they want to cut parental ties at 16, they shouldn’t change the voting age to 16. I’m not sure about tax and wages, it doesn’t seem right that you can pay people less under 18, and hour’s work is an hour’s work.

Working tax credits not coming in until 25 is a joke. Either you need the money or your don’t, your parents are not obliged to support you into your mid 20s. But I don’t agree with tax credits anyway, they are symptomatic of a system that is making middle earners subsidise corporations to pay low wages from the public purse. Scrap tax credits and raise the minimum wage. Multi-billion pound companies do not need us subbing their employees so they can pay piss poor wages while their shareholders cream off dividends.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Your parents are financially responsible for you until you are 18, they are in receipt for child benefit to suppport you. Unless they want to cut parental ties at 16, they shouldn’t change the voting age to 16.

Why? That doesn't make sense, just because a 16 year old can't legally sign a contract or deed doesn't make them unsuitable to vote. By decreasing the voting age to 16 you allow for:-

Earlier engagement in politics and perhaps more interest throughout their life.
Offsetting the weighting from the larger percentage of older people voting
Allow 16/17 year olds a choice as to how government approach higher education of which at that age is likely to be the area they are most impacted
If they start a family influence government policy on families or the type of relationship they wish to have
Someone that just misses an election at 18 will have to wait until 23 until the next chance of voting; missing an option to vote on a critical stage of their life. A just missed the vote 16 year old will at least have a chance to effect this (being then able to vote at 21)
It's even more important for things like referendums where they may not then get a chance to have a meaningful vote for 30 years or so and then hamstrung by idiotic ideological nonsense for the benefit of one political party. Compare this to a 90 year old that does have the vote but mgght get a bit extra pension out of it but largely be little influenced by the result.

I also find the general idea that young people are too young, naïve, just don't know what they are voting for, extremely condescending and ageist. There are plenty of people of all ages that vote for completely stupid reasons. My grandmother use to vote for who had the nicest name. There are people that won't vote Labour simply because the Scum told them he was a "commie spy" or secret IRA supporter etc. There are still millions of readers of the Daily Fail and Scum every day that suck in the garbage they print and believe every word of it and think any retraction has the hall marks of leftist coups etc. I could argue that the younger vote are more likely to make an informed decision because they don't know what any of the parties stand for and more likely to ask questions and have an open mind.

Realistically we should change the age to 16 and introduce PR.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My daugher, recently turned 18 and has already voted in her first election -- Henley Town Council North Ward -- said we should consider taking the vote away from people over say 80, since they are deciding a future they likely won't be around to take part in.

(She is bitter about the Brexit referendum.)

Just imagine a younger generation royally screwed by the current generation with bitter memories. I wonder what they will do to the older generation when they get in power


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

However as often said before, democracy is the worst system of government that has been invented, except for all the other ones which have been tried.

Though we have never tried Technocracy as a political system.

 Whirlwind wrote:


Realistically we should change the age to 16 and introduce PR.

Why 16 and not 15? What reason can you give that includes a 16 year old but disqualifies a 15 year old? Or a 14 year old and 9 months?

We have to set these limits somewhere, and they're all more or less arbitrarily picked. 16 is just as stupid as 18 as far as any reasons go. Yeah sure you can have sex at 16, but you can't drink until you're 18, or drive until you're 17. Why should we lump voting in with having sex but not buying cigarettes? Is one really that bit more responsible than the other?

The entire debate is silly. I'm of the opinion we should pick an age, be it 16,17,18,20 or whatever, and say 'This is the age of an adult. You can now do everything from join the Army to signing contracts legally'. Pushing to move just a single one of these utterly arbitrary goalposts from one ill-reasoned point to another ill reasoned point is just wasting everybody's time.

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:


Realistically we should change the age to 16 and introduce PR.

Why 16 and not 15? What reason can you give that includes a 16 year old but disqualifies a 15 year old? Or a 14 year old and 9 months?

