Teachers' Pensions

Even after hearing a lot of the debate about teachers' pensions (and more generally about their pay and conditions) I still found myself feeling like I didn't have enough information to reach an informed decision. My general point of view was that if public sector pensions are being brought into line with private sector pensions then, in principal, I am not opposed to this. If however the public sector workers are getting a raw deal then I would be opposed.

It was for this reason that I spent this morning with a paper and pen going through the figures myself to try and quantify what was being proposed. The results are presented below.

Pension Benefits
Under the present arrangements for a teacher in the TPS (Teachers' Pension Scheme) who has 38 years until they retire and who earns the top rate of pay at retirement (U3 on the scale which is equivalent to £36,756) will receive £23,279 per year in retirement.

In documentation for the proposed scheme (since 2nd November 2011), the pension received per year for the same circumstances is given as £23,000 per year.

I am happy to believe that these two figures are the same (just with the latter rounded to the nearest thousand). My basis for this is that the unions appear to have negotiated an accrual rate of 1/60th rather than 1/65th as originally proposed. The accrual rate is 1/60th in the current TPS calculation. The original proposal would therefore have seen pension per year drop to approx. £21,500.

Pension Contributions by the Employer
These contributions remain at a rate of 14.1%.

Pension Contributions by the Employee
The tax-break on pension contributions remains but instead of a flat rate of employee contributions (set at 6.4%), the contributions will now be tiered with high earners contributing more whilst lowest earners see no change. I'll reproduce the table provided by the government's consultation document to demonstrate:

Lower Salary	Higher Salary	Contribution Rate in 2012-13	Increase (against 6.4%)	Membership	% of member-ship
	14,999	6.4%	0%	1,400	0.2%
15,000	25,999	7.0%	0.6%	116,000	17.1%
26,000	31,999	7.3%	0.9%	117,000	17.2%
32,000	39,999	7.6%	1.2%	271,000	39.6%
40,000	74,999	8.0%	1.6%	172,000	25.2%
75,000	111,999	8.4%	2.0%	4,000	0.6%
112,000		8.8%	2.4%	600	0.1%

So a teacher earning less than £15,000 will be asked to pay nothing more but once they hit that threshold they will be asked to pay £90 more per year.
From the above table I would say that the average teacher salary is about £35,000. In this case, they would be asked to pay £420 more per year.
At the top end of the scale teachers earning £112,000 would be asked to pay £2,688 more per year toward their pension.

Putting it into Perspective - the Private Sector Situation
We have already seen that teachers are being asked to contribute 6.4% to 8.8% toward their pension. The employer (i.e. The State) pays 14.1% toward their pension.

In my private sector job, I contribute 2.5% toward my pension whilst my employer contributes a further 2.5%. I consider this pension arrangement fairly typical.

I did some calculations but since I don't want to reveal my earnings and pension value you're going to have to trust me on this (or try it for yourself)...
If I put my current salary into the pension calculator on the TPS website I would get back about 3 times more pension than the forecast from my private sector pension scheme. Since I'd be contributing about 3 times more in the TPS, I think that this is about right.

In Summary
Employee contributions for teachers does seem high when compared to the private sector however the resulting pension is proportionately better. So you're getting what you pay for as I see it. The changes, in my opinion, do not greatly decrease the value for money being received.

Employer contributions for teachers are very generous when compared to the private sector. Whether this is appropriate and since it is not proposed to be changed, I will leave this open for debate - for instance, it could be considered that since we ask so much of teachers then the state should say 'thank you' in some way. I'm undecided.

Had the value of the pension reduced while contributions increased then I would have definitely opposed the proposals. Now, I'm not so sure. Some more perspectives would be useful...

A Note on Wedding Companies

I've just been watching Dragon's Den (Series 9, Ep 9). There were a nice couple of ladies who had had the idea of hiring out broadcast quality cameras to the public so that they could film their own wedding day. The ladies would then edit the footage and send the completed DVD back.

That sounds like a great idea and I wish them well.

However, the pitch did raise a point that I believe is prevalent across the 'wedding industry'. The point being that price schemes seem to be based on what people are willing to pay rather than what it costs to provide the service (with a chunk of profit on top of course - I'm not saying they shouldn't make a profit).

For instance, the above video company was started as a "cheaper alternative" to traditional videographers. They started charging £399 for their services but this wasn't meeting their overheads so they, quite rightly, increased their price.

The bit that bugged me the most was when they said that they kept pushing the price up so long as people kept booking. I interpreted this to mean that they kept upping the price as much as they could get away with.

I don't for one second believe that this is limited to just these ladies and I would not like people to draw the conclusion that I am criticising these entrepreneurs specifically. I would say that a lot of the wedding suppliers do exactly this and it annoys me. To me it is profiteering on the back of people wanting to make even a modest effort for their big day and since all other companies charge the same amount I'm tempted to believe they are informally price-fixing.

Now if someone would like to sit down with me and talk me through their price structure and explain to me why any product with "wedding" in the name is more expensive than other such items and thus if they can prove to me that they are not profiteering then I will gladly eat my words and grovel for forgiveness.

Until then I am not happy about how much it costs to go through something that is essentially routine and commonplace.

For that matter, funerals seem to be getting more and more expensive too. For what reason?

And finally I would just like to specifically make the point that I don't believe that all companies do this. In fact, I would hope that in planning my wedding I have used my power as a consumer to specifically choose companies who are not milking me for all I'm worth. Still expensive tbh, but not as bad as it could be.

