OPINION

Take a look at the real piggy banks, not nurses’ pensions

22 March, 2011 | By Mark Radcliffe

OK, there are two rules to writing a column - well, there may be more but let’s assume I didn’t get the memo. First, don’t get personal; it’s tacky, spiteful and unnecessary. Second, as the author Bernice Rubens once said: “Always write in yesterday’s blood.”

In other words, don’t write with anger or too much feeling as the words may not come out right. Feel free to look away now.

Although I concede I can be a grumpy, sarcastic so and so who is at the point in life where I argue out loud with the radio or television when it is used by someone to talk complete nonsense, I know I am cursed by one unfashionable and ultimately unhelpful constant - I like people. Not all of them obviously; indeed individually they often constitute the pain in my neck but, on the whole, I like them, or at least their condition, their potential and their hope.

There are, it seems to me, two kinds of people in the world: those who think there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don’t. No sorry, cheap joke.

The two kinds of people are: those who like people and those who don’t. Of the latter I don’t mean they don’t like their friends or their mum or the idea of Cheryl Cole. I mean they don’t like the idea of strangers, indeed strangers scare them. Strangers are a drain on resources; they claim benefits, wear hoodies, mug old ladies, most generally “they” aren’t like “me”.

And the thing about misanthropes is they live for something to come along and justify their bile. I think that’s why we have certain newspapers that function as a locus of blame and distaste. The people who don’t like people like to have somewhere to go to feed their loathing, to articulate their prejudice - this government is not afraid to give the people what they want.

I tell you what I hate most about Lord Hutton’s public service pension review (there goes rule two). It’s the “common sense” to which it smugly lays claim.
“We simply can’t afford it” and “public service workers have had it easy for too long”.

Did you see the news story about the vacuous little banker waving £10 notes at a demonstration staged by doctors and nurses in defence of services last week? “Get a job” he shouted at the people with jobs, further demonstrating a level of pig ignorance no pig would be proud of (there goes rule one). It illustrates a division in society that clearly benefits some while punishing others.

Meanwhile it was revealed that America’s richest 400 people now possess more of that country’s wealth than 50% of their population. Are we collectively poorer than we were? No, we are simply serving different interests to the ones that those of us who actually like people would like to see served.

It’s wrong that public service pensions should be changed - if for no other reason than the simple fact that people have worked for years in accordance with a set of rules. That this might now be wiped away on a political whim is both dishonest and unjust.

It remains my view that nurses represent the best of our society, along with doctors, teachers and emergency staff. When they become disposable our way of life changes, when we think it is acceptable to lie to them our standards drop, when we stop valuing the jobs that these professionals do, we all become misanthropes - and that way lies only bitterness and hate.

Readers' comments (19)

Anonymous | 22-Mar-2011 10:53 pm
The comment "public service workers have had it easy for too long" incensed me as well. Who in the hell does Lord Hutton think he is?
What on earth is this country going to do when RN's of my age group retire or drop dead through exhaustion, and the nurses training now give up either during training, or after 5 years when they have had enough. The NHS is in the shit, and is going to need one hell of a digger to get out of it. But don't worry, it will just get privatised!!
Unsuitable or offensive?
John Howes | 26-Mar-2011 8:46 am
I assume the noble Lord has conveniently excluded his Parliamentary chums or is he possibly referring to them?
Unsuitable or offensive?
Sarah Stanley | 26-Mar-2011 1:08 pm
What worries me is that a lot of the public are beginning to believe the media (and political view) that public sector workers really do not deserve a decent pension. I notice that whenever this issue is discussed in either TV or the papers no one mentions that there are no perks in the NHS we dont have company cars or a Xmas bonus, I always felt that the final salary pension went a little way towards making up for the lack of perks.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Adrian Bolt | 26-Mar-2011 1:22 pm
Come on Mark get real, whether you like it or not whether you are prepared to accept it or not, Lord Hutton (and I hold no brief for the man I have never met him although few doubted his fairness or independence as a judge) is right.

We (as a nation) cannot afford the sort of deal that public service workers (and I am one) have enjoyed up to now. We have had it easy compared to workers in the private and public sectors as you would know had you ever worked there.

