# UK Eyes Canadian's Reduction Plan



## captloadie (8 Jun 2010)

It looks like the UK may use Canada's slash and burn policy of the 90's to implement reductions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/08/george-osborne-canada-cuts-model

and

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/now-its-osbornes-turn-to-join-europes-axemen-1994089.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jun 2010)

One of the problems with the Chrétien/Martin model is that it is harder to “download” in the UK. Despite parliaments in Scotland and Ulster, the UK is, really, a unitary state and most of the really high cost services are provided by London.

*Ottawa* balanced its budgets, in the ‘90s, by reneging on its social programme and medicare co-payment agreements with Alberta, British Columbia and, above all, Ontario. The fact was that while there were some major cuts in federal programmes, especially in defence, few were actually ‘felt’ by most Canadians because the provinces kept providing services about which most Canadians really care – usually by cutting back on e.g. roads, education and transfers to cities which, in turn, cut back on e.g. sewer maintenance and garbage collection or raised property taxes.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Jun 2010)

I'm sure Cameron could rape and pillage the pension fund of his forces to balance the books just like Uncle Jean did.


----------



## Tank Troll (8 Jun 2010)

Stop buying the Army, Navy and Air Force new equipment, and parts. Freeze their pay, don't promote or post any one. Sell of the PMQ's to private companies to run. Close a whole bunch of Bases in your opponents riding's, and move them to your parties riding's. Don't let them accumulate leave, and last but not least, cut back on as many amenities as possible. That is how you save money the Canadian Liberal way


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Jun 2010)

Another way would be to privatize the NHS.


----------



## TimBit (8 Jun 2010)

> Another way would be to privatize the NHS.



Not even remotely in the books, from what I hear.


----------



## Pusser (8 Jun 2010)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I'm sure Cameron could rape and pillage the pension fund of his forces to balance the books just like Uncle Jean did.



Upon what do you base that statement?  I'm no defender of Jean Chretien or the Liberal Party, but your assertion is patently false.  The Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (our pension) is as stong as it's ever been.  Our pension is a defined benefit plan, defined by legislation.  This is as good as it gets.  The so-called "pension fund" is an accounting tool and nothing more.  The balance of the fund has no effect whatsoever on our benefits.  The Government could empty it tomorrow and it would not change what we receive in our pension cheques.  There was no raping or pillaging.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jun 2010)

I'm with Pusser. Defence spending, broadly, was cut back farther than almost any other _'envelope'_, save, perhaps symphony orchestras and ballet theatres, but our (I was serving then) pay and benefits were not badly handled. We, our colleagues - in the CF and in the civil service - were cut, but, as often as not with a nice _'package'_ and our pension rights were properly protected.

Re: the UK _NHS_. It isn't the big problem; it is already much more _private_ than is Canada's medicare system. But the whole _social safety net_ in the UK is poorly administered by a combination of the central and local governments. Big cuts can come by either wholesale centralizing, getting the county councils out of the social programme business, or by equally wholesale decentralizing, letting the local yokels do it all. In either case I have read (somewhere and recently) that something like 40% of current administrative, especially management, staff could be, should be and maybe even will be chopped. The powerful public service unions will scream bloody murder.


----------



## GAP (8 Jun 2010)

Our new immigration policy might be put to a real test, if, as is proposed, we focus on immigrants from "safe" countries.....Great Britian is definitely a safe country, but if they are going to blindside the social network structure there, I would give you 3 guesses ( and the first 4 don't count) where a bunch of "citizens" are going to be immigrating to....


----------



## Tank Troll (8 Jun 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm with Pusser. Defence spending, broadly, was cut back farther than almost any other _'envelope'_, save, perhaps symphony orchestras and ballet theatres, but our (I was serving then) pay and benefits were not badly handled.



I'm sorry but, WTF??? Our pay incentives stopped short in 94, what ever incentive you were at was it. Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen were standing in line at food banks. Service flights were cut in 96-97. PMQ prices rose to stupid levels in 98 if you lived in any of the big cities. Base hospitals were closed and you had to go to civi ones after hours.  If that is not being handled badly then I don't know what is.


----------



## Pusser (8 Jun 2010)

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but, WTF??? Our pay incentives stopped short in 94, what ever incentive you were at was it. Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen were standing in line at food banks. Service flights were cut in 96-97. PMQ prices rose to stupid levels in 98 if you lived in any of the big cities. Base hospitals were closed and you had to go to civi ones after hours.  If that is not being handled badly then I don't know what is.



