Riots In France And Uvver Eu Countries ...

explain away EU enthusiasts

have you seen the trash piling up on the streets in Eutopia? How come ?
Why is it the same here as it is there?
Meet the new boss ....

 

The French are rioting because Macron is ramming through plans to raise the retirement age from 62.

In the UK, no one said boo to a goose when the retirement age was raised to 67, then 68. And it'll go up to 70 at some point, no doubt.

So I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. Other than a weird one that doesn't stand up.

But yeah, things are just as bad in a country where people get to retire on a far, faaar more generous pension six years earlier than the average British person. C'est la vie.

 

We could have seen that same energy here. After all, as ETG points out, we are getting screwed over worse than the French.

But no. We spunked our rebellion up the wall on Brexit and now we’re even poorer.

Now some are defending that decision by joining the Tories in their culture war against the other half of the population.

Risible.

 

What is happening in France demonstrates they are a sovereign nation with their own domestic issues. Nothing whatsoever to do with the EU.

Why do people still fail to understand the difference?

 

Perhaps we have a different understanding of the economics of the thing.

The French have been left with a dreadful and impractical pension plan, introduced by a well meaning but out of touch with reality socialist leader, that is going to be disastrous for them. Now the children are spitting out their dummies because they might end up claiming their state pension a few years later. And there are people who think we should expend our energies in the same way?

 

The difference is that EU leadership will at some point comment on the situation, and the French people may ask what the hell it has got to do with them. To which the response may be "we are all part of the EU. Your behaviour is in our interest as much as it is yours." Remember that argument? For EU involvement in UK domestic politics. You can bet your boots, as well, that Macron is acting under pressure from the EU to create a more practical pension scheme for France, because they are part of the Eurozone, and if what they have fails, it will effect the whole of Europe. So much for sovereignty.

Whereas we can say '"are you still there? Get away with you now."

I am unsure why you fail to understand the practicalities of such a situation.

 

The French have been left with a dreadful and impractical pension plan? Dreadful and impractical for who? Certainly not for the French people. People like my colleague who is able to retire at 62 fairly comfortable and secure, with good access to health services.

Whereas the Brits 'enjoy' the worst pensions in western Europe.

Funny old world when the supposed union rep advocates for worse conditions for the masses. For all the love of democracy and rights and the hatred of any sort of far-reaching governmental oversight you sure love chowing down on the Government's boot-leather. Nom-nom-nom.

 

I am talking financially for the country. It's no good for anyone if the country can't afford it.

Talk and promisses are easy. Practically achieving things less so.

If people are happy to pay the taxes? Heck, let's do it. But when you know that they'll be just as likely to riot over paying the money needed to finance the pension scheme,without impacting on other things, you know it's a no win situation.

Can you get any more pathetic with your insults than labelling me 'supposed'? You'd be better off just saying you don't believe me. Is your supposed wife still supposedly working for the supposed NHS? That is how pathetic it sounds to me when you do it. How silly can you get?

 

Money over people, then. Right-oh. Britain can't afford corruption and the faces-in-the-trough policies that favour and enrich a tiny number of people. But woe betide anyone expecting anything more than serfdom, it seems.

I'm not married, but yes, my partner works for the NHS and has done for almost 20 years. It wasn't an insult, so there's no need to get your undergarments twisted. When I said 'supposed' I meant in the sense of supposedly standing up for your colleagues' rights rather than casting doubt on your position. Just curious to me how many working people are keen to surrender more in order to enrich the minority.

 

I would call that an insult, and there was no point in you saying it unless you knew it would be taken so. None of my colleague's have had any complaint about the way I have represented them. There is no need for this childish language, particularly when you guys accuse me of s-housing.

Your interpretation of me isn't entirely without argument, but it is wildly wide of the mark. In a wealthy country like the UK, why do we even need a universal pension scheme?

Get your head around that one. Suffice to say that such a question would never (I am sticking my neck out there) even enter your head. We needed it once, for sure, but having it now has just led to more advertising to get that money off your hands and higher prices to absorb what you have.