The daily Mash has got it about right although it puts the case rather less diplomatically of course.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/public-sector-cordially-invited-to-suck-it-201103103613/
Unsuitable or offensive?
Adrian Bolt | 26-Mar-2011 1:34 pm
that should have read:

"private and voluntary sector"
Unsuitable or offensive?
mark radcliffe | 26-Mar-2011 5:18 pm
Edwin: I think the issue is simply what reality do you choose to gather around isn't it? For me a reality that suggest producing something that is useful (health, education, safetly, well being) brings added value and thus warrants added benefit if not pay.
The new 'reality' that suggest Hutton is right is not a fundamental truth, it is a politically constructed position that does something more important than argue about 'reality'.
It shifts the public perception toward the idea that money is all that matters and if you create anything else with your labour you are a cost to the common good rather than a resource.
I do like the Daily Mash though.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Adrian Bolt | 26-Mar-2011 6:14 pm
The “reality” that health and education brings added value to society is not exclusive to the “reality” that the national debt is currently £900bn. Include the public sector pension deficit and the figure rises rapidly into the trillions. (Although I would also argue that car manufacturing, insurance and banking is of equal value to society).

The “reality” that we cannot afford such a level of indebtedness and must take steps to reduce it is as much a fundamental truth as the one that nurses, doctors and teachers should be adequately remunerated for their efforts. Lord Hutton”s position is less a politically constructed one as one of simple arithmetic.

The argument that Doctors, Nurses and Teachers should receive “added” benefits (final salary pension etc etc) sounds like special pleading to me. Ford workers contribute as much to the common good as any one else but they can only dream of the sort of benefits I enjoy.

I actually think I am quite well remunerated for the hours I work. Money may not be all that matters in life but we in the public sector would do well to remember that the NHS relies on manufacturing and yes the financial sector to pay our wages.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 26-Mar-2011 6:33 pm
Lucky you Edwin I have been a nurse for 23 years and am anything but well remunerated!
Unsuitable or offensive?
mark radcliffe | 26-Mar-2011 10:18 pm
Ahh the National Debt anxiety. What is 60% of the GDP compared to Japan (194%) or Italy or America or Germany? If you want to think of it as necessary that the cycle of economics is redressed by cuts isn't it worth asking what priorites may underpin the society those economics design?
Surely a recession is simply an opportunity to decide what it is your society values the most. Banking? Insurance? Warheads? Me I value education and health care over say Ford cars, (those workers by the way get benefits most nurses can only dream about) communication officers or estate agents. I am terribly old fashioned I suspect.
I think people in the public sector have politicians queuing up to tell them they should be grateful to be paid by the less costly private sector, (many of whom don't produce anything as useful as a nurse but do produce things which can be sold). And that mantra by the way is of course a commodity in itself, sold widely and bought by many.
Personally I prefer to remember that without the public sector those workers would have neither the education to do whatever it is they are doing or the health care services that enable them to do it.
Quite simply a proper pension is the last social manifestation of value many public sector workers have. The last sign that choosing to do something that is not measured by profit but rather by something more profound is a choice that can be recognised and rewarded by a civilised society. That isn't 'special pleading' it is both logical and deeply symbolic. To imagine otherwise suggests a lack of confidence in the value of what nurses do and there are too many non nurses trying to do that without nurses joining in too.

Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 27-Mar-2011 2:23 am
The same Lord Hutton who presided over the 'Manufactured evidence within documents which led the nation into an illegal war in Iraq' whitewash/enquiry. I presume. Fair one.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Sarah Stanley | 27-Mar-2011 11:11 am
Absolutely well said Mark!!!
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 27-Mar-2011 12:39 pm
How many of us have been told by others that they simply could never do what we do? Caring for sick children, the elderly and everyone else besides, is not something we do for the money, but it helps. After decades of aleviating the suffering of people from all walks of society; no matter their class, level of wealth or ability to behave in a civilised fashion, surely, we can call for a decent (enough) lifestyle at retirement? We all have to work, we all have to pay our debts (note pay and increment freeze) to society, but when I see a banker wiping a stranger's bottom, caring for the dying and the harrowing aftermath, I will not envy them their pay packet. Society is judged by it's ability to support it's weak and vulnerable. When they are sick, that's our job, all we ask is a remunaration that will not cause us to regret our decision to spend our lives doing it.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 28-Mar-2011 3:15 pm
I am sick and tired of these us and them arguments. It is an old Tory ploy to conquer and divide those who work by pitting the private against the public sector.

