Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
At The Back => The Dressing Room => Topic started by: MrBump on November 30, 2011, 10:33:44 AM
-
So - any brothers or sisters of the Revolution out on the picket lines today???
-
Mrs Twinfan is a Deputy Head and is in work today. You don't want to hear what she has to say about the teachers she's having to plan lessons and cover for.......
-
Ha! Yep, my wife has also broken rank and gone to work.
-
scabs
(joke joke joke)
-
I saw a banner-waving group standing outside Brixton Town Hall this morning.
I'm neither sympathetic nor unsympathetic really, but when they started singing "We'll be going to the picket" to the tune of "She'll be coming round the Mountain", I just thought SHUT THE $%&# UP.
-
Both my girlfriend and her sister work for Derbyshire police. The sister is big into the union side of things and is on strike, whilst my girlfriend has just booked the day off as a holiday as she doesn't know how she feels about it all and didn't want to incur the wrath of her sister if she went to work :lol:
It makes for extremely boring conversation when we see family at weekends etc :?
-
Lazy $%&#ers should get back to work. We've not had a pay rise for almost 4 years (not even cost of living allowance), and you don't see me complaining like a bitch about it. Cancer drugs aren't going to make themselves, you know.
-
Wait until nfe gets on this thread..... :lol:
-
Wait until nfe gets on this thread..... :lol:
Oh dear God no - I'm going for a lie down....
-
Wait a minute, someone else's presence on a thread is worse news than my own...? This can't be right, must derail with talk of telecasters, traffic wardens, mashed potato and the four tw4ts!
:D
-
I have mixed feelings about the strike.
I used to be a Unison member, and if I still worked in the public sector I might be tempted to go out. However, given that I know work for an investment bank (!) strikes aren't something that I can experience any more, not from the interesting end anyway.
Lots of examples of pay reduction/claim and counter-claim in the media over the past few weeks. Hard to know who to believe. Public sector pensions do seem to be quite inflated, but the assumption has always been that public sector pay is less that in the private sector, and that "perks" like better pensions, more job security made up for that. Certainly in my industry I was being paid less than an employee in a similar private company. And a lot less than someone working in banking/finance.
I guess that the medicine is that we all have to be paid less, and spend less. Hard for the lowest paid though.
Roo - do you make your Cancer drugs on that science park near Abingdon? I've got a mate that does similar...
-
Speaking as someone who hasn't had a pay rise in 4 years and doesn't get any kind of pension (unless I organise and pay for it completely on my own), I have very little sympathy. ;)
-
Sympathy for folks at the low end of the pay scale but low pay for middle management upwards in the Public Sector is a myth. If they worked in the private sector they would get paid less/the same and be expected to do more.
-
Forgot to add:
[Lobs in that hand-grenade of the sweeping generalisation and stands by in the anticipation of the nfe flaming.....]
-
Regardless of one's own circumstances, wages, earning potential, pension et al:
You can't just expect people to take changes to their contracted terms and conditions on the chin. The demonisation of Public Sector workers for wanting the terms of their contracts to be honoured is a disgrace. In Private Industry, this would be courage in the face of an unreasonable boss.
(PS, I'm private sector, and I've recently taken a pay cut myself, so this is not purely self-interest)
-
What a LOT of people don't appreciate is that the company/public sector department IS THE BOSS. They have to run their company/department as they see fit, and changes in terms and conditions are needed from time to time for companies/departments to survive. Their job isn't to keep employees happy, it's to run a succesful "business" in whatever form that takes (within the boundaries of UK law).
If you don't like the changes/terms/conditions, put up with it or get another job. Simple as that.
-
What a LOT of people don't appreciate is that the company/public sector department IS THE BOSS. They have to run their company/department as they see fit, and changes in terms and conditions are needed from time to time for companies/departments to survive. Their job isn't to keep employees happy, it's to run a succesful "business" in whatever form that takes (within the boundaries of UK law).
If you don't like the changes/terms/conditions, put up with it or get another job. Simple as that.
I get what you're saying, but it's not entirely correct - often the public sector is enhanced in areas where there's week private sector/other industry to maintain employment. Otherwise you'd have disproportionately large(r) areas of unemployment in the North/South.
-
...get another job. Simple as that.
Would that it were that simple, eh?
-
Right I work for the NHS BSA
We pay all the hositals,dentists,chemists,doctors etc for the work they day and for everything that is prescribed.
Now that i've broken the no#1 work rule of not being allowed to say where i work or what we do ill go on to blag a bit more :D
I myself am striking today purely because the deal is
They want us to pay MORE into the pension fund and get LESS out than we currently would.
It also puts our retirement age up from 45 or 55 to whatever the standard is for everyone else.
We've had massive redundancies and rehiring to cover when they workload increased which seems retarded.
I personally dont see why private pensions should be the same as a state one in terms of what you get out as if everyone isnt happy with the state pension why dont they just go and take out a private one of their own and benefit in the same way? the simple answer is they're lazy bar-stewards and just want everything given to them.
And also these "changes" in terms and conditions are nothing to do with running a succesful business or anything its just the government wanting a bigger cut pure and simple and wanting everyone to be working longer so they can grab more taxes out of them.
As it is im losing £6,000 if these changes come in just from my pension alone not to mention the payrise freeze and the fact all inner promotion has been put on hold for the next five years already which has royally screwed my plans over.
-
Another point as well the changes to make the business run better and more succesful have already been made last year.
As in the 300+ staff they made redundant and the fact overtime was canned and payrises stopped.
Oh and there are more cuts coming up again also due to "business needs" but i dont mind those as they are neccesary.
Also i know this affects some people negatively such as myself.
I was meant to be in the hospital today for some screening and consultations regarding my cataract removal. This got cancelled due to the strikes. But i don't really care as it can always be rebooked and i know it's because they are focusing on critical cases only today & i respect why they are doing it.
-
Quite straightforward. Asking people to accept forced contractual changes without question is wrong. Forcing contrctual changes requiring them to pay more and receive less particularly so.
Upper echelons of the public sector are indeed on extremely high wages (though saying they are paid more highly than equivalent private sector jobs is false) and it'd be nice to see them supporting the strikes and taking part, but offering to take cuts to ease cuts on the lower paid, not that it'll happen. Nor would it be taken seriously by government, sadly cuts to the low-paid-many reduces expenditure far more than cuts to the high-paid-few.
If you don't like the changes/terms/conditions, put up with it or get another job. Simple as that.
I despair. Presumably we should never complain about any government actions, we can always go to another country.
-
Quite straightforward. Asking people to accept forced contractual changes without question is wrong. Forcing contrctual changes requiring them to pay more and receive less particularly so.
Upper echelons of the public sector are indeed on extremely high wages (though saying they are paid more highly than equivalent private sector jobs is false) and it'd be nice to see them supporting the strikes and taking part, but offering to take cuts to ease cuts on the lower paid, not that it'll happen. Nor would it be taken seriously by government, sadly cuts to the low-paid-many reduces expenditure far more than cuts to the high-paid-few.
If you don't like the changes/terms/conditions, put up with it or get another job. Simple as that.
I despair. Presumably we should never complain about any government actions, we can always go to another country.
The top manager at my place who is on £60k minimum was out there on the picket lines taking part today.