I am not a socialist. I believe in a fair day's work for a fair days pay, and I believe, above all, that people (whoever or whatever they consider themselves to be) be treated fairly within society and equally according to the law. That is why I am good at representing people. And literally, as I write this, someone (from a minority) has come up and informed me that I got them cleared with no case to answer after a rather egregious set of accusations that was laid at them.

Do you think they shouldn't ask me to represent them because I believe in fiscally responsible governance?

There is more to being a union rep than token socialism and outraged affrontery. Most reps know that and do a great job regardless of their politics.

 

Good, more power to them. By the way, I dont know if you had noticed but this country is on its knees and we do nothing.

 

In a wealthy country like Britain where resources are spread so unevenly, you mean?

Workers have to be 'profit-making' because they have to make enough money to cover today's costs and provide for tomorrow, unless they want to work until they're dead.

What is a fair day's work? What is a fair day's pay? Enough to get by on today but not save anything for tomorrow? Is it fair that companies are entitled to pay as little as possible because that's what the market dictates? Is it 'fair' that some companies that make enormous profits also pay terrible wages that have to be topped up by the state? We have public money for that alright.

So it seems to me the argument is that the private sector isn't obliged to pay enough for people to save for tomorrow – or even live today. But the state shouldn't be obliged to step in either? Too many people seem to want all of the freedoms of the market with no social responsibility except 'If you don't like the terms, get yourself a better job.'

If there's an undersupply of labour for the NHS, for example, why is there also such resistance to increasing wages?

You flip-flop from making a point about micro-economics to making one about macro-economics. In one breath, we're a rich country so why do we even need universal pensions? Then in the next, we can't be fiscally irresponsible and allow more people to have more money because we can't afford it. The UK pension is terrible compared to our friends in much of Western Europe. And you're right, the fact it's universal is ludicrous, but there's no call for the state pension to be taken away from the rich is there? In fact, it's always the rich who seem to benefit most from this government – see this week's additional pension giveaway to the rich. We certainly seem able to afford that one.

The other inconsistency is that the economy matters to some of your politics but not others. The 'we can't afford it' argument seems to go very cold when it comes to Brexit. Then you switch to, 'Well, there's more important things than the economy."

It's a collection of string vest arguments.

 

I took you off ignore because this looked like an interesting thread. Your comment that we are a wealthy country is in absolute terms correct. But when that wealth is so unequally divided, when a junior doctor earns £14ph while a hedge fund manager who does sweet fa for the good of anybody earns 7 figures, when a care worker wipes bums on minimum wage while investment bankers moan that their bonuses are capped at 100% of their salary, that's why we need universal benefits and pensions*. A country that doesn't want major social unrest has 2 choices: make sure that inequality of earnings is controlled, or tax the higher earners and use the revenue to make life tolerable for the lower paid.

* I know that would also include the fatcats, but the cost of taking them out of the system would cost more than paying them the paltry amount of pension and benefits that they would receive, and would dissuade the genuinely entitled.

 

Ridiculous. You have made up a whole loaf of arguments for me I haven't even got near. You are assuming that I dissagree with you in places where we are in fact in agreement.

Stop doing it.

You have identified the problems. I agree with most of them.

What I don't agree with is a wreckless pension scheme being the answer to the problems you have identified. And it appears that the only reason you support such an idea is that it is nice to retire at 62.

What about the economy? What about the impact on the workforce? No. They are of no concern to you (inferred by your dismissal of my concerns about those things).

It seems like very shallow ideologically led thinking, rather than a practical plan.

 

Welcome back to the HooterSphere.

I pretty much agree. Don't think I have particularly said otherwise. I hate greedy people using capitalism as much as I do greedy people usining socialism/communism. Said that enough times whilst you had me on ignore.

I think most people who have either saved, bought property or made good investments in this country would be able to maintain a comfortable lifestyle for themselves, and probably family too. I am not concerned with hereditary wealth. The left used to see that as problematic in the past, but I do not see it as an essential element of British life.

