View Full Version : Do you agree with the public sector strikes?
I would be interested to hear what people think about the recent public sector strikes and the proposed pension changes.
I would be interested to hear what people think about the recent public sector strikes and the proposed pension changes.
I agree, what this amounts to is a breach of contract.
I really wish these workers could understand how lucky they are. Final salary schemes have all but disappeared in the private sector. If you have a personal pension it is all but worthless now because of the crash in share values. Anyone retiring from the private sector now or probably in the next 5 years is unlikely to receive a liveable pension at all. So you may have worked all your life and done the responsible thing and contributed to your pension to see it flushed.
These striking workers are protected from this and should consider the ordinary people who they are inflicting pain on. The people who pay for the services they provide. Is that any way to treat your customers?
Abolutely they should strike. These are fundamental changes to their terms and conditions which are being imposed without agreement by an employer who is not consulting properly. They held a ballot and the members voted for a strike so they should strike. Employees should have the right to take industrial action wher an employer is behaving in such a manner and where the members vote for that action. As for whether they are lucky to have their final salary scheme, well ... Yes they are but the anger of people in the private sector should be directed towards the financial institutions and the actions of banks andvthe like which has so seriously damaged the value of their pensions. Slagging off public sector workers who often work hard in jobs where government cuts have meant they are overstretched and who often put their lives on the line for others is just daft. Its a bit like well I havent got one so I dont see why you should have one. Playground politics. Many public Sector workers are not paid well for the job they do. Granted some are but many are admin workers, care workers, porters, auxilliaries, teaching assistants, staff working on the front line of a jobcentre plus office in an inner city, and the like. They are not on massive wages and wont be getting massive pensions. Its nonsense.
I stand by my post and vote. Try striking in the private sector and see where you get! Bear in mind that the average private sector employer, employs 4 people.
I think I am right in saying that employees pay 6% of their salary into their pension, the low paid workers can expect £3000 per annum upon retirement plus around £5200 state pension so £8200 isn't a lot to live on in retirement is it!
And yes, it's a breach of contract and it should be against the law to change it. Imagine if you were buying a house which you had fell in love with and just before you sign for it the seller ups the price and says they are taking the garage with them, you wouldn't be a happy bunny would you?
C3..........:eek::eek:
Contributions vary between branches of the public sector but I currently pay 6.5%.
I think I am right in saying that employees pay 6% of their salary into their pension
6.5% and the strikes are because they have put the contributions up to 11% and reduced the pension you will actually receive.
The public sector jobs pay much less than the private sector jobs and the two benefits that make up for this are job security and a 'decent' pension. With this security gone many staff may decided on a career change and move to the private sector. This will no doubt mean many people applying for the same jobs and with so many to choose from how much do you want to bet the employers decide to reduce pay?
I for one am considering cashing my pension in (while it's still worth something) and changing career. And there's a national shortage in my field too...
I agree that they were right to strike, and would agree with future strikes.
I really wish these workers could understand how lucky they are. Final salary schemes have all but disappeared in the private sector. If you have a personal pension it is all but worthless now because of the crash in share values. Anyone retiring from the private sector now or probably in the next 5 years is unlikely to receive a liveable pension at all. So you may have worked all your life and done the responsible thing and contributed to your pension to see it flushed.
These striking workers are protected from this and should consider the ordinary people who they are inflicting pain on. The people who pay for the services they provide. Is that any way to treat your customers?
Not all Public Sector workers are on Final Salary Pension Schemes. My OH certainly wasn’t. If the reason for your indignation is the loss of your pension pot then surely your arguement should be with the grubbiement and the regulators who should put a stop to the reckless gambling prevelant in the Financial Industry.
All workers have a choice - work in the private sector and accept the terms, conditions and remuneration, including pension arrangements or work in the Public Sector and accept the terms, conditions and remuneration, including pension arrangements. Having made that decision it is only right that these workers expect employers to uphold their contract.
Not all Public Sector workers are earning high salaries. The majority are women in low paid jobs. Not all Public Sector workers will gain large pensions, the majority will be lucky to get £5K per year.
With respect you should remember there is every chance your children are being educated by Public Sector workers, the fire that engulfs your house is being tackled by Public Sector workers, the person who nurses your elderly relative is probably a Public Sector worker. And when your body gets lowered into the ground while your soul wings its way to the great Org in the sky, it’ll be a Public Sector worker who will throw the sod over your box.
ALL workers deserve a decent pension and so ALL workers should be working together to that end. It's time the workers in the Private Sector dropped the complacency that overcame them during the boom years when they were earning much more than the Public Sector and helped promote decent pensions for ALL workers.
maidenmania
01-Dec-11, 19:19
sack em all
orkneycadian
01-Dec-11, 19:29
Clarkson put it well!
Clarkson put it well!
But he was only joking.
tonkatojo
01-Dec-11, 19:47
I really wish these workers could understand how lucky they are. Final salary schemes have all but disappeared in the private sector. If you have a personal pension it is all but worthless now because of the crash in share values. Anyone retiring from the private sector now or probably in the next 5 years is unlikely to receive a liveable pension at all. So you may have worked all your life and done the responsible thing and contributed to your pension to see it flushed.
These striking workers are protected from this and should consider the ordinary people who they are inflicting pain on. The people who pay for the services they provide. Is that any way to treat your customers?
There is always the generous state pension to fall back on.And as for your post 5 we know who to thank for taking workers rights away, can't have it both ways.
Mystical Potato Head
01-Dec-11, 19:50
Clarkson put it well!
The bit about the srtikes being fantastic, or the shooty bang bang bit for the benefit of the politically correct,take offense at everything,humour bypass brigade.
I agree that they were right to strike, and would agree with future strikes.
They can strike all they want, every days wages saved helps our defecit.
They can strike all they want, every days wages saved helps our defecit.
Mr Cameron says it cost us £500 million.
Mr Cameron says it cost us £500 million.
I worked out that for NHS staff alone, if an average salary is taken of, say, £20k. A day's strike will save the government £17.5 million
John Little
01-Dec-11, 20:03
They can strike all they want, every days wages saved helps our defecit.
Oh well in that case - let's sack the lot - then we'll have no deficit at all.
Ah now we are starting to get to the root cause as I see it.
If we take the NHS pension as an example it currently takes £1-2 billion a year more in contributions than it pays out. As there is no pension pot as such this money is used for other things such as reducing the national deficit.
If the goverment are genuinely trying to make pensions affordable in the long term why are they not suggesting putting this surplus into a protected fund in order to build up a longterm safety net?
Ah now we are starting to get to the root cause as I see it.
