# J30 strike: NUT, PCS, UCU, ATL call for a general strike on June 30th



## ymu (May 28, 2011)

> 30th June 2011 may well turn out to be the most important step forward in a mass fight against public sector cuts. Hundreds of thousands of workers could be involved in strike action, from as many as four or five different unions including NUT, PCS, UCU and ATL.
> 
> Often strike action can be ignored by those in power but also the vast majority of workers not in unions or directly effected by the issues. Therefore we, rank & file union members, students, precarious workers & unemployed are calling for a mass show of solidarity for those taking strike action and to generalise the strike on June 30th.
> 
> ...




http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=100787720014939


----------



## BigTom (May 28, 2011)

In Birmingham we're also likely to have unison council workers out as well.. should be lots of people on strike here.. will be going to the birmingham assembly and seeking to support this though I'll be in work on the 30th


----------



## nino_savatte (May 28, 2011)

The ATL too. The ATL never go out on strike.


----------



## dennisr (May 28, 2011)

Report from the recent PCS conference:
PCS conference: developing strategies for struggle
John McInally, national vice-president: "PCS conference was genuinely historic. Delegates voted overwhelmingly to support the national executive's emergency motion calling for an industrial action ballot to oppose the government's attacks on jobs, pay, pensions and conditions. Only two out of a thousand voted 'no'! A 'yes' vote will set the scene for a major strike on 30 June involving up to three quarters of a million public sector workers. This will be the first major shot in an unfolding campaign that can lead in the autumn to industrial action involving millions."

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/ar...conference-developing-strategies-for-struggle

And the CWU has for 24-hour general strike against cuts: the conference has voted unanimously to call on the TUC to coordinate a 24-hour general strike against the cuts and attacks on wages and pensions. The union also resolved to work with other trade unions and campaigning organisations to stop the cuts in local areas, including through coordinating campaigns and strike action.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 28, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> The ATL too. The ATL never go out on strike.


 
They're feeling threatened.


----------



## ymu (May 28, 2011)

I'm self-employed and I'll be joining a picket line if at all possible (sleep/loonery allowing). Brum UCU probably. This is most ace.


----------



## BigTom (May 28, 2011)

My contract finishes on june 30th.. I asked if they could finish it a day earlier but they said no  I'll be out in the late afternoon somewhere though, amybe at Brum Uni as well so I might see you there


----------



## ymu (May 28, 2011)

BigTom said:


> My contract finishes on june 30th.. I asked if they could finish it a day earlier but they said no  I'll be out in the late afternoon somewhere though, amybe at Brum Uni as well so I might see you there


 
Nice one.


----------



## josef1878 (May 29, 2011)

I'll be out that day but i would prefer rolling strike action instead of a one off


----------



## ymu (May 29, 2011)

Yeah. I agree. Let's see what happens.


----------



## BigTom (May 29, 2011)

Yeah, there will need to be sustained/rolling strike action..
UCU are talking about this for the autumn term
Was also earwigging on a conversation between the NASUWT rep and one of the teachers at my school and the NAS rep was saying that what teachers needed to do was to go out until they starve - he reckoned that it would take a month before parents would start insisting the govt. backed down.
He was up for a strategy of NUT one day, NAS the next, then ATL, then NAHT, ASCL etc.. one day strikes from each union but on different days so most schools would be shut every day but teachers would retain more pay..


----------



## Fedayn (May 29, 2011)

josef1878 said:


> I'll be out that day but i would prefer rolling strike action instead of a one off


 
When I got back to work after PCS Conference the biggest complaint was that it was just 1 day. There's a surprising level of support for a much longer strike.


----------



## josef1878 (May 29, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> When I got back to work after PCS Conference the biggest complaint was that it was just 1 day. There's a surprising level of support for a much longer strike.


 
I agree. The pay freeze is biting. Job cuts and office closures looming. A one off is pointless. Time for rolling action.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 30, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> When I got back to work after PCS Conference the biggest complaint was that it was just 1 day. There's a surprising level of support for a much longer strike.


From the grassroots and/or from the union leadership?


----------



## Fedayn (May 30, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> From the grassroots and/or from the union leadership?


 
Rank and file members, folk I work with, union members but not elected officials.


----------



## spliff (May 30, 2011)

josef1878 said:


> I'll be out that day but i would prefer rolling strike action instead of a one off


I think it should be a statement. 
There's a lot of people in this country who are pissed off because of what is happening to them. 
A rolling strike is just disruption which is an irritant much like the early postal strikes. 
A day of action could get a good response if it was presented in the right way. 
SAVE is the word.


----------



## grogwilton (May 30, 2011)

BigTom said:


> Yeah, there will need to be sustained/rolling strike action..
> UCU are talking about this for the autumn term
> Was also earwigging on a conversation between the NASUWT rep and one of the teachers at my school and the NAS rep was saying that what teachers needed to do was to go out until they starve - he reckoned that it would take a month before parents would start insisting the govt. backed down.
> He was up for a strategy of NUT one day, NAS the next, then ATL, then NAHT, ASCL etc.. one day strikes from each union but on different days so most schools would be shut every day but teachers would retain more pay..


 
Not sure about that Tom, think many schools would not close if unions were being called out individually on separate days, could also be quite devisive if members in one of the unions scabbed.


----------



## BigTom (May 30, 2011)

grogwilton said:


> Not sure about that Tom, think many schools would not close if unions were being called out individually on separate days, could also be quite devisive if members in one of the unions scabbed.


 
Yeah, that's true especially if one of the unions was small or non-existant in a school then there'd be no reason for the school to close.. He (and I) definitely preferred the idea of everyone out until they starve but I think was suggesting different unions going out on different days as a better strategy than everyone going out on a single day, if a single day was all the strike was going to be.. which would make more sense than trying to maintain a rolling strike through one day actions.


----------



## frogwoman (May 30, 2011)

are unison members going to be ballotted about this? 

im getting a bit worried about it. there's no way ill cross a picket line, but if you work for an agency can they sack you legally for that?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 30, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> but if you work for an agency can they sack you legally for that?



Yes they can. 

Phone in sick - do not express any support for the strike in front of people you arent 100% sure about. 

Anyone can be sacked for going on strike btw.

And lastly this is not a general strike and I think it's misleading to describe it as such, it's a national strike involving a large number of public sector workers and is a good first step to hopefully a series of strikes across the year, and hopefully later Unison will also be involved - but I think calling it a general strike is potentially disempowering at this stage.


----------



## spanglechick (May 31, 2011)

BigTom said:


> Was also earwigging on a conversation between the NASUWT rep and one of the teachers at my school and the NAS rep was saying that what teachers needed to do was to go out until they starve - he reckoned that it would take a month before parents would start insisting the govt. backed down.
> He was up for a strategy of NUT one day, NAS the next, then ATL, then NAHT, ASCL etc.. one day strikes from each union but on different days so most schools would be shut every day but teachers would retain more pay..


 
and yet NASUWT party line is that there's no need to strike because a) teachers won't have support of the parents, and b) the govt haven't made any decisions yet.
NASUWT members at my school are really pissed off with their tory-supporting, weak-arsed union.

Me, I'm NUT. we'll be out even though we're an academy, which makes things trickier. It helps that the Headteachers Union is supportive (and planning their own ballot for september action). Heads have got the most to lose in the 'salary average' part of the pension cuts.

Teachers have never done continuous strike action, btw - and i'd be astounded if they voted for it.


----------



## ymu (May 31, 2011)

Salary average is fair. Using it to bring down the average pension paid, is not. Two different things, I think. There's no reason high earners should be allowed to take out a larger slice than they put in just because they got to the top. The problem is that the govt won't be rebalancing the total, they'll be reducing it.


----------



## spanglechick (May 31, 2011)

ymu said:


> Salary average is fair. Using it to bring down the average pension paid, is not. Two different things, I think. There's no reason high earners should be allowed to take out a larger slice than they put in just because they got to the top. The problem is that the govt won't be rebalancing the total, they'll be reducing it.


 
i don't disagree and it's likely to be better for me as i can see myself shedding responsibility points as I get older - but i think with pensions there's a broader issue that if people sign up and pay into agreement A, it's not then fair to tell them they'll be getting a completely different outcome.


----------



## Fedayn (May 31, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> are unison members going to be ballotted about this?


 
No, there's gonna be pressure put on them to ballot 'alongside' UNITE in the Autumn.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 31, 2011)

Meanwhile GMB are actively supporting the moves towards Salary average from what I can see.


----------



## ymu (May 31, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> i don't disagree and it's likely to be better for me as i can see myself shedding responsibility points as I get older - but i think with pensions there's a broader issue that if people sign up and pay into agreement A, it's not then fair to tell them they'll be getting a completely different outcome.