I'm all for reform. Cap bankers and footballers wages, by all means, or tax the poop out of them. The argument that we would loose the best talent is moot. You are most likely to loose the greediest and most risk taking. Football is dead now anyway. Watford FC is the only thing I jave any interest in in the game now a days, and even that is a legacy thing.

You can put me back on ignore now.

 

We were a wealthy country, the corporations that run the planet are stealing all the money disguising it as financial help for the masses they have driven to the brink of poverty. Wholesale fuel costs have dropped dramatically but our bills keep going up, strange that innit.... Control fuel and you have control over everything. I dont know what this big money grab is about but I am hoping its because they know the game is up and free energy or energy that is practically free is just around the corner so they know the game is up. AI is open source now, the possibilities are endless.

Totally sick of all this politics of division ******** now, sick of their games and sick of the fact people get drawn into their games. Dont even know who you are arguing with half the time online due to AI being used for nefarious reasons on an industrial scale by people that make Derren Brown look like a cheap nightclub hypnotist act.

The enemy are the 1% and their minions.

 

I hope you are sick of all the people that get sucked in, and not just the ones who get sucked into things that are opposed to the things you get sucked into.

We are out own worst enemy. Because if we did get together on these matters, the 1% couldn't get away with it.

 

The French are protesting because they are personally interested in receiving benefits but not seeing the wood from the trees.

Of course they want to retire earlier. Of course they want to be paid huge sums to do so. The younger they can retire and the more money received, the better.

But clearly a system that was set up at a time when a small percentage of people lived many years over 62, when the majority were doing hard manual jobs, and where there was huge proportion of the population working to support those above pension age, no longer applies. That is painfully obvious and it will only get worse.

62 is not an old age. With advances in health and medical care, people could soon be spending almost half their lives retired. The burden on the working age population will be incredibly unfair and detrimental. Especially when housing will only get more expensive.

Good on Macron for doing something very unpopular, and probably suicidal for his political ambitions, but better for this population in the long run.

Macron’s actions are certainly no reason to be poorer and less influential, as we have been since leaving the EU.

 

So, presumably, you will be working on until 67 or 68 and doing so happily? Why stop there? Some people live till 95 so let's keep everyone working till 76. Nineteen years as a sponging layabout watching Bargain Hunt and Countdown is more than enough for anyone.

The social contract is broken. We now just have a jungle. Survival of the richest. And that's fine. In fact, it's probably in the interests of many individuals on this board who will have their mortgages paid off in their 50s, have benefited from house price rises in the past 20 years, and are building nice pension pots. It's less fine for younger people.

Next up, the push for a health insurance system. Work, save up for some sort of retirement, then get ill and watch the medical companies take all your money. But them's the breaks, I guess.

Unfortunately, the labour debate completely ignores the fact that almost no one can see what the labour market will look like in 10 years, let alone 30. So we apply our knowledge of the past to our predictions for the future. It's more likely that everyone will work less and 'retire' earlier but the corporations and governments have yet to square that particular circle. It's also not a vote winner, oddly, because telling people to work more taps into a certain type of exceptionalism in Britain because lots of people assume that it applies to others and not to them.

 

62 is still quite old. Don’t kid yourself it’s the new 40.

How long you have left usually depends on class. So while male life expectancy is a shade over 79 across the UK, it’s ten years fewer for those working class people in the most deprived areas.

Put life expectancy up beyond 67 and many will work until they die. The pensions they invested in will help pay for the 20 years more the most affluent 10% will get.

But what is this with endless grinding production? How is it, with fantastic systems of automated production, increased agricultural yields and AI increasingly doing repetitive jobs, that we have to work longer and longer? How on Earth did we fashion a system of regressing?

A clue. During the same period the rich became the super rich.

 

But isn't that how the state pension was calibrated when it was first set up - to essentially be a payment to a minority for a limited amount of time, recognising that the majority would never live to see it? When it was first set up in 1908 the age of eligibility was 70 and then settled around 65 for result of that century. And I presume there were regional and class inequities then too.