It makes us look at each other for blame rather than where it actally lies and that is with a succession of governments (both colours) who have both stoked the national debt and failed to put enough limits on the markets to prevent the reckless behavoiur of the banks. When and how are we going to hold them to account as our current democracy just doesn't seem to do it
Unsuitable or offensive?
Adrian Bolt | 28-Mar-2011 6:24 pm
@Mark
I am not sure where you are getting your figures from but one figure I have just pulled off the internet puts our national debt/ GDP ratio at only 47% but this misses the point entirely.

Germany has a much stronger manufacturing base (all those clever people at BMW producing things that people want to buy) and so will ride out this recession a lot better than we will.

The same might have been said for Japan but they have an earthquake/ tsunami to clear after now. Countries like Greece, Ireland and Portugal which were if anything even more profligate with their public spending than we were and who are now having to have their economies bailed out by the European central bank will not. If you think the nations current state of indebtedness is nothing to worry about then I suggest you stick to journalism.

Basically Mr’s Brown and Co maxed out on the nations credit cards when the going was good and ended up selling our birthright and our children’s birthrights down the river. Again it's less to do with societal values and more to do with basic economics.

It’s all very well claiming the moral high ground, saying that without health and education Ford workers would not be able to produce anything, but the reverse is equally true. Without people in manufacturing, banking and commerce there would be no wealth generated to provide a health service or state provided education in the first place.

It is also worth remembering that those Ford workers, many on middle incomes, are increasingly looking to the private sector for their health and education needs.

Incidentally what are the benefits that Ford workers get that we in the public sector can only dream about? Finally salary pension? I don’t think so, 6 months off sick on full pay followed by another 6 on half pay? I doubt it. Private health insurance? Possibly.

Personally I prefer not to claim any moral high ground just because I “care” for people. The country needs bankers and hedge fund mangers just as much as it needs Doctors & Nurses and the person who cleans the toilets at my hospital.

The investment fund manager who “cares” for my pension is as useful to me and to the country at large as I might be to him one day and is no more or less “profound” because of what he does.

@Anonymous 27/03/11 02:23hrs
The Hutton Enquiry. Yes I had forgotten that but then Hutton is an establishment figure (Labour establishment) and enquiries are about digging the dirt in rather than digging it up.?
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 28-Mar-2011 7:25 pm
Personally I would argue that for example bankers can only measured in usefulness to society by the value they add to said society. I would evaluate the bankers contribution at the moment as being profoundly in the red.
I'm not sure you've understood what Mark is saying here in terms of public service Edwin. It isn't about a hollow task with a product orientated value. I wonder if maybe you value what you do as of a lesser worth and project that onto everybody else because that is more comfortable for you.
Producing a car, selling an insurance policy or loan does not have the same value or meaning as looking after someone in their last days or saving someone or their children from a fire. If you think it does then I too seriously question your reality.
Inventing an opposition to your arguement by saying that if anyone thinks there is nothing to worry about regarding the deficit is a ridiculous position and contributes little to discovering a new solution. The task that now has to be done in terms of reducing a deficit, thanks to the apparent wealth generators (!), can be done in a variety of ways. We have options. The options taken depend entirely on what you hold to be of value in your community. The question that needs asking is, what do we as a community need, and what do we value? Next question, how do we do that so that everyone benefits?
Unsuitable or offensive?
mark radcliffe | 28-Mar-2011 7:40 pm
Edwyn: It is fantastic news that this government have managed to pay back 13% of our national debt since we exchanged messages but I suspect we both know that the national debt is less of a problem than the national deficit.
Your recurrent claim to 'reality' remains as far as I can see the core of this pleasant and amiable exchange. The fact that we may or may not have different politics doesn't matter really I don't think?.
You seem to be saying that the reality is the last lot of administrators spent lots more money then was reasonable and as a consequence 'simple economics' demands we save some money to make up for it. I understand that reality, hell I read about every day.
My reality is quite simply that in order to do economics (as opposed to have economics do you) you have to have a political economy IE you have to decide on what activities, institutions, values, objects and methods of production to prioritise. In that reality a recession becomes an opportunity to choose one thing over another. Health care over, oh I don't know warheads or bank bail outs or skiing holidays or whatever.
'Simple economics' are the mechanics of a Political Economy. Like it or not that is a simple fact.
As for the hedge fund managers being as useful to the 'country' as nurses. Of course they're not. But credit to them for managing to persuade you otherwise.