If we take the NHS pension as an example it currently takes £1-2 billion a year more in contributions than it pays out. As there is no pension pot as such this money is used for other things such as reducing the national deficit.
If the goverment are genuinely trying to make pensions affordable in the long term why are they not suggesting putting this surplus into a protected fund in order to build up a longterm safety net?
Correct and spot on Dialyser!!
C3...............;)
Well if I dont turn out for work I would be bagged so I apply that principle to all.
No work no pay.
If they are not happy show them the exit, in todays world there are plenty folk desperate for a job and these work shy folk take to the streets to moan about the jobs they have.
Well if I dont turn out for work I would be bagged so I apply that principle to all.
No work no pay.
If they are not happy show them the exit, in todays world there are plenty folk desperate for a job and these work shy folk take to the streets to moan about the jobs they have.
Workshy???? How many posts have you made on here today? I hope it wasn't in Company time and using Company PC!!!!!
I know your type, you just roll over and let the Employers do what they want with you....no fight in your belly !!!
C3.................:eek:[disgust]
There is always the generous state pension to fall back on.And as for your post 5 we know who to thank for taking workers rights away, can't have it both ways.
What workers rights?. I've worked for 35 years and I've never had any workers rights. Perform or out the door. That was the only choice I ever had. Like I say, they should think themselves lucky and get on with it!:mad:
Workshy???? How many posts have you made on here today? I hope it wasn't in Company time and using Company PC!!!!!
I know your type, you just roll over and let the Employers do what they want with you....no fight in your belly !!!
C3.................:eek:[disgust]
It was indeed on company time, and on the company PC, whilst drinking the company tea, and listening to music on the company speakers.
My boss is an absolute dream to work for.
He is a top guy and I cannot do enough for him.
Good looking too
It was indeed on company time, and on the company PC, whilst drinking the company tea, and listening to music on the company speakers.
My boss is an absolute dream to work for.
He is a top guy and I cannot do enough for him.
Good looking too
Yes I know the boss well and it is true he is a good guy.
Yes I know the boss well and it is true he is a good guy.
Theres no such thing!!!
C3............;)
Mi16.... Self employed are you lol lol. I do not understand why people think that public sector workers are lazy or have an easy ride? This is a sector that has been cut and cut and cut. Nurses, hospital staff, tax office staff, jobcentre staff, care workers, social workers all are finding that jobs are not filled, replacements not made and so on. I dont understand why you guys think that staff in local offices are not measured by performance and castigated for failure to meet sometimes arbitrary targets which do not take into account local issues. Government Departments are amongst the most target driven organisations there are. The ability of staff to handle change is second to none. Nurses, teachers, front line staff in all local offices - they all work just as hard as many in the private sector and indeed harder than many. As for wages well there is this person i know well who when trying to organise a divorce went to see a solicitor, a man they had dealt with in their work as a civil servant, an HEO, local office manager managing two offices and covering a rather large geographical area, much travelling, nights away, etc. They had around 30 staff and were responsible for HR issues, managing a budget, meeting stretching prformance targets, chairing partnerships of local business people, private training providers and the like. The solicitor explained his charges and this person slightly gulped and tentatively asked about legal aid. The Solicitor laughed and said " i dont think so, you are the manager of .... Its not likely you will qualify for legal aid." The person swallowed and said that they qualified for family tax credits and the Solicitor mannie nearly fell off his chair and asked for their salary. His comment then was "I am so sorry i assumed you would be earning at least double that."Maybe you guys are making the same assumptions.
I can hardly see the keyboard for the tears.
John Little
01-Dec-11, 23:09
It's of little use Squidge. To Conservatives society does not exist - we are all just individuals and Benthamism is still alive. Public utilities and services are a waste of money and the almighty state should be cut back.
So the fabric of society will break down and things that even they take for granted will simply not be there- they will go the way of NHS dentistry. No NHS, no free education, no carers. But that's okay cos then you can buy what you need and not pay for anyone else.
Which will be all very well.
Until they need it.
But all those people worried about their pensions and their retirement age who protest against a government of questionable mandate trying to alter their terms and conditions - well they are just lazy scum ain't they?
The wealthy stay wealthy. Corporations get tax write offs and the sheep vote for their butchers, egged on by a snivelling and servile media.
Democracy has no convictions for which men are prepared to lay down their lives. I won't say who said that- but Machiavelli said that a people deserve the tyranny they get because they have not the courage to rise up against it.
Faugh!
I know many people who work in the private sector who have had their pensions slashed beyond recognition from what it once was.
I know others in the private sector who's company pais the very minimum required legally into a pension scheme.
I dont know if you chaps have noticed but the country is on its knees and severe austerity measures are required in an attempt to avoid being the next Greece.
I am afraid we will have to get used to cutbacks for the forseeable future.
John Little
01-Dec-11, 23:38
These won't!;
http://www.richest-people.co.uk/the-top-100/
I really wish these workers could understand how lucky they are. Final salary schemes have all but disappeared in the private sector. If you have a personal pension it is all but worthless now because of the crash in share values. Anyone retiring from the private sector now or probably in the next 5 years is unlikely to receive a liveable pension at all. So you may have worked all your life and done the responsible thing and contributed to your pension to see it flushed.
These striking workers are protected from this and should consider the ordinary people who they are inflicting pain on. The people who pay for the services they provide. Is that any way to treat your customers?
I second this!
John Little
01-Dec-11, 23:51
So workers in the private sector have been shafted.
So workers in the private sector think that workers in the public sector should be shafted too.
There's logic for you.
Have a read of this if you will;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/15/deficit-crisis-tax-the-rich
Then ask yourself where the money that would have been your pension has actually gone.
No one is asking for tears mi16 honest lol. Just trying to inject a bit of reality into the slagging off and name calling that was going on. There have to be cutbacks absolutely, most of us do live in the real world and feel the pinch every week when shopping or filling the car up. The lack of pennies in our purse reminds us that we are facing cutbacks and i can accept that people disagree with the fight against pension cuts. However, the cuts are unfairly targeting the weak, vulnerabe, poor and those on low wages. Id like a bit of balance. I know private pensions have been cut or failed but is that the fault of public servants? No. Who is to blame? Not those on strike this week ill bet. Target anger, resentment and disappointment at those politicians, policy makers and wheeler dealers who are truly to blame.
Why not a pay freeze for existing pensioners who are receiving a public pension, or that too simple and easy?