I'm not saying we can't do better, but the focus has to be on the whole range of cradle to grave benefits and state support, not just the bits they attract the most voter attention.

 

That wasn’t the case for women, who retired at 60 up until recently.

It’s not a good thing for people to have short retirements. Active older people are great for the economy, spending inheritances on dreary cruises, garden gnomes, comfy footwear and Werthers Originals.

We shouldn’t have to chase the death age with the retirement age. That’s all down to poor distribution of wealth.

 

The work-life balance debate in this country is an interesting one, especially since Covid has revealed some underlying attitudes that are not necessarily in the interests of the many.

The recent experiment with the four-day week (fewer hours for the same pay) was, broadly-speaking, a success both for employer and employee but there's always a cohort who will throw up their hands and insist it's bad form to give people more time off. Work has been fetishised to an extent but it's clear that automation and AI is going to render a whole lot of jobs redundant in the future and so the transition to a more work-less society is going to have to happen. Scandinavian countries are a good few steps ahead of us in realising this.

Perhaps everyone wants to work until they are very old. I love my work, and work for myself, but I still don't want to do it until I am old and doddery.

It's also odd that having effectively shored up the comfortable, middle-class over-50s vote with the promise of sitting in the garden drinking a cup of tea the Tories now want them to get back to work.

Having people in their 50s and 60s go back to work in sort of hobby jobs in supermarkets and garden centres or what-have-you is fine if that's what they want to do but, as with everything in this country, there's a big divide between the haves and have-nots. Those who do a few hours three times a week to keep their body and mind active, retain a sense of purpose and so on because they want to (and can because they have nice pensions) is one thing, those who have to work long hours in multiple jobs into their late 60s and perhaps even later is, frankly, regressive and sub-optimal for society as a whole.

 

Spoke to a colleague in France today and the pension protests are having a serious impact on all sorts of things. In more remote areas fuel is already scarce.

There has been serious disorder in big cities. The city hall in Bordeaux set ablaze. Firerfighters also on strike so the fires are escalating. More than a million people protesting across the country and in Paris last night, some police officers joined the protesters. There's riots / fires in towns and cities up and down the country from Le Havre to N*mes.

It's interesting observing how our media is handling this story. It's curious that such high-profile disorder in a neighbouring country is not front and centre across the news. The 24 hour news channels have their reporters there but there's not the wall-to-wall coverage you might expect. After all, disorder in France ticks a lot of boxes for certain viewers / readers. The 'it's just as bad everywhere else' crew love this stuff.

It might be that the issue at the heart of the protests just happens to shine a pretty bright light on how things work here.

It's taken the postponement of King Charles' visit to Paris to Macron to bump it up the news order.

Still you have to scroll down to the 18th of 22 paragraphs in the BBC's story to get to the detail of the issue – the proposed raising of pension age from 62 to 64. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65064510

I wonder if the BBC are conscious that British readers would see that and do a double-take and perhaps start to have a bit of a think. "Sixty-what-now?"

 

British readers and everyone else in Europe. It's hardly like we're out on a limb. A bit of casual internet searching suggests our current state pension age is surpassed by Italy, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Greece, Netherlands and Portugal (all 67) and matched by Ireland.

 

A very fair point. There does nevertheless seem to be a reluctance to explore how British pensioners compare to many Europeans.

 

It was the lead item on the BBC website, with rolling live coverage, all of yesterday afternoon, before the postponement of the royal visit.

 

Fair enough. But when you check out how much they get...

 

#BeMoreFrench is trending on twitter. In the old days we'd be looking at the French protesting and burning stuff with pity and amusement, and a smug superiority. Now it's with jealousy that they've got the cojones to stand up to their government!
Of course their current pension system might not be viable in the long run, but how unlike our supine population that greets every vicissitude with a defeated shrug?

 

It's called "sang froid"
https://twitter.com/pawelwargan/status/1638208207892955136

 

Is this your biggest fail yet?