Good point about BMW by the way. Don't we all, regardless of our differences, miss a good old fashioned manufacturing industry?

Anon 28th: Yes I agree, divide and rule is certainly working isn't it? I probably think the distinction between public and private is overplayed but the thing that remains of interest to me is the added value, the use value of things like education or health care which if disregarded would leave us with only one way of valuing whatever it is we produce with our time. How much it costs to buy. Of course it is probably too late to do anything about that now but I do think its a shame.

Both: Its nice to chat. Should be writing a column....

Unsuitable or offensive?
mark radcliffe | 28-Mar-2011 7:44 pm
Anon 28th at 7.25. Indeed!!
Unsuitable or offensive?
mike | 28-Mar-2011 9:17 pm
I have to say that I have to agree with Mark here.

In my opinion a lot of these arguments can be boiled down to our core value system as a nation, i.e what we consider as important to our society, and I think it is a vast shame that to many, the societal children of capitalism are considered more important than (or at the very least the equal of) fundamental professions such as Nurses, Teachers, Soldiers, Police, etc.

Of course our country should have a strong manafacturing base, of course factories and retail and yes even banking are important. These industries give people jobs and livelihoods, they allow the country to grow and prosper.

HOWEVER, they should not, and should never be the sole driving force of a country. No society can exist without those in place to protect, heal or teach it, and that is why in my opinion public services such as Nursing and Teaching and Policing (amongst others) should always be the single most important professions in terms of allocating resources, and yes I also agree that pay and status should be reflected in this, but I think more importantly that it is a shame that the most essential and worthwhile careers in our society are constantly given the lowest status and consideration, and it is despicable that money comes before healing, caring for, teaching or protecting people.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Adrian Bolt | 29-Mar-2011 10:04 am
@anon 28/03/11 19:25hrs
I’m not sure you understand what I am saying Anon @ 19:25hrs. The financial sector is worth £19bn to this country and the automotive industry a further £20bn. That £39bn is what in part pays for the hospitals and schools you care about so much.

I value what I do no more and no less than what a worker at Ford does, just because I “care” for people and he doesn’t does not make what he does of lesser worth. But if you have discovered a new reality that means we can reduce the budget deficit and reduce the national debt without cutting public spending lets hear it.

@Mark
I am not aware that the government have cut the national debt by so much as a bean as yet (more is the pity) only that estimates of that debt vary considerably ($1trillion, $2trillion, $3trillion who knows) but I am pleased to see that you accept the reality that we need to do something about it even if you remain unclear as to what that thing ought to be.

Are you suggesting that the last government should not have bailed out the banks and let them fail leading to a whole-sale collapse of the financial system in this country? If so I fail to see how that would have helped anybody. (If you are unsure on this point then I suggest you take a look at what happened in Germany after the last war and ask yourself if hyper-inflation is what you want?).

I am not really sure what a hedge-fund manager does to be honest, I suspect they perform some poorly understood but vital function in the financial industry and like flies or the common dung beetle in nature they are vital to the economy, without which it would cease to function or would function less well. Just because I don’t understand what a hedge-fund manger does I don’t automatically assume that what he does is of a lesser or greater worth than what I do and I certainly don’t claim any moral superiority over him because of it..
Unsuitable or offensive?