Afterall, when we first took out a pension the storyline from our financial advisers was to provide for our own retirement and yet the talk is now of people who are paying in to a pension have to prop up the fund for existing pensioners. Seems to me existing pensioners also need to share the brunt as well.
orkneycadian
02-Dec-11, 00:27
Are there really folk out there naive enough to believe that the value of investments won't go down as well as up?
Are there really folk out there naive enough to believe that the value of investments won't go down as well as up?
In a word....YES
So workers in the private sector have been shafted.
So workers in the private sector think that workers in the public sector should be shafted too.
There's logic for you.
Absolutely the same logic you apply in your vitriolic abhorrence of the rich...innit?:lol:
These won't!;
http://www.richest-people.co.uk/the-top-100/
What does this have to do with the thread?
Do you suggest stealing their riches to pay off the deficit.
These folk are so obscenely rich that they could live anywhere they want, yet it seems that they choose to stay in the UK and pay their way.
I would rather they were here doing their bit than in Monaco contributing nothing.
Actually, looking at the results of the poll so far, and it is a very small sample, it appears to support an idea of one of the problems at the moment, that is the workforce is heavily scewed towards the public sector.
Either that or theyre all public sector employees. :lol:
Unfortunately even Vernon Kay couldnt use this poll as he needs 100 opinions.
John Little
02-Dec-11, 10:06
Absolutely the same logic you apply in your vitriolic abhorrence of the rich...innit?:lol:
There is a vast difference between Rich and Greed. In a Capitalist society Rich is fine but Greed creates imbalance. If Greed concentrates too much of the available wealth into too few hands then society will become troubled. This takes many forms; strikes are one of the milder kinds.
Actually, looking at the results of the poll so far, and it is a very small sample, it appears to support an idea of one of the problems at the moment, that is the workforce is heavily scewed towards the public sector.
I am sure Duke that if you put the same poll up for a private company pension problem you would get the same result. Its the fact that to alter someones working conditions without consultation is just wrong, whether it be public or private.
C3...........:roll:;)
John Little
02-Dec-11, 10:15
What does this have to do with the thread?
Do you suggest stealing their riches to pay off the deficit.
These folk are so obscenely rich that they could live anywhere they want, yet it seems that they choose to stay in the UK and pay their way.
I would rather they were here doing their bit than in Monaco contributing nothing.
What does this have to do with the thread?
Really?
Everything.
Once upon a time workers in the private sector had decent pensions. Why not now?
Could it be that the capital which once provided those pensions has been channeled elsewhere by a legislative and regulatory system which has allowed it?
'Stealing'? You choose your word loaded better than a potato skin. Let's try an analogy and base it in the past.
In the middle of the Pacific a great ship is sunk and the survivors take to the lifeboats. The food and water are in short supply.
In the boat are some people who, by accident of birth, by election, or by wealth are of greater social standing to most of the rest.
A rationing system is started whereby these people get more food and water.
It does not matter that everyone on the boat is in trouble - the system allows the 'rich' to take a greater share, so they do so and as a right.
Far from questioning it some of the ordinary folk start defending their right to do this.
And instead of questioning the right of the 'rich' to do this, instead they turn their fire on their fellows who do protest.
How Uncle Tom is that?
Have a butchers at this
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/osbornes-impact-laid-bare-the-rich-get-richer-and-the-poor-get-poorer-6270235.html
weezer 316
02-Dec-11, 10:45
Im amazed people 30 years older than me are so stupid.
You expect to receive the same pension, despite the cost of everything rising, and people living longer and crucially retire at the same age, so therefore your pension will pay out more than orignally planned. Yet.......
Yet you expect the 70% of the workforce who pay your wages and contribute towards your salary to foot the bill in the face of the factors above! Can you square that with me please? Im looking at the likes of squidge here.
Things change. We must change with them or it will fall down about our ears ant no one will get anything.
Oh and while your at it, consider only 12% of the private sector get employer contributions. As Duke saye, you have not got a clue how lucky you are. Ill be lucky if I see a state pension because you fliiping lot have spent all the money and mortgaged our future to the hilt.
Spoken like a true Tory Weezer !!
I am amazed that people who are 30 years younger than me who think they know it all can be so stupid and gullible and be taken in by Cameron and Co!!!
I haven't seen anywhere yet about MP's pensions being cut, have you?
C3...............:roll:;)
Nick Noble
02-Dec-11, 11:02
None of the options really suit where I am at in relation to the strike, but this is largely due to the difficulty of finding good easily understood information regarding the truth of the proposed changes.
This from the bbc is quite good I think:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15475716
Looking at that my quick conclusion is that there is a very good offer on the table as part of the ongoing negotiations. True to get the best pension people will need to work for longer, but that is true for many people.
We are living longer and therefore pensions are costing more.
The original old age pension was set to pay out for about 18 months between retirement and death. Now in many cases it is paying out for 20 to 30 years.
I fully support anyone's right to strike, and if the union members have been fully and properly informed by the unions and have come to the conclusion that strike action was their only choice then so be it.
I am however very suspicious that these strikes were politically motivated and that the full story is not being presented to the union membership.
So I guess that if there had been a fourth option of:
I disagree with the fight against pension reform and but support the right of workers to strike.
Then that is what I would have voted for.
John Little
02-Dec-11, 11:05
Morning Uncle Weezie...
Of course you won't get a state pension.
Your rich mates will have channeled all the available cash that would have given you your pension into tax breaks and write-offs for their buddies.
So you can tug your forelock, bow and scrape at the system that made it so, and accept the potato peelings handed out at the rich man's door. But that will be fine because we have a system that is fair, and equal, open to all- and by hard work, good economy and thrift we can all succeed.
My Eye!
Morning Uncle Weezie...
Of course you won't get a state pension.
Your rich mates will have channeled all the available cash that would have given you your pension into tax breaks and write-offs for their buddies.
So you can tug your forelock, bow and scrape at the system that made it so, and accept the potato peelings handed out at the rich man's door. But that will be fine because we have a system that is fair, and equal, open to all- and by hard work, good economy and thrift we can all succeed.
My Eye!
Aye John, and dont forget.............."We are all in this together"............(my backside)!!!!!!!
C3...............:roll:;)
John Little
02-Dec-11, 11:10
Nick - let's nail this living longer thing.
I have just retired and am 59. In the morning my joints ache. I need an operation on my arm. In the middle of the afternoon I get sleepy.
What I will be at 68 I do not know. But if I were in my profession now and aged 50 then I would have to work to 68 to get my full pension.
But I would not - I would get out because it was time to do so - my body and mind told me that it was time to go and let younger more innovative and dynamic people have their go.
And I am relatively healthy; I do not have blood pressure problems, arthritis, heart trouble, Alzheimers etc.