Also the higher paid part is actually being looked into they are having a HUGE reform at the NHS pensions dept as over 50% of the staff are on band 5 payscales which is far too high for the work they do.
These people have actually been asked to negotiations to discuss the problem and most have agreed that they get paid too highly and some have even opted to be moved down 2 bands.
-
Good stuff.
Still all Public Sector good for nothing, made-up-jobs parasite, of course :roll:
-
Roo - do you make your Cancer drugs on that science park near Abingdon? I've got a mate that does similar...
No mate, I work for an academic institution in and near London (but still live in Oxford). We're funded by charities (mainly CRUK) and the usual academic streams such as research councils and Wellcome, also we get a decent proportion of our funding from HEFCE, who have cut our funding for two consecutive periods now, despite us coming top or near-top in every government 'league table' that applies to us.
Hmm maybe I should be going on strike, too... :D
-
Quite straightforward. Asking people to accept forced contractual changes without question is wrong. Forcing contrctual changes requiring them to pay more and receive less particularly so.
If they're not breaking any laws, they have every right to do what's needed to support the "business". Employees have to realise that the boss is THE BOSS. They decide what happens within the boundaries of the law, morals or previous arrangements don't come into it.
If you don't like the changes/terms/conditions, put up with it or get another job. Simple as that.
I despair. Presumably we should never complain about any government actions, we can always go to another country.
Err, yep! The government was formed as per the voting rules, so they have the power to do what they think is right.
...get another job. Simple as that.
Would that it were that simple, eh?
I know it's not always that easy, but there are options out there - other companies, other industries, retraining etc. And at least these striking people have a job, they should be very grateful for that in the current climate.
-
Quite straightforward. Asking people to accept forced contractual changes without question is wrong. Forcing contrctual changes requiring them to pay more and receive less particularly so.
If they're not breaking any laws, they have every right to do what's needed to support the "business". Employees have to realise that the boss is THE BOSS. They decide what happens within the boundaries of the law, morals or previous arrangements don't come into it.
Ah, the glory of capitalism, eh? "The letter of the law allows me to fuck you over, so I'll be damned if I'm not going to make a proper job of it."
If you don't like the changes/terms/conditions, put up with it or get another job. Simple as that.
I despair. Presumably we should never complain about any government actions, we can always go to another country.
Err, yep! The government was formed as per the voting rules, so they have the power to do what they think is right.
I find this more than an alarming statement.
-
I didn't see many picket lines today. I did how ever see very busy shops.....
-
If they're not breaking any laws, they have every right to do what's needed to support the "business". Employees have to realise that the boss is THE BOSS. They decide what happens within the boundaries of the law, morals or previous arrangements don't come into it.
By the same measure the "employees" are legally entitled to show "the boss" that a) they won't put up with being walked over, and b) the "business" is nothing without them. After all, if the boss was to disappear tomorrow the business would continue to work as normal. If all the workers disappeared then it wouldn't. The workforce has every right to come together to voice their disatisfaction and show their power. I say good luck to them.
-
We should all remember that sanctity of contract was pleaded by the government (admittedly the last one) as the reason why the bankers at banks that the tax payers had to bail out still got their bonuses. Perhaps the difference is one of magnitude - you can risk taking legal action against the government if the breach of contract is going to pay out £1million but not if it is £6k.
-
Ah, the glory of capitalism, eh? "The letter of the law allows me to fuck you over, so I'll be damned if I'm not going to make a proper job of it."
Them's the rules.
Err, yep! The government was formed as per the voting rules, so they have the power to do what they think is right.
I find this more than an alarming statement.
I'll admit I'm not interested in politics in the slightest, but to my layman eyes that's how I see it.
So educate me - why is it a "more than alarming statement"?
-
We should all remember that sanctity of contract was pleaded by the government (admittedly the last one) as the reason why the bankers at banks that the tax payers had to bail out still got their bonuses. Perhaps the difference is one of magnitude - you can risk taking legal action against the government if the breach of contract is going to pay out £1million but not if it is £6k.
I was SO hoping someone would mention this exact distinction. Thank you.
I'm all for free markets, red in tooth and claw but we haven't seen that up till now. The money had to be found to honour the contracts of the bailed out banks/bankers.
We are not seeing an even playing field.
Sure, don't offer "NEW" public sector employees the same terms and conditions but the Govt should honour the established deal.
I think it is a case of divide and conquer & we really shouldn't let it happen.
I hated the dinosaur unions of the 80s but I believe reformed unions are vital to the welfare of the working man.
Just because the private sector is woefully underrepresented by unions doesn't mean it should be a race to the bottom for ALL workers.
As a percentage of GDP the current pay/pension deal the public sector workers are striking to protect is affordable but that fact gets lost in the rhetoric.
All this at a time when the senior execs & bosses have seen unimaginable pay increases.
Please don't lets fool ourselves with the idea that we "all have a field marshalls batton in our sack"
YOU WILL NOT be in the 1%
-
I love this type of thread....
So - question - the guy who is earning £60K in the public sector - what would be his annual pension when he retires?
Let's say he is a 'lifer' and starts at 21 and finishes at 66 (just humour me with the calculation for a moment) - he would have 45/60 or 75% of his salary as a pension - £45K a year. Let's just say that someone with a private pension wants to have the same level of pension - at current annuity rates they would need about £800-900,000 in their pension pot!
Don't know about you - but looking at my pension, and given the state of the stock market - does not look anywhere near £900K....
-
I love this type of thread....
So - question - the guy who is earning £60K in the public sector - what would be his annual pension when he retires?
Let's say he is a 'lifer' and starts at 21 and finishes at 66 (just humour me with the calculation for a moment) - he would have 45/60 or 75% of his salary as a pension - £45K a year. Let's just say that someone with a private pension wants to have the same level of pension - at current annuity rates they would need about £800-900,000 in their pension pot!
Don't know about you - but looking at my pension, and given the state of the stock market - does not look anywhere near £900K....
Pick any F**ked up anomally you want. I'm not going to defend it. You can cherry pick unsympathetic characters all you want.
I myself support free markets - the state should only intervine in markets to break up monopolies or cartels = LET BAD BANKS FAIL.
ALL State pensions are a ponzi scheme.
But...
Do you believe in contracts?
-
Yes, I do - but I also believe that contracts can be renegotiated and amended
-
Didn't know you could look up annuity rates! Thanks for that (Bugger I need even more than I thought)
Instead of cutting pensions they should scr@p winter fuel allowance for people who don't need it... oh wait that will harm votes.
-
Err, yep! The government was formed as per the voting rules, so they have the power to do what they think is right.
I find this more than an alarming statement.
I'll admit I'm not interested in politics in the slightest, but to my layman eyes that's how I see it.
So educate me - why is it a "more than alarming statement"?
[/quote]
Because parties are voted in on the basis of what they say before their election. They have no mandate to do things that contradict it. It's why manifestos should be legally binding (with exceptions based around unforeseeable circumstances, obviously).
For instance, A colossal part of the vote for the LD at the last election is on the basis of a signed pledge not to raise (and to oppose any) raise in tuition fees. It is therefore absolutely appropriate for let down voters to protest their backtracking on the issue.
That's quite aside from concerns about vastly more significant issues like war.