 
I couldn't agree more! I have 10 years worth of public sector pension that was part of the deal when I accepted shit pay. Now I've done the work for the shit pay, they're going to halve my pension. I never knew they were allowed to renege on their side of it. Especially when the flexible employer part turned out to be a fucking great lie too, hence my now being self-employed _by the same fucking institutions that won't give me a job_.


----------



## teahead (May 31, 2011)

It's just a Tory ruse. They want the workers to aspire to higher level posts so they can start taking backhanders, like all the proper respectable public servants. 

Edit: last time there was a strike some management I met (smem?) asked people to say in advance if they were going to be out of the office that day and to explain why. I called the Union to find out if it was legal to do that and they said it was. So much for private balllots and rights of dissent...


----------



## grogwilton (May 31, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> and yet NASUWT party line is that there's no need to strike because a) teachers won't have support of the parents, and b) the govt haven't made any decisions yet.
> NASUWT members at my school are really pissed off with their tory-supporting, weak-arsed union.
> 
> Me, I'm NUT. we'll be out even though we're an academy, which makes things trickier. It helps that the Headteachers Union is supportive (and planning their own ballot for september action). Heads have got the most to lose in the 'salary average' part of the pension cuts.
> ...



I'm the NUT rep in my school and as NAS are slightly bigger I make a point of not approaching any established NAS members, only recruiting new staff who aren't in a union and trainees. Despite this 2 NAS members have left the NAS over this and joined the NUT.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 31, 2011)

To be fair to NASUWT they're currently balloting for strike action over a school going over to academy status in Newcastle, in fact they may have balloted by now and it will be a successful ballot. They're not uniformly shit, though obviously NUT are traditionally the better one.


----------



## BigTom (May 31, 2011)

The Birmingham open assembly mentioned int he OP has changed date to Friday 10th, at 6:30pm.. still meeting guild of students reception at the university of Birmingham.

NASUWT has also been active in Coventry fighting against academies.. hopefully they will support strike action in the autumn once they've finished thinking that they might be able to just talk the government out of the pension changes.


----------



## frogwoman (May 31, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Yes they can.
> 
> Phone in sick - do not express any support for the strike in front of people you arent 100% sure about.
> 
> ...


yeah. i'm slightly confused by it?


----------



## BigTom (May 31, 2011)

I think the original call was "generalise the strike" calling for people to do more than just go on picket lines, and for anyone else who can (eg: students, unemployed, precarious workers, those who can pull a sickie) to join in with direct action, occupations etc.. 
rather than a call for a general strike..
twasn't the unions that did the callout in the op either, it was a group of anarchists from the names I recognise on the admin list for the event - Phil Dickens, some SolFeds and IWW's .. noticed Mark Bergfield there as well so guess trots as well.. radical lefties anyway..


----------



## CyberRose (May 31, 2011)

BigTom said:


> twasn't the unions that did the callout in the op either, it was a group of anarchists from the names I recognise on the admin list for the event - Phil Dickens, some SolFeds and IWW's .. noticed Mark Bergfield there as well so guess trots as well.. radical lefties anyway..


Ah, trying to hijack some more union events to flatter their own egos?!


----------



## ymu (May 31, 2011)

Not sure about that CR.

I take responsibility for the poor summary (all points taken Tom, others).

The information I have is not that clear. I'll happily wedit the OP as needed, and ask a mod to sort the title. Any specifics yiu want changed beyond generalise and remoce the unions call for ambiguity?


----------



## BigTom (May 31, 2011)

No.. I already knew what this was and the title didn't bother me initially, those are the only things I've noticed that could be changed for clarity.

CR, the union people I know in Birmingham would love this strike to be about all the cuts, but it can't be because unions can only strike about a specific greivance against an employer - in this case pensions, and for Unison in Birmingham council branch pay & conditions.. However, those of us who can act outside the strictures of union regulation can.
I don't see this as hijacking.  The unions (in Birmingham anyway) want more to happen.


----------



## ymu (May 31, 2011)

More building for the next big push, I'd say. Encouraging there is so much support from unexpectedly militant memberships. Great sign.


----------



## frogwoman (May 31, 2011)

BigTom said:


> I think the original call was "generalise the strike" calling for people to do more than just go on picket lines, and for anyone else who can (eg: students, unemployed, precarious workers, those who can pull a sickie) to join in with direct action, occupations etc..
> rather than a call for a general strike..
> twasn't the unions that did the callout in the op either, it was a group of anarchists from the names I recognise on the admin list for the event - Phil Dickens, some SolFeds and IWW's .. noticed Mark Bergfield there as well so guess trots as well.. radical lefties anyway..


 
Yeah ive not been working that long and ive never actually been on a strike myself so i am a bit worried about it and i don't really know the law that well. i suppose that's what puts alot of people off going on a strike. how do i find out who is on strike in my area because i get to work by public transport and that might also be a problem, and i don't want to cross a picket line to do so.


----------



## BigTom (May 31, 2011)

I have no idea, but I don't think that any of the transport workers are striking.  I imagine someone will have a better idea than me though.  All I know is that I have to go into work, on the day my temporary contract ends, and do nothing because I'll have nothing to do. 
Probably every school will have a picket line.. if you're not in the union(s) that have been balloted and agreed to strike then you legally cannot refuse to cross the picket line (or at least you can legally be sacked if you do refuse to cross it), as far as I understand things.
I'm not sure how PCS strike will affect things to be honest.. that's the civil service so they are in lots of different places..


----------



## spanglechick (May 31, 2011)

BigTom said:


> I have no idea, but I don't think that any of the transport workers are striking.  I imagine someone will have a better idea than me though.  All I know is that I have to go into work, on the day my temporary contract ends, and do nothing because I'll have nothing to do.
> *Probably every school will have a picket line.. if you're not in the union(s) that have been balloted and agreed to strike then you legally cannot refuse to cross the picket line (or at least you can legally be sacked if you do refuse to cross it), as far as I understand things.*
> I'm not sure how PCS strike will affect things to be honest.. that's the civil service so they are in lots of different places..


 
Worth saying - if you aren't in the union (or you're in the wrong one) and you want to strike, i believe you can still do so if you join the right union pretty sharp. For schools with high NASUWT membership, that might be the difference between the school staying open or being closed.


----------



## frogwoman (May 31, 2011)

Yeah i work in a building owned by a university. are ucu going out that day? last time they had a strike there wasn't a picket line at my workplace, but i also think that my workplace has a few gmb members in it.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 1, 2011)

Yes UCU are going out that day, GMB are not. 

Your best bet will be to phone in sick.

It's not quite true to say you can't be sacked if you're in the right union - you can be sacked for going on strike, as long as everyone else working for your employer who goes on strike is also sacked - as it's breach of contract. Not only that but the agency could simply decide you're surplus to requirements for X reason and nobody would ever know.

So be careful!


----------



## dennisr (Jun 1, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Yes UCU are going out that day, GMB are not.
> 
> Your best bet will be to phone in sick.
> 
> ...


 
yep, wise words SL


----------



## dennisr (Jun 1, 2011)

BigTom said:


> I think the original call was "generalise the strike" calling for people to do more than just go on picket lines



absolutely - wish it was a 'general strike' situation but calling for one on facebook does not make one...


----------



## golightly (Jun 1, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> are unison members going to be ballotted about this?



Unison Members are not being balloted for strike action.  The official line is that Unison do not have their membership records up to date and accurate so any ballot would not be legal.  Either Unison central office are astoundingly inept or this is a load of bull.  Personally, I'd go for both.  I spoke to someone in our branch about not being able to ballot for strike action and they said that Unison central office don't have the political will for industrial action because it would reflect badly on Labour who get much of their funds through union donation.  That may be so but surely the same could be said for the other unions.  Ho hum. Anyway, Unison have got lovely new headquarters.  I was there for some training on dealing with reorganisations the other day.  It's nice to know my union subs are being put to good use.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 1, 2011)

unison have taken industrial action in individual branches though, including where i live


----------



## BigTom (Jun 1, 2011)

Unison council workers branch will be out in Birmingham.
They just spent ages going through their membership records to make sure they are up to date and 100% accurate to prevent any legal challenge so I imagine that unison centrally would have to do the same and that would be a mammoth task (but one they should do)


----------



## Ungrateful (Jun 1, 2011)

teahead said:


> It's just a Tory ruse. They want the workers to aspire to higher level posts so they can start taking backhanders, like all the proper respectable public servants.
> 
> Edit: last time there was a strike some management I met (smem?) asked people to say in advance if they were going to be out of the office that day and to explain why. I called the Union to find out if it was legal to do that and they said it was. So much for private balllots and rights of dissent...


 
Your union office misinformed you. You do* not *have to inform your employer prior to the strike that you are planning on taking strike action. however you must tell them, IF ASKED, after the event if you were on strike. But you do not have to volunteer the information, but only do so if asked. 