So I would have quit anyway.
The authorities know this. The new pension arrangements mean that hardly anyone will go to full time and get a full pension. It is therefore a cost cutting exercise pure and simple.
The government has chosen to hit peoples' pensions rather than those who really hold the wealth in this country.
It's not an economic decision - it's a political one.
Nick Noble
02-Dec-11, 11:14
Nick - let's nail this living longer thing.
I have just retired and am 59. In the morning my joints ache. I need an operation on my arm. In the middle of the afternoon I get sleepy.
What I will be at 68 I do not know. But if I were in my profession now and aged 50 then I would have to work to 68 to get my full pension.
But I would not - I would get out because it was time to do so - my body and mind told me that it was time to go and let younger more innovative and dynamic people have their go.
And I am relatively healthy; I do not have blood pressure problems, arthritis, heart trouble, Alzheimers etc.
So I would have quit anyway.
The authorities know this. The new pension arrangements mean that hardly anyone will go to full time and get a full pension. It is therefore a cost cutting exercise pure and simple.
The government has chosen to hit peoples' pensions rather than those who really hold the wealth in this country.
It's not an economic decision - it's a political one.
Despite any of that people are living longer.
John Little
02-Dec-11, 11:15
Despite any of that people are living longer.
Just because people are living longer does not mean that they should be working. I really do not wish to see a spate of elderly primary school teachers collapsing in front of their classes and being carried out in their coffins.
Despite any of that people are living longer.
And many are not making it to 65 Nick.
You will find out in time that when you get to 60 your body and mind will deteriorate rapidly!!!
C3...............;)
Nick Noble
02-Dec-11, 11:29
Just because people are living longer does not mean that they should be working. I really do not wish to see a spate of elderly primary school teachers collapsing in front of their classes and being carried out in their coffins.
But because people are living longer it does mean that the means of financing retirement needs to be looked at again.
World bank figures show that the average life expectancy in the UK in 1960 was 71.1, and in 2009 was 80.1.
It does not take a genius to work out that the cost implications of this are enormous and action needs to be taken.
Nick Noble
02-Dec-11, 11:31
And many are not making it to 65 Nick.
You will find out in time that when you get to 60 your body and mind will deteriorate rapidly!!!
C3...............;)
and some are getting to be over a hundred.
That is why statisticians use averages :)
weezer 316
02-Dec-11, 11:32
Spoke like a true pragmatist Corrie, because thats what I am.
John.
Watched Nick Robinsons thing on how our money is spent. 60%, thats the bottom 60% get more out of the state than they pay in. The lowest 20% are getting 3-6x more. The wealthiest 10% get 1/5th of what they pay for.
Now, and here we are again, its not tax breaks for rich that I wont have a pension, its the fact the majority of the populace want more more more but are unprepared to pay for it. The reality is if you kept all your cash and paid no tax at all and had to save for old age yourself by sticking it under the matress you you would have no where near enough to stop wrking at 65, infact not even close. So I dont think perpetuating the myth about the rich screwing us all (they dont and thats a fact) is helpful at all when it comes to sorting out the issues that are at the heart of the problem, namely people dont pay enough tax full stop for the welfare state they want.
Furthermore corrie, it isnt a race to the bottom. The private sector workers criticise the public ones over this because they public ones constantly refer to the rich and the cabinets pensions. If it is a race to the bottom stop paying a pension, resign and go on the dole. Then you will see just how bloody lucky you are in the first place.
To summarise, we need t pay more tax, especially us at the bottom of we want a welfare state to provide for us. The rich arent the cause of the problem, its us that want more and mroe but reuse to pay for it, hence £1tn in public debt and a £150bn deficit.
its the fact the majority of the populace want more more more but are unprepared to pay for it. its us that want more and mroe but reuse to pay for it, hence £1tn in public debt and a £150bn deficit.
The strikers aren't asking for more and more Weezer, they just want what was on the contract of employment when they took the job.
btw, have you read anything about MP's pensions being altered?
C3............:roll:;)
John Little
02-Dec-11, 11:50
Weezer - I don't buy it.
You seem to regard the distribution of wealth within the economy as irrelevant; but when 9% of the wealth of a nation is in the hands of 50% of the people then it becomes very relevant.
You say that 60% get more out of the state than they pay in - and that may well be correct. But where do they start from? If they work in a sweat shop industry with a low wage then of course they pay little in. But they still must eat, pay rent, buy petrol to get to work.
The difference between us is that you are an individualist and I m a collectivist. I believe that it is in the nature of a civilised and human society to be able to improve standards for all. You are a classic self-help Conservative in the Samuel Smiles mould. Both perfectly respectable viewpoints.
I might take your position with more balance if I did not see the abuse in front of my eyes and it is outrageous, and it is not just the balance of wealth in the economy.
The £8bn tax write-off to Vodafone is one thing- you may argue commercial imperatives as a reason for that.
But for the state to rescue a bank with taxpayers' money, build it up until it has an open market value of £1460 million, then sell it off for £760 million to a multi billionaire who donates to the Conservative party!
Taking the Michael or what!
If the Conservative party wishes to gain or retain the support of the people of this country then they need to take a leaf out of Disraeli's book and give something back. This lot are just taking taking taking and I cannot believe that so many intelligent people accept this nonsense.
Where do we all start from.
Everyone has to work in order to gain wealth, it is just some work harder, are more driven, more fortunate, brighter or talented than others and are able to earn substantially more than the norm.
I dont see why people should be penalised for their ingenuity.
weezer 316
02-Dec-11, 12:29
John,
You know fine well my position on the bailout! It creates a class of company that cannot fail and that's very dangerous, but even me as a arch critic of it appreciated the govt was in an impossible position, either blow its head off by now bailing them out (and dragging how many businesses with them as the banks fell??) or slit its political throat and spend the cash. They chose the lesser of the two evils.
I wouldnt go as far to say Im an individualist (I am quite prepared and often state how I would pay more tax) but I simply cannot tolerate the attitude that rich people are the problem and the solution at the same time. They pay enough, too much actually, and not evenyone can be rich and comfortably well off, at least not in this civilization. Once we invent something akin the replicator in star trek then we can start to make everyone as wealthy as the next man because we wont need money.
And as an addendum to that I would add that I would say we are all tories then if your point stands. No one seems prepared to pay more tax, and the argument form 10k a year cleaners to 1m a year directors is the same, they pay enough adn cant pay any more. So from that I conclude the "society loving" uber liberals are every bit as selfish as this tory voting imperilaist who wants to pay mroe tax!
weezer 316
02-Dec-11, 12:34
The strikers aren't asking for more and more Weezer, they just want what was on the contract of employment when they took the job.
btw, have you read anything about MP's pensions being altered?
