MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Increase the basic rate of income tax, while also increasing the tax free allowance, and reduce VAT.
Instant economy boost.
P.S I work in the private sector in sales, I do a fairly meaningless job in society compared to some yet earn more than many nurses teachers etc making a far more positive contribution to society than me. And my pension is total ****
miketually - Member
Increase the basic rate of income tax, while also increasing the tax free allowance, and reduce VAT.Instant economy boost.
Hang on a cotton-picking minute there sunshine. Won't that help the poorest the most? We can't be having that!
Increase the basic rate of income tax, while also increasing the tax free allowance, and reduce VAT.
Absolutely spot on.
VAT is what hammers those who can least afford. And it spares no one - pensioners, the unemployed, low wage earners, are all hit with equal vigour.
[img] 
[/img]
Increase the basic rate of income tax, while also increasing the tax free allowance, and reduce VAT.Instant economy boost.
I wholeheartedly agree with the raising of the tax free allowance - if it will take a meaningful proportion of the lower paid out of tax altogether. I also agree VAT is regressive and hits the poorest hardest.
Hang on a cotton-picking minute there sunshine. Won't that help the poorest the most? We can't be having that!
Amusingly enough CaptJon, if you'd read the Tullet Prebon paper I linked earlier (and its subsequent chapters) you'd have realised that the author you thought was an evil banker was actually advocating exactly what you agree with.
Most rational people know that to stimulate the economy the poorer sections of society need to be given more disposable income. The poor spend on things, the rich just invest.
There needs to be a redistribution from rich to poor for partly these reasons. There also needs to be a redistribution from the public sector to the productive private sector.
Berm Bandit - Member"Very difficult to renegotiate contracts that have alraedy been signed"
PMSL : Apparently it isn't, apparently CallmeDave and the lads can do it at the drop of a hat when it suits them. Haven't you understood any of what this is about????
I LOL'd
There also needs to be a redistribution from the public sector to the productive private sector.
You want the government to divert public sector money into the private sector ?
I think you'll find that the neo-liberals don't like that, it's called government intervention, and apparently 'the market' [i]always[/i] knows best. Except when it comes to the railways, and the banks, and training, and nuclear energy, and affordable housing, and agriculture, and manufacturing, and infrastructure projects, and services, and education, and healthcare, and research, but other than that, the private sector has everything more or less buttoned up.
Still arguing about this? I thought it had all been said.
Nice work from the taggers - you must be really proud of yourselves. Is that how poor your argument is? Am I really that worthy a target?
Increase the basic rate of income tax, while also increasing the tax free allowance, and reduce VAT.
"Absolutely spot on."
As somebody ever so slightly to the right of ernie, I agree on this one.
There also needs to be a redistribution from the public sector to the productive private sector.
Hasn't there already been a pretty huge redistribution into the "productive" private sector banks. Tens of billions wasn't it? How much more do you think they need then?
And how much of a profit did the taxpayer make on the sale Northern Rock?
Hasn't there already been a pretty huge redistribution into the "productive" private sector banks. Tens of billions wasn't it? How much more do you think they need then?
And how much of a profit did the taxpayer make on the sale Northern Rock?
You won't find me defending that, except I will point out that the taxpayer made less of a loss on Northern Rock than most sane people expected (Branson overpaid). Not the point under discussion anyway as the private sector does not equal (solely) the banking sector, and do I really need to point out the truism that there is no public sector without a private sector to support it?
You want the government to divert public sector money into the private sector ?I think you'll find that the neo-liberals don't like that, it's called government intervention, and apparently 'the market' always knows best. Except when it comes to the railways, and the banks, and training, and nuclear energy, and affordable housing, and agriculture, and manufacturing, and infrastructure projects, and services, and education, and healthcare, and research, but other than that, the private sector has everything more or less buttoned up.
Neo liberal! I don't even know what that means anymore. No-one is arguing that the role of the state be abolished - I entirely agree that there are public goods which require a public sector (I'd be very happy to see government spending on truly productive assets such as a new airport in the SE). It is instead a question of degree, does the public sector need to be as big as it is now?