-
I'm kind of in Twinfan's camp here. If someone who doesn't know what they're talking about starts telling me how I should be doing my job I'll tell them where to go. Why is it different with politicians - why does the general public think they have the right to tell politicians how to run the country?
I also don't see the issue with politicians changing their minds. Again that's something we all do all the time, and rightly so. Circumstances change, new information comes to light - normally it's seen as a sign of strength when somebody is able to turn around and admit they were wrong.
-
I fully support Afghan's views. Anytime Government can be made smaller is preferable in my opinion. Less hands for money to slip through, less excuses for tax hikes and more efficient accountability. In this sense, Government should only exist to make it easier to safely earn money and meet financial goals, not decide what they are and meet them for you at a premium or the worth of your currency.
-
"If you don't like the changes/terms/conditions, put up with it or get another job. Simple as that."
As long as you dont complain about dentists going private... cos that's exactly what they are doing...
Should doctors all go private as well ??? Dosctors can get far more money and better working conditions in the private sector - is that what you want ? Just curious.....
-
I guess it comes to a point where if these severe cuts are not made then we have a situation where things spiral out of control and the measures are forced upon us becuase we need to borrow more and more, our credit ratings go down and interest rates up, inflation starts to increase even more away from earnings, more unemployment, devalued currency etc etc
But there are other areas the government could cut before teachers and nurses pensions and pay. After all, these are the people that teach our kids and look after us when we are sick. I'd like to see us stop p!ssing so much money away abroad fighting wars for oil and wealth which gets creamed off by big companies anyway.
So I have sympathy for those striking even though at some point there be no choice but I'm sure there are other areas that could be cut first
-
I'm kind of in Twinfan's camp here. If someone who doesn't know what they're talking about starts telling me how I should be doing my job I'll tell them where to go. Why is it different with politicians - why does the general public think they have the right to tell politicians how to run the country?
Because the public vote them in based on what they say they intend to do. Voters are their boss. where Twinfan says that the "public sector are the boss" he is wrong. The PUBLIC are the public sector's boss.
I also don't see the issue with politicians changing their minds. Again that's something we all do all the time, and rightly so. Circumstances change, new information comes to light - normally it's seen as a sign of strength when somebody is able to turn around and admit they were wrong.
Changing your mind is one thing, abandoning pledges that got you elected and supporting moves which clash directly with your stated ideology is not a simple "oh, we were wrong about that", to stick with the LD example.
-
"If you don't like the changes/terms/conditions, put up with it or get another job. Simple as that."
As long as you dont complain about dentists going private... cos that's exactly what they are doing...
Should doctors all go private as well ??? Dosctors can get far more money and better working conditions in the private sector - is that what you want ? Just curious.....
I don't complain about much to be honest, I'm pretty easy going. I go to a private dentist but use the NHS for doctors. If I had to pay for a decent doctor I probably would. I earn more than minimum wage though, so I guess I have a biased view.
Because parties are voted in on the basis of what they say before their election. They have no mandate to do things that contradict it. It's why manifestos should be legally binding (with exceptions based around unforeseeable circumstances, obviously).
Completely uncontrollable though, so you make your judgement based on how you think they'll behave. I doubt the LD's would have U-turned so much if they'd got power on their own, but we have a coalition. All bets are off, so they have to do the best they can for the majority of the population.
It's actually refreshing to see a government try and do something for the greater good, rather than just to get votes to stay in power.
-
Because the public vote them in based on what they say they intend to do. Voters are their boss. where Twinfan says that the "public sector are the boss" he is wrong. The PUBLIC are the public sector's boss.
If I've employed someone to do a job that I don't myself understand, I'll let them get on with it.
Changing your mind is one thing, abandoning pledges that got you elected and supporting moves which clash directly with your stated ideology is not a simple "oh, we were wrong about that", to stick with the LD example.
I don't see any reason to believe that it's an idealogical shift rather than simply a reviewing of the figures and the expert advice available. Let's not forget also that tuition fees is one part of a hugely complicated financial picture, as Twinfan points out that picture under the present coalition is probably different in a number of respects compared with the one the liberal democrats had in mind themselves.
-
But there are other areas the government could cut before teachers and nurses pensions and pay.
Its not just nurses and teachers its the entire public sector
-
But there are other areas the government could cut before teachers and nurses pensions and pay.
Its not just nurses and teachers its the entire public sector
Yes I know, they are are called Examples
-
thats not a strike, this is a strike:
(http://www.aworldtowin.net/images/images570/Orgreave%2041.jpg)
-
Because the public vote them in based on what they say they intend to do. Voters are their boss. where Twinfan says that the "public sector are the boss" he is wrong. The PUBLIC are the public sector's boss.
If I've employed someone to do a job that I don't myself understand, I'll let them get on with it.
We "USED" to have that AND political choice when we had a world leading Civil Service!
Sadly the Civil Service has been politicised and the major parties have merged values = No choice and a civil service that is no longer fit for purpose.
Like it or not, we once ran India with fewer administrators than we currently employ for a single NHS hospital.
The system has become old fat and bloated with public sector jobs, many of which were located in certain British regions for political ends.
If you hit these people you now crush entire communities.
Thatcher may have sold houses to create Tory votes but New Labour located Gov't jobs to do the same.
Allowing either imbalance to develop was immoral.
I support the strike because of fairness & the primacy of a contract. I also challenge the "State" and many who work for it (the very same public sector empolyees) because it is diseased.
-
]
I don't complain about much to be honest, I'm pretty easy going. I go to a private dentist but use the NHS for doctors. If I had to pay for a decent doctor I probably would. I earn more than minimum wage though, so I guess I have a biased view.
.
Sorry - it wasnt aimed at you - many of the same people advocating a completely capitalist system for society fail to grasp that many people - doctors, nurses, dentists, etc *can* earn far more in the private sector. Destroying terms of employment and, even worse, making the working environment appalling to work in may well mean that these people choose to leave public service, for example the dentists - nhs dentists now being a dying breed. It is not impossible that GPs may well go this way. If they do, then the public health system in this country will follow the American model - the rich will have a better health system and the poor will be screwed. We are drifting into this...
-
True, but I guess that's the way of capitalism?
-
holy carp. I didn't read the whole thread, but based on some previous threads which i didn't take part in on principle, i expected this thread to be all daily mail, "hang 'em all" (clarkson must not be registered here, lol) type stuff.
and with a few exceptions (and even those, by and large, were reasonably worded) it's been the opposite.
wow
group hug
:)
Them's the rules.
i'm pretty sure the rules are that you have the right to strike (apart from in very few "key" jobs).
^ we don't exist under a 100% capitalist system though, we exist under a pretty mixed system.
-
True, but I guess that's the way of capitalism?
'Tis.
That's not a positive, though...
-
If you don't like the changes/terms/conditions, put up with it or get another job. Simple as that.
it's not. For example, my parents' pensions have been frozen for the past several years- this is despite paying extra into their pension fund supposedly to ensure they would be index linked.
do you have a spare flux capacitor? theirs has stopped working.
-
Let's face it, when it comes to pensions we're all $%&#ed. It's a time bomb.
They'll keep increasing the retirement age and if we're lucky we'll drop dead at work and never actually have to claim a pension.