Simply because at this age (in the current legal climate) you now have control of some if not all of your actions (including leaving home if you want to). Therefore the decisions you can make are directly affected by the government of the day. Before this age those decisions are made on a child's behalf by their parents so strictly speaking it is the parents that are affected by whatever crackpot scheme the government of the day comes up with. I accept that there is still a five year delay though for those that miss out. However to remove that would require a more radical shake up of the electoral system. For example you could have a PR system where you can select your preferred party on a yearly basis could result in more regular and faster changes of MPs. This provides some electorate bite and could remove part of the 5 year cycle where pain is made earlier and then bribed later. Of course it does mean things can be a bit more unstable but then that might encourage MPs to be a bit more sensible.

The entire debate is silly. I'm of the opinion we should pick an age, be it 16,17,18,20 or whatever, and say 'This is the age of an adult. You can now do everything from join the Army to signing contracts legally'. Pushing to move just a single one of these utterly arbitrary goalposts from one ill-reasoned point to another ill reasoned point is just wasting everybody's time.

That's really a different debate and there is sense to allowing everything from a certain age. Trying to place an arbitrary age as an adult is always fraught with difficulty as biology doesn't work that way. There's some argument that women should be considered adults earlier than men for example. I've seen work that suggests that girls generally mature earlier because of evolutionary drivers (in that the earlier you mature the earlier babies can be had and more of them which strengthens the population). On the other hand boys maturing later prevented them being brought into conflict with existing leaders of the group until the point they were physically strong enough to become those leaders.

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:


Realistically we should change the age to 16 and introduce PR.

Why 16 and not 15? What reason can you give that includes a 16 year old but disqualifies a 15 year old? Or a 14 year old and 9 months?

Perhaps because 16 is already the legal age of adulthood in Scotland, and many other activities are legal at 16. So it's not like its an arbitrary number plucked out of thin air.

TBH I have no idea why everything is allowed at different ages, I personally believe you shouldn't back able to drive until you're mid 20s for a start, but for some reason you can take your test at 17, or ride a moped at 16, or a motorbike of various capabilities at 17, 19 or 24 I think you can fly a glider at 16, but Ive no idea how old you have to be to fly a plane,or captain a ship, or dinghy.
Who knows who comes up with these numbers, or why. So allowing kids to vote at 16 is probably one of the least harmful activities we could allow them.

Basically it’s because we have a whole load of laws created at different times for different purposes, with no consideration as to consistency. My earlier statement was trying to get at what Ketara said; arguing to lower the voting age isn’t necessarily the right answer per se, what we should be doing is getting all of these things harmonised, so that there is a single, clear “you are now an adult” age, with all of the associated responsibilities and privileges that entails.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Simply because at this age (in the current legal climate) you now have control of some if not all of your actions (including leaving home if you want to). Therefore the decisions you can make are directly affected by the government of the day.

I'm not sure I buy that we need to change the voting age purely on the basis that we allow some other things at 16, and therefore might as well lump it in there too. You could equally apply those arguments to drinking, and I don't think giving 16 year olds booze would be a good thing, you know? As for being affected by the government of the day; that argument applies equally to someone who is 15 and 1/2 years old.

16 is ultimately as arbitrary a number as 18 or 17 or 20. We pick it because we have to draw the line somewhere. As you yourself note, women mature physically earlier; but that doesn't necessarily carry across into mental development. Meanwhile; most 18 year olds are just like 17 year olds in emotional behaviour; real adult mental coming of age tends to occur around 21/22 I've noticed. I agree that it is difficult to seriously contend that someone is old enough to die for their country or marry but not vote. At the same time, it is strange to make out that 16 year old kids should be trusted to vote, but not to drink or smoke.

At the end of the day, I personally think things work out roughly where they are. I'd raise joining the Army to 18 (16 year old soldiers is not a good thing) along with marriage and driving if given the choice. It's not a perfect date, and it's as arbitrary as any other you could pick; but I wouldn't want anyone younger fighting in the army or drinking freely. So rather than lowering the voting age to match drivers licenses or suchlike, I'd actually push the other way, and harmonise it all at age 18. Just as they leave college/sixth form, start entering the real world, and parental guardianship ceases to be a factor. Rather than at 16, where half of them are still in secondary school uniform.