As to diversion, if people aren't paying taxes to support a bloated public sector, they have more disposable income with which to invest, or spend as they see fit. I'm not sure you can reasonably argue that the current ratio of the public to private sector in the UK is desirable, or indeed sustainable, and pensions are all part of that problem.
bainbrge
Our public sector is smaller than Germany and France and ours includes the health service - theirs does not mainly.
The problem is we are under taxed and the taxation is not progressive enough.
want decent public services that are taken for granted accross the EU then we need to pay the taxes for it.
Remember when you lok at the raw figures most of our healthcare is included, most of Germanys is not
Most rational people know that to stimulate the economy the poorer sections of society need to be given more disposable income. The poor spend on things, the rich just invest.
That is a very interesting (???) observation. We have just had an economic mirage based on consumption and leverage. I would be amazed if merely stimulating consumption was the answer.
Given the predominance of Keynsians on this forum - we have AD = Consumption + Investment+Government spending + ( exports - imports). Of these the path, to sustainable growth needs to be Investment. Consumption is merely the sugar rush, government spending is constrained so that leaves I plus stimulating X's (via QE leading to a weaker £).
But the economic mirage was based on excess leverage at the household, corporate, bank and sovereign level. Corporates have arguably made the most progress but households, banks and sovereigns remain over-leveraged and their fortunes are completely intertwined. So any idea that there is a quick solution to this mess, is absurd.
.There needs to be a redistribution from rich to poor for partly these reasons
Sorry, this seems to be absurd. There is an argument for redistribition based on equality, but the logic here ie, poor people spend, rich invest, leaves me gobsmacked.
There also needs to be a redistribution from the public sector to the productive private sector.
True - but there will be a lag in the short term. The private sector will not respond quickly enough to counter to reduction in public sector employment. Hence, the rocky road ahead and the fallacy of thinking that consumption will be our saviour.
The problem is we are under taxed
Perhaps the most absurd comment of the week/thread
and the taxation is not progressive enough
Better to say we are not taxed [b]correctly[/b]
if people aren't paying taxes to support a bloated public sector, they have more disposable income with which to invest
There you go, with the old myth that taxes don't contribute to the wealth of the nation. Functioning railways help to make Britain wealthier, training and eduction helps to make Britain wealthier, grants and subsidies for manufacturing businesses helps to make Britain wealthier, investment in research helps to make Britain wealthier, road construction helps to make Britain wealthier, and so on - even keeping people healthy, helps to make Britain wealthy.
But people like you who talk about "the bloated public sector" would prefer to pretend that every pound paid in tax is a pound lost.
And if you are [i]that[/i] bothered about taxation affecting people's "disposable income", then why aren't you arguing in favour of other means for the government to receive revenue ? The public sector is perfectly capable of generating its own profits, if it is allowed to do so. EDF makes a nice tidy sum for the government. Unfortunately, it's not our government, which is why I have already suggested nationalising the utilities.
I will point out that the taxpayer made less of a loss on Northern Rock than most sane people expected
Whilst I can't give a cast-iron guarantee with regards to my sanity, I can assure you that I never expected the taxpayer to lose [b][i]any money at all[/i][/b] propping up a bank. Are you seriously suggesting that we should rejoice in the knowledge that the taxpayer made a less an expected loss propping up an industry who's history is the history of unrelenting obscene mind-boggling profits ? I think you need to check [i]your[/i] sanity out mate 🙂
Ernie - tax is a withdrawal from the economy. Government spending is the injection. So the debate is the balance between the two. Fine to use to tax to support G, if and only if G is the most effective and efficient manner of deliver ie, in the case of some public goods and where markets fail.
As the BBC program illustrated this week with comments from both Lab and Tory ministers, the key challenge with G is ensuring that it does not take on a momentum of its own.
[Damn, I had made it to 17:20 on a Friday and managed not to get involved in STW econ/political debate. Going cold turkey was just too difficult. C'mon effort, man!!!]
Still haven't answered my question though TJ...
We could save a bloody fortune if people educated their own kids, looked after their own relatives when ill, old or infirm, sorted their own bins, maintained the stretch of road outside their own house, stopped wasting doctors time with a cold, stopped turning up at A and E Monday morning cos they don't want to go to work, tolerated many minor ailments and infirmaties our ancestors had to rather than expecting increased levels of care etc.
Fine to use to tax to support G, if and only if G is the most effective and efficient manner of deliver ie, in the case of some public goods and where markets fail.