-
I ignore politics. :? Generally in this country, we have $%&# all to moan about compared to most developing countries.
-
I ignore politics. :? Generally in this country, we have $%&# all to moan about compared to most developing countries.
I can't comprehend this logic. It's worse elsewhere so lets not moan about anything here? Bizarre thinking in my book.
-
Amusingly, the Daily Mail has removed a poll from their website where 84% of voters supported the strike :lol:
-
holy carp. I didn't read the whole thread, but based on some previous threads which i didn't take part in on principle, i expected this thread to be all daily mail, "hang 'em all" (clarkson must not be registered here, lol) type stuff.
and with a few exceptions (and even those, by and large, were reasonably worded) it's been the opposite.
wow
group hug
:)
If we didn't have to spend all our public money on evicting & cleaning up after "pikeys" we wouldn't be in this mess!
I know for a fact that travellers like to make nurses cry & have sold 8 broken calculators & some "lucky" heather to the treasury. :o :D
(This above isn't exactly 100% true but it might be!)
-
^ i'd say bailing out the banks cost a heck of a lot (plus the linked recession). now things would probably have been a lot worse if we hadn't, but still when we fork over trillions (or have implicit guarantees costing trillions, which in effect are the same thing) without question to people who have caused teh problems, and then moan about nowhere-near-as-much when given to the people who haven't caused them...
:? :lol:
Amusingly, the Daily Mail has removed a poll from their website where 84% of voters supported the strike :lol:
:lol:
philly (quote system's stopped working... again :lol: ): yeah. i'll be lucky if i can retire at 150 :lol:
-
I ignore politics. :? Generally in this country, we have $%&# all to moan about compared to most developing countries.
I can't comprehend this logic. It's worse elsewhere so lets not moan about anything here? Bizarre thinking in my book.
I think we whinge too much as a nation.
Get on with the important stuff. (Appreciate we may rank different things as important :))
-
holy carp. I didn't read the whole thread, but based on some previous threads which i didn't take part in on principle, i expected this thread to be all daily mail, "hang 'em all" (clarkson must not be registered here, lol) type stuff.
and with a few exceptions (and even those, by and large, were reasonably worded) it's been the opposite.
wow
group hug
:)
If we didn't have to spend all our public money on evicting & cleaning up after "pikeys" we wouldn't be in this mess!
I know for a fact that travellers like to make nurses cry & have sold 8 broken calculators & some "lucky" heather to the treasury. :o :D
(This above isn't exactly 100% true but it might be!)
Hurrah! Back on track!!!
:D
-
I'm with Matt77 - the UK needs to stop bloody moaning and thinking it's hard done by, and just get on with enjoying life.
-
In fact, and I have it on good authority from Afghan Dave, that if you looked closely at the pictures of the strikers, they were all foreign nationals, Afghans or Irish travellers and were striking against being evicted from Dale Farm or getting the dole stopped or having to learn English or something.........
:lol:
-
:lol:
-
I'm with Matt77 - the UK needs to stop bloody moaning and thinking it's hard done by, and just get on with enjoying life.
Me too. I don't have much of a political view to be honest, I just don't have the time or inclination to get involved with the debate.
Bobby McFerrin said it best.
-
I'm with Matt77 - the UK needs to stop bloody moaning and thinking it's hard done by, and just get on with enjoying life.
Thats all fair and well Dave and I generally agree on a loose basis, but when you're being financially squeezed all the time its tough to ignore being skint all the time.
-
True, but that can't be ALL the government's fault? Or is it?
-
True, but that can't be ALL the government's fault? Or is it?
Well, the squeezing you bit is - on a wider scale, both the current and last government were subject to global issues that pretty much every other country is is subject to, so that was (to some extent) unavoidable, however they could certainly be making things a hell of a lot easier for people.
Just to demonstrate some things I find insane... 8% of my income is on gas/electric, 5.5% is council tax, 10% is on petrol, 32% of my wage is on my mortgage, I could go on, but you see very quickly how people are left with next to nowt to live on.
This government needs to get a firm grip on regulating certain markets, however I can't see a Tory government re-nationalising what they privatised in the first place or limiting (virtually) unchecked free-market economics.
-
I've not read thewhole thread as I'm at work, but I'll stick my ore in anyway.
My mum and my brother are both nurses and agree with the strikes. They're not striking as they're covering patients (like most peole in the NHS, they actually put sick people first).
Both of them have repeatedly been shat upon from a great height in their day to day jobs, neither of them come out with much money and they do silly hours and shift patterns. There is no way on earth that I could do their jobs and still be a realtively normal mental state (my bro had to hold a featus the other week, which he says was completely heartbreaking). My bro also has 8 month old twin girls to feed and he is loosing money every month.
I can't really argue with the retirement age increasing to the national standard, but the increase in pension contributions is a massive piss take. It is a tax on the public sector workers and even the Bank of England has agreed that this is the case.
-
Yes, it's the gov's fault who are in bed with the banksters and the media.All of these problems start with the financial
system which as it stands is unsound.It needs to 'grow' ad infinitum or it collapses.This will be done stealthily by currency debasement which is tough if your poor.
The shadow banking system(derivatives, cds's ets) currently stands at 700,000 000 000 000 dollars and it's unregulated.
If we had honest money aka truly free markets the credit bubble probably wouldn't have gone on so long.Imo the
most powerful banking groups knew they would be bailed out.Failure & criminality at the highest level hasn't been punished.
The bad debt since 2008 hasn't been cleared out but has in fact grown.
Now co-ordinated central bank action is the order of the day to prop up the system.Central planning and liberty don't really mix (historically).
If you understand the link between free markets and liberty things going forward aren't looking good.
Clearly many contracts (pensions) can't be honoured because of demographics.The problem is that this has been understood for years and the irresponsible self serving gov's never dealt with it.If they are honoured it will be with greatly diluted currency.(stealth)
As a side note i recently read that all the GDP of the uk during labours years was equal to the total amount of equity
withdrawl ie, imaginary.
The system needs overhauling (reforming) but it needs to start at the root.How money is created, issued etc.Making
spending cuts from the bottom up won't work.
-
The system needs overhauling (reforming) but it needs to start at the root.How money is created, issued etc.Making
spending cuts from the bottom up won't work.
Agreed, but no government has the balls to do it.
They talk about 'tough choices', but they're barely scratching the fu*king surface.
-
I'm with you guys. The problems are quite fundamental and lay at the feet of Milton Economics.
I'm not one of the usual Thatcher bashers (although I will be dancing in the street when the bitch kiffs it), but it's that bitches fault - along with Milton and Ronald Ray-Guns.
-
My mum and my brother are both nurses and agree with the strikes. agreed that this is the case.
Yes, my wife is a nurse and has similar stories. Really harrowing stuff. She works in a childrens hospital.
She has a degree and 10 years experience but the NHS treat nurses like sh!t and the pay is not great.
She has been on shifts where there's just 2 of them to 16 beds during the night and they are pressured to admit more. But if there is ever an accident it will be the nurses that get the blame.
I told her to go private but she likes helping and being with children.
-
Same as my mum and brother, they wont go private either.
-
The system needs overhauling (reforming) but it needs to start at the root.How money is created, issued etc.Making
spending cuts from the bottom up won't work.
Agreed, but no government has the balls to do it.