Loads of employers try it on and attempt to intimidate employees in the uprun to industrial action. My own employer (a well respected but deeply malign institution) pulls exactly the same trick. Its human resources people send out group emails saying we must tell management 2 days before strike action if we plan to be out on strike. It is bollocks. Teahead, I would have words with your union to make sure that they know the right answer and don't accidentally misinform (see question: _Do I have to tell my employer that I am taking strike action?_ on UCU webiste http://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=5289#faq5299)


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 3, 2011)

golightly said:


> Unison Members are not being balloted for strike action.  The official line is that Unison do not have their membership records up to date and accurate so any ballot would not be legal.  Either Unison central office are astoundingly inept or this is a load of bull.  Personally, I'd go for both.  I spoke to someone in our branch about not being able to ballot for strike action and they said that Unison central office don't have the political will for industrial action because it would reflect badly on Labour who get much of their funds through union donation.  That may be so but surely the same could be said for the other unions.  Ho hum. Anyway, Unison have got lovely new headquarters.  I was there for some training on dealing with reorganisations the other day.  It's nice to know my union subs are being put to good use.



It's nothing to do with ineptness - it is incredibly hard to keep uptodate with people's correct information especially direct debit payers, who generally don't tell their union when they change job or workplace, or move house, especially as there isn't a steward in their imeadiate workplace. In fact many people don't even give their correct jobtitle when they join, because they don't know it themselves.

The work on the head office was started before the economic crisis. Something had to be done as the old one was crumbling and contained asbestos and so on which made it cheaper at the time to build the new one. Allegedlly.

Having said that there has been a lack of political will which has slowed things down, but I think memories of the last big strike when the GMB ran round as the non strike union hoovering people up who wanted to cross the picket line without guilt are still raw. The big three have to strike together, or at least Unite and Unison have to strike together and it does take time to build up support for that, not that I don't think moves should have been made a lot earlier.


----------



## golightly (Jun 3, 2011)

Thanks for the background SL.  It's just really frustrating that we are not able to join the industrial action.  I do worry that the initiative is slipping away from us.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 3, 2011)

I agree, we should have been building for this from last year, but hopefully when the big 3 come out, the others will do again as well.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Jun 3, 2011)

The big question are the rail lot out on strike? Otherwise the strike above won't make much diffrence...


----------



## ymu (Jun 3, 2011)

Yes, cheers SL.

Is there a legal means to update the database at the same time as balloting? Signed slip confirming/amending details with ballot for it to count? Summat like that...


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 4, 2011)

Ungrateful said:


> Your union office misinformed you. You do* not *have to inform your employer prior to the strike that you are planning on taking strike action. however you must tell them, IF ASKED, after the event if you were on strike. But you do not have to volunteer the information, but only do so if asked.



This is correct. If you're hassled by management to say whether or not you're gonna be on strike, the best way of dealing it with it is to say you don't know/havent decided yet and put them off until you go home the day before strike day. 

As for joining a union before strike day, some unions (PCS included) deem you to be a member from the moment you sign the form, so in theory you can actually join the union on strike day on the picket line by filling in the membership form.


----------



## alien nation (Jun 4, 2011)

If these proposal go ahead i'll have to rethink teaching.  I can not afford the additional contributions to start with and stand to lose in excess of £250,000 in total (if i manage to live to a ripe old age after retirement). Anyone know the average kicking the bucket age of a retired secondary school teacher?


----------



## Red Leicester (Jun 4, 2011)

teahead said:


> Edit: last time there was a strike some management I met (smem?) asked people to say in advance if they were going to be out of the office that day and to explain why. I called the Union to find out if it was legal to do that and they said it was. So much for private balllots and rights of dissent...





Ungrateful said:


> Your union office misinformed you. You do* not *have to inform your employer prior to the strike that you are planning on taking strike action.



I suspect that managers have a "legal right" to ask the question just as workers have a "legal right" not to answer 'yes' or 'no'. 

When managers ask this question it is best for workers to say, as previously suggested, "I haven't decided yet" (if they are sufficiently confident to do so - questions like that from managers can be quite intimidating for some people). Where the union is strong it should put in a complaint about this being an act of bullying.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 6, 2011)

After Vince's speech in Brighton today, what's to follow pending strikes on the 30th? Will Dave & his cohorts go full steam ahead with new anti union laws? Will he finish Thatcher's work?


----------



## jimmer (Jun 6, 2011)

Some SolFed members have put together some unbranded literature to help build for the strike if anyone needs something to hand out/distribute.

http://www.solfed.org.uk/sites/default/files/uploads/dontwork2.pdf
http://www.solfed.org.uk/sites/default/files/uploads/june30studentwalkout.pdf
http://www.solfed.org.uk/sites/default/files/uploads/june30strike-rb.pdf


----------



## ymu (Jun 6, 2011)

Red Leicester said:


> I suspect that managers have a "legal right" to ask the question just as workers have a "legal right" not to answer 'yes' or 'no'.
> 
> When managers ask this question it is best for workers to say, as previously suggested, "I haven't decided yet" (if they are sufficiently confident to do so - questions like that from managers can be quite intimidating for some people). Where the union is strong it should put in a complaint about this being an act of bullying.


 
"I am finding your attitude somewhat threatening. If you wish to pursue this, please do so in writing."

Usually works.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 7, 2011)

Voting yes in the PCS ballot tomorow,  but I'm not at all optimistic that at my workplace level, the majority will be achieved.

Will catch up with whole thread when I can ....


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 8, 2011)

jimmer said:


> Some SolFed members have put together some unbranded literature to help build for the strike if anyone needs something to hand out/distribute.
> 
> http://www.solfed.org.uk/sites/default/files/uploads/dontwork2.pdf
> http://www.solfed.org.uk/sites/default/files/uploads/june30studentwalkout.pdf
> http://www.solfed.org.uk/sites/default/files/uploads/june30strike-rb.pdf



The middle link doesn't work.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 8, 2011)

right click -> save as 
they all worked for me doing that, but none of them worked as previews in firefox..


----------



## dennisr (Jun 8, 2011)

*UCU congress calls for 24-hour public sector strike*
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/ar...ngress-calls-for-24-hour-public-sector-strike

and the right to strike is taken up by another union...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13690712
*GMB warns of civil disobedience if strike rights go*


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 8, 2011)

Fuck me, the GMB have woken up!


----------



## dennisr (Jun 8, 2011)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Fuck me, the GMB have woken up!


 
and if that does not say something about the underlying mood - even these pen-pushing feckers can feel some preasure from their members


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 8, 2011)

I was on the point of fuckin' them off when workfare reared it's ugly head, plus the lack of solidarity with other striking unions - but then i've members to represent. Kenny sure is trying to score some brownie points with this one though.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 8, 2011)

If you are dismissed for taking part in "protected industrial action", the dismissal would be unfair. This is one of the reasons why unions are desperately trying to make sure that the ballot and process follows the law.

There is useful information on the legal aspects here - http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/TradeUnions/Industrialaction/DG_179248 - which is a site kept up to date by the Government, in fact...

A legal anomaly which I don't see on that site at a glance, although it may be there somewhere, is that employers can dismiss members of another trade union who refuse to cross picket lines of another union, but those who are not a member of any trade union are protected as if they were members of the striking union. (Sorry if that doesn't make sense - it's difficult to explain, and I am a bit tired!)


----------



## kittyP (Jun 8, 2011)

Sorry I am a bit confused, are Unison involved in this too? 

If Unison and the NUT go out then our school will be fucked


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 8, 2011)

afiak, Unison in Birmingham have/are balloting.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 8, 2011)

kittyP said:


> Sorry I am a bit confused, are Unison involved in this too?
> 
> If Unison and the NUT go out then our school will be fucked



Unison are NOT part of this dispute, although some individual branches are taking industrial action on the same day, albeit over a different industrial dispute.


----------



## kittyP (Jun 8, 2011)

Guineveretoo said:


> If you are dismissed for taking part in "protected industrial action", the dismissal would be unfair. This is one of the reasons why unions are desperately trying to make sure that the ballot and process follows the law.
> 
> There is useful information on the legal aspects here - http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/TradeUnions/Industrialaction/DG_179248 - which is a site kept up to date by the Government, in fact...
> 
> A legal anomaly which I don't see on that site at a glance, although it may be there somewhere, is that employers can dismiss members of another trade union who refuse to cross picket lines of another union, but those who are not a member of any trade union are protected as if they were members of the striking union. (Sorry if that doesn't make sense - it's difficult to explain, and I am a bit tired!)


 
It does make sense and what an utter shitter. 
I had no idea 

Could you leave your union yes before a strike cos it was not involved, refuse to cross the picket line and then re-join, or maybe the one that was involved?