"Where markets fail" ? The markets [b]"fail"[/b] !!! WTF ?? 😯
Now that's not a term you ever hear the public sector bashers talk about.
Yeah, the markets fail ........when it comes to the railways, and the banks, and training, and nuclear energy, and affordable housing, and agriculture, and manufacturing, and infrastructure projects, and services, and education, and healthcare, and research, etc, etc, etc.
Ernie - perhaps some balance to the argument, might make it stand up. Three legs to a stool, not one?
"Where markets fail" ? The markets "fail" !!! WTF ??
Whereas, governments have an excellent track record of allocating scarce resources?
Whereas, governments have an excellent track record of allocating scare resources?
Right, you're now saying that the private sector is no worst than the public sector.......we're getting somewhere !!!
EDIT : Or is it that the public sector is as bad as the private sector ? 😕
Either way, I like where this is going 😀
Ernie - we have a mixed economy. Why? Because history has shown us that there needs to be a balance between the two ends of the spectrum of resource allocation - ie, free markets versus state planning. Any basic student of economics knows this from term 1.
Personally, I think that framing the current debate in terms of the failure of capitalism is incorrect. With respect to markets, I think that history will tell us that we have seen a [b]failure of capitalists[/b] rather than capitalism. We have also seen a massive failure in government allocation of resources and the absurdity (sorry for the over-use of this word!) of the European project.
What makes the current situation so challenging is that the fortunes of the household/banking and government sectors are so completely intertwined. Hence framing arguments around one end of the economic/political spectrum is unlikely to lead to the appropriate conclusion. IMHO, of course!!!
Take taxation - we have a system that is both progressive and regressive and distorted by the impact of benefits. But on balance it is clearly regressive. So why do we have sustained and arguably unequal distributions of income. It is far more complicated that the facile arguments presented by certain posters above!!
"You won't find me defending that, except I will point out that the taxpayer made less of a loss on Northern Rock than most sane people expected (Branson overpaid)"
^^^ what a crazy comment. We were assured by the government it was an investment for the future. Then they sold it at a loss of millions. Our politicians seem to have an issue with telling the truth and/or making promises to teh public they cannot keep.
The Guardian's piece on this is interesting, especially the ending:
Public sector pensions are more generous than private sector ones because they are [b]far more likely to have one,[/b] and to have a [b]defined benefit[/b], rather than defined contributions scheme. This [b]links [/b]their pensions to their [b]final salary[/b] and is [b]more generous[/b]. This is what some people refer to as the "gold-plated" schemes. [b]However, the average public sector pension is £7,800, which, combined with the state pension would leave these people hovering around the poverty line. [/b]The question of whether pensions are affordable is a political one, but over the longer term their costs will fall as a proportion of GDP.In the run-up to Wednesday's strike I'm going to look into the claims about the impact of the changes that the government are proposing and how this will affect the situation. I'll continue by scrutinising some of the claims and counter-claims made by the government and the unions in the row. To introduce that political debate, Dan Milmo, the Guardian's industrial editor, writes:
Fairness is a concept that crops up a lot in the debate over public sector pension reform. For the government, it is only fair that state-backed workers pay more contributions - an extra £3bn a year by 2014/2015 - and work longer in order to justify pensions that, unlike most of their private sector counterparts, have a defined benefit or guaranteed monthly payout at the end of them. They are, after all, underwritten by the taxpayer.
For unions, it is unfair because a pension is a key reason for doing a job that can involve more mental and physical toil than the average private sector post (although experts claim that the real reason for decent public sector pensions is an historic wage disparity with the private sector). They also argue that the sheer scale of reform sought by the government is unjust: raising the retirement age in line with the state pension age; switching the rate at which benefits grow from the RPI rate of inflation to the less buoyant CPI; moving staff in the NHS, local government, civil service, schools and uniformed services from final salary schemes - where the payout is a proportion of the salary at the end of your career - to pensions schemes that payout a proportion of your average earnings over your whole career.
The average public sector pension is around £7,000 per year while in the private sector the average defined contribution (money purchase) pension pot is around £28,000 on retirement. That would buy annual income of about £1,650 if they bought a flat rate annuity that didn't increase with RPI, or £1,050 if they linked it to inflation.
