There are so many flaws put forward in the arguments by the coaltion that it is frustrating that none of the labour party pick up on.
For example;
1) The Union only had 40% voted; no mandate etc.
answer; If a Condem got elected on a turnout of less than 50% in a by election would he/she take his/her seat at Westminster.
2) The Private Sector has accepted the Pension reforms (realism ?). This is not true. When the Private Pensions went into a tail spin after Robert Maxwell it was widely accepted as a crime/fraud. The people who had pensions having in many cases paid in to the schemes were left without. They did not accept this situation; they were hoping some people would go to jail for fraud which did not happen. Now the argument seems to be protrayed that the people in the private sector 'accepted' the situation.Therefore (they say)the Public sector should follow suit.
A cynical attempt by the Government to divide the country into pro and anti trade union.

Why do weasels like Alexander and Osbourne speak as though the "Tax Payer" are some kind of seperate entity? Everyone with a job or savings or a pension is a tax payer, therefore public sector workers are tax payers are they not?

Danny Alexander is a pair of aching balls of a man!!

Danny Alexander and the Lib Dems are 100% Thatcherites pure and simple: on every policy front their response is: more marketisation, more privatisation, make public sector workers pay more, and on and on...

Clegg always said that the Lib Dems were never a left or centre-left party, and all those people (especially public sector workers) who voted for them believing they were "progressive" - you've been had! Truly!

@capt-price.
The reason Alexander and co use the old 'Taxpayer card', is to turn ordinay people against each other, therefore distracting us fools from the fact that the bankers have got off scott free.
It's a poloitical trick that is working, as public sector workers are being branded as robbing the taxpayer to pay for their gold-plated pensions, which is simply untrue.
How about Lord Hutton has a look at MPs pensions, now that would be interesting, but it will never happen.

Of course things would turn out a lot more fair if the coalition took this opportunity to remind everyone there's nothing wrong with taking NHS retirement early because of ill-health - even though ill-health retirement pensions may have been targeted at some level of local authority ( I remember being shocked and concerned to see this very target actually depicted in an official chart contained in a council publication in my local library some years ago) There's too much bad information and unsolicited opinions sloshing about when it comes to ill-health retirement pensions applications. I understand these applications can be made via one's G.P. actually.( O but would that the G.P and occ. health man get their act together and communicate more effectively on behalf of an otherwise hapless citizen ) Even the citizen without a union/lawyer or other association could and should find ill-health retirement at any age the fairest and most appropriate way to sort out decent and efficient management of one's own work/life balance, when occasionally necessary.

Think of all the money that would be saved in terms of unnecessary and clearly unaccountable meetings/ incapacity benefits other frustrations associated with poor management.

Where is spitting image when you need it, this hideous ginger must be caricatured!

as I understand it these pensions are secondary ie not State Pension and were part of the contract of employment.Does anyone in the private sector with a secondary pension have the option to take his pension before state retirement age??.
The fact that a public employee can take his pension before state retirement age does not mean he has earned enough pension to retire from working.
Because the pensions formed part of the contract of employment any modification should only apply to new entrants.
PS..does anyone have any info on the MP/ Government ministers pension scheme??...now that would provide an interesting comparison

When Danny Alexander was quizzed on sky news about the cost of the Libyan war, he gleefully replied 'We can well afford it'.
Then why can't we afford to Educate our young people, continue to build new schools, look after our old and vulnerable people, by investing in the NHS and social care, build affordable housing, not raise VAT, not put hundreds of thousands of people out of work, not issue pay freezes to those who work and pay their taxes, in the public sector, not close down libraries and sure start centres...............
Surely we can 'well afford' this really important stuff Danny. Git.

Just because Danny A doesn't wear clown make-up, let's not forget that this laff-a-minute performer ran a 'fun fair'!
And what about 'state funded occupational pensions'. Disgraceful - although they pay tax and pay for their own accommodation and living expenses - there is a certain smugness about these government types.
Now take 'unearned income'! You pays the same rate as a working stiff and may even have benefited from tax relief {taxpayers funds ] if you rent property, sell property, invest in a pension or shares/bonds.
So somebody who has never worked can benefit from taxpayers' largess can sit back and chuckle at the plight of fat-cat state workers.

One Law for the rich ..

Ah it's bad news... and here comes Danny Alexander!

I almost feel sorry for him now.

I wonder when it was decided that public sector workers were no longer taxpayers.

Ang

I will write this very slowly and then you might understand. The current Government run the last lot a close second for telling fairytales.

In case you haven't noticed we are in the grip of a very deep depression caused 50/50 by the Banks and the previous Government spending money they didn't have against Treasury advice on the very things you now want to throw money that we haven't got at, grow up.

Lou

In most cases they don't if they can help it, so I agree with Kox I mind very much!

I can't help wondering if the Govt's move on pensions and their announcements despite ongoing negotiations is about laying a trap of kinds. If there are mass continuous strikes then the Govt will legislate, as Vince warned, and the working man or woman will have no protest route at all.

I would like to know if the new pension plans apply to Westminster, afterall why should the taxpayer be expected to pay for the very generous paymetns the Hof C and H of L people get?

Lox - I don't mind at all. I just think the people who treat us in hospitals, teach our kids, protect our children, care for our elderly and all those other public sector jobs that are of such importance and value to society are worth a few of my pennies and I don't see the point in punishing the public sector because the private sector fails it's employees miserably.

I agree pensions need reforming, we are in an ageing population and pensions are being collected for longer - and most union staff and members recognise this too - but to make policy announcements whilst negotiations are ongoing is not the way to get a fair settlement and agreement that suits all.

As for the demographics, well the demographics in relation to taxpayers contributions regarding parliamentary staff (past and present) pensions and resettlements no matter what their length of service, is of much more concern. We fund the 11.9 or 7.9 or 5.9 percent that MPs contribute from their salaries and 3 or 12.5 percent for the Lords, which is also matched by the H of L to a max of 3%.

@Stuart Eels.
I'm so glad you wrote very slowly, as I might have missed the fact that you wrote a grammatically incorrect pile of poo.
I don't know why I'm bothering, but what exactly is wrong with throwing money at public services?
Isn't this what a civilized country does for it's citizens.

It should be brought in now, not 2020 and if they want to go strike let them, then we will know just what support they have.

ang

Whats wrong with it, there is no money to throw, do you want to end up like Greece?

the ConDems seem to forget that public sector workers are also taxpayers. it is also true that many public sector workers have chosen to work for local authorities etc because they are passionate about delivering local services to local people. the same principle that underpins the big society. the majority of public sector workers are paid at or below the average income and the lower paid tend to be female. whilst we all appreciate that things have to change, it would be better for the ConDems to not to present this as an attack on a group of workers who actually make a major contribution to the way the nation is run.

Good luck Danny holding on to your seat
at the next election. Maybe he's forgotten that he has a Scottish constituency. Not a good idea to be showing such relish implementing Tory policies when your relying on Scots to re-elect you.
They just keep finding new ways to irritate you. Michael Moore saying that 'nation's credit card' guff last night and now Alexander so eager to please his Tory masters. I don't believe all Lib Dems are like these people but the rank and file LD
membership need to ask themselves who is actually running their party.
Are they progressives or has the hung parliament been a convenient opportunity for the right wing element to seize control? At the moment the Lib Dem leadership sound very much like they are very comfortable firmly on the right.