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 8, 2011)

kittyP said:


> It does make sense and what an utter shitter.
> I had no idea
> 
> Could you leave your union yes before a strike cos it was not involved, refuse to cross the picket line and then re-join, or maybe the one that was involved?


 
I asked that question before, but it would, presumably, only work if your resignation had been accepted by the union before the industrial action takes place. We usually just encourage people not to take on the work of the people who are on strike, or to work from home or take annual leave.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 8, 2011)

Mr.Bishie said:


> afiak, Unison in Birmingham have/are balloting.


unison are balloting 9,000 council workers to strike on the 29th & 30th over the imposition of a new contract.. gmb are also looking at balloting for strike though if they do it won't be for action on the 30th.
http://birminghamagainstthecuts.wor.../unison-council-workers-balloting-for-strike/

some details about unison here.


----------



## Looby (Jun 8, 2011)

http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_e...ex.cfm/id/F7573F1C-70AA-4A82-A06E7D767F3FF9DA

Calculator for PCS members to see how the pension proposals will affect them. Very depressing reading.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 8, 2011)

I'm a bit worried about the 30th to be honest. Is it affecting all transport unions? I really don't want to cross any picket line or anything and cetainly not one that was in my workplace. I guess I'll have to take the day off or something, but do you think, as a temping agency, they might "guess" that that was the reason for it rather than me being ill or some shit like that ?

I guess I'll just have to phone in on the day and say Im ill, is that the best option?


----------



## embree (Jun 8, 2011)

If you phone in sick without having given any clues etc before hand as to why you're doing it, they couldn't possibly do anything


----------



## ymu (Jun 9, 2011)

I'm self-employed. Any client that sacks me is just revealing themselves as not worth working for. They have been told not to try and book me for 30th. They all approve.


----------



## ymu (Jun 9, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I'm a bit worried about the 30th to be honest. Is it affecting all transport unions? I really don't want to cross any picket line or anything and cetainly not one that was in my workplace. I guess I'll have to take the day off or something, but do you think, as a temping agency, they might "guess" that that was the reason for it rather than me being ill or some shit like that ?
> 
> I guess I'll just have to phone in on the day and say Im ill, is that the best option?


 
You have to give advance notice for being sick to get paid, yeah? 

Might as well make the thieving cunts pay for you to strike, eh?

Have a wisdom tooth start erupting at work on 29th. It's like all the painful bits of 'flu without the snuffles. The good bacteria sense dead flesh and panic, multiplying like mad to get the fuck out before their host is no more. Tooth pain in one or more wisdom teeth, achey skin, sore throat and mega-ear-ache all along the eustachian tube on the same side as the problem tooth(s). 

Piece of piss to fake. Common in the 2 weeks before and after actual tooth pain is present, as well as during. Broad spectrum anti-biotics to treat. 

You might be forced to take the Friday off too.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 9, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I'm a bit worried about the 30th to be honest. Is it affecting all transport unions? I really don't want to cross any picket line or anything and cetainly not one that was in my workplace. I guess I'll have to take the day off or something, but do you think, as a temping agency, they might "guess" that that was the reason for it rather than me being ill or some shit like that ?
> 
> I guess I'll just have to phone in on the day and say Im ill, is that the best option?



Phone in sick in the morning - and if you must go to a picket line anywhere (to sell papers or whatever  ) make sure it's far enough away you can't be accidentally seen by anyone from work.

Can't promise the agency aren't going to be bastards about you being off sick, but if you've not been off sick much before it shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 9, 2011)

ymu said:


> You have to give advance notice for being sick to get paid, yeah?
> 
> Might as well make the thieving cunts pay for you to strike, eh?
> (



I'd be surprised if agency staff got sick pay.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 9, 2011)

No I've only had two days off sick the entire time I've been there. This probably won't be a big deal at all but I'm getting really worried about it. Especially because diferent people will have different advice. I spose the advantage of having a long commute is the fact that I can work out if I'm going to be "ill" or not and phone them at the start of my journey well before I actually get there ... 

Yeah they have this rule that you should phone the night before and no less than an hour and a half before the shift starts.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 9, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I'd be surprised if agency staff got sick pay.


 
We get holiday pay if we've gained enough time but otherwise no


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 9, 2011)

ymu said:


> You have to give advance notice for being sick to get paid, yeah?
> 
> Might as well make the thieving cunts pay for you to strike, eh?
> 
> ...


 
that's horrible , I have wisdom teeth and i've had that shit before, something i want to be careful what i wish for you get me?


----------



## ymu (Jun 9, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I'd be surprised if agency staff got sick pay.


 
I believe they do. It's part of the justiication for the outrageousl 80% overhead they charge. They are the employer, not the client. It may vary by industry. Streathamite would know.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 9, 2011)

Agency staff don't usually get sick pay, apart from SSP.


----------



## ymu (Jun 9, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> that's horrible , I have wisdom teeth and i've had that shit before, something i want to be careful what i wish for you get me?


 
Cool! Well, not cool at all. You'll be able to fake it convincingly, should you wish to. 

Does your GP prescribe antibiotics for it? They used to hand them out like sweeties but since they were told how stupid this is, some of them treat you like you've asked for heroin on prescription. If they ever refuse you, get me on the phone.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 9, 2011)




----------



## ymu (Jun 9, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Agency staff don't usually get sick pay, apart from SSP.


 
Which is sick pay …

I'll hold my hands up to being only vaguely aware of the very cunty difference though, as I've only ever had time off sick when in a cushy public sector number. They've only ever managed to tip me into half pay by dint of signing me off sick wthout my knowledge whilst I was working at home.

Any pay is worth summat real on what these cunts pay and frogster's travel costs.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 9, 2011)

It's sick pay paid by the state, you don't get it for 3 days and its only about £60/week.


----------



## ymu (Jun 9, 2011)

Fucking hell. That is massively worse than I thought. Can we track changes easily on this? I don't believe it was that bad when I was a kid.

Fuck,


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 9, 2011)

ymu said:


> Fucking hell. That is massively worse than I thought. Can we track changes easily on this? I don't believe it was that bad when I was a kid.
> 
> Fuck,



It's been the case for at least fifteen years that I know of.


----------



## ymu (Jun 9, 2011)

That is no surprise.

Early '80s?


----------



## Tizme (Jun 12, 2011)

I have three teenage children.  Come September, my daughter will be studying for A2's, my eldest son for AS and my youngest son for GCSE's.  So, any action you take from the Autumn on could have a disruptive effect on their future.  But, before you all rush to defend your position, I *fully support* any actions you take.  Whilst I realise it may disrupt my children's schooling and that is of course a concern, I also realise if this government are allowed to get away with their plans, my children [and everyone's] future will be even more disrupted and messed up.  So, you see, there is support out here for you.  I'm sure there are other parents who would agree.  I am not a member of any political party though I've always been pretty left wing in my outlook.  In the last 9 months or so though, I have become politically active.  I am organising a march and rally in Watford in support of the J30 actions.  So, if anyone reading is in or near Watford, get in touch and join us.


----------



## ymu (Jun 12, 2011)




----------



## BigTom (Jun 12, 2011)

yes very  Tizme.. 

There will be a second Birmingham open assembly, on Friday 24th at 6:30pm, meeting in the University of Birmingham Guild of Students reception

Facebook Event

Non-students welcome to attend.  Stop Fees and Cuts Birmingham is a genuinely broad-front student group, whilst probably most people are part of another group it's never discussed.. we meet up, talk about action, take it and then meet up again when there's more activity to be done.. even the socialist party and swp members who turn up sometimes don't sell their papers at the meetings.  It didn't work out so well at the previous open assembly as some of the more factional people in Birmingham came along (for the first time I was offered leaflets at one of these meetings.. idiotic - come to a meeting about 30th June and try to give people leaflets about 30th June!.. 
I'm hoping some of the older non-student anarchist/unaffiliated types might be able to come along to this one, and I'm going to have to work out how I tell some people that I have to work with in Birmingham Against the Cuts that our meetings don't work like the Batc meetings, or the other meetings he tends to go to.  We try to stick to the point - is there a consensus on taking action on this date/for this event? If yes then discuss possible actions and then find consensus on a proposal.

No talking about wider politics, no mentions of other groups except in terms of outreach/interests in the action.. no divergences about whether consensus decision making is the right way to make a decision when you've been told you've come to a meeting run by a group who always use consensus decision making.  HAve some fucking respect.

I didn't realise I needed to say that until now 
Going to work hard to try to get some of the more sensible people there for this one, even if people come along who aren't going to be able to do anything on the day because they will have to go to work (or call in sick so can't be out doing stuff).  It'd be good to get some people along to counterbalance some of the other older attendants..