All a nice summary, before the killer blow:
You could argue, as do the unions, [b]that neither the private nor public payouts look that attractive [/b] and it is private sector employees who should be the focus of attention.
Perhaps, the real message is that few of us can rely on a pension alone to support us in our old age?
I think it's disingenuous to describe what we have as a "mixed economy". We had a mixed economy 30 years ago, when the utilities, public transport, coal, steel, telecommunications, large chunks of engineering, etc, were nationalised industries. Since then, everything that can be privatised has been privatised, it can no longer be classified as a mixed economy - the only thing left is health, education, police/military, and bureaucracy.
Ernie - we do have a mixed economy. You could argue that we have an un-balanced economy, but you cannot say that we have either a free-market or a command economy.
Governments allocate resources directly and indirectly across all areas of economic activity. Markets do so in other areas. Both do some things better than others and vice versa - it was ever thus.
Anyway - nice debating briefly. Have a fun weekend - and keep the debate real/polite?
The Guardian's piece on this is interesting, especially the ending
The only thing I find interesting in the Guardian is the news, the letters page, and Seumas Milne 🙂
On a general note. Such politic topics like these shouldn't be allowed as there are always opposing sides trolling then getting upset. Its not good for general 'health' of the forum is it?
I'm no bloody angel either but its just a mission to anger and a online moshpit.
After my day at work I'll fight for my pension. And I know at least one family who will support me.
Such politic topics like these shouldn't be allowed as there are always opposing sides trolling then getting upset.
If anyone gets upset over politics then they deserve to be upset.
And there's nothing wrong with a bit of trolling btw.
Some people need to sort themselves out and not get so easily wound up - if that's the case.
"You won't find me defending that, except I will point out that the taxpayer made less of a loss on Northern Rock than most sane people expected (Branson overpaid)"^^^ what a crazy comment. We were assured by the government it was an investment for the future. Then they sold it at a loss of millions. Our politicians seem to have an issue with telling the truth and/or making promises to teh public they cannot keep.
The original comment was spot on. No sane person expected the Government to handle the sale appropriately!
That said, if everyone who owes NRAM money pays their loans and mortgages, the Govt is still likely to make a profit in the end.
I've said it on here a few times, but the financial crisis owes as much to people borrowing too much as banks lending too much. No bank ever forced anyone to take out a loan or mortgage.
No sane person expected the Government to handle the sale appropriately!
And you think that quickly selling off cheaply a company which is predicted to start making a profit next year was "appropriate" ?
David Cameron should make you Chancellor of the Exchequer mate ..... you sound like top notch material.
Ernie, you've not read things properly. I don't think the Govt handled the sale appropriately. My point was that any sane person would have expected the Govt to have messed it up, because they always do!
edit: I think I would make an excellent chancellor / PM though. First thing I would do is change employment law to give employers the right to sack any striking workers with immediate effect and no payoff. If strikers actually have to consider what their skills are worth in the open market, they will have a better view on what is a fair pay settlement in their current position.
Ernie, you've not read things properly. I don't think the Govt handled the sale appropriately.
Please accept my apologies dmjb4.
Although I'm shocked to discover that only the insane considered a Tory government capable of handling NR's sale appropriately.
Them loopy right-wingers, eh ?
The guardian have been a bit naughty by comparing apples with oranges.
Whilst they may be correct that the "average" public sector pension is £7,000, that reflects that the "average" worker may have been a member of several schemes in their career, and indeed may have not worked for their full career in the public sector.
For the "average" private sector worker to secure an income of £28,000 in todays terms, they would need to contribute £732 a month on top of their empoloyers typical 3% contribution (based on average private sector salary of £26,000).
If you play with the numbers here:
[url= http://www.hl.co.uk/pensions/interactive-calculators/pension-calculator ]Hargreaves Lansdown calculator[/url]
There's no way of getting close to £28,000 income based on today's average private sector salary unless employees pay in 32% of their income each month.
BTW dmjb4 RE :
First thing I would do is change employment law to give employers the right to sack any striking workers with immediate effect and no payoff.
First of all I suggest that you brush up on your 'Employment Law' before taking the job of Chancellor of the Exchequer, even though it won't be in your brief. Because as the law stands, an employer can already sack their entire workforce for going on strike, and without a "payoff".