They talk about 'tough choices', but they're barely scratching the fu*king surface.
The government do make some absolutely absurd decisions as well. I know that I have said I have no real interest in politics but I do get very annoyed when they announce plans to change the way child benefit is calculated.
I'm fortunate enough to be in a pretty well paid job that is (hopefully) secure. The minute I go over the tax threshold for child benefit I lose all of it - I have 4 kids (2 of whom were totally unexpected). This means I will lose around £3.5k per year in previously paid benefit.
Before anyone rants at me I'm no money grabber and can live without that money. It just riles me when they base the ruling on one person in the household going over the threshold i.e. a single parent earning enough money to take them over the threshold would lose everything but a couple whose combined salary is significantly more (but neither of whom have broken the threshold) would still be entitled to get the benefit. This just makes no sense. I know they need to draw the line somewhere but surely one of their well paid advisors could come up with something better than that.
I know this is a very very small problem but just another sign that the government do not really care about the impact on families/single parents as long as they are saving money in benefits.
PS I could be wrong in some of the detail above and the govt may have changed their stance - I suspect they haven't though.
-
^ yeah they really should work that stuff out based on the whole household income.
True, but that can't be ALL the government's fault? Or is it?
well it kinda is if they're paying your wages :lol:
-
On top of all this I found out today the degree I'll be study for an NHS job is more intensive and time consuming than most other degrees. Now I won't able to drink so much and attempt to sleep around!!!
-
What is the justification for the state to pay Child Benefit at all?
-
Because they can't withdraw it now it's there, or face the massive uprising it would cause...
-
Because they can't withdraw it now it's there, or face the massive uprising it would cause...
Spot on! :)
It's a stupid benefit that is massively unfair but no one could EVER challenge it.
The sad fact is that the entire welfare state is a Ponzi scheme which sells out the liberty of future generations for the benefit of current voters. The most politically volatile demographic are the baby boomer generation and f**k with their sense of entitlement at your peril.
The young cannot afford housing - have to pay massively for degrees their parents got for free - have no prospect of a pension... etc.
BUT - try to rebalance this injustice by building new homes, means testing tax credits/allowances/benefits for equity rich older homeowners/pensioners and they will rise up and hang you from the gallows.
They truely "never had it so good"... and continue to live longer and better than ANY human in history ... sustained and made possible only by selling the next generation down the river.
-
Because they can't withdraw it now it's there, or face the massive uprising it would cause...
Spot on! :)
It's a stupid benefit that is massively unfair but no one could EVER challenge it.
The sad fact is that the entire welfare state is a Ponzi scheme which sells out the liberty of future generations for the benefit of current voters. The most politically volatile demographic are the baby boomer generation and f**k with their sense of entitlement at your peril.
The young cannot afford housing - have to pay massively for degrees their parents got for free - have no prospect of a pension... etc.
BUT - try to rebalance this injustice by building new homes, means testing tax credits/allowances/benefits for equity rich older homeowners/pensioners and they will rise up and hang you from the gallows.
They truely "never had it so good"... and continue to live longer and better than ANY human in history ... sustained and made possible only by selling the next generation down the river.
These are the same generation that revered the Beatw@ts.
Shotgun to the face required for all Beatles fans.
I rest my case.
Roo
PS please never let me get in a position of authority haha
-
while i'd agree the baby boomers had it/have it pretty good, personally I'd rather ensure the current generation gets it as good as well. plenty of those things could be paid for (or at least paid for better than currently) if we rearranged what we were willing to spend money on.
also there are plenty of things the baby boomers didn't have that good, growing up in austerity just after the war etc., not to mention we have better medical care and technology now.
i also don't think it's fair to blame baby boomers for having it good and wanting to keep it that way. plenty of them would want us to have it too.
^ i think they liked telecasters too, roo :P
-
Speaking as someone who hasn't had a pay rise in 4 years and doesn't get any kind of pension (unless I organise and pay for it completely on my own), I have very little sympathy. ;)
My pays gone down. Before that it hadn't gone up in 5 years. I get up between 4:00 and 5:00am and work until 6:00-6:30pm for peanuts now. What's a pension? The country has more debt than it can cope with and these people think they're entitled to more. Which has to be paid for by the private sector. Plus the £ has gone down in value so why shouldn't they be asked to pay more. They not getting much sympathy from me or most of the country.
The way things work in this country is far too complicated for it to continue like this. Things need to be simplified in some way but it won't happen.
-
(a) My pays gone down. Before that it hadn't gone up in 5 years. I get up between 4:00 and 5:00am and work until 6:00-6:30pm for peanuts now. What's a pension? (b) The country has more debt than it can cope with and these people think they're entitled to more. (c) Which has to be paid for by the private sector. (d) Plus the £ has gone down in value so why shouldn't they be asked to pay more. (e) They not getting much sympathy from me or most of the country.
(a) that sucks :( Personally you have my sympathies, but why i should when you have no sympathy for the public sector is another question ;)
(b) that's not true, they're striking because what they had been promised has been taken away
(c) that's a massive over-simplification. the private sector, i imagine, would make a heck of a lot less money if there were no roads, no people being educated, no healthcare system, etc. etc. etc.
(d) does that have anything to do with it? if people are paid in pounds that's not really going to affect it. it'll affect what you can buy, but not teh actual amount you're paid.
(e) didn't teh daily mail take down a poll on its website because a massive majority agreed with teh strikers? that's what i heard, anyway :lol:
-
I dont want your sympathy! So the fact the pound is worth less has no effect whatsoever on investments made for pensions does it? I can't see how it can. Plus there is no interest rate to speak of. The futures exchange invests money from private pensions to create wealth to pay them so the public ones must work like that to a degree.
If they have been told something and now are being treated differently I would say that is som
ething to do with the current financial situation. You can't just pretend it's not happening and it has no effect on you.
Most wealth IS created in the private sector and it does Pay for the public sector.
I don't read the Daily Mail so I wouldn't know. So what if it did. Its not an opinion of the working population.
Plus Brown plundered private pensions when he was in power. I dont remember Unison sticking up for workers effected by that theft.
-
I'm with Jonny. So what if something was 'promised' - things change and you have to adapt to new environments. The private sector has changed its pension stance to reflect the changed financial situation, so I don't see why the public sector shouldn't too.
The public sector doesn't generate any income, and only accounts for approx 20% of the UK workforce. The private sector makes the money and funds the public sector via taxes. Therefore, I very much doubt the majority of the UK population supported the strikes.
The public sector strikers should be thankful for the fact they still have a job and a pension right now, and if they don't like the new arrangements they can either a) put up and stop moaning about it or b) find themselves another job they they ARE happy with.
-
The difference between promised in this case for the public sector and the private sector is that the private sector wouldn't have promised something they couldn't afford.
Unfortunate, but true.
-
Plus Brown plundered private pensions when he was in power. I dont remember Unison sticking up for workers effected by that theft.
I see things like this mentioned on forums a lot and it's extremely silly - up there with "Unison didn't make a fuss when Ken Livingstone said bankers should be shot!" after the knickers-in-a-twist farce because that bigoted cretin Clarkson said something stupid again. Unison have no mandate to speak out on behalf of private sector workers.