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 12, 2011)

Tizme said:


> I have three teenage children.  Come September, my daughter will be studying for A2's, my eldest son for AS and my youngest son for GCSE's.  So, any action you take from the Autumn on could have a disruptive effect on their future.  But, before you all rush to defend your position, I *fully support* any actions you take.  Whilst I realise it may disrupt my children's schooling and that is of course a concern, I also realise if this government are allowed to get away with their plans, my children [and everyone's] future will be even more disrupted and messed up.  So, you see, there is support out here for you.  I'm sure there are other parents who would agree.  I am not a member of any political party though I've always been pretty left wing in my outlook.  In the last 9 months or so though, I have become politically active.  I am organising a march and rally in Watford in support of the J30 actions.  So, if anyone reading is in or near Watford, get in touch and join us.


 
just in case it puts your mind at rest, it is highly, highly unlikely that any strike action by teachers will be continuous. It would almost certainly not get support at ballot. Teachers are, by and large, a conservative bunch.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 12, 2011)

I've already been fairly open with my bosses about my refusal to cross any picket line on the 30th, and about me being a PCS member.

I accept I'll lose a day's pay, but fuckit. I don't defy strikes and never have.

Admittedly my public sector position, even as a temp contract type, leaves me less exposed than many ....


----------



## Tizme (Jun 12, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> just in case it puts your mind at rest, it is highly, highly unlikely that any strike action by teachers will be continuous. It would almost certainly not get support at ballot. Teachers are, by and large, a conservative bunch.


 
Trust me SC, I know.  When my children were at primary school, I was very involved with their school.  Over all though, I think teachers should take more action over this.  I am already sick of this government setting private sector workers against public sector, employed against unemployed, able bodied against disabled and so on.  An agreement is an agreement.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 13, 2011)

hmm. I've got a 3 day job booked in that takes us over the 30th for me and my team. How much of a general strike is this? 

I'd be quite up for giving us all the day off to go join a protest if there was one to join, or protest in the pub if not, but I'm not convinced the customer would understand, or how it'd make any actual difference us not working on someone's house that day.

anyone know of anything going on in leeds worth supporting?


----------



## ymu (Jun 13, 2011)

I'm a self-employed academic, fs. My sector is going out. If you're not crossing any picket lines, I don't think you need to risk anything on a gesture.


----------



## shagnasty (Jun 13, 2011)

There are a couple of ballot results this week,lets hope there is a good response for this call to action


----------



## grogwilton (Jun 14, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13761147

Both ATL and NUT members back strike.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 14, 2011)

I am absolutely amazed at the ATL in this. They have always been notorious for being a weak inactive union and they deserved it because of never going on strike in one hundred and whatever years. What also surprises me is that the NASUWT union is not backing this strike. While not as pro-active as the NUT the NASUWT usually comes up with the goods when industrial action is on the cards.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 14, 2011)

92% NUT and 83% ATL. PCS declare tomorrow..


----------



## belboid (Jun 14, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> It's sick pay paid by the state, you don't get it for 3 days and its only about £60/week.


 
£81.60 a week now, up from £60.20 ten years ago


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 14, 2011)

belboid said:


> £81.60 a week now, up from £60.20 ten years ago


 
As others have pointed out you don't get it for the first three days though either.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 14, 2011)

Unison seem to saying that they will ballot for strike action over pensions in Novemeber


----------



## grogwilton (Jun 14, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I am absolutely amazed at the ATL in this. They have always been notorious for being a weak inactive union and they deserved it because of never going on strike in one hundred and whatever years. What also surprises me is that the NASUWT union is not backing this strike. While not as pro-active as the NUT the NASUWT usually comes up with the goods when industrial action is on the cards.


 
Chris Keates wants to wait til negotiations have closed before they ballot, a shortsighted view IMO as the gpvernment were intentionally stalling the talks so that unions wouldn;t ballot and then they could pass the legislation during the summer holidays, leaving us to take strike action in the autumn several weeks even months after it had already been passed. Just for the sak of unity they should have balloted when the ATL and NUT conferences decided to- both conferences decided on balloting before NASUWT conference voted on it. Oh well, I just hope NASUWT join us in the Autumn.


----------



## disco_dave_2000 (Jun 15, 2011)

PCS in !


----------



## belboid (Jun 15, 2011)

61%, and 83% for action short of a strike.  Good stuff.  Well, a good start anyway


----------



## baldrick (Jun 15, 2011)

Sorry to be annoying, but can anyone explain Unison's position on these strikes?  I am a member and I work for Birmingham City Council and I haven't had any ballot papers... from what I read on this thread it seems one branch is balloting?  Or have I misunderstood? I've been out of the loop a bit, long holidays, festivals and I don't really know what's going on.

I get absolutely fuck all information from them and it's beginning to piss me off.  The only time I hear from them is when they want my vote on their flipping executive council.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 15, 2011)

The sad fact about Unison, is that it is an absolutely massive union, it spends a lot of its money on campaigns and marches - it was very visible on the March 26 march - but when it comes to industrial action, it is very hesitant. Some of its members are among the lowest paid people in the country.


----------



## baldrick (Jun 15, 2011)

Maybe it's time to join a different union.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 15, 2011)

baldrick said:


> Sorry to be annoying, but can anyone explain Unison's position on these strikes?  I am a member and I work for Birmingham City Council and I haven't had any ballot papers... from what I read on this thread it seems one branch is balloting?  Or have I misunderstood? I've been out of the loop a bit, long holidays, festivals and I don't really know what's going on.
> 
> I get absolutely fuck all information from them and it's beginning to piss me off.  The only time I hear from them is when they want my vote on their flipping executive council.


 
As far as I know Unison does not oppose these strikes (and indeed we recognise them as the opening salvo) however - realistically we won't be in a position to ballot for strike action until the autumn and hopefully we will at least coordinate with Unite and fingers crossed the GMB as well as other public sector unions. It's also the case that Unison won't ballot until negotiations are formerly concluded, which is a mistake imo - but there you go. 

I believe the Birmingham Local Government branch is going to ballot for strike action sooner but I don't know as I don't live round there.

If you only recieve voting info it could be that you ticked the non "junk mail" box on the application form when you joined which means you'll only get the statutory stuff (voting papers etc) rather than the other info. It could be the branch doesn't have up to date info of where you work, it's your responsibility to keep them informed if you move house or job. 

It is true that Unison is often over hesitant about strike action but in my experience it is the lowest paid members who are most hesitant, often because they can't afford to take time off.


----------



## baldrick (Jun 15, 2011)

It seems it is entirely my fault i've been receiving no info about Birmingham - i've just updated my details and they had my old employer on there


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 15, 2011)

Glad to help 

Seriously though it's one of the biggest reasons in my experience for people not getting adequate or correct info - it's also in the past been one of the issues with the legality of ballots in the past couple of years.


----------



## Balbi (Jun 15, 2011)

If Unison had fucking bothered sooner, schools would be done on the 30th. As it is, our ATL members joined ATL for its history of no action - our NASUWT members are considering coming out in support of us, and the three or four NUT members are definitely going. Only two weeks too, need to sort it out.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 15, 2011)

baldrick said:


> It seems it is entirely my fault i've been receiving no info about Birmingham - i've just updated my details and they had my old employer on there



Cool - if you work for the city council you should be either have had or be getting ballot papers.  I'm not a unison member/official but unison are involved in Birmingham Against the Cuts, as am I and so I hear about these things.
I'm not even sure that they've finished sending out all the ballot papers yet, but I think they have, I think it was all going to have been sent at the end of last week with the close of the vote mid next week.
Is this totally sorted now? Do you know you are going to get ballot papers? pm me if you still have problems


----------



## baldrick (Jun 15, 2011)

I'm going to give my branch a ring tomorrow and see.  i know I haven't received any ballot papers up to now, which is logical as they had no idea I was a BCC employee 

but i guess the question is whether i've left it too late :s


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 15, 2011)

baldrick said:


> I'm going to give my branch a ring tomorrow and see.  i know I haven't received any ballot papers up to now, which is logical as they had no idea I was a BCC employee
> 
> but i guess the question is whether i've left it too late :s


 
You probably haven't left it too late as long as you do ring them tomorrow.


----------



## grogwilton (Jun 15, 2011)

Anyone here know what schools usually do to get around strikes if they think they can keep the school open? At the moment I don't think enough members in my school will strike to close it if the school gets in cover.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 15, 2011)

grogwilton said:


> Anyone here know what schools usually do to get around strikes if they think they can keep the school open? At the moment I don't think enough members in my school will strike to close it if the school gets in cover.


 
put as many kids as you can get in the hall and show them a film. Rotate with a group in the library doing silent reading and all the rest of the staff in the PE area keeping staff ratios up so that a third cohort can do PE activites. That's the most staff-effective strategy... but there need to be enough staff onsite to be safe at break and lunch too.

edit - if you're only losing a few staff, class sizes will just increase across the school.