 Ketara wrote:
. I'd raise joining the Army to 18 (16 year old soldiers is not a good thing) along with marriage and driving if given the choice. It's not a perfect date, and it's as arbitrary as any other you could pick; but I wouldn't want anyone younger fighting in the army or drinking freely.

To clarify, people can join the military below 18, but they aren't deployable until they reach that age. Nobody under 18 is doing any fighting anywhere.

For some young people, joining one of the forces is the best way out of whatever situation they grew up in. It teaches them a great deal of things they never had the chance to learn growing up (not joking, one of the big ones is personal hygiene). Once they leave school at 16, if they can't join until 18 what are they to do for two years?

I wonder if that changes your thoughts on the joining age?

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

Simply because at this age (in the current legal climate) you now have control of some if not all of your actions (including leaving home if you want to). Therefore the decisions you can make are directly affected by the government of the day.

I'm not sure I buy that we need to change the voting age purely on the basis that we allow some other things at 16, and therefore might as well lump it in there too. You could equally apply those arguments to drinking, and I don't think giving 16 year olds booze would be a good thing, you know? As for being affected by the government of the day; that argument applies equally to someone who is 15 and 1/2 years old.

That's not really the point. It is more to do with the point you have a choice in aspects of your life and at this point you should be able to determine which MP best represents you. For example if you start full time work at 16 then you may be interested in a MP that supports more robust conditions on the use of young employees (improved minimum wage etc., working hours, employment conditions etc). It's not because, paraphrasing, other stuff is allowed at 16. It is because at that age you have your own choices to make and that these are governed by the laws of the land and that an individual whose choices are affected by such laws should have a right to influence that process democratically (prior to this age it is the parents that are affected because they have to apply such rules on to the child). As it stands a 16 year old can get full time work and has no democratic voice on the rules/rights that they have to abide by (for example). If all laws were changed so that we weren't independent from our parents until the age of 40 or 12 (extreme examples) then I'd argue that the voting age should be 40 or 12 respectively because they are the ages that you can make independent choices based on current legislation.

 Ketara wrote:
...real adult mental coming of age tends to occur around 21/22 I've noticed. I agree that it is difficult to seriously contend that someone is old enough to die for their country or marry but not vote. At the same time, it is strange to make out that 16 year old kids should be trusted to vote, but not to drink or smoke...

I'm guessing you missed my link earlier that says the adult male brain doesn't reach full maturity until 25, the female brain is about 2 years earlier I believe. Insurance companies already recognise this, and price their premiums accordingly.

It was also only recently that 16 year olds could buy and use tobacco, things change. Sometimes it's good, I think this change probably couldn't hurt. I agree that 16 is just an arbitrary line in the sand, and theres no reason to select it other than it is already recognised as the age of adulthood in Scotland which is still part of the UK at this time as well as the age selected for a host of other adult activities.

Tbh, I don't know what your argument against lowering the limit is, you seem to be just concerned with the arbitrary nature of the number? That in itself is no big deal, but there is a good chance that, as has already been mentioned, if Labour get in they may lower the age to 16 as they're likely to benefit from it slightly more.

If you're not keen on that idea, then you need to come up with a slightly stronger argument than, why bother, it's all aritrary and a waste of time.

If the argument is that people don't mature mentally until their early to mid 20s then I don't see whay the voting age should ber educed to 16.

At any rate it isn't going to happen in this Parliament, so I think we should not spend a vast amount of time disucssing it.

There is a university lecturers' strike to talk about!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If the argument is that people don't mature mentally until their early to mid 20s then I don't see whay the voting age should ber educed to 16.

The important thing here to note is 'full maturity'. And even this is relatively arbitrary, where do you place people with a mental disorder relatively (e.g. autism)? People can still make sound decisions even if the brain hasn't fully developed.

At any rate it isn't going to happen in this Parliament, so I think we should not spend a vast amount of time disucssing it.

Well given that some people think the Tory party will collapse in the next year, that might be sooner than we think!