Yes, our pay incentives were stopped short, but that was at the same time that Provincial Governments and the private sector were cutting pay.  Furthermore, the Provincial Governments were applying considerable pressure on the Federal Government to do the same.  All things considered, we didn't fare too badly.

Yes, there were servicemen and women standing in line at food banks.  However, further investigation indicated that there were more things at issue than just our basic pay.  Furthermore, the bigger problems were identified and rectified and we all enjoyed a considerable jump in pay at the end. 

Yes, service flights were cut out, because the CF's Boeing 707s wore out and the charter flights that replaced them were not being used as intended.  It's also worth noting that service flights were removed from the compensation and benefits package around 1970. 

Yes, PMQ rates rose - at the same rate or in order to bring them up to the same rate as all other rental rates in their respective communities.  The principle is that PMQs are not subsidized housing and their availability is not part of our pay and compensation package; therefore, members must pay market rates to live there.  This is a question of fairness.  Why should people living in PMQs get better rents than those who don't (or can't)?

Yes, base hospitals were closed because they were under-utilized and outdated.  Replacing them was not cost-effective.  Overall health care has not been effected.  We've just had to adapt to different ways of doing things.  We still get to go to the front of the line in public system, so it's not all bad.

Yes, we went through some hard times, but overall, we came out of it relatively unscathed and in a far better position than many civilians.  We don't have to heap praise on the Government, but we don't have to admonish it (on this account) either.   There are an awful lot of people who have worked and are working a lot harder than we do (getting shot at aside), but who enjoy a lesser standard of living.


----------



## Tank Troll (8 Jun 2010)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Yes, our pay incentives were stopped short, but that was at the same time that Provincial Governments and the private sector were cutting pay.  Furthermore, the Provincial Governments were applying considerable pressure on the Federal Government to do the same.  All things considered, we didn't fare too badly.



Not the Province I was in. A school Janitor made more money than I did. Plus he got over time for working the weekends. Got leave  in the summer, and rarely got shot at.  



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> Yes, there were servicemen and women standing in line at food banks.  However, further investigation indicated that there were more things at issue than just our basic pay.  Furthermore, the bigger problems were identified and rectified and we all enjoyed a considerable jump in pay at the end.



Such as......................what having to pay to high a rent in PMQ's. Wife not able to work because of high cost of child care.. cost of living higher than base salary.



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> Yes, service flights were cut out, because the CF's Boeing 707s wore out and the charter flights that replaced them were not being used as intended.  It's also worth noting that service flights were removed from the compensation and benefits package around 1970.



But we had access to them based on points and such. You could fly from Lahr to Heathrow for 5 DM in 92 or back to Canada.



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> Yes, PMQ rates rose - at the same rate or in order to bring them up to the same rate as all other rental rates in their respective communities.  The principle is that PMQs are not subsidized housing and their availability is not part of our pay and compensation package; therefore, members must pay market rates to live there.  This is a question of fairness.  Why should people living in PMQs get better rents than those who don't (or can't)?



Which was done by the civilian company that bought them and used that as an excuse to raise our rent. This was brought up at every town hall meeting that was held " I unlike civilians don't get to pick where I live I'm told. I'm payed the same no matter where I live. Why does some one that lives in Gagetown only pay 250.00 a month for the same PMQ that I live in and we are the same rank,and I have to pay 500.00." The cost of living is higher where I was posted, and so is the basic wage so civies that live there already can afford the housing. Hence the Housing subsidy that we now get. 



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> Yes, base hospitals were closed because they were under-utilized and outdated.  Replacing them was not cost-effective.  Overall health care has not been effected.  We've just had to adapt to different ways of doing things.  We still get to go to the front of the line in public system, so it's not all bad.



I had to wait 1 week in 91 for a knee scope from the Canadian forces hospital. I waited 6 months in 97 for the same thing from the Civi one and got bump back because Doug Weight of the Oilers need it more than me. The reason was he is a professional I'm not.



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> Yes, we went through some hard times, but overall, we came out of it relatively unscathed and in a far better position than many civilians.  We don't have to heap praise on the Government, but we don't have to admonish it (on this account) either.   There are an awful lot of people who have worked and are working a lot harder than we do (getting shot at aside), but who enjoy a lesser standard of living.