----------



## grogwilton (Jun 15, 2011)

What kind of ratios does a school need then? We'll have about 1/6 of teaching staff out pending some last minute comers.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 15, 2011)

baldrick said:


> I'm going to give my branch a ring tomorrow and see.  i know I haven't received any ballot papers up to now, which is logical as they had no idea I was a BCC employee
> 
> but i guess the question is whether i've left it too late :s


 
Well the ballot's still open so I wouldn't have thought so, just be sure to call them tomorrow


----------



## ernestolynch (Jun 15, 2011)

NAS bollockses


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 15, 2011)

disco_dave_2000 said:


> PCS in !


 
You mean PCS 'out'?!


----------



## Voley (Jun 15, 2011)

I've just joined Unison. It only took them five months to process my application. Haven't received any confirmation from them or anything, just the deduction from my wages. With these levels of efficiency I'm imagine we'll be joining you in coordinated strike action sometime in the next century.


----------



## krink (Jun 16, 2011)

I've just decided to leave unison. I think my 10 quid a month is better in my kids' bellies. if there was a strike at work i would join in anyway and unison is pathetic. are there any decent unions for council workers? most at my place are unison and a few in the utter shite scabby gmb.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 16, 2011)

krink said:


> I've just decided to leave unison. I think my 10 quid a month is better in my kids' bellies. if there was a strike at work i would join in anyway and unison is pathetic. are there any decent unions for council workers? most at my place are unison and a few in the utter shite scabby gmb.


 
Unison is the best one. if you're not happy with your branch why not get active and change things?


----------



## krink (Jun 16, 2011)

No offence intended but if unison is the best one then I think I'd be better off out of it! For me, Unison are the same as the labour party - beyond repair.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 16, 2011)

A union is only as good as its local membership. It's all about people getting together locally to effect change, and then using the national and regional resources available to them. If Unison is the recognised union in your place, and there are other members there, then, as others have said, you would be best advised to get in there and sort it out at a local level.

It's certainly true that Unison suffers from being huge and cumbersome, and is overly bureaucratic as a consequence, but local decisions can be made swiftly and easily - you simply need to organise your work colleagues.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 16, 2011)

Yep. In any union a decent steward or two can do quite a lot with the backing of their workmates. We really need to get away from the service provider model, unions are political organisations, members need to be as active as they can be.


----------



## belboid (Jun 16, 2011)

krink said:


> I've just decided to leave unison. I think my 10 quid a month is better in my kids' bellies. if there was a strike at work i would join in anyway and unison is pathetic. are there any decent unions for council workers? most at my place are unison and a few in the utter shite scabby gmb.


 
Without being part of a union, they can, essentially, sack you for going on strike. And, as you're not a union member, ther's no reason why a union would then support your case. Yeah, Unison is pretty shit, nationally and frequently locally.  But times like these are ones where its possible to shake a branch up, call a members meeting to get rid of the old lot if they aren't doing anything, or at least give them a kick up the arse.  Sheffield Unison are currently bricking it over the campaign to make them actually do something, and I'm sure it isnt the only branch in that situation.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> I believe they do. It's part of the justiication for the outrageousl 80% overhead they charge. They are the employer, not the client. It may vary by industry. Streathamite would know.


that's not my end of things, but by and large they don't, and 80% markups are practically unheard of in any part of the industry.


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 16, 2011)

June 30th Strike Events


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 18, 2011)

krink said:


> I've just decided to leave unison. I think my 10 quid a month is better in my kids' bellies. if there was a strike at work i would join in anyway and unison is pathetic. are there any decent unions for council workers? most at my place are unison and a few in the utter shite scabby gmb.


 
Not the best timing , three years of cuts and the pensions fight.If anything you should be recruiting to Unison not leaving


----------



## ymu (Jun 18, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Not the best timing , three years of cuts and the pensions fight.If anything you should be recruiting to Unison not leaving


I dunno. If there's an exodus from the shit unions to the good ones, maybe they'll wake the fuck up.

PCS any good to you krink?


----------



## ymu (Jun 18, 2011)

Still, nice of Alexander to blow his load so early. Should be a good turnout.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 18, 2011)

ymu said:


> I dunno. If there's an exodus from the shit unions to the good ones, maybe they'll wake the fuck up.
> 
> PCS any good to you krink?


 
How can their be an exodus when only certain unions have bargaining rights? The issue is about being active and buidling in the branch or workplace not fannying off to look for some sort of 'red' union.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 18, 2011)

yep


----------



## ymu (Jun 18, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> How can their be an exodus when only certain unions have bargaining rights? The issue is about being active and buidling in the branch or workplace not fannying off to look for some sort of 'red' union.


True 'nuff. But most workplaces have more than one union recognised. People should vote with their feet, IMO.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 18, 2011)

Actually, most workplaces only have one union with recognition/negotiation rights. Workers really need to consolidate and work collectively, so the fewer unions the better. Divide and rule, and all that.


----------



## ymu (Jun 18, 2011)

Railway workers have a choice, teachers have a choice, most public sector workers have a choice. They need to consolidate behind the unions that deliver. BW workers groan when you mention Unison, railway workers glow with pride when you mention the RMT.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 18, 2011)

Guineveretoo said:


> Actually, most workplaces only have one union with recognition/negotiation rights. Workers really need to consolidate and work collectively, so the fewer unions the better. Divide and rule, and all that.


 
or fuck the official unions off, leave them as the empty shells of little use beyond legal protection for individuals, and organise across and against the trade unions and parasites.


----------



## ymu (Jun 18, 2011)

Nah, strong unions are vital. They can't have too radical a political agenda cos industrial action is a numbers game, but neither do they have any excuse for settling into a comfortable slumber. Bob Crow and Mark Serwotka earn their wedge. Most of the rest need to start doing so too, and sharpish.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 18, 2011)

ymu said:


> Nah, strong unions are vital. They can't have too radical a political agenda cos industrial action is a numbers game, but neither do they have any excuse for settling into a comfortable slumber. Bob Crow and Mark Serwotka earn their wedge. Most of the rest need to start doing so too, and sharpish.


 
strength and numbers aren't the same, the unions have millions of members and do fuck all, enthralled as they are to the labour party and it's career path for nice little bureaucrats. It is infact the size of the unions and their apparatus that has made them soo pointless, they are self perpetuating businesses, offering credit cards and the fucking like. 

my ma was in Unison and to hear her rant about the useful self serving fucks you'd have swore she'd been stealing my ultra left pamphlets. 

I wouldn't tell people to leave a union but neither would I tell them to have any illusions about who they fundamentally serve.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 18, 2011)

I am not convinced that being in thrall to the Labour party is the problem for unions, note least because unions which are not members of the Labour party are just as weak, if not more so, nor that they are self serving. The fact is, a union is only as active as its membership and if the membership won't act, then there is nothing that the leadership, locally or nationally, can do.


----------



## ymu (Jun 18, 2011)

If they get a chance to act.

Large unions can't be that radical, because the membership won't be. But that doesn't mean they can't arm themselves poperly going into nepgotiations, like wot Bob does.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 18, 2011)

It's really starting to get on my fucking tits how the public sector is being demonised & accused of contributing nothing & full of sponging communists on the make.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 18, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> It's really starting to get on my fucking tits how the public sector is being demonised & accused of contributing nothing & full of sponging communists on the make.


 
Yeah, it's all softening up for the strikes.. whats been pissing me off as well is the "look how crap the private sector have it compared to the public sector" followed not by the obvious answer - make the private sector better - but the idiot (or bosses) answer - make the public sector worse..


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 18, 2011)

Yep, some cunt was on the radio this morning arguing the usual race to the bottom shit - about how the pensions and working conditions between public and private sector employees 'had been able to become unequal' and that it was 'the public sector that should re-address this'. Christ almighty.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 18, 2011)

"The private sector pay for waste in the public sector. The reverse is not the case" etc etc etc etc etc etc


----------



## Voley (Jun 18, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> It's really starting to get on my fucking tits how the public sector is being demonised & accused of contributing nothing & full of sponging communists on the make.


 
It's a real motivator at work atm I can tell you. We're all facing imminent redundancy or if we survive that we're getting a 2 year pay freeze and worse conditions yet, somehow, we're all 'hellbent' on ruining the economy.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 18, 2011)

NVP said:


> It's a real motivator at work atm I can tell you. We're all facing imminent redundancy or if we survive that we're getting a 2 year pay freeze and worse conditions yet, somehow, we're all 'hellbent' on ruining the economy.