C3............:roll:;)
Yes corrie, but they expect the taxpayer to pay more and more as they live longer and longer! Is that fair?
No I havent heard about their pensions being altered...but I did find this in paragraph 2 of the pdf outlining their pensions:
"In January 2008 the SSRB published the Review of Parliamentary Pay, Pensions and Allowances 2007. This recommended that any increase or decrease in pension cost pressures should be shared between the contributors and the Exchequer."
Thast what I expect alll public sector works to adhere to and they are striking to stop happening to them!
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snbt-01844.pdf - here is the link FYI
John Little
02-Dec-11, 12:36
Then there are things on which we must differ.
On the tax- if you get the Guardian today you will see that a quarter of all homes are in fuel poverty; they can no longer afford to heat their homes properly. The privately owned energy companies argue that it is the world price of oil, gas etc that causes this.
Yet their profits for their shareholders are sky high. And so is the tax on it.
Is this not actually a system of taxation, channeling the money not into the taxpayers' coffers, but into the hands of shareholders?
Is that fairly earned by virtual monopoly.
I note that even Tory MPs are muttering about the government tackling the energy companies.
Less money in the system, more where it has not any business to be through rigged systems, and less for the likes of you and me.
You support this?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/andy-atkins/british-gas-edf-quaterly-profits_b_1084971.html
They pay enough, too much actually, and not evenyone can be rich and comfortably well off, at least not in this civilization. Once we invent something akin the replicator in star trek then we can start to make everyone as wealthy as the next man because we wont need money.
In my world your wrong. In my world there are finite resources. Nature has designed us in such a fashion that there is a pecking order when it comes to the distribution of such resources. Those with the ability to use those resources to build massive wealth also have to use more resources than you or me. I believe the more you take out the more you should put in. I think its fair and I know our system already uses that philosophy within its social and political structures but when we get people who say the rich already pay too much my philosophy asks how much do you bliddy need?
weezer 316
02-Dec-11, 13:03
They are raking in billions John but as shown earlier this year, they average £125 profit per person, lost money on the average customer for year just a few years ago. No one said a peep then did they! £125 average is a pittance, that says if the fuel you use, the cost of transporting of potentially 10000 miles and infrastructure used to get it to you, as well as provide things like telephone support, costs £1000 per head, they will charge you £1125. Thats a fair deal in my view as I have no way to find, mine, refine and transport gas myself! Do you?
I accept Energy companies tarrifs are mightily confusing and this leads to people often being on bad deals, but if you think energy companies rip you off then I am intrigued to hear your alternative?
Bare in mind its going to get worse as China and india get richer. They will use more and more and that puts pressure on the supply. What then? Bomb india back to the 19th century so they stop using gas and push our prices up?
John Little
02-Dec-11, 13:25
They are raking in billions John but as shown earlier this year, they average £125 profit per person, lost money on the average customer for year just a few years ago. No one said a peep then did they! £125 average is a pittance, that says if the fuel you use, the cost of transporting of potentially 10000 miles and infrastructure used to get it to you, as well as provide things like telephone support, costs £1000 per head, they will charge you £1125. Thats a fair deal in my view as I have no way to find, mine, refine and transport gas myself! Do you?
I accept Energy companies tarrifs are mightily confusing and this leads to people often being on bad deals, but if you think energy companies rip you off then I am intrigued to hear your alternative?
Bare in mind its going to get worse as China and india get richer. They will use more and more and that puts pressure on the supply. What then? Bomb india back to the 19th century so they stop using gas and push our prices up?
My alternative?
Simple - I would buy out the energy companies using tax-payers money (a far better use for it than buying banks to sell off at cut price to billionaires) I would then set up a state regulated Co-operative with the prices controlled by an independent regulatory body. It would make a reasonable and justifiable profit, some of which to set aside for investment and development; the rest used to fund profit sharing among the members of the Co-operative (its workers) and decent pensions.
Profit, incentive, bonus, work-ethic all there.
I do not believe that on present showing energy is a fit resource to be owned privately- it costs lives - 27,000 last winter alone.
Neither does it have to be owned by a state owned monolith.
To me co-operativism must be the future - or Capitalism will fail.
weezer 316
02-Dec-11, 13:44
In my world your wrong. In my world there are finite resources. Nature has designed us in such a fashion that there is a pecking order when it comes to the distribution of such resources. Those with the ability to use those resources to build massive wealth also have to use more resources than you or me. I believe the more you take out the more you should put in. I think its fair and I know our system already uses that philosophy within its social and political structures but when we get people who say the rich already pay too much my philosophy asks how much do you bliddy need?
Well there in a nutshell is both the problem and the hole in your argument. How much do you need?
Firstly, why bother trying to gather and exploit resources at your own expense then if the fruits of that labour are confined by what these minus what you have? You are all then poorer as you will be minus said resource as it isnt being exploited
Secondly, why are you sitting there in a heated house, under a roof with electricity and all mod cons? You dont NEED it, there are tribes in Africa that live minus it. Go live with them. Your life is even more extreme compared to them as yours is compared to even a oligarch.
I would say that the situation with a replicator would eliminate poverty. Infact it would eliminate money as the ability to turn energy into mass of our choosing (car, cheeseburger, latest cancer drug) would change the nature of supply and demand itself.
weezer 316
02-Dec-11, 13:49
My alternative?
Simple - I would buy out the energy companies using tax-payers money (a far better use for it than buying banks to sell off at cut price to billionaires) I would then set up a state regulated Co-operative with the prices controlled by an independent regulatory body. It would make a reasonable and justifiable profit, some of which to set aside for investment and development; the rest used to fund profit sharing among the members of the Co-operative (its workers) and decent pensions.
Profit, incentive, bonus, work-ethic all there.
I do not believe that on present showing energy is a fit resource to be owned privately- it costs lives - 27,000 last winter alone.
Neither does it have to be owned by a state owned monolith.
To me co-operativism must be the future - or Capitalism will fail.
John,
At least you answer, some dont!
Fine, buy out the energy companies. Its a freezing winter, we need to import gas from Russia, we are out by 20% and prices have risen as its cold elsewhere in Europe and they need Russian gas. What now? Do we raise the prices you pay to cover the rise, move money from another govt dept, or ration the gas and keep the prices steady?
And I seriously doubt Northern rock was bought out with the expressed reason to sell it to Branson even if that is what happened, so please dont try and dress it up as though it was.