You're not too clued up are you ? .......perfect material for the Tory Party 8)
Amusingly enough CaptJon, if you'd read the Tullet Prebon paper I linked earlier (and its subsequent chapters) you'd have realised that the author you thought was an evil banker was actually advocating exactly what you agree with.
I didn't call him an evil banker, just didn't like the way he wrote. I can't comment on his analysis because i couldn't read it, but even if we have different interpretations of what happened in the past, doesn't stop us agreeing about to do for the future.
If anyone gets upset over politics then they deserve to be upset.And there's nothing wrong with a bit of trolling btw.
Some people need to sort themselves out and not get so easily wound up - if that's the case.
Finally! Something I agree with! 🙂
From the Guardian editorial:
For unions, it is unfair because a pension is a key reason for doing a job that can involve more mental and physical toil than the average private sector post
That one I find hard to believe, are unions really that naive? I don't doubt for one moment that some public sector jobs can be highly stressful, or highly physical, but for every nightmare public job I can think of an equally bad private sector one... (Not to mention that there's nothing to stop a public sector worker choosing an easier private sector job, assuming s/he can find one of course...)
If anyone gets upset over politics then they deserve to be upset.
And there's nothing wrong with a bit of trolling btw.Some people need to sort themselves out and not get so easily wound up - if that's the case.
Finally! Something I agree with!
I agree as well. Nothing wrong with a bit of political chit-chat in the evenings. Just don't take it personally!
Frodo - Member
Very difficult to renegotiate contracts that have alraedy been signed.
Not unless you employ some of these nasty ungrateful teachers....
mogrim - Member
That one I find hard to believe, are unions really that naive? I don't doubt for one moment that some public sector jobs can be highly stressful, or highly physical, but for every nightmare public job I can think of an equally bad private sector one... ([u]Not to mention that there's nothing to stop a public sector worker choosing an easier private sector job[/u], assuming s/he can find one of course...)
You call unions naive but end with a line like that..!?
I struggle with long sentences ... but in case it hasn't already been said, I can't understand why a lot of the private sector aren't uniting with the public sector in response to the cuts?
Surely it's better for everyone to come together to fight for a reasonable pension (and let's stop all this nonsense about "gold plated") - sufficient for a decent, not extravagent, retirement. Plus, a lot of the cuts to the public sector are having a direct effect on the private sector. I have a substantial research budget, which I use to contract out to the private sector, this has been significantly reduced and I know that as a consequence a number of companies I deal with are struggling.
Why can't we come together to fight for something better?
I have not read the entire thread. However I work in the public sector therefore understand clearly that I am parasitical scum who is individually bringing the country to it's knees. This lowly existence is exacerbated by my pathetic ability on a bike.
I apologise.
Big Ted - proper LOL 😆
... me too!
Well said Sue!
I can't understand why a lot of the private sector aren't uniting with the public sector in response to the cuts?Surely it's better for everyone to come together to fight for a reasonable pension
Why can't we come together to fight for something better?
It's really not difficult to understand. The best way to attack people is to sow division between them so that fight one another. Divide and rule has been the case throughout history.
Of course the cuts/austerity measures will affect everyone, but as long as people don't unite and fight together to oppose them, then the government despite not having a mandate, will be able to do as they like.
So this banker-friendly government, with plenty of help from their buddies in the media, will put huge effort into sowing the seeds of division within the British population.
A quick "public sector" search on the Daily Mail website gives you this :
http://www.****/home/search.html?sel=site&searchPhrase=public+sector
[b][i]
Public sector salary myth exploded: State workers earn MORE - not less- than equivalent staff in the private sector
Public sector final salary schemes outnumber those in private sector by two to one
Public sector staff still get pay rises and hefty redundancy handouts as bosses snub austerity measures
Public sector now 53% of economy as record 6.09million Britons work for the state
Average public sector salary is £3,800 a year more than full-time average in private sector
The great Jobs Apartheid: Public sector staff spend nine fewer years at work over lifetime than private employees AND earn 30% more[/b][/i]
.....and so on.
I could not see one single article in the "public sector" search in the Daily Mail which wasn't hostile to the public sector.
The Daily Mail has the second highest circulation in the UK. Millions read it everyday, what they read has an affect on them - the Daily Mail doesn't print all that crap for nothing.