But the private sector creates wealth. The public sector creates NOTHING BUT COMMIES


----------



## Henno (Jun 18, 2011)

BigTom said:


> Yeah, it's all softening up for the strikes.. whats been pissing me off as well is the "look how crap the private sector have it compared to the public sector" followed not by the obvious answer - make the private sector better - but the idiot (or bosses) answer - make the public sector worse..



The reason the 'obvious' answer isn't promoted is that there simply isn't enough money to do so. 
Private Sector pensions are investment based and moved from being final salary to defined contributions because the investment returns weren't enough to be able to pay the pensions being promised. The move to defined contributions means that pension payments are directly linked to the investment returns of the contributions. 
In this country Public Sector pensions are taxation based, the taxpayer's money being used to pay today's pensions. As lifetimes increases we (as a country) simply can't afford the pension structures of yesteryear.

I work in the Private Sector, I'd *love *Private Sector pensions to be the Final Salary / the way they were, but I also *realise *this is not possible. The same is true for the vast bulk of the public. The Unions are being willingly led into an ambush on this. What's the rallying cry going to be - "We're better off than you, and we want to remain so"?


----------



## ymu (Jun 18, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> But the private sector creates wealth. The public sector creates NOTHING BUT COMMIES


 
Just found out that some work we did a couple of years ago shaved 20% off global sales of a billion dollar drug.

Of course, we waived our 10% bonus in the interests of fairness. All in this together and all that.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 18, 2011)

Henno said:


> The reason the 'obvious' answer isn't promoted is that there simply isn't enough money to do so.
> Private Sector pensions are investment based and moved from being final salary to defined contributions because the investment returns weren't enough to be able to pay the pensions being promised. The move to defined contributions means that pension payments are directly linked to the investment returns of the contributions.
> In this country Public Sector pensions are taxation based, the taxpayer's money being used to pay today's pensions. As lifetimes increases we (as a country) simply can't afford the pension structures of yesteryear.
> 
> I work in the Private Sector, I'd *love *Private Sector pensions to be the Final Salary / the way they were, but I also *realise *this is not possible. The same is true for the vast bulk of the public. The Unions are being willingly led into an ambush on this. What's the rallying cry going to be - "We're better off than you, and we want to remain so"?



Don't see the people with the money buying bogroll in bulk. Get it?


----------



## Henno (Jun 18, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Don't see the people with the money buying bogroll in bulk. Get it?


 
No, sorry that doesn't make sense to me. Please can you explain?


----------



## denniseagle (Jun 19, 2011)

Henno said:


> The reason the 'obvious' answer isn't promoted is that there simply isn't enough money to do so.
> Private Sector pensions are investment based and moved from being final salary to defined contributions because the investment returns weren't enough to be able to pay the pensions being promised. The move to defined contributions means that pension payments are directly linked to the investment returns of the contributions.
> In this country Public Sector pensions are taxation based, the taxpayer's money being used to pay today's pensions. As lifetimes increases we (as a country) simply can't afford the pension structures of yesteryear.
> 
> I work in the Private Sector, I'd *love *Private Sector pensions to be the Final Salary / the way they were, but I also *realise *this is not possible. The same is true for the vast bulk of the public. The Unions are being willingly led into an ambush on this. What's the rallying cry going to be - "We're better off than you, and we want to remain so"?


 
I did hear someone on the radio (5live) state that the NHS pension 'pot' was £2 billion in credit and that the present government refused to publish the amount that the teachers/lecturers pension 'pot' had in credit.
The constant lies about 'gold plated ' pensions etc obviously don't factor in the simple verifiable fact that the vast majority of public sector workers will get a pension of less that £7000 per annum when they retire.
I know I will.
Yes there are some whose pension will be far greater, most notably MP's, but in reality those earning less than £20,000 per year will not have such fantastic pensions to look forward to.
Can you please explain to me why it is so wrong to want to hold onto something  , however small it is in reality, rather than watch as your future living standards take a nose dive?
Funny thing is, at present, my future pension probably takes me over the threshold for all sorts of means tested benefits,so it looks like I will be paying it all back anyway should I be so lucky as to live long enough to claim it .


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 19, 2011)

@Henno: I happen to know there has been no actuarial review of the teachers' pension fund. Surely if this is all about making the pensions sustainable and protecting them that would be the first thing you'd do?

And don't you think the massive payment holdays taken by private sector pension funds during the boom times, in order to bump up the (already huge) profits they were making, which was in turn done to increase their share prices, may have had at least as much to do with the shortfall that "forced" them into changing from final salary to money purchase?

It's an attack on the social wage. A choice between sustaining the pay and benefits of workers at the cost of reduced (but still substantial) profits for capital or sustaining the profits of capital at the expense of a reduction in the (already low) social wage.

Unsurprisingly private companies went for the latter and the government wants to follow.


----------



## ymu (Jun 19, 2011)

Thing is, I signed up to lower wages in rerurn for a more flexible employer and a secure and generous, if expensive, pension. Now ten years of low pay on, my pension is worth half what I expected when I struggled to afford it, and the employer now so inflexible I am self-employed.

Is there anything wrong with just raking the bankers' bonuses off them, going back as many years as it takes. Seeing as they actually caused thus so-called crisis.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 19, 2011)

denniseagle said:


> The constant lies about 'gold plated ' pensions etc obviously don't factor in the simple verifiable fact that the vast majority of public sector workers will get a pension of less that £7000 per annum when they retire.
> I know I will.
> .



The average public sector pension is just over 4K a year for a man, and less than 2 and a half K for a woman.

Not only that, but certainly in the North East around 70% of all money spent on the public sector goes straight into the local economy, including obviously the private sector.


----------



## Henno (Jun 19, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> And don't you think the massive payment holdays taken by private sector pension funds during the boom times, in order to bump up the (already huge) profits they were making, which was in turn done to increase their share prices, may have had at least as much to do with the shortfall that "forced" them into changing from final salary to money purchase?


Yes I agree that certainly has had an effect, and the law should be changed to prevent that. On the other hand though, surely you'd agree that life expectancy has increased since pensions were first introduced, and that has pushed up the cost of pensions. When pensions were first introduced those people that did make it to retirement age were only expected to live for a few years as pensioners. Those retiring now can expect to live until their late 70's. The extra years of pension payments add up to much larger overall payout. Lengthy retirements with high pension payments are unsustainable. That's an unpalatable truth that successive governments have ignored for the past 30 years due to the obvious political fallout. It's also the reason why Labour have been conspicuously silent on the issue - they too know we can't continue to ignore the problem.


----------



## Henno (Jun 19, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The average public sector pension is just over 4K a year for a man, and less than 2 and a half K for a woman.
> 
> Not only that, but certainly in the North East around 70% of all money spent on the public sector goes straight into the local economy, including obviously the private sector.


 
The average private sector, defined contributions 'pot' at age 60 is 30K. A joint annuity (partner plus spouse) purchased at 60 for 30K would provide 900 pounds a year.

To put it another way, based on the ONS statistics, an average private sector employee would need to put away 40% of their salary in order to accrue a 'pot' that would provide the same pension as public sector worker would receive.
After the proposed changes to public sector pensions, the average private sector employee would need to put away 30% of their salary in order to accrue a 'pot' that would provide the same pension as public sector worker would receive.

You can see how difficult it will be to get the sympathy of the private sector employees. As I said before the Unions need avoid walking into this political ambush.


----------



## Henno (Jun 19, 2011)

ymu said:


> Thing is, I signed up to lower wages in rerurn for a more flexible employer and a secure and generous, if expensive, pension. Now ten years of low pay on, my pension is worth half what I expected when I struggled to afford it, and the employer now so inflexible I am self-employed.
> 
> Is there anything wrong with just raking the bankers' bonuses off them, going back as many years as it takes. Seeing as they actually caused thus so-called crisis.


 
Unfortunately it would be illegal as the bonuses were paid without any clawback clauses. Bonuses have now started to be paid with various clawback clauses / linkages (though mainly to the banks long term profitability). Nevertheless the pensions crisis has been caused primarily by longer life expectancies. The bankers can be blamed for many things, but its difficult to pin that one on them!


----------



## Henno (Jun 19, 2011)

ymu said:


> Thing is, I signed up to lower wages in rerurn for a more flexible employer and a secure and generous, if expensive, pension. Now ten years of low pay on, my pension is worth half what I expected when I struggled to afford it, and the employer now so inflexible I am self-employed.
> 
> Is there anything wrong with just raking the bankers' bonuses off them, going back as many years as it takes. Seeing as they actually caused thus so-called crisis.


 
Unfortunately it would be illegal as the bonuses were paid without any clawback clauses. Bonuses have now started to be paid with various clawback clauses / linkages (though mainly to the banks long term profitability). Nevertheless the pensions crisis has been caused primarily by longer life expectancies. The bankers can be blamed for many things, but its difficult to pin that one on them!