John Little
02-Dec-11, 13:55
John,
At least you answer, some dont!
Fine, buy out the energy companies. Its a freezing winter, we need to import gas from Russia, we are out by 20% and prices have risen as its cold elsewhere in Europe and they need Russian gas. What now? Do we raise the prices you pay to cover the rise, move money from another govt dept, or ration the gas and keep the prices steady?
And I seriously doubt Northern rock was bought out with the expressed reason to sell it to Branson even if that is what happened, so please dont try and dress it up as though it was.
My point about the Co-operatives is that they would still have to buy the gas from Russia. But on top of that they would not have to place a profit sufficient to attract super-rich investors. They would make a price-indexed and reasonable profit, which would keep the end cost down for the consumer.
You do realise that energy costs have gone up 88% in the last years? And it's not all gone to the suppliers by any means.
I have never contended that NR was bought up specifically to sell off to Branson. For one thing it was Labour who bought it up.
But the fact remains that, like so many privatisations in the 80s, NR has been sold off half price.
In these times I find that either venal or incompetent. There is no excuse for either.
weezer 316
02-Dec-11, 14:08
Firstly, Please dont use fancy words like venal as I have no idea what that means!!
Secondly, I only asked what you would do in the even of the price increases. You know where the argument is going which is why you declined to answer, and thats right back round in a circle to the point you end up paying twice for the same gas and end up saying your own co-operative is shafting you!
Would you have kept the rock in public hands? I must say I am undecided
John Little
02-Dec-11, 14:18
Firstly, Please dont use fancy words like venal as I have no idea what that means!!
Secondly, I only asked what you would do in the even of the price increases. You know where the argument is going which is why you declined to answer, and thats right back round in a circle to the point you end up paying twice for the same gas and end up saying your own co-operative is shafting you!
Would you have kept the rock in public hands? I must say I am undecided
In a hut at the Miller academy my teacher required her class to write down a new word every day and bring it in, with its meaning for her to inspect. Because of this my mother bought me a dictionary somewhere down Traill Street. The only word I can remember giving Ms Munro is 'hanky-panky' which amused her for some reason...
I still have the dictionary.
Venal means crooked.
I did answer your question.
"They would make a price-indexed and reasonable profit, which would keep the end cost down for the consumer."
The price rise would have to be passed on to the consumer of course - but you would not need to have a large margin on top of that to pay large dividends to your private shareholders.
Oh yes - I would have kept the Rock in public ownership and used to to help small businesses- it is making quite a profit now you know.
If I had sold it off then it would have been for at least its market value.
weezer 316
02-Dec-11, 14:30
Ok,
Well I must say I am not at all a fan of cutting yourself off from private investment. You often find large shareholders have a vested interest in their company running efficently and making money as their investment is tied up within it. I fully accept many are just as willing to strip a company of all of its assets for a payday, but thats true of just about anyone in many endevours.
John Little
02-Dec-11, 14:50
To come back to the original post then, the reason why I support the strikers is because I think what is happening is the symptom of a breakdown in the form of Capitalism we have at the moment. A tide has turned in History; we need to find new and better ways of funding things such as pensions, services etc if we are to remain at the level of civilisation that we are at.
Simply standing as an individual, self-reliant, thrifty etc casts us back to the 19th century - and as we know now there are many people in poverty, not because of a lack of thrift on their part, but simply because that's the way the system made them.
So it's not just a question of funding pensions - it's how we organise Capital into a more efficient and more beneficial form.
State Socialism/ Guild Socialism does not work - it makes for vast inefficient monoliths.
The current model of Capitalism blatantly is not doing the business either; it has failed as surely as the nationalised industries.
So if we are to fund decent pensions for all, services and a decent standard of living for the majority of people, how are we to do it?
More of the same?
If that is the case then I'm very much afraid that those strikes you saw this week are but the beginning of what may turn very very nasty.
The government needs to do a lot lot better.
Im amazed people 30 years older than me are so stupid.. Gosh are you only 17 weezer????
You expect to receive the same pension, despite the cost of everything rising, and people living longer and crucially retire at the same age, so therefore your pension will pay out more than orignally planned. Yet.......
Yet you expect the 70% of the workforce who pay your wages and contribute towards your salary to foot the bill in the face of the factors above! Can you square that with me please? Im looking at the likes of squidge here..
Oh and while your at it, consider only 12% of the private sector get employer contributions. As Duke saye, you have not got a clue how lucky you are. Ill be lucky if I see a state pension because you fliiping lot have spent all the money and mortgaged our future to the hilt.
First of what salary do you and the 70% of the workforce think you are contributing to Weezer? What assumptions are you making about me? What pension are you and the other 70% contributing to? Lets see any pension I get from 16 years as a public service employee - well in my past now - is likely to be about £2000 a year if im lucky and I have paid more than that in tax thank you very much. In fact I probably have funded my own blasted pension several times over! And having said that there is money that you think you are entitled to and "we" have squandered - what do you think "we" have done with it?
You seriously think that nurses, teachers, firefighters, social workers, care workers, dinner ladies, bin men and their like are to blame for the fact that your pension pot is smaller than it should be? What????? Still, you can always rely on the righteous indignation of youth to place the blame at the most convenient door. What else would you expect from a 17 year old ;)
Where do we all start from.
Everyone has to work in order to gain wealth, it is just some work harder, are more driven, more fortunate, brighter or talented than others and are able to earn substantially more than the norm.
I dont see why people should be penalised for their ingenuity.
There is no problem with people earning more or being rich or owning lots of things. The problem is with a government full of polititicians that implement cuts which disproportionately affect the weak, vulnerable, low paid, sick, disabled and disaffected. THATS what annoys me. THATS what sticks in my throat and makes me so cross. I would like a lot of money please, either a job that pays me loads or a lottery win, but I would expect to pay my dues and more besides if i could. I wouldnt expect to be handed a whole load of tax loopholes that allow me to avoid my responsibilities - its that sort of thing that annoys me.
What are these loop holes you speak of?
What are these loop holes you speak of?
Lol.........claiming tax relief on Company teabags, Company speakers and Company PC's for a start!!!! ....lol
C3..............[lol][lol][lol]
John Little
02-Dec-11, 15:37
What are these loop holes you speak of?
This sort;
http://www.social-europe.eu/2011/07/how-murdochs-news-corp-pays-no-taxes-and-gets-money-from-the-us-government/
http://brightgreenscotland.org/index.php/2011/07/now-is-the-time-for-a-campaign-to-stop-murdochs-tax-dodging/
http://www.channel4.com/news/topshop-protest-over-sir-philip-greens-taxes
J (http://www.social-europe.eu/2011/07/how-murdochs-news-corp-pays-no-taxes-and-gets-money-from-the-us-government/)ust a few- want more?
