Forum menu
One thing it certainly achieved was to make folk like me aware of the issues faced by teachers and indeed many other public sector workers,
Agreed, and I've come to an unpopular conclusion. 😉
There fixed it for you!
No you jolly well have not actually.
F for Fail.
Must Try Harder.
Elfin - tell me, did you protest or argue in any way against Gordon Brown's 1997 change in taxation law, that removed the 20 % dividend tax credit collected by private pension funds - which brought in about 5 billion a year to the exchequer, but at the same time gutted a great many otherwise healthy private pension funds, leading to the closure of the vast majority of final salary schemes?
Just asking like! Don't get me wrong, not all Gordon's fault, the payment holidays taken in the run up to that by a great many forms played a part, but, like I say, the chancellor raised private pension funds to pay for public sector expansion...
And here we go again....
Another thread shall descend in to the usual tedium.
it all brings a reduced pension nearer for some ...............
Elfin - tell me, did you protest or argue in any way against Gordon Brown's 1997 change in taxation law
I wasn't aware of it. Maybe that was cos no-one protested publicly about it.
Just saying, like... 😉
And here we go again....Another thread shall descend in to the usual tedium.
Don't worry Flashy; I usually get bored very quickly with Labby, so I imagine I'll probbly be ignoring him so no need to worry about long drawn out pointless arguments.
Anyway, I don't actually need to argue with anyone as I'm right. If they want to be wrong then that's their choice and I can't stop them.
rather than just be spoon-fed biased crap by the right-wing media...
Yawn.... of course the opposing view point is all original thinking and not at all influenced by outside forces?
Yes.
NEXT!
Regarding police strikes - as has already been said police officers can't strike, but police staff - who now make up around 50% of police employees - can. If police staff go on strike then there would be no call takers, no people to pay the wages, no people to build case files, no crime scene investigators, and in several police forces no custody staff.
All this has changed over the last 10 or so years.
I don't think an all out strike is likely in any case, but a rolling work to rule, planned to cause disruption is possible. A lot of public sector workers are cross - not just about pensions and pay freezes, but about service quality and the impact on the public. Autumn could be a stormy time.
And here we go again....Another thread shall descend in to the usual tedium.
you enter evey political thread to let us know how scornful you are
WHY?
I can see why you would not want to engage with some of the folk on here [ that is not an insult* in case it appears as one] but dont understand why you still say something.
* If i was right wing I would not argue with the rabid lefties either. Something stoner said to elfin made me realise how pointless it would be. It is shame we cannot exchange views without scorn. I am trying to get better.
Police, Army and Fire Service pensions aren't being effected as they had theirs changed to new comers around 2006. Sadly for the new starters the old times grumbled a bit raised an eye brow and realised they can still retire in their 40s on a good pension based on final salary so carried on regardless.
Striking is horrible the effects on all can be devastating, I'd hate to see it happen but people are fighting for something that effects them. They have the right to strike but I do hope it doesn't come to that. Our pension needs reviewed but we don't need shafted.
Something stoner said to elfin
😀
Probbly wasn't particularly complimentary or respectful, was it?
S'why I can't really be bothered with the political threads much any more. Same old same old, with a bunch of deluded right-wingers who don't realise how wrong they often are, such is the tiny nature of the bubbles in which they live. Trouble is, they're too frightened to step outside of their bubbles now and then, have a shufty about what's actually happening in the Rest Of The World. Shame, they might learn something, become better developed people.
Oh Whell.
Same old same old, with a bunch of deluded right-wingers who don't realise how wrong they often are, such is the tiny nature of the bubbles in which they live. Trouble is, they're too frightened to step outside of their bubbles now and then, have a shufty about what's actually happening in the Rest Of The World. Shame, they might learn something, become better developed people.
Exactly the same mirror image the right wingers see in the lefties.
The right wingers hold all the cards at the moment as they pay the wages of the strikers and make the rules of the jobs they did.
Exactly the same mirror image the right wingers see in the lefties
Cept it's not. People who espouse more 'left' wing ideologies tend to be more socially developed and enlightened folk. People who may have experienced life just a little bit beyond their cosy bubbles. And who have the ability to see the Bigger Picture.
Right wingers often tend to try to condemn lefties as 'communists' or whatever. 'Socialism' is a dirty word to them. Truth is they are interested mainly just in their own personal gain and comfort, all other things become secondary and often unimportant to them. Things like the welfare of the poor and needy, for example. As demonstrated so beautifully by CallMeDave and his cronies. Screw the poor rather than annoy the rich.