The public sector strikers should be thankful for the fact they still have a job and a pension right now, and if they don't like the new arrangements they can either a) put up and stop moaning about it or b) find themselves another job they they ARE happy with.
Back to this? C'mon Dave. It's hard to get work just now, not remotely simple to wander into something else. So you're essentially saying - Any working conditions, however shit, and however much you're done over by your boss, is fine. You'll just have to take it on the chin 'cause you've no option.
That's the whole point that unions exist, to stop workers without another option getting abused.
-
Well my old final salary pension was 'promised' and supposedly secure, but the company found a loophole as it was a) costing far too much and b) wasn't in line with pension provisions in other countries. They changed it.
People need to realise that just because you had it yesterday, it doesn't automatically mean you can have it today.
-
And yes nfe, unless your boss is breaking a law they have the right to change the world around you. That's why they're the boss. They run things, not you.
-
And the workforce have every right to refuse to work en mass. They're not breaking the law either (so long as they're not police, obviously).
-
Maybe so, but the rest of us don't have to support their actions. Especially when they're expecting the other 80% of the population to pay for what they think they've been 'promised' when we're getting further out of pocket ourselves :roll:
Double whammy for us.
-
I think the biggest thing at play here is that public sector workers have been forced to increase their penson contribution and they will see absolutely no benifit at all.
It's exactly the same as people in the private sector being told that they are to pay an extra £100 a month tax so that you can help reduce the deficit too. I bet some of you would have a bit of sympathy then (and a good old moan).
I'll try to hunt out the article where the bank of england says that it is comparable to an additional tax on the public sector.
-
It's not the same as that - we're paying extra (or receiving less for the same) in our pensions too, so it's like for like.
If the public sector workers "win" and get no change in their pensions, where's the extra government funding coming from?
-
(a) I dont want your sympathy! (b) So the fact the pound is worth less has no effect whatsoever on investments made for pensions does it? I can't see how it can. (c) Plus there is no interest rate to speak of. The futures exchange invests money from private pensions to create wealth to pay them so the public ones must work like that to a degree.
(d) If they have been told something and now are being treated differently I would say that is som
ething to do with the current financial situation. You can't just pretend it's not happening and it has no effect on you.
(e) Most wealth IS created in the private sector and it does Pay for the public sector.
(f) I don't read the Daily Mail so I wouldn't know. So what if it did. Its not an opinion of the working population.
(g) Plus Brown plundered private pensions when he was in power. I dont remember Unison sticking up for workers effected by that theft.
(a) fair enough
(b) I guess, but i suppose it depends on where those investments are
(c) i guess
(d) well, sure, but a contract's a contract at the same time. if we just tear everything up, that's dangerous (and not just for public sector workers, for everyone).
(e) my point is that the private sector's wealth generation is affected by the public sector, public works and infrastructure. it's virtually impossible to separate the two. it's certainly not the case that the private sector generates all teh money and the public sector spends it (LOL).
and if you want to get into it, this whole mess we're in was caused by the private sector.
(f) well, sure, it's not exactly a referendum, but at the same time, if 80+% of those posting on a right-leaning newspaper's website supported the strikes...
(g) i'm certainly no fan of brown, and am not trying to defend what he did.
The difference between promised in this case for the public sector and the private sector is that the private sector wouldn't have promised something they couldn't afford.
Unfortunate, but true.
Well my old final salary pension was 'promised' and supposedly secure, but the company found a loophole as it was a) costing far too much and b) wasn't in line with pension provisions in other countries. They changed it.
hmmm, sounds like it's not so true, roo
and that sucks, by teh way, dave.
you probably should have gone on strike. i'd have supported that. :lol:
I think the basic gist of the matter is that an awful lot of people worked in teh public sector for years, earning less than they would have in the private, but were willing to put up with that because things like pensions and job security were pretty decent.
Now that's been taken away, and a lot of people have been working in the public sector for way too long to change tack now.
I think it's perfectly acceptable to be annoyed :?
-
Being annoyed is fine, and if people think it's that much better in the private sector why don't they come and work here instead? They have the choice.
-
I'm really struggling to get how you think that's a sensible argument. "Tough, shut up or start over, from scratch" is all you're saying. I understand you're obviously overtly economically-rightist, which is fair enough, but you can't possibly think it a moral way for any business to behave, let alone the state, who should be treating workers fairly.
Lots of people have worked in the public sector for a long time because of the pension benefits they believed they'd have, on lower wages than people doing equivalent work in the private sector. it's not a case of jealousy of the private sector, it's a perfectly reasonable decision to take the lower paid career for the end-benefits. Which have been taken from them, whilst they're asked to contribute more. Yes they can find private sector jobs in many cases (well, hopefully) but it means starting a new career and having lost a long time's (potentially decades) saving and contributing to a private pension because they believed they were already taking care of their future.
It is completely reasonable to protest it in any fashion they can.
-
Each to their own. I find it unreasonable that people of today expect cast iron certainty of pay, job security and benefits over their entire career. It’s completely unrealistic and unsustainable.
And they're not "starting over from scratch" - their pension isn't disappearing! :?
-
In terms of career/position/pay grade they often will be, depending on how transferable their skills are. And part of their pension accrued IS disappearing.
-
I find it unreasonable that people of today expect cast iron certainty of pay, job security and benefits over their entire career. It’s completely unrealistic and unsustainable.
I don't agree with this. While people are in employment, they're paying income tax and national insurance contributions. We all do this so that the wise old government can ensure our nation's current and future interests are taken care of, and that includes keeping the population in employment so they can continue to contribute with taxes and NI. Private and public sector alike.
If the government squanders our nation's assets through poor management, we as a nation have every right to grumble about it. This public sector outcry is a result of that, in its most over-simplified form.
Just for the record, I work in the public sector and I'm not striking or complaining about my wage, despite not having had a pay increase (or cost of living increase) for 4 years, aside from an increase due to me successfully getting a promotion. I'm working towards new cancer therapies, which I do partly because I love my job (though the commute is killing me) and partly because I want to contribute positively to society in some way. That makes me a lucky one, I know, but I can't realistically go on for too much longer with a real terms decrease in pay, which is what we're all getting, and on top of that an increase in pension contributions.
The bottom line here is that there's no easy solution. If we could go back in time and stop the bankers utterly ****ing us all over, I'm sure we all would do that in a heartbeat, but we can't so we need some measures to safeguard our country's finances, and unfortunately, that means us all paying more and getting less. That's why I'm not striking, though I can understand why those who are, are.
-
So you're saying it's acceptable to believe that once you become a public sector worker, you can expect to stay there for life with guaranteed pay rises and gold plated pensions?
I agree the government is there to ensure the future, but they have to have the flexibility to sacrifice some of the current in order to do that. Otherwise you're in a downhill spiral that can't be escaped from. This is what they're trying to do.
-
Plus Brown plundered private pensions when he was in power. I dont remember Unison sticking up for workers effected by that theft.
Unison have no mandate to speak out on behalf of private sector workers.
I know they don't but they are saying fairer pensions for all now but didn't say anything when Brown stole workers pensions when he was in power.
-
So you're saying it's acceptable to believe that once you become a public sector worker, you can expect to stay there for life with guaranteed pay rises and gold plated pensions?