John Little
02-Dec-11, 15:45
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/8348764/Lloyds-will-not-pay-corporation-tax-until-profits-hit-15bn.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/14/vodafone-tax-evasion-revenue-customs
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/14/vodafone-tax-evasion-revenue-customs)
http://beyondgrowth.co.uk/problems/inequality/
http://www.waronwant.org/campaigns/tax-not-cuts/tax-dodging (http://www.waronwant.org/campaigns/tax-not-cuts/tax-dodging)
The last one is very interesting - enough money dodged in tax by companies every year to double NHS funding.
Or even to pay you a decent pension...
Tax havens, pension top ups and allocating money to a spouse who is abroad. I think. As for how to improve the pension situation then this guy has some interesting ideas.
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/richard-murphy/ He talks about a "peoples pension". I am not an economist but what he says seems to make sense. (Other than the nonsense about Jeremy Clarkson:roll:)
annemarie482
02-Dec-11, 16:03
now i havent read this whole thread.....
and i dont pretend to know anything about anything...... (because i dont!)
but seen this facebook status and it pretty much summed it up for me
"Did everyone in the public sector get their Christmas shopping done the other day or are we having another strike in a few weeks?"
Some coments such as, strikers should think of the 'ordinary people' and 'tax payers' who pay them make me wonder..... Do public sector workers not pay tax and are they not ordinary people too, do we not depend on them?
Remember when Teachers, Policemen, Police staff, Ambulance staff, Nurses, Midwives, Doctors, Paramedics and Firemen crashed the stock market, wiped out Banks, took billions in bonuses and paid no tax? No, me neither.
They have had a pay freeze for 2 years and that is set to be continued for at least another 2 and a pension review to address the fact that we live longer was carried out and adjustments made to many public sector pensions a couple of years ago.
A forced change on an employment contract is something that any worker, private or public sector would surely oppose especially if it will leave them financially worse off both now and in the future.
now i havent read this whole thread.....
and i dont pretend to know anything about anything...... (because i dont!)
but seen this facebook status and it pretty much summed it up for me
"Did everyone in the public sector get their Christmas shopping done the other day or are we having another strike in a few weeks?"
Sarcasm.....................Lowest form of wit!!!
C3.................[disgust][disgust]
weezer 316
02-Dec-11, 19:26
Some coments such as, strikers should think of the 'ordinary people' and 'tax payers' who pay them make me wonder..... Do public sector workers not pay tax and are they not ordinary people too, do we not depend on them?
Remember when Teachers, Policemen, Police staff, Ambulance staff, Nurses, Midwives, Doctors, Paramedics and Firemen crashed the stock market, wiped out Banks, took billions in bonuses and paid no tax? No, me neither.
They have had a pay freeze for 2 years and that is set to be continued for at least another 2 and a pension review to address the fact that we live longer was carried out and adjustments made to many public sector pensions a couple of years ago.
A forced change on an employment contract is something that any worker, private or public sector would surely oppose especially if it will leave them financially worse off both now and in the future.
No but I do remember a Labour govt who have overwhelming support from the public sector commiting to spend half a trillion quid we didnt have with no plan to pay it back. Thats what I remember, dont you? We aint in this situation with £1tr of debt and a £150bn deficit becuase of banks, who DO pay their tax because the govt lost like 30bn a year in tax revenues from them in 2009!!!!
Ah now we are starting to get to the root cause as I see it.
If we take the NHS pension as an example it currently takes £1-2 billion a year more in contributions than it pays out. As there is no pension pot as such this money is used for other things such as reducing the national deficit.
If the goverment are genuinely trying to make pensions affordable in the long term why are they not suggesting putting this surplus into a protected fund in order to build up a longterm safety net?
A lot of interesting posts made on this thread. If someone is willing, I would still like someone to explain why the need for reform when a fund already generates a surplus and why isn't this surplus being saved to protect the fund longterm?
secrets in symmetry
03-Dec-11, 14:32
No but I do remember a Labour govt who have overwhelming support from the public sector commiting to spend half a trillion quid we didnt have with no plan to pay it back. Thats what I remember, dont you? We aint in this situation with £1tr of debt and a £150bn deficit becuase of banks, who DO pay their tax because the govt lost like 30bn a year in tax revenues from them in 2009!!!!Weezy, the reason we have a large deficit is numerically due to the economic slowdown. The current annual deficit of circa 10% of GDP is roughly equal to the loss in GDP growth due to 4 years of recession plus stagnation - assuming a conservative postwar "normal" GDP growth of 2%. Most of the net national debt was accrued long before the current recession/slowdown. The deficit would be roughly zero if their has been no slowdown. Brown's error was not to forsee it, and not to prepare for a possible slowdown. Alastair Darling knew it when he was chancellor, and Blair knew it several years beforehand. But Brown had too much power, and no-one could stop him doing what he wanted. It was a fatal error - for him.
You did know all that - didn't you?
weezer 316
05-Dec-11, 14:20
SIS,
I havent a clue where you are pulling that from. We were running around 3.5% deficit at the 2005 election, and LAbour said borrowing over the coming parliment would be £400bn. They outlined no plan to pay this back other than how interest payments would be met.
Infact Im am certain the only time in the past 35 years we have generated a surplus was from 96-2000 and that took the tories 16 years to achieve, as we were running at around 6% at the 1979 election.
So, we can attribute around 2/3rds of the current debt and most of that deficit to Labour. Infact......I woudl say we can attribute all of the deficit to them as they inherited a tiny surplus!
secrets in symmetry
06-Dec-11, 00:38
SIS,
I havent a clue where you are pulling that from. We were running around 3.5% deficit at the 2005 election, and LAbour said borrowing over the coming parliment would be £400bn. They outlined no plan to pay this back other than how interest payments would be met.
Infact Im am certain the only time in the past 35 years we have generated a surplus was from 96-2000 and that took the tories 16 years to achieve, as we were running at around 6% at the 1979 election.Not quite. The first Blair government ran a budget surplus between 1998 and 2001, during which time it reduced the net national debt as a fraction of GDP from roughly 43% to roughly 30%.
(The previous Tory government had been running a budget deficit, but this was decreasing quite rapidly, so the national debt as a fraction of GDP was dropping in 1996 and 1997.)
The national debt increased by about 6% (perhaps 7%) of GDP between circa 2001 and 2007, that's an average annual deficit of about 1% of GDP, which is almost prudent by historical standards - somewhat ironically!