Thing is though, who can afford to take the hit more? The answer's blindingly obvious. The wealthy could afford to cut back on their own personal wealth a bit, and the poorest woon't have to suffer so much. Society as a whole would benefit a lot more.
But then, of course, there's 'no such thing as Society', is there boys and girls...?
Indeed Elfin, [i]there is no such thing, There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—" It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it" . That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people:"All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!" but when people come and say:"But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!" You say:"Look" It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!"[/i]
hope that helps!
If police staff go on strike then there would be no call takers, [s]no people to pay the wages[/s], no people to build case files, [s]no crime scene investigators[/s], and in several police forces no custody staff.
Save for those I crossed out, PCs would cover
hope that helps!
Quoting Thatchler never helps, Labby.
Besides, silly cah contradicted herself anyway:
We joined together
= Society.
Hope That Helps.
Project,you are,as ever full of it. 7,000 schools closed,and that was without all the unions being out. I wouldn't try to deny you your democratic right to be a Thatcherite fan-boi, but please try not to froth at the mouth so much.
project - Member
it all brings a reduced pension nearer for some ...............POSTED 12 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST
That almost looks like gloating, of course you wouldn't be such an arse as to do that would you?
Elfin, I believe that was her point... or is the concept of society as an abstract constituting entirely of individuals beyond you 😉
7000 schools closed only had an effect on those parents who use schools as somewhere the kids go when theyre working,
Seriously i would never ever gloat at somebody having reduced pensions, unless theyre an MP, or a banker.
There just needs to be a widescale re-evaluation of the pensions market, to make it more equal, sadly thats never going to happen, because the governmnet cant give in,just like it didnt give in to the steel unions and the coal miners, it simply desimated their work forces and their unions..
CaptainFlashheart - MemberAnd here we go again....
Another thread shall descend in to the usual tedium.
I think it was the week long break in it, what must've invigorated the tedium.
Good point well made........as I've come to always expect from you Flashheart. Seriously mate, so much insight - how do you do it ?
I believe that was her point
Her point was, that we're a 'society' when it benefits us, but we'll reject and discard those who we don't want near us when it suits us.
Same old same old, with a bunch of deluded right-wingers who don't realise how wrong they often are, such is the tiny nature of the bubbles in which they live. Trouble is, they're too frightened to step outside of their bubbles now and then, have a shufty about what's actually happening in the Rest Of The World. Shame, they might learn something, become better developed people.
your empathy is touching but i fear that you afford these people the defence of ignorance. people aren't right wing because they're unaware of the injustices of society.
they're right wing because they don't give a ****.
people aren't right wing because they don't realise the injustices of society.they're right wing because they don't give a ****.
I was trying to be polite and show at least a modicum of respect, TM.
But, erm, yeah, you're right.
Modern industrial civilization has developed within a system of convienient myths. The driving force has been individual material gain, which is accepted as legitimate, even praiseworthy, on grounds that private vices yield public benefits in the classic formulation. It has long been understood very well that a society based on this principal will destroy itself in time. It can only persist with whatever suffering and injustice it entails as long as it is possible to pretend that the destructive forces that humans create are limited, that the world is an infinite resource and that the world is an infinite garbage can. At this stage in history one of two things is possible. Either the general population will take control of its own destiny and will concern itself with community interests guided by values of solidarity, sympathy and concern for others or alternatavely there will be no destiny for anyone to control.
I loved the Thatcher quote Zulu-Eleven ! I specially liked this : [i]"But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!"[/i] Thatcher doubled unemployment ! 😀
I also thought this was a little beauty : [i]"there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to........"[/i] The cost to the government of benefit payments shot up under Thatcher ! ......as so did the tax burden to pay for it
Hope That Helps.
Well it certainly helped me.
that we're a 'society' when it benefits us, but we'll reject and discard those who we don't want near us when it suits us.
Not at all, read what she actually said again - that [i]no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation[/i] and [i]t is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it [/i] - which is, like it or not, a very close parallel to the marxist principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
Ernie - Allowing for inflation, social security expenditure in the UK increased by 122 per cent from £69bn in 1978-79 to £152bn in 2008-09... so, under your feted Labour government, it got far, far worse, despite a huge economic boom!
Not at all, read what she actually said again
No thanks. It'll be the same crap no matter how many times I read it.