The Dark days of the 90 damn near kill our Armed forces and some skills have been lost for ever and others are taking to long to regain. I blame this on the Government cuts and higher ups being yes men to them. If you call this relatively unscathed I'm worried.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jun 2010)

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> ...
> The Dark days of the 90 damn near kill our Armed forces and some skills have been lost for ever and others are taking to long to regain. I blame this on the Government cuts and higher ups being yes men to them. If you call this relatively unscathed I'm worried.




I hate to say this, but the _dark days of 90s_ were a damned site brighter and sunnier than the even darker days of the '70s and '80s. The trials and tribulations of the 90s were hard, but they were *relatively* less damaging to individuals and, more importantly, to the organization that the mindless slashing and burning of the '70s and the _Chinese water torture_ or _death by a thousand cuts_ routines of the '80s both of which hurt people and cut meat, muscle and even bone out of the CF body.


----------



## Tank Troll (8 Jun 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I hate to say this, but the _dark days of 90s_ were a damned site brighter and sunnier than the even darker days of the '70s and '80s. The trials and tribulations of the 90s were hard, but they were *relatively* less damaging to individuals and, more importantly, to the organization that the mindless slashing and burning of the '70s and the _Chinese water torture_ or _death by a thousand cuts_ routines of the '80s both of which hurt people and cut meat, muscle and even bone out of the CF body.



The 70s were a result in the down sizing and unification (and that has been beat to death in another thread) but at least we still were operating with full regiments We got new Tanks and Armour vehicles to train with and there was still lots of money for exercises. In the 80's Moral was still good, courses,  promotion and posting were still on track, and we got our pay raises every year. Our army was trained well and we knew our jobs. Now we are getting soldiers with very few years in an not that much experience, rushed into postions of leadership. They don't have time to learn their job in the lower ranks. This is directly attributed to the down sizing of the 90s. Hardly any of the guys that got in stayed passed their second BE. They either got fed up with the BS or found a better job in civi land, and it created this big gap in the rank structure of the Army. They are so desperate now that they are offering Cpl IPS and keeping them in till 55


----------



## PPCLI Guy (9 Jun 2010)

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> Now we are getting soldiers with very few years in an not that much experience, rushed into postions of leadership. They don't have time to learn their job in the lower ranks. This is directly attributed to the down sizing of the 90s.



Unless, of course, you count sustained combat as "experience".  

The Army has changed.  War has a way of doing that.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Jun 2010)

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> Which was done by the civilian company that bought them and used that as an excuse to raise our rent. This was brought up at every town hall meeting that was held " I unlike civilians don't get to pick where I live I'm told. I'm payed the same no matter where I live. Why does some one that lives in Gagetown only pay 250.00 a month for the same PMQ that I live in and we are the same rank,and I have to pay 500.00." The cost of living is higher where I was posted, and so is the basic wage so civies that live there already can afford the housing. Hence the Housing subsidy that we now get.



CFHA did not buy the PMQ. CFHA does not own the PMQs.


----------



## Tank Troll (9 Jun 2010)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Unless, of course, you count sustained combat as "experience".
> 
> The Army has changed.  War has a way of doing that.



Oh I agree we are getting lots of combat experience, but it is all in a COIN environment, and it depends on what tour you are on as to how much you get.


----------



## Tank Troll (9 Jun 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> CFHA did not buy the PMQ. CFHA does not own the PMQs.



Well I tell you who owns the place doesn't really matter much when your a young soldier with a family and your rent keeps going up. Plus the fact that all your bosses tell you that CFHA owns them now not the army.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Jun 2010)

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> Plus the fact that all your bosses tell you that CFHA owns them now not the army.



Your bosses need an education then........



> The Canadian Forces Housing Agency (CFHA) was established as a provisional Special Operating Agency (SOA) of the Department of National Defence (DND) in October 1995. Treasury Board confirmed CFHA’s permanent SOA status in March 2004 with the mandate to operate and maintain the Department’s housing portfolio. This includes the allocation, maintenance, repairs and recapitalization of the housing units, the administration of the shelter charge system and the strategic management of the housing assets on behalf of the Department of National Defence.