So, we can attribute around 2/3rds of the current debt and most of that deficit to Labour. Infact......I woudl say we can attribute all of the deficit to them as they inherited a tiny surplus!
The net national debt was around 43% of GDP when Labour came to power in 1997, and it was about 58% of GDP when Labour lost power in 2010. That's an increase of about 15% of GDP over 14 years, so the Blair/Brown Governments presided over roughly a quarter of the total net national debt - when expressed as a percentage of net GDP. A quarter may not sound much as a fraction of the total debt, but it's a lot of money!
The current net national debt is around 63% of GDP, so the Tories have presided over an increase of about 5% in 18 months. :cool:
Yes, I know that's a daft comparison, but it has the advantage of being more or less numerically correct.
Now for my previous numbers....
The 2010/11 budget deficit was about £143 billion, the 2011/12 deficit is forecast to be £120 billion - but it will likely be more than that. Let's say £130 billion, which is about 11% of net GDP.
Net GDP dropped by about 6.5% during the recession, but it's since gained about 2.5% to get back to 4% lower than at the start of the recession. If there had been no recession, and the economy had kept growing at the conservative figure of 2% over those three (and a bit) years, then net GDP would be about 6 or 7% higher than it was at the start of the recession - which translates to about 10% higher than it is now. Government spending is about 45% of GDP. Now, if public spending had been held constant (in pounds) over those three years, and if government income is directly proportional to GDP, then government income would have been 4.5% percent higher than it is now, so then about 45% of the current deficit is due to the recession/slowdown.
This is numerology - not economics - but, unless I've made some mistakes (which is quote possible!), the point is that almost half of the current deficit is numerically due to the recession/slowdown, not to vast government overspending.
Of course, the flip side is that just over half of the deficit is due to government overspending, so my previous post wasn't right. I made the mistake of equating 10% of GDP to 10% of government spending - you can't add percentages of different things linearly!
John Little
06-Dec-11, 09:34
"Now, if public spending had been held constant (in pounds - so no allowing for inflation) over those three years, and if government income is directly proportional to GDP, then the budget would be in balance right now - which is quite amazing. :cool:"
Not so far out I would think. Such a move would have maintained consumer confidence and at the very least would have muted the fall in consumer demand. Fewer job losses, factories with order books full, fewer crashing businesses, fewer people on benefits and more people paying tax. In theory it makes a lot of sense.
In terms of economics I do not think cuts are the answer. The problem is peoples' preference for buying foreign goods.
Incidentally - this poll is looking uncannily like the results of the last election...
secrets in symmetry
06-Dec-11, 10:00
"Now, if public spending had been held constant (in pounds - so no allowing for inflation) over those three years, and if government income is directly proportional to GDP, then the budget would be in balance right now - which is quite amazing. :cool:"
Not so far out I would think. Such a move would have maintained consumer confidence and at the very least would have muted the fall in consumer demand. Fewer job losses, factories with order books full, fewer crashing businesses, fewer people on benefits and more people paying tax. In theory it makes a lot of sense.
In terms of economics I do not think cuts are the answer. The problem is peoples' preference for buying foreign goods.
Incidentally - this poll is looking uncannily like the results of the last election...The reason it was quite amazing was because it was out by a factor of two due to my equating 10% of GDP to 10% of government spending. It seemed counter-intuitive when I did the sums a few days ago (and again last night), but it was late and I didn't spot the error.
The Brown goverment was spending too much before the recession, and the deficit was growing too quickly, but the recession has made it roughly twice as bad - so far....
If I remember correctly, the government spends £40 billion per annum (probably more by now) on servicing the national debt. New annual debt adds a few billion a year to this figure, plus similar amounts for refinancing current debt, giving a total annual spend on new debt in the £10 billion ballpark.
Extra GDP growth of 1% adds about £16 billion to the economy, of which the government might take/spend about £7 billion - so the numbers are comparable.
Overall, increasing spending is not as bad as J-George and his mates claim, nor is it a cure-all.
John Little
06-Dec-11, 11:52
I'll put this here for you SiS - it deserves a read because it is an excellent article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/04/will-hutton-george-osborne-clueless
secrets in symmetry
08-Dec-11, 00:25
Yes, J-George's (lack of ) detailed understanding of basic economic theory is worrying. His model is similar to Margaret Thatcher's circa 1980, and I fear the results could be at least as disastrous, possibly - or even probably - worse.
Why ohhhh Why ohhhh Why would people lock down a System which they know to be broken. What did the Strike achieve? Absolutely nothing....except lost production etc., et cetera!
We can all quote Stats, Economics, Poor Auld Maggie T., Brown and the rest, but the country is in trouble.
We had this situation in the early 90's and we all gave free work days, we all lost Promotions, took a wage freeze I think for 5 years, we gave up extra days so that other people would keep their jobs, not throw them to the wolves..
Strike was the last thing on our minds......and now we have emerged in good shape....The more people go on Strike the worse it is going to get/ you'll end up like your Europen partners. ...Who in the World would be proud of 2 million people going on Strike....What's that phrase...'Get a Grip man'.............Pounds, inflation, proportional to GDP, net National GDP......What a load of........Cods something or other......
SIS and other learn..ed people/// great analysis, great thoughts but is it going to solve the problem...of course not....
Yes, J-George's (lack of ) detailed understanding of basic economic theory is worrying. His model is similar to Margaret Thatcher's circa 1980, and I fear the results could be at least as disastrous, possibly - or even probably - worse.
Perhaps you should have his job, although we probably have enough pratts in government.:roll:
secrets in symmetry
08-Dec-11, 11:33
Perhaps you should have his job, although we probably have enough pratts in government.:roll:My analysis is objective. As a Tory, you must know that J-George was (something-like) their third-choice for chancellor - partly because of his lack of knowledge and experience in economic areas, and partly because of his weird ideas on...just about everything!
My analysis is objective. As a Tory, you must know that J-George was (something-like) their third-choice for chancellor - partly because of his lack of knowledge and experience in economic areas, and partly because of his weird ideas on...just about everything!
Well I too have wierd ideas, so that's alright. I suspect that in picking him for the team they didn't think; he has some weird ideas but what the hell, lets give him a shot! :lol:
secrets in symmetry
08-Dec-11, 11:44
I think it's more a case of dearth of talent on the Tory front benches. Those that could do the job either didn't want it, or the tories didn't want them to do it. Kenneth Clarke could do it (obviously!), but his policies would have been too close to Ed Balls' for most of the Tory party!
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.