You can if you want though. Over and over and over and over again....
Ooh! TdF is on!
it is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it
which totally discounts those that have been paying ni contributions themselves before unemployment.
if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it
it was sweet of her to absolve 3 million people of their 'duty' in this regard wasn't it. i'm starting to warm to her with hindsight.
of course, with that hindsight, it's obvious to us all that she was in fact a completely disingenuous liar, who in 1978 claimed...........
It is no good having great areas where people have no jobs
............. before laying waste to whole swathes of the country with the closure of industries that supported those 'great areas'.
but i don't need to tell anyone on here this do i, as mtb'ers we've all been to the welsh valleys, riding our bikes through the welsh mining landscape that she destroyed on ideological grounds.
I've also ridden in the Northumbrian fells, surrounded by old lead mines, Cornwall, surrounded by old Tin mines, the Yorkshire coast, surrounded by old Alum quarries and North Wales, surrounded by old Slate Quarries.
Should the government of the day have propped up all those industries indefinitely as well?
Ernie - Allowing for inflation, social security expenditure in the UK increased by 122 per cent from £69bn in 1978-79 to £152bn in 2008-09... so, under your feted Labour government, it got far, far worse, despite a huge economic boom!
So presumably under Labour benefit payments were more generous than under the Tories, and ? so ? what's this got to do with Thatcher ? what's your point ?
My point was that Thatcher was complaining that people weren't working because according to her : [i]"what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!"[/i] and yet she DOUBLED unemployment.
I also pointed out that although she complained about people being on benefits, she actually put millions more in benefit.
This has bugger all to do with what the last Labour government in 2008-09. Stunning diversionary tactics even by your standards Zulu-Eleven.
Should the government of the day have propped up all those industries indefinitely as well?
if they were closed due to ideology rather than long term socio/economic prudence then yes.
but that rather misses the point that i was making regarding the disigenuousness of margaret thatcher.
in the case studies highlighted, did the leader of the opposition claim that they were opposed to widespread unemployment before creating it ?
Ernie!
1997 Q2 claimant count - first under labour: 1.557 million
2010 Q1 claimant count - last under Labour: 1.585 million
Trailmonkey!
in the case studies highlighted, did the leader of the opposition claim that they were opposed to widespread unemployment before creating it ?
I believe that the [i]Gordon Brown tm[/i] explanation would be that the global economic downturn in the early 1980's cannot be blamed on the Prime Minister, that increased unemployment was a widespread phenomenon and a symptom of a global recession, and that there was a severe global economic recession affecting much of the developed world in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The United States and Japan exited recession relatively early, but high unemployment would continue to affect other OCED nations through till at least 1985.
See, do you understand the theory yet
Global recession in the 1980's - all Thatchers Fault
Global Recession in the 2000's, nothing to do with Gordon
if they were closed due to ideology rather than long term socio/economic prudence then yes.
All a social experiment that has come back to bite us on the ass, like most of Thatchers policies. When you consider the company EDF, the UK's largest energy supplier is owned by the French Government and are quite profitable, it really does show how short sighted Governments in this country since the 80's have been.
your empathy is touching but i fear that you afford these people the defence of ignorance. people aren't right wing because they're unaware of the injustices of society.they're right wing because they don't give a ****.
Which is why I propose a cull of such people...
Allowing for inflation, social security expenditure in the UK increased by 122 per cent from £69bn in 1978-79 to £152bn in 2008-09
Did you see what had happened to the cost of rented accommodation between those dates? And the significant reduction in the amount of social housing available?
Might explain the massive rise in benefit payments. Rented accommodation is 2, 3 times the cost of equivalent social housing.
Oh, whose idea was it, to sell off loads of social housing with the right to buy scheme, yet not use the money raised to provide more social housing, thus leading to the ridiculous level of inflation in the housing market, and the massive increase in the amount of housing benefit payments?
See, that's Tory economics for you. Short term gain, long term pain. Let's make ourselves and our cronies richer right now, then we'll be fine while everyone else has to pay the long-term cost....
I'd be fascinated to hear exactly how Labby would get this country out of the mess it's now in. Loads of waffle, but no actual solutions.
Typical Tory really then! 😆
Police, Army and Fire Service pensions aren't being effected as they had theirs changed to new comers around 2006.
Not true Drac. working longer, pay more money etc...
Can't be arsed with the figures right now as I'm in Barbados and breakfast is calling me. 8)
Zulu-Eleven - MemberErnie!