Forestry Commission

I heard on the radio about Government plans to sell off the whole of the National Forest. I was a little concerned myself and there were a lot of people quite angry at this, understandably. However, I thought I'd dig a little deeper into the story...

Public Bodies Bill, Sections 17-19
First I wanted to check which piece of legislation was claiming these powers and what the exact detail of those powers were. I was surprised to find out that the furore was caused by three sections in the Public Bodies Bill. I had expected there to be a separate bill for such a large change, but the sections amend existing legislation, so I guess that's why it's set up like it is.

The sections do give the Secretary of State the power to transfer the powers and competences of the Forestry Commission to other entities. It also allows the Secretary of State to impose conditions on the entity that becomes responsible for the forest.

Public versus Private Ownership
I don't automatically believe that public ownership is better than private ownership or vice versa. I believe that there's a case to made for each situation and, after debate and the reaching of a consensus, we should then proceed as agreed.

With respect to forestry I am in two minds.

On the one hand if the forests are owned by the public then we can set the rules and there's a level playing field across England.

On the other hand if the forests are owned privately then what will be in it for the owners? The assumption everyone is seemingly jumping to is that selling to private companies or individuals automatically means that the owner will want to make a profit out of the land (by a variety of means) or keep it selfishly for themselves.

But why does this have to be the case? The National Trust is a private entity. A local charity is a private entity. What is stopping, for instance, the people who use and are campaigning in support of the Wyre Forest coming together and buying the property themselves? They would then be the custodians of that property and would be in the position to ensure nothing changes!

Proper Protection for Public Use and Access
What you can't do though, in my opinion, is automatically expect any entity (public or private) to behave morally in perpetuity. There needs to be a set of 'ground rules' imposed on any purchasers of National Forest land.

These could include:

• maintaining the forest to an appropriate standard so that the levels of wildlife do not dwindle.
• allowing access to the public either for free or for a small sum to cover overheads
• allowing the public to horse ride, cycle etc.
• no profiteering etc.
• probably many other things that a regular user of the Forests would be able to list of the top of their heads but that I can't

The relevant sections in the Public Bodies Bill seem to give the Secretary of State the ability to apply such conditions but there is no obligation to do so and I think there should be.

So I can't really say that I'm sure where this change is going. Yes it gives the Secretary of State the power to sell off the entire National Forest but it doesn't necessarily follow that he/she will do so.

At present we appear to have been promised a consultation on what happens to the remaining National Forest after the currently planned sale of up to 15% of it goes ahead. That was supposed to be in January [see section 2.1 iii. b) and milestone B of the DEFRA business plan] but we're fast approaching the end of the month and still no word - perhaps they're running late?!

In Conclusion...
I look forward to that consultation.

I accept a sale of up to 15% of the land to raise some much needed revenue.

On balance, under the present arrangements and my current understanding of the situation, I'm closer to being in favour of retaining public ownership (at least for the time being).

Further Reading
The Bill continues it's discussion in Parliament. At time of writing the bill is in it's first committee stage in the House of Lords. It has yet to go through the House of Commons so there is still opportunity to pressure our MP's to make any changes we feel necessary.

There are many petitions up and running if you feel the need. Here is one such petition though I must say that I find the rhetoric on the website to be bordering on scaremongering.

Food, Glorious Food

Well I like to make posts reviewing (albeit an amateurish effort) the places I've been to eat/sleep/work/rest/play. Yet I don't recall ever mentioning eating at the below two places. They are both excellent and yet affordable and I would recommend them. Now, as promised, here are the details.


1) Sweet Chillies Cuisine, Moseley, Birmingham

They serve a contemporary menu of Indian and Bengali food as well as offering a few creative 'fusion' dishes. Their best chef team seems to be working on a Friday (because that's when the food is at its best), though the 'b-team' is still worth the visit.

I've been on several occasions now and each time I've had a wonderful meal and had a good time. It's very popular (on a Friday night particularly) so I'd book a table in advance if I were you.

Presentation is often overlooked in some places I've been but image is clearly an important part of this company. Real 'flowers' on the table. I say flowers but it's more creative than that. The dishes themselves are often decorated too which is a classy touch in my opinion.


2) Royal Oak, Alveley, Shropshire

Again, I've been here a few times and have never been disappointed. As a little village pub it is great. I'd imagine that you'd be welcome to come in for a beer and a chat any time but there is also a restaurant at the back.

The food is sumptuous! The flavouring is so delicate and finely tuned that you really don't care about the price - it's worth every single penny.

I went for a Christmas meal there last year and it was lovely. There's nothing rushed, there's no feeling of chaos or even that the place was as busy as it was. The food came out at a leisurely rate and in the mean-time the drink and conversation flows in the lovely ambience in the building. The windows overlook a little of the countryside but, alas, not that much.

You have got to have at least one meal here.

Oldham East & Saddleworth

I did my first bit of by-election campaigning last week. It was a positive experience. The people running the HQ really impressed me and I have no idea how they still have hair after trying to bring order to the ever changing situation!

Tim Farron (the new Lib Dem President) turned up while I was there too. He gave a nice little speech and went off to do some campaigning. Seemed a nice chap. I'm now in a video of that speech though I don't know who has that video or what it'll be used for.

It's a shame we didn't win, since we were so close last May but I'm glad we didn't get "slaughtered" like some people were predicting. I'm not going to attempt to analyse the result simply because you can twist statistics to mean anything and without individually asking each member of the constituency why they did/didn't vote and why they did/didn't change who they voted for then I don't see any conclusion as being sound.


Next time I go to a by-election I'm taking my car and a map!