I agree the government is there to ensure the future, but they have to have the flexibility to sacrifice some of the current in order to do that. Otherwise you're in a downhill spiral that can't be escaped from. This is what they're trying to do.
I dont think he is saying that. I think you are exaggerating. I don't think anyone is saying they should have guarenteed job security, pay rises equal to whatever and super pensions.
There is a danger that the pension contribution increase will make things worse. If enough people working in the public sector opt out of the pension, which is probably more likely for new starters on lower wages with uni debts or whatever, then the government will loose all the money they claimed to be saving.
why aren't they tightening up on legal loopholes for companies to dodge paying tax? Or stoping PFI related projects instead of signing more off.
-
Question
Any Public Sector workers on this thread - what % contributions do you & government make to your pension pot? Just curious to understand how it compares with mine.
Thanks
Mike
-
Some Facts.
NI/Pension payments from the Public Sector fall into the same "POT" as General Taxation.
As such it is NOT comparable to Equity based investments for private pensions.
In essence look at it as "Deferred Pay" or at worst an investment in future "UK plc"
As a percentage of GDP - the projections for "reformed" public sector pensions ARE REDUCING!
IT IS AFFORDABLE.
That is the truth...
Now my oppinion....
Everyone has been f**ked over and it is a pity that "public Vs private" debate is being used to distract and obscure the issue.
Unions and the right to withdraw labour are vital tools for the worker and the reluctance to exercise this right to organisation and action has resulted in almost Victorian levels of worker exploitation in the private sector.
If the workers in the private sector were a little more fraternal and organised WE TOO would enjoy better safeguards!
I will recap from earlier. A contract is a contract and as such the workers should be paid.
Don't hate those who are fighting for what is their right.
-
I dont think he is saying that. I think you are exaggerating. I don't think anyone is saying they should have guarenteed job security, pay rises equal to whatever and super pensions.
Yes, I'm exagerating to make a point, but that's basically what the issue is. It seems that any change to existing benefits is seen to be wrong and unacceptable.
-
I was paying 10% of my take home pay each month but i opted out and have transferred my pension to a private fund now with a small portion of it paid to me early at my request.
The majority of staff at the central division have also transferred theirs to private funds also
-
I dont think he is saying that. I think you are exaggerating. I don't think anyone is saying they should have guarenteed job security, pay rises equal to whatever and super pensions.
Yes, I'm exagerating to make a point, but that's basically what the issue is. It seems that any change to existing benefits is seen to be wrong and unacceptable.
No it doesn't. They are open to reform, they have already reformed what we are talking about once and now they are being told to do it again. The ISF says the government doesn't HAVE to do it, it has a choice. The projections Afghan is talking about are reducing with only some of the current goverment reforms taken into account. It isn't a projection of everything the government wants to do as far as I know.
People should be able to fight for what they have. I might be in a worse position than some that work in the public sector, but why should I tell them to just give up what they have because I don't have it myself?
-
Everyone has been f**ked over and it is a pity that "public Vs private" debate is being used to distract and obscure the issue.
Unions and the right to withdraw labour are vital tools for the worker and the reluctance to exercise this right to organisation and action has resulted in almost Victorian levels of worker exploitation in the private sector.
If the workers in the private sector were a little more fraternal and organised WE TOO would enjoy better safeguards!
+1. Particularly the last sentence. The private sector have been convinced (over 30 odd years), embarrassingly successfully, that they don't deserve to expect anything bar a pittance and therefore anything beyond that is more than reasonable so no one should ever moan.
-
Everyone has been f**ked over and it is a pity that "public Vs private" debate is being used to distract and obscure the issue.
Unions and the right to withdraw labour are vital tools for the worker and the reluctance to exercise this right to organisation and action has resulted in almost Victorian levels of worker exploitation in the private sector.
If the workers in the private sector were a little more fraternal and organised WE TOO would enjoy better safeguards!
+1. Particularly the last sentence. The private sector have been convinced (over 30 odd years), embarrassingly successfully, that they don't deserve to expect anything bar a pittance and therefore anything beyond that is more than reasonable so no one should ever moan.
NFE & the AFGHAN totally Agree!!
(http://www.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs3/1586285_o.gif)
-
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mIGy7aGghmo/S94IWW3bWII/AAAAAAAABgw/t-uHRsxmiWA/s320/citizen+smith.jpg)
-
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sV5AoRzpNMw/Tc-viSu_nnI/AAAAAAAAAZo/SZTNswKjZJc/s320/wondermccartney.jpg)
-
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-E2AJu0YfPRM/Ta1WiHfIKrI/AAAAAAAAC0c/x_6ZbsvhWxc/s1600/20081229AardvarkBaby.jpg)
-
I give up... ya got me... Armadillo?
-
Baby Aardvark
-
Being annoyed is fine, and if people think it's that much better in the private sector why don't they come and work here instead? They have the choice.
I never said they had it better in the private sector. I said it was a judgement call, i.e. weighing up the better pay in teh private sector, but not so good job security and pensions versus the opposite in teh public.
my point is when people had made a decision based on what was offered in their contracts etc., and then the goalposts changed, that's not fair. Especially when people have maybe been working in the public sector for most of their careers- they can't get the last 20 years back to change jobs.
By teh way, you realise that your exact argument could be used for all you guys in teh private sector complaining about the public sector, right? ;)
Some Facts.
NI/Pension payments from the Public Sector fall into the same "POT" as General Taxation.
As such it is NOT comparable to Equity based investments for private pensions.
In essence look at it as "Deferred Pay" or at worst an investment in future "UK plc"
As a percentage of GDP - the projections for "reformed" public sector pensions ARE REDUCING!
IT IS AFFORDABLE.
That is the truth...
Now my oppinion....
Everyone has been f**ked over and it is a pity that "public Vs private" debate is being used to distract and obscure the issue.
Unions and the right to withdraw labour are vital tools for the worker and the reluctance to exercise this right to organisation and action has resulted in almost Victorian levels of worker exploitation in the private sector.
If the workers in the private sector were a little more fraternal and organised WE TOO would enjoy better safeguards!
I will recap from earlier. A contract is a contract and as such the workers should be paid.
Don't hate those who are fighting for what is their right.
i don't always agree with you, but that was an awesome post. Agreed 100%. :drink:
No it doesn't. They are open to reform, they have already reformed what we are talking about once and now they are being told to do it again. The ISF says the government doesn't HAVE to do it, it has a choice. The projections Afghan is talking about are reducing with only some of the current goverment reforms taken into account. It isn't a projection of everything the government wants to do as far as I know.
People should be able to fight for what they have. I might be in a worse position than some that work in the public sector, but why should I tell them to just give up what they have because I don't have it myself?
+1, instead of saying, "I don't have that, I'm gonna make damn sure no-one else does", maybe say, "If I support them maybe they'll support me when i try to get better treatment".
Also, I'd say that these private sector complaints sound awfully like teh politics of envy, which is an accusation the right throws at the left all the time.
-
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sV5AoRzpNMw/Tc-viSu_nnI/AAAAAAAAAZo/SZTNswKjZJc/s320/wondermccartney.jpg)
:lol:
Who's who?
-
The.