1997 Q2 claimant count - first under labour: 1.557 million
2010 Q1 claimant count - last under Labour: 1.585 million
Fascinating. What the **** has that to do with Thatcher DOUBLING unemployment after complaining that people didn't want to work because the dole was to generous, eh ?
I'll remind you again what she said (thanks to your quote of hers which you so kindly posted):
[b][i]"But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!" [/i][/b]
And yet she DOUBLED, yes DOUBLED, unemployment.........can't you see a little problem there ?
Thatcher DOUBLING unemployment [b]after [/b]complaining that people didn't want to work because the dole was to generous
The woman's own interview was published in September 1987 - claimant count for that quarter was 2.752 million. Claimant count for Q3 1990, last period before her resignation, was 1.553 million
So, really, you should have said:
Thatcher REDUCING unemployment by 44% [b]after [/b]complaining that people didn't want to work because the dole was too generous
See Ernie - what you might learn is that its pretty pointless trying to quote any form of statistics to reinforce your point, as there are other statistics that can "prove" the opposite - so, the sooner you stop selective quotation of "facts" to "prove" your point, like "[i]The cost to the government of benefit payments shot up under Thatcher[/i] the sooner I'll stop using equally selective data to show something else.
The woman's own interview was published in September 1987 - claimant count for that quarter was 2.752 million.
It gets even better. Thatcher complained that people didn't want to work because the dole was to generous [i]after[/i] she had doubled unemployment ? Really, I never ceased to be stunned just how callous the Tories are.
Here's a nice graph for you Zulu-Eleven to remind you of unemployment levels under the Tories. And remember, according to Thatcher : [b][i]"But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!" [/i][/b] Oh and the Tories came to power in 1979.......just in case you can't tell just by looking at the graph.
[img] 
[/img]
Interestingly the Tories didn't do too badly in their pre-thatcher days during the 1970s.
6,162,000 Public Sector workers (civil servants, local government workers, NHS staff, members of the armed forces, teachers, police, firefighters, judicial and atomic workers) who the government proposes should lose their final salary pension schemes and move to career-average schemes.
650 Public sector workes (MP's) who the government is not proposing should lose their final salary pension schemes and move to career-average schemes.
Got to love Private Eye!
Like I said Ernie - can prove owt with stats:
[img] http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451cbef69e2014e864f132c970d-320wi [/img]
Shows that oil prices predict unemployment, with a lag of around 18 months. Rises in oil prices in 1973-74, 1979-80 and in the mid-00s led to rising unemployment. And falling oil prices in 1986, 1998 and 2003 led to falling unemployment.
So, Thatchers fault, or global oil prices?
i'm still waiting for z11 to explain why in 1978 in a different interview thatcher claimed
It is no good having great areas where people have no jobs
yet continued with policies that resulted, as the graph above clearly shows, in a doubling of the unemployment figures.
was she being disingenuous about the politics that she was about to unleash or was she being completely honest and was just telling us what we were all about to find out - that her policies were
no good
Like I said trailmonkey - unemployment tracks global oil prices - can't blame Thatcher for them can you?
Zulu-Eleven - Memberunemployment tracks global oil prices
So thatcher was lying when she blamed unemployment on Labour in 1979 then ?
Remember the famous poster campaign from that general election ?
[img] 
[/img]
And she was also lying when she suggested that the reason for unemployment, according to the quote which you so kindly provided, was : [b][i]"But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!"[/i][/b]........it's actually all down to global oil prices. And remember that when Thatcher was PM Britain was a significant oil exporting nation.
Excellent. We have established that Thatcher was a liar. And that she lied in particular about issues concerning unemployment. Thank you Zulu-Eleven for helping me with that one - you did say [i]"Hope That Helps"[/i] and indeed it does 8)
Z
ulu-Eleven - Member
I've also ridden in the Northumbrian fells, surrounded by old lead mines, Cornwall, surrounded by old Tin mines, the Yorkshire coast, surrounded by old Alum quarries and North Wales, surrounded by old Slate Quarries.Should the government of the day have propped up all those industries indefinitely as well?
Posted 3 hours ago # Report-Post
Ive also visited london town, chester, and liverpool,halifax and scotland all places that had a high rate of employment in banking and money lending,and guess what only london town got propped up, the rest to fend for themselves, chester has almost become a ghost town, lots of empty and boarded up shops,poor public transport, failed new builds, and lots of empty properties, mostly buy to let ones.