And a "public sector" search in the newspaper with the highest circulation in Britain is not much different, their articles are equally hostile :
Many Daily Mail/Sun readers believe what the owners of Associated Newspapers and News International tell them. It's bound to have an affect.
Yep, we're all in this together. Although the irony is that when the shit really hits the fan and things get really bad, and I mean really really bad, and we have a global mega-recession which will be like the Credit Crunch on steroids, as always when things [i]that[/i] bad, it's the middle-classes that will get squeezed down to the bottom and will be disproportionately affected in terms of job losses, repossessions, etc. The very people who are today gullibly swallowing everything they read in the Daily Mail.
Still, never mind, eh ?
I too work in the public sector. My wife is a radiographer for the NHS. She will be striking, I won't, but I can see why people are doing it.
Having worked in both, the canteen fry-ups seem better in the private sector.
Edit: THANKS MODS!
Here's the latest as reported by the BBC.
An improved offer on public sector pensions could be withdrawn if an agreement is not reached, unions have been warned by the government.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15901447 ]BBC news.[/url]
Sounds like threats and intimidation to me - who'd have thought the Lib Dems were capable of it?
How can offering a worse deal than the existing one represent an [i]"improved offer"[/i] ? The government is engaging in a propaganda war.
And the government is able and willing to issue "threats and intimidation" precisely because they know the unions are weak. If they thought that issuing threats and intimidation would lead to an escalation of the dispute, with the unions responding by threatening indefinite strike action, then they wouldn't have dare do it.
But they know that the unions are weak and more likely to cave in than react by becoming more militant. The unions ability to organise no more than a pointless and counter-productive one day stoppage proves that. And it yet remains to be seen just how widespread that one day stoppage will be - I suspect that as many seem to think that it is morally justified to ignore the results of a ballot, that it won't be as successful as they are hoping for. It's about time that unions threw out members who refuse to abide by democratically arrived decisions, no other organisations would put up with that.
The "NO CUTS" placards just about sums up how utterly in denial some people are, and shows how hell bent they are in ignoring reality.
I'll be abusing every striker I see, they have already lost the propaganda war, next they'll lose their unsustainable pensions and then maybe their jobs.
It's about time that unions threw out members who refuse to abide by democratically arrived decisions, no other organisations would put up with that.
Not sure they can afford to lose any more members fella.
I'll be abusing every striker I see, they have already lost the propaganda war, next they'll lose their unsustainable pensions and then maybe their jobs.
Little bit harsh. Once this is done these are the people that educate our kids and clean our hospitals.
Not sure they can afford to lose any more members fella.
You think these people who join a trade union but refuse to comply by the decision of a ballot don't join the union for their own personal interests ?
They don't join a union out of the goodness of their heart you know. And they need to be told that when you're a member of an organisation you stick to the rules. If a few leave then that's hardly much of a problem - they're not much good to the union anyway.
I'll be abusing every striker I see,
Yes that's what you'll do. In your head.
With an attitude like that is it any wonder the trade unions are dying on their feet?
I'll be abusing every striker I see
You really won't. Unless, [i]maybe[/i], they somehow turn up on this thread.
You think these people who join a trade union but refuse to comply by the decision of a ballot don't join the union for their own personal interests ?
So, you think that people should have the freedom to withdraw their labour, but not the freedom to work if they disagree? Thats not democracy, its mob rule.
I suppose you'd like to see a return to closed shops as well?
They don't join a union out of the goodness of their heart you know. [b]And they need to be told that when you're a member of an organisation you stick to the rules[/b]. If a few leave then that's hardly much of a problem - they're not much good to the union anyway.
How do propose making members stick to the rules?
Concrete block through the windscreen perhaps?
[img] 
[/img]
I'll be abusing every striker I see
Of course you will,now run along little boy the grown ups are talking............. 🙄
Freeundred! 😀
Well, it's not free really. Everything comes at a price...