There is a university lecturers' strike to talk about!

Completely support it. The assessment about the black hole is ridiculously risk averse and requires pretty much every university to collapse at the same time. I've been told, but not read myself as it is behind a pay wall, that even the Financial Times says the assessment the pension scheme has made is a load of dangly bits.

Well, we did discuss university fees earlier.

How can the pension defecit be £6bn? How many lecturers are there in the UK that have caused such a sizeable sum?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43140726

In other news, Andrew Neil, not usually my favourite presenter absolutely tears into a hapless, Steve Baker the Brexit minister, who has been clearly thrown to the wolves by his senior colleagues about the smear campaign against Corbyn.

He pulls no punches and is absolutely brutal. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It would have been much better to have Ben Bradley sat in the chair, but you can't have everything.

Enjoy

https://youtu.be/WUIVPmvceDs

That is particularly enjoyable.

Just more outright lies invented by the Gutter Press, and exploited by their Tory whipping boys.

They must be genuinely terrified of a Corbyn lead Government....

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That is particularly enjoyable.

Just more outright lies invented by the Gutter Press, and exploited by their Tory whipping boys.

They must be genuinely terrified of a Corbyn lead Government....

Of course. It's because they know they'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes

 r_squared wrote:
Well, we did discuss university fees earlier.

How can the pension defecit be £6bn? How many lecturers are there in the UK that have caused such a sizeable sum?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43140726

This is a misunderstanding of what it meant by defecit. It is *not* being debt. Defecit means they calculate the current liabilties of the scheme rolling forward. It is based on such things as the average life expectancy after retirement, the returns on investments .For example IIRC one of the issues the union has is that the current assessment is based on the last two years of government bond returns and these are at historically low levels which the unions argue is unrealistic for calculating a 30 year return.

A defecit is at a simplisitc level where you calcuate the contributions of the person paying into the scheme plus the return from investment minus what you think that person will cost you in retirement. As a noddy example. If you pay £100 into a scheme for 10 years and the pension scheme invests that and gets a return of 10% (£100) then the person's contribution is effectively £1100. If you expect the average person to live for 9 years and pay out £130 per year in pension then the cost to the scheme is £1170. You hence have a defecit of £70 (which has to be found from somewhere). However if say the 10% was the lowest estimate from the last 2 years and actually the average over a 30 year period someone pays in is 20% then in this case the pension pot is £1200 and the scheme makes money on your pension.

Hence it's not a debt, it's a *potential* liability and the argument is that the pension scheme have taken extremely risk averse assumptions which in likelihood will mean that if the changes go forward they will making signficantly out of the scheme

 Whirlwind wrote:

There is a university lecturers' strike to talk about!

Completely support it. The assessment about the black hole is ridiculously risk averse and requires pretty much every university to collapse at the same time. I've been told, but not read myself as it is behind a pay wall, that even the Financial Times says the assessment the pension scheme has made is a load of dangly bits.

Yep. It's total nonsense. Universities want to avoid paying a bit more. They are throwing out huge numbers, but they are totally over stating the issue, taking a number that is based on the worst case, at the worst point in the market. Even if they were correct then that's not my problem as a member, that's part of my contract. They are unilaterally trying to get out of the contract they have agreed with me, and it is part of my pay. That's USS's issue. If it is a major issue then I have no issue with closing it to new entrants, and anyone applying for a job can look at the package on offer, however, it is odd to me that USS is struggling (apparently) but the teachers pension scheme, used by both teachers and post 92 universities seems to be fine.

The whole thing is not helped by universities now threatening staff. There is at least two universities who have threatened striking staff as being liable to personal legal action for losses due to students suing the university. I can't think of a single case of striking where this has happened before. If, during the rail strikes, train companies would not have dared to make a statement like that, threatening drivers with taking them to court for the costs.

We have only recently gone from a final salary to an average salary. To go to defined contribution system will be a kick in the teeth, and probably involve the loss of a lot of people. I know I will be looking for a new job. I accept the lower pay and benefits at the moment for the good pension and security, but if they go on the way they are I will be off to somewhere that will give me a 10-20% pay rise, company car, laptop and phone without having to fight for it every three years and other benefits like discounted healthcare and training options.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That is particularly enjoyable.