-
dave_mc - I'm not complaining about what the public sector are doing, I'm just giving an opposing viewpoint and saying that I don't support their actions ;)
-
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sV5AoRzpNMw/Tc-viSu_nnI/AAAAAAAAAZo/SZTNswKjZJc/s320/wondermccartney.jpg)
:lol:
Who's who?
I'll be the musically gifted one who has a legacy of timeless recordings... (and a new debate begins!) :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
^ :lol:
let's hope roo doesn't see this :lol:
dave_mc - I'm not complaining about what the public sector are doing, I'm just giving an opposing viewpoint and saying that I don't support their actions ;)
semantics! :lol:
-
NFE & the AFGHAN totally Agree!!
I got confused by the political debate, but..... Good Lord in Heaven! :o
-
Exhibit A
http://youtu.be/6o8-eLZhrOA
Vs
Exhibit B
http://youtu.be/1bGOgY1CmiU
PDT_041 PDT_043 PDT_047
-
go stevie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZEGHnAxEpo
-
Exhibit A
http://youtu.be/6o8-eLZhrOA
Vs
Exhibit B
http://youtu.be/1bGOgY1CmiU
PDT_041 PDT_043 PDT_047
I'd have to declare that a draw. A sugary bilge draw.
-
Err, yep! The government was formed as per the voting rules, so they have the power to do what they think is right.
I find this more than an alarming statement.
I'll admit I'm not interested in politics in the slightest, but to my layman eyes that's how I see it.
So educate me - why is it a "more than alarming statement"?
Well, unless you believe that governments are put in place by some higher power, you must admit that the people elected to power have only a vague semblance of the public that elect them.
In 2005, the labour party had a huge majority in the commons on the basis of just 40.7% of the vote (in contrast, the Nazis gained 43.9% of the vote in the 1933 elections). To be fair your statement only said "they have the power to do what they think is right", which is factually correct, but assuming you approve of it...
Labour had a mandate to rule under the terms of the British Constitution, but they certainly didn't have a moral justification to do whatever the hell they please; on the contrary: the people have a duty to restrain their government if the people believe the government is acting in a manner that is contrary to the interests of the population it represents.
Your attitude thus far seems to be along the lines of "them's the rules - play the game", to which I have two responses:
1) Judging by your impressive guitar collection, the game's treating you quite well at present. long may that continue. However, it's not as easy for those at the bottom to blithely accept the status quo.
2) If the rules of the game are cr@p, stop playing by them. Capitalism is not holy writ; it's just the system of distribution that looks most sensible to most people at the moment. If people feel that the system of distribution is unjust or inadequate, damn right they should be peacefully working towards a better arrangement, through strikes, civil disobedience or whatever.
Credit to NFE and Afghan for intelligent input and congratulations on your newfound fraternity!
-
1) "The game" isn't treating me quite well at present. Working hard when younger to get qualifications, being good at my job, and there being demand for my skills is what's treating me well. It has nothing to do with the current, previous or future governments.
2) The recent civil disobedience caused damage to good hard working and honest businesses, and in no way can that be justified.
Anyway, I'm off to play guitar ;)
-
I hope we can all refrain from personalising the discussion.
Legitimate strikes will always negativly affect some innocent parties but when done for the right reasons it is for the "greater good" (horrible phrase I know).
The idea that "there is no such thing as society" (which is in fact a misquote of Thatcher) is at play throughout this discussion.
People need to work in concert when the individual is poor, week or marginalised.
I may be occasionally inconvienienced by a strike I have no involvement in but others have been in the past and I live within a social fabric that has greatly benefited from many acts of civil disobedience.
Im sure Rosa Parks really inconvienienced other bus passengers and delayed their journey but I think it was the right thing to do under the circumstances. :? :)
-
1) "The game" isn't treating me quite well at present. Working hard when younger to get qualifications, being good at my job, and there being demand for my skills is what's treating me well. It has nothing to do with the current, previous or future governments.
2) The recent civil disobedience caused damage to good hard working and honest businesses, and in no way can that be justified.
Anyway, I'm off to play guitar ;)
Sorry for the personal comment- I'll speak on general terms from here on in.
It is true that an individual can work hard, get qualified and do well in life, and if hard work and talent were the only factors determining wealth I'd have no problem with the current level of inequality. But there are millions of people who work hard and are now unemployed because of slumps in demand beyond their control. There's no point saying they should work harder or move to another career- if you've spent a lifetime working in construction your skillset is unnecessary across the western world at present.
As for the role of government in individual prosperity, most people are educated by the state. That's the most obvious effect, but if you work in Britain your job security is probably not many steps removed from the demand created by government contracts and public sector workers. Those who aren't state educated tend to owe their wealth to a different exterior force: the good fortune to be born to parents wealthy enough to educate them privately.
In short, though it's perfectly possible to be the architect of ones own poverty, nobody can really take sole credit for their wealth; it's dependent on government and your family and the chaotic whims of the stock market and a host of other factors...
As an aside, when I said civil disobedience I was referring to targeted sit-ins and occupations for a political end, certainly not the stupidity that erupted in London over the summer.
Enjoy your guitar playing 8)
-
It is true that an individual can work hard, get qualified and do well in life, and if hard work and talent were the only factors determining wealth I'd have no problem with the current level of inequality. But there are millions of people who work hard and are now unemployed because of slumps in demand beyond their control. There's no point saying they should work harder or move to another career- if you've spent a lifetime working in construction your skillset is unnecessary across the western world at present.
True, so what I'm saying is change career and retrain where there is demand - household plumbing/electrician, broadband cable installation? - rather than complain about the lack of construction work. You have to stand up and grab life by the horns?
Clearly there's many reasons why I'm not into politics! :lol:
-
It is true that an individual can work hard, get qualified and do well in life, and if hard work and talent were the only factors determining wealth I'd have no problem with the current level of inequality. But there are millions of people who work hard and are now unemployed because of slumps in demand beyond their control. There's no point saying they should work harder or move to another career- if you've spent a lifetime working in construction your skillset is unnecessary across the western world at present.
True, so what I'm saying is change career and retrain where there is demand - household plumbing/electrician, broadband cable installation? - rather than complain about the lack of construction work. You have to stand up and grab life by the horns?
Clearly there's many reasons why I'm not into politics! :lol:
If you dont have the money you cant really retrain though
-
Exactly Toe-Knee.
when areas that have been traditional homes of manufacturing its hard to expect generations of people to retrain for jobs. What about age too. If loose your job I bet its not only much harder to retrain but also to get a new job once you've finished retraining. If you have a family to support while retraining its probably harder still.
I see it in northern cities a lot. For example Holbeck in leeds is an area where people would have traditionally done manual jobs, but while knocking the area down... new office blocks have been built close by that contain nothing... hoping to attract businesses to set up shop i guess, but the local population don't have the skill set to do the jobs people are attempting to bring to their area.
Government are complicit in the lack of manufacturing jobs. We now have this initiative to finish some roads, or build more railway lines or whatever that was recently announced. However a few months ago, the Government gave a contract to build a bunch of new trains away to a german company, when it would have guaranteed jobs here in the UK if it had gone to the British company that expected to win the contract. They constantly give with one hand while taking away with the other... but they don't seem to be taking too much from bankers, or tightening up on legal tax loopholes for companies like Vodaphone, or sorting out the TERRIBLE waste of money that are Public Finance Initiatives.