That's Capitalism for yer I spose. 🙁
*Sigh*
The reality is comparing public to private in terms of which is' better paid' is all about timing. 30 yrs ago there was lots of waste, now much less so though alot of time/money is spent pursuing the latest Ministerial idea often before it's been thought through. I know public sector workers who for many many years have received pay rises of <1%pa and little our no promotion prospects as the sector shrinks. Now they weren't complaining when the private sector was booming (well not complaining too loudly) as they were told they had to sure restraint re pay etc. The pension's always been the best thing but not always streets ahead of the private sector schemes as it it's now. The unions accept change is inevitable but being bullied yet again to lead the way re austerity etc is a step too far. In real terms many were prepared to lose c£25k+ of their pension but the current proposals are nearer 3x that. Not many private sector employers would take that smiling..... Decent pay n pensions for all, difference it's the private sector benefits n suffers as profits fall n rise, the public sector just crawls along. If the govt would promise to match private sector pay rises in future that might help but given promises can be broken who would know what to accept? Most civil servants had their schemes r assessed n revised 4 years ago to make them future proof. No winners here, only a question of how much they lose. Think the op made a good point about we all chose where to start ie private or public.
Zulu-Eleven - MemberHow do propose making members stick to the rules?
Concrete block through the windscreen perhaps?
Seriously mate, you get dafter everyday....... how do you manage it ffs ?
I couldn't have made it clearer : [i]"It's about time that unions threw out members who refuse to abide by democratically arrived decisions"[/i]
I'll be abusing every striker I see, they have already lost the propaganda war, next they'll lose their unsustainable pensions and then maybe their jobs.
Then once the march is past you will go back to shouting at the post box and the imaginary people only you see.
I have done so before, leaving a rabble of knobs outside Enfield civic centre open mouthed and deflated.
They do not own the moral high ground and need shouting down. Amazingly they never expect to be told they're a bunch of deluded fools who need to STFU and get back to their desk jobs. 😉
More recently I enjoyed mocking a bunch of journos striking outside my work.
I have done so before, leaving a rabble of knobs outside Enfield civic centre open mouthed and deflated.
😀 Open mouthed and deflated ?
It's a shame that you don't share your oratory skills with us........are we not worthy ?
I have done so before, leaving a rabble of knobs outside Enfield civic centre open mouthed and deflated.
Careful, your carer could be among them next time.
Oh my dear dear Ernie. You still hide your Che inspired doctrine so well, when will you come out and share your TRUE Marxist beliefs with everyone on stw instead of hiding behind your middle ground disguise?
Or are you willing to deny your love for a failed revolutionary?
* Is open mouthed and deflated *
*is wondering if enfht thinks the same when shouting at pigeons*
Careful, your carer could be among them next time
😀
Crikey too true, lots of work shy delusional pigeons
The point is, the reason they're striking is a joke so why take them seriously
You tell those ****less feathered flyboys enfht, you shout it out to them, they won't be hanging around pecking after the enfht had told 'em, no sir!
I have done so before, leaving a rabble of knobs outside Enfield civic centre open mouthed and deflated.
They probably were thinking something that would mean I'd have to ban myself on here if I was to type it. Of course that's if it indeed is true.
The point is, the reason they're striking is a joke so why take them seriously
Loosing the conditions I signed up for 22 years ago and the threat of job loses, not sure I see the funny side. But if you ever join joblesstrackwolrd I'll be the first to laugh.
Of course that's if it indeed is true
I suspect the "open mouthed" bit is true. I can picture it.......as they look at each other saying :
"Who. The. ****. was that ranting nutter"
Everyone has had their finances destroyed by recent governments, no reason the "job for life" cotton wool brigade should be spared.
But that ain't the issue, the issue is the economic damage they're willing to cause whilst still somehow waving NO CUTS placards, what a bunch of useless ass hats.
unlike the bankers eh ...GAWD BLESS EM and all they have done for us of late, for looking after the economy and for achieveing the Merlin targets for loans to business 🙄
So come on lets make sure we blame and then get the right people ****ing governement and the ****ing public services c'mon whose with me.
Everyone has had their finances destroyed by recent governments, no reason the "job for life" cotton wool brigade should be spared.
Like you say everyone and now we're be shafted some more. I'm glad you don't work in the NHS with an attitude of self gloat like that.
So enf, by your logic (if there is such a thing) the cuts are not causing economic damage?
So you go round shouting and insulting everyone who doesn't agree with you? I believe that makes you a COTHO
Nail on head Drac
22 years ago
Ernie, I'll ask again - would you support a return to the closed shop?
Explain the ever-popular NO CUTS placard headfirst?