I was a brand-new Cpl in Petawawa, living in the PMQs, when CFHA was created. I am no big fan of their management style either. So i did the only sensible thing  after i arrived in Edmonton........i scraped every cent i could and moved out of them.


----------



## Pusser (9 Jun 2010)

If you don't like PMQs or feel they are too expensive, no one is forcing you to live there.  We have a variety of very generous benefits to assist with home ownership and PLD has been reasonably successful in allowing people to live on the economy.  Personally, I feel we should get out of the PMQ business altogether.  Notwithstanding the "high" rents collected, they are still a money-loser for the Department.   A telling point a few years ago on one base I was at was that the complaints from the PMQ patch were not so much about size of PMQs or number of bedrooms, but about the lack of parking spaces  -- for the extra cars, ATVs, boats, RVs, etc.  It seems some folks had the priorities a little mixed up.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Jun 2010)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Oh Really???!!!  WTF about the $30B Martin took from our pension fund to balance the books eh?  If that ain't getting raped, I don't know what is.



How, precisely, did this alter the benefits you were entitled to receive?

How did this change the promises made on your enrolment?


Um, that's right, no change.  Your benefits as provided for under the CFSA were protected.  Not changed at all.

The government, which pays 2/3 of the cost of your pension plan, and is on the hook in the event of a shortfall, took the surplus in the fund.  Courts have supported them in that.

So how, again, does this affect you?  Not at all.


----------



## GAP (9 Jun 2010)

I assume this does not include reductions due to a payout of a private RRSP?


----------



## Tank Troll (9 Jun 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Your bosses need an education then........
> 
> I was a brand-new Cpl in Petawawa, living in the PMQs, when CFHA was created. I am no big fan of their management style either. So i did the only sensible thing  after i arrived in Edmonton........i scraped every cent i could and moved out of them.



My Bosses from that time are long gone from the army.



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> If you don't like PMQs or feel they are too expensive, no one is forcing you to live there.  We have a variety of very generous benefits to assist with home ownership and PLD has been reasonably successful in allowing people to live on the economy.  Personally, I feel we should get out of the PMQ business altogether.  Notwithstanding the "high" rents collected, they are still a money-loser for the Department.   A telling point a few years ago on one base I was at was that the complaints from the PMQ patch were not so much about size of PMQs or number of bedrooms, but about the lack of parking spaces  -- for the extra cars, ATVs, boats, RVs, etc.  It seems some folks had the priorities a little mixed up.



PLD came after I was was posted to Gagetown and on my 4th house I'm since retired and on my 5th house.

 I don't know how they are a money loser seeing as every one I lived in was built in the late 40s early 50s and since have been paid off long ago. The up keep for them comes out of the rent collected from them, and some are as high as 1100.00 a month for a two bed room. That should of set the ones that are at a normal rate. Plus the crazy price they got for the ones in Calgary when we left and Edmonton when the closed half of Griesbach


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Jun 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> How, precisely, did this alter the benefits you were entitled to receive?
> 
> How did this change the promises made on your enrolment?
> 
> ...



Right.  DP, Did I say anything about my pension benefits, any promises who funds what etc etc?  No.  I said they took $30B from our pension fund to help balance the books.  Period.  And sorry Pusser, I am not banging the drum about clawbacks either.  I was quickly attempting to find something to back up where I thought $30B had been taken out of out pension fund.  I am perfectly aware of the history of the pension and why or why not we get clawed back or not dependant upon which camp you back.  So either I am mistaken and the money did not exist and was taken or not.  If so, I will shut my trap.

DP, I felt that it was a raping.  Regardless of who paid what amount to this fund, the money was taken out.   Now if don't seem to feel that there has been anything wrong done in this, and that is your right.  I feel we were screwed.  And seeing as this is still before the courts I guess I am not alone feeling this way.  Court cases do not magically appear as in a Harry Potter film where magic just happens, someone took them to court for the money to be returned. 

Maybe the fund will last through the ages.  I am sure that Nortel pensioners felt that their fund was bullet proof at one time too.   But if as you point out, the Gov't is going to cover any shortfall, it makes me think that perhaps it is not so safe after all.  Like it or not, a large amount of money was taken out of the pool call it an Uncle Jean and Paul gobbley gook "surplus" or what ever tag you want to attach to it.   And by taking out money of the pool, it makes that pool just a little bit shallower.  

