Early Retirement
I'm not surprised by the news that Alistair Darling is to stand down as a Westminster MP at next May's general election and although we were on opposite sides in the independence referendum Alistair is one of the few Labour politicians I've any time for these day.
But what I wasn't clear about is whether 'standing down' means that he is taking early retirement and accessing his very generous MP's pension.
Because I've been banning on for years about the fact that so many people with public funded pension schemes don't really retire from the workforce in a proper sense, often they come back onto the payroll and take up jobs that others could do perfectly well.
But what I wasn't clear about is whether 'standing down' means that he is taking early retirement and accessing his very generous MP's pension.
Because I've been banning on for years about the fact that so many people with public funded pension schemes don't really retire from the workforce in a proper sense, often they come back onto the payroll and take up jobs that others could do perfectly well.
So I hope Alistair Darling enjoys his retirement and doesn't join the ranks of people who come back into the workforce through a revolving door, not least because no one's forcing him to stand down.
Edinburgh Trams (19 June 2014)
A friend of a friend told me an interesting story the other day - apparently her neighbour's husband (a just about to be retired firefighter) has landed a job as a driver on the Edinburgh trams which are now up and running.
Now this rather unremarkable piece of information is really quite significant because it highlights a widespread issue in the public sector which is people retiring early or accepting large pay offs - only to go on and take another job which is also supported by public funds.
Yet if I remember correctly, the firefighters' union often argues that their members deserve to retire early given the physical demands of their jobs and that they are effectively 'burnt out' by the time they get into their mid 50s.
Although not sufficiently burnt out to get a job driving an Edinburgh tram it would appear.
The same argument is also used by many teachers, of course, who point to the stress of the job rather than its physical demands in making a case that teachers too deserve more favourable treatment than other public service workers.
So it seems to me that public policy should be changed to ensure a degree of fairness across the board by requiring that someone who does retire early does not come back into the workforce - that they cannot have their cake and eat it at the same time by taking a job that someone else could do.
Which seems perfectly fair, if you ask me.
Waste of Public Money (12 May 2013)
I heard a news item on the radio the other day - which revolved around a report from the Taxpayers Alliance criticising the high salary levels - in local councils across the UK.
Interestingly, Glasgow City Council and South Lanarkshire Council came in for particular criticism - and some academic was wheeled out by Good Morning Scotland (GMS) to explain that it wasn't really all as bad as it sounded.
Because the big payments involved - in one case over £500,000 - often included early retirement payments and that the Taxpayers Alliance report did not reflect the fact that the paybill was reducing overall.
Now the paybill may be falling, but that ignores the key point - that all these senior managers are walking out the door with incredible retirement packages, often with another discretionary boost from public funds - only to resume their working careers in some other part of the public service or as a consutant cum contractor.
In other words, many of these individuals don't retire - they just go through a crazy revolving door which allows them to take up other publicly funded work - often in the same area of employment they've just left.
The fact that these arrangements apply only to people in senior psotions ought to be the give away - that it's a disgraceful way to waste public money.
Radical Idea (24 March 2013)
I had a radical idea the other day.
I was reflecting on the huge numbers of senior officials - from local Councils, the NHS, the BBC - who retire early on big tax free lump sums and very generous pensions.
Only to come back through a 'revolving door' as they enter the workforce again - in a different but often similar kind of job.
Now I've nothing folks who retire early - especially those who are supposedly 'burnt out' and who can't go on - because they've done their stint and have had enough of the world of work.
Though you would have to be daft not to notice that it's almost always the most senior and highly paid staff who benefit from these generous early release schemes - which then result in a big (taxpayer funded) boost to their pensions.
But my point is ithat f they've retired early, then why are such people they allowed to re-enter the workforce again - in any capacity?
To my mind this practice should be stopped - because it strikes me as those at the top having their cake and eating it at the same time.
So as a way of ensuring that public money is spent efficiently, wisely - and on the purpose for which it is intended - my idea is that once an employee leaves a publicly funded job then the the party's over - for good.
No more revolving doors or coming back in a slighlty different capacity - or dressed up in different clothes - as an independent contractor, for example.
If someone wants to leave and access their public pension, then fair enough - let them go.
But they should not be allowed to benefit from public sector money again - in any capacity because they've had a very good innings, at public expense - and no one is forcing them out the door.
Now far as I can see this would be very fair and maximise employment opportunities - by making sure that people could not effectively be retired early from one job - while being paid to do another.
Voluntary work wouldn't be excluded - of course.
But then I'm sure that most of the people I have in mind - would never contemplate doing unpaid voluntary work in the first place.
Played a Blinder (26 August 2014)
The first Alex Salmond v Alistair Darling independence debate was a mixed bag, but my immediate reaction after last night's 'Round Two' is that Scotland's First Minister won all the key arguments hands down.
Despite a better than expected performance last time round, Alistair Darling seemed terribly nervous and kept banging on about the currency union despite his question being answered over and over again.
Alistair was also uncharacteristically rude and for some reason refused to call the First Minister by his name, Alex, or his official title which was odd because he's normally such a pleasant man.
So Alex Salmond was able to land convincing blows on the currency union, keeping the pound, Scotland's share (or otherwise) of the UK's debt, the costs of replacing Trident, the future of the NHS and the way a modern democracy in Scotland should work.
The First Minister also offered a role to his opponent in Team Scotland if the Scottish people vote Yes on 18 September, thereby holding himself out as the 'bigger man' and a less tribal, partisan politician.
In the process he posed an awkward question for Alistair Darling and his colleagues: "Does the Scottish Labour Party hate the SNP more than it loves Scotland?"
Independence Debate (6 August 2014)
I watched the big independence debate last night between Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling which I enjoyed much more than I expected although as an undecided voter I didn't hear anything particularly new from the 'Yes' and 'Better Together' campaigns.
Overall I thought that Alex Salmond put across a more compelling case and was the more accomplished performer, but I've always had time for Alistair Darling who used to be my constituency MP in Edinburgh.
Because Darling has a quiet integrity, in my view, which showed when as Chancellor of the Exchequer he stood up to the bullying behaviour from Gordon Brown and his allies for telling the truth, as Darling saw things, over the scale and seriousness of the 2008 financial crash.
On the night Salmond was, for the most part, calm, reasonable and very measured while Darling tried to change his outwardly dull political persona by transforming himself into a cross between Mr Angry and the Incredible Hulk at times.
But both men were unconvincing at different times: Salmond over the credibility of his plans for a currency union, post-independence, based on the the current pound sterling; Darling over new powers for the Scottish Parliament and whether he agreed with the Prime Minister, David Cameron, that 'Scotland is perfectly capable of becoming a successful, independent country'.
As an experienced negotiator myself over many years, I can understand Alex Salmond's desire not to debate Plan B or C if a currency union doesn't come about, but surely the way to deal with that is to be straightforward and say that whatever happens Scotland would keep using the pound until a currency union is agreed or alternative arrangements are put in place. Either way this is a matter for future negotiation.
On the other hand I didn't understand Alistair Darling's reluctance to say that he agreed with David Cameron about Scotland's ability to stand on its own two feet - what 'in the name of the wee man' is difficult about that? It makes Alistair and the BT campaign sound shifty and unconvincing, unwilling to call a spade a spade.