Just more outright lies invented by the Gutter Press, and exploited by their Tory whipping boys.

They must be genuinely terrified of a Corbyn lead Government....

Or at least their corporate tax avoidance and privatization is; a Corbyn government will cost them a fortune.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That is particularly enjoyable.

Just more outright lies invented by the Gutter Press, and exploited by their Tory whipping boys.

They must be genuinely terrified of a Corbyn lead Government....

Of course. It's because they know they'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes

I think it is more that there is greater appetite for democratic reform in the Labour party which coincides with LDs, SNP, SF, Greens and so on. If they introduced a PR system and lowered voting ages then the Tories known that their ability to be in power for significant periods of time will drastically diminish. They fear Labour because of this.

That, and the Gutter Press haven't spent Corbyn's career trying to get him in their pocket. They simply never saw him coming, have no dirt and no leverage on him.

Media Baron's nightmare that. A potential PM beholden solely to the electorate.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That, and the Gutter Press haven't spent Corbyn's career trying to get him in their pocket. They simply never saw him coming, have no dirt and no leverage on him.

Media Baron's nightmare that. A potential PM beholden solely to the electorate.

Don't forget the government of a now defunct country and their secret police!

Tsk!

It's not just him though. If/when Corbyn becomes PM, it'll show all MPs and potential MPs that the press are not the Kingmakers they've portrayed themselves as.

So even if he only last for one Parliament, that's ripples that will trouble them for a long, long time.

And high time too. Whilst I'm a Corbynite myself, I'd say shattering the stranglehold the gutter press have is worth voting for the man alone!

Imagine. No more secret meetings between the PM and Dingo Wucker. No more unelected foreign nationals dictating to the Cabinet for their own selfish gain.

That'd be lovely, that.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
Well, we did discuss university fees earlier.

How can the pension defecit be £6bn? How many lecturers are there in the UK that have caused such a sizeable sum?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43140726

This is a misunderstanding of what it meant by defecit. It is *not* being debt. Defecit means they calculate the current liabilties of the scheme rolling forward. It is based on such things as the average life expectancy after retirement, the returns on investments .For example IIRC one of the issues the union has is that the current assessment is based on the last two years of government bond returns and these are at historically low levels which the unions argue is unrealistic for calculating a 30 year return.

A defecit is at a simplisitc level where you calcuate the contributions of the person paying into the scheme plus the return from investment minus what you think that person will cost you in retirement. As a noddy example. If you pay £100 into a scheme for 10 years and the pension scheme invests that and gets a return of 10% (£100) then the person's contribution is effectively £1100. If you expect the average person to live for 9 years and pay out £130 per year in pension then the cost to the scheme is £1170. You hence have a defecit of £70 (which has to be found from somewhere). However if say the 10% was the lowest estimate from the last 2 years and actually the average over a 30 year period someone pays in is 20% then in this case the pension pot is £1200 and the scheme makes money on your pension.

Hence it's not a debt, it's a *potential* liability and the argument is that the pension scheme have taken extremely risk averse assumptions which in likelihood will mean that if the changes go forward they will making signficantly out of the scheme

I understand the concept of defecit, what I meant is I'm surprised that such a whopping sum can be calculated based on the, and I'm guessing here, 10's of thousands of lecturers in the country?
There's claims that they may lose upto £10k a year? That must be esxpecting to get a considerable sum to start with. I'm heading for a forces pension, argued at being one of the best in the country, and to lose that amount would slash my entitlement nearly in half.

Am I unaware of something here?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That is particularly enjoyable.

Just more outright lies invented by the Gutter Press, and exploited by their Tory whipping boys.

They must be genuinely terrified of a Corbyn lead Government....

It is enjoyable isn't it. I've watched it 4 times. I only wish Corbyn would sue the papers that ran with the story, and as part of the settlement ensure they did a full front page retraction.

I think I'd actually explode with joy.