And that, will be my last rant on this.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Jun 2010)

I think the Brits are on crack.  Most people are attracted to the persistent myth about how Martin slew the deficit, without understanding that the dominant factors were a 10-year-old habit of operating surpluses, falling interest rates, and rapidly growing revenues.

Most European nations in trouble are probably not even running an operating surplus (once the cost of debt service is ignored), the cost of servicing debt can't really go any lower, and there are no prospects for surges in public revenues.  None of the three most important factors exists.


----------



## Pusser (10 Jun 2010)

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> My Bosses from that time are long gone from the army.
> 
> I don't know how they are a money loser seeing as every one I lived in was built in the late 40s early 50s and since have been paid off long ago. The up keep for them comes out of the rent collected from them, and some are as high as 1100.00 a month for a two bed room. That should of set the ones that are at a normal rate. Plus the crazy price they got for the ones in Calgary when we left and Edmonton when the closed half of Griesbach



Overall, maintenance costs exceed revenues.  The PMQs in the expensive areas do make money, but the rest of them tend to lose.  Remember also that empty PMQs cost money to maintain as well, but generate no revenue.


----------



## Pusser (10 Jun 2010)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Right.  DP, Did I say anything about my pension benefits, any promises who funds what etc etc?  No.  I said they took $30B from our pension fund to help balance the books.  Period.  And sorry Pusser, I am not banging the drum about clawbacks either.  I was quickly attempting to find something to back up where I thought $30B had been taken out of out pension fund.  I am perfectly aware of the history of the pension and why or why not we get clawed back or not dependant upon which camp you back.  So either I am mistaken and the money did not exist and was taken or not.  If so, I will shut my trap.
> 
> DP, I felt that it was a raping.  Regardless of who paid what amount to this fund, the money was taken out.   Now if don't seem to feel that there has been anything wrong done in this, and that is your right.  I feel we were screwed.  And seeing as this is still before the courts I guess I am not alone feeling this way.  Court cases do not magically appear as in a Harry Potter film where magic just happens, someone took them to court for the money to be returned.
> 
> ...



There is no denying that the Government removed $30B from the fund.  It was well documented.  My argument is that it doesn't matter, so why worry about it?  Whether the $30B is there or not does not change our benefits one iota.  Furthermore, the "fund" is more of an accounting tool, used to help the Government mitigate the impact of CF pensions on its current operating funds, than it is an actual depository and generator of pension funds.  There doesn't have to be any actual money it.  The comparison to Nortel is invalid.  That was a private fund created by a company that ran into financial difficulty and now can't pay its pensioners because their current revenues can't support it.  This is unlikely to happen to the CFSA and if it does, it means the country has completely collapsed and we will all have bigger problems (better lay in a few canned goods and spare ammunition).  As for the lawsuit, anyone can sue anybody.  These guys are a bunch of misguided fools who are wasting their time and our tax dollars by forcing the Government to defend itself.


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Jun 2010)

Ahoy Pusser, are you: Canadian Government Pays Organization To Troll Political Chat Forums????

 http://snardfarker.ning.com/profiles/blogs/canadian-government-pays?xg_source=activity


----------



## PPCLI Guy (11 Jun 2010)

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> Oh I agree we are getting lots of combat experience, *but it is all in a COIN environment*, and it depends on what tour you are on as to how much you get.



As opposed to?


----------



## Tank Troll (11 Jun 2010)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Ahoy Pusser, are you: Canadian Government Pays Organization To Troll Political Chat Forums????
> 
> http://snardfarker.ning.com/profiles/blogs/canadian-government-pays?xg_source=activity



Hmmmmmm


----------



## Pusser (12 Jun 2010)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Ahoy Pusser, are you: Canadian Government Pays Organization To Troll Political Chat Forums????
> 
> http://snardfarker.ning.com/profiles/blogs/canadian-government-pays?xg_source=activity



NO!!!  And neither am I the Government's champion.  However, I can't stand idly by while others present arguments based on misinformation and misunderstanding.  For arguments based on those things eventually become exposed and collapse, making the presenter look pretty foolish.  I happen to know a few things about the CFSA, so I thought I'd share.


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Jun 2010)

Thanks for the answer. My attempt at humor did not come through in print. You are on message though!


----------



## Pusser (13 Jun 2010)

Sorry, if I came off a bit too gruff in my last response.


----------