----------



## ymu (Jun 19, 2011)

Henno said:


> Unfortunately it would be illegal as the bonuses were paid without any clawback clauses. Bonuses have now started to be paid with various clawback clauses / linkages (though mainly to the banks long term profitability). Nevertheless the pensions crisis has been caused primarily by longer life expectancies. The bankers can be blamed for many things, but its difficult to pin that one on them!


 
There is no crisis in public sector pensions. There is no need to do this.

If they can claw back my pension, we can take the bankers assets off them. Fuck you if you think I'm gonna be screwed over just because they own the politicians. Plenty of lamp-posts if they don't like it.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 19, 2011)

Henno said:


> You can see how difficult it will be to get the sympathy of the private sector employees. As I said before the Unions need avoid walking into this political ambush.



Quite. I'm reading loads of ill-feeling - "why should I work longer and pay more tax so public sector workers can get bigger pensions and retire earlier? (accusation of public sector "not producing anything/being wasteful/full of one-eared paedo Rasta lezzers" optional).


----------



## Henno (Jun 19, 2011)

ymu said:


> There is no crisis in public sector pensions. There is no need to do this.



The crisis is that Public Sector pension payments of today are funded by tax collected today. There is no investment activity as in the private sector. Public sector pension payments are going to continue to increase as retired public sector employees live longer lives. That's the crisis.

Governments can do some or all of the following;
(1) Increase taxes (to give themselves more money to pay the pensions)
(2) Cut expenditure elsewhere (to give themselves more money to pay the pensions)
(2) Reduce the pension payments (to reduce the overall pension payment amount)
(3) Increase the retirement age (to reduce the number of payments, which will reduce the overall pension payment amount)




ymu said:


> If they can claw back my pension, we can take the bankers assets off them. Fuck you if you think I'm gonna be screwed over just because they own the politicians. Plenty of lamp-posts if they don't like it.


 
Bankers aren't involved in your pension. Just the Government whose only source of income is the taxpayer.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 19, 2011)

Henno said:


> Bankers aren't involved in your pension. Just the Government whose only source of income is the taxpayer.



What money did the government use to bail out the banks? I sure as shit wasn't involved in the banking crisis. Neither were my two friends that have already lost their library jobs. Or my other mate whose hospital job has unofficially got 2 months left.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 19, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> What money did the government use to bail out the banks? I sure as shit wasn't involved in the banking crisis. Neither were my two friends that have already lost their library jobs. Or my other mate whose hospital job has unofficially got 2 months left.


 
The banks are special though. If we don't give them money they will fuck off to Switzerland. Public sector workers aren't going anywhere, apart from Butlins or Blackpool.


----------



## ymu (Jun 19, 2011)

Pay as you go pensions are more efficient from the government's point of view. It's a small amount, there is no crisis.

No one disagrees that the pension age should rise, it's raising it for people so close to retirement that's unfair. Older women in the public sector have had six years added to their working lives in the last decade or so, whilst their childcare costs have rocketed. Now they'll lose an extra 2-5% of their income on pension contributions, during a pay freeze with inflation running at 5%+.

It won't happen. There'll be dead politicians and bankers before this is allowed to pass. It undermines the whole economy, and leaves private sector workers even more exposed. Most of them aren't too stupid to realise this.


----------



## Henno (Jun 19, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> What money did the government use to bail out the banks? I sure as shit wasn't involved in the banking crisis. Neither were my two friends that have already lost their library jobs. Or my other mate whose hospital job has unofficially got 2 months left.



I think you've mixing two separate issues - which easily done as the Government is tackling two problems with basically the same approach and doing to so at the same time.

The pensions crisis is separate from the government's debt problems. 
The governments debt problems were definitely exacerbated by the bailouts to the banks, but the key issue was that spending had started to exceed income.

Alastair Darling: "By 2007 We had reached the limits of what I thought we should be spending"
Tony Blair: "We should accept that from 2005 onwards Labour was insufficiently vigorous in limiting or eliminating the structural deficit."

According to the IFS :-
http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn93.pdf

"On the eve of the financial crisis, the UK had one of the largest structural budget deficits among either the G7 or the OECD countries and a higher level of public sector debt than most other OECD countries, though lower than most other G7 countries. Most OECD governments did more to reduce their structural deficit during the period from 1997 to 2007 than Labour did. This fiscal position formed the backdrop to the financial crisis."


The Government can only raise taxes and/or cut spending to tackle its debt. It has the same options to tackle the public sector pensions issue, with the added options of increasing the retirement age and amending the size of the pensions payments.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 19, 2011)

Henno said:


> The crisis is that Public Sector pension payments of today are funded by tax collected today. There is no investment activity as in the private sector. Public sector pension payments are going to continue to increase as retired public sector employees live longer lives. That's the crisis.



I don't think this is true.  I've been in the public sector for the last couple of years and I definitely pay into a pension, as does my employer - I assumed that any pension I get will come out of the pot created by everyone paying into the pension scheme.  Backed and guaranteed by taxpayers yes, but not directly funded by.. State pensions are funded by taxpayers of course, but are public sector pensions?
If it was just about age of retirement, I don't think there'd be an argument about it, but the combination of changes in increasing payments, switching from RPI to CPI and changing from a final salary to career average along with raising the age of retirement is about much more than the ageing population - which is indeed a problem that needs to be resolved.



> Just the Government whose only source of income is the taxpayer.



Just as a matter of pedantry this really isn't true.  In the case of pensions, public sector workers and employees pay into pension schemes.  More broadly, governments have lots of investments and often own companies (eg: Royal Mail) which generate revenue for the government.  This is most visible in countries like Norway or Qatar, who have used oil to create sovereign investment funds rather than spunking it up the wall.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 19, 2011)

Henno said:


> *The Government can only raise taxes and/or cut spending to tackle its debt*. It has the same options to tackle the public sector pensions issue, with the added options of increasing the retirement age and amending the size of the pensions payments.



the rest of your post can wait, but the bit in bold isn't true, there is a third option, which is that the government can stimulate growth, which will have the effect of raising tax revenue and cutting spending but is not directly either of them. (edit: and a fourth one, which is to sell off those parts of the government which earn money for it, capitalising on future revenue and making us poorer in the long run.. an option if there's nowhere else to go, I just think it's not a good idea to flog your stuff to pay off a debt unless you really have to.

In terms of the analaogy with pensions, raising taxes is effectively the same as raising the retirement age (increased pensions contributions / tax contributions over someones lifetime), whilst "amending" the size of the payouts (only if you're amending downwards obv) is like cutting spending.
But if the public sector pension pots are in a healthy state, as people here have claimed, is there any current deficit that needs dealing with? What needs dealing with is the issue of people leading longer lives, and raising the retirement age seems to me to be the right way of doing that - not making everyone live a more miserable, and longer, retirement.

More broadly, the same argument is that if public sector pensions are worsened, then it simply gives private sector companies space to worsen theirs as well.
Meanwhile, of course, the wealth of the richest continues to grow at a nice rate.. but I guess we don't get to talk about the possibility for huge redistribution of wealth


----------



## manny-p (Jun 19, 2011)

I have to say I don't know what NASUWT are playing at. They have seriously taken their eye off the ball on this one.


----------



## Henno (Jun 19, 2011)

ymu said:


> No one disagrees that the pension age should rise, it's raising it for people so close to retirement that's unfair. Older women in the public sector have had six years added to their working lives in the last decade or so, whilst their childcare costs have rocketed. Now they'll lose an extra 2-5% of their income on pension contributions, during a pay freeze with inflation running at 5%+.



I wholeheartedly agree. I hope the Government will change the approach here.




ymu said:


> It won't happen. There'll be dead politicians and bankers before this is allowed to pass. It undermines the whole economy, and leaves private sector workers even more exposed. Most of them aren't too stupid to realise this.


 
I disagree. Its already happened in the private sector over the last 10-15 years.


----------



## Henno (Jun 19, 2011)

BigTom said:


> I don't think this is true.  I've been in the public sector for the last couple of years and I definitely pay into a pension, as does my employer - I assumed that any pension I get will come out of the pot created by everyone paying into the pension scheme.  Backed and guaranteed by taxpayers yes, but not directly funded by.. State pensions are funded by taxpayers of course, but are public sector pensions?



Well don't forget the employer at the end is the Government, which means the employers money solely obtained from the taxpayers.
But you're right the subject is more nuanced than my short post. The vast bulk of the cost is borne by the taxpayer. A good article can be found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/06/some_of_the_truth_about_public.html


----------



## Balbi (Jun 19, 2011)

All money comes from the treasury


----------



## Henno (Jun 19, 2011)

BigTom said:


> the rest of your post can wait, but the bit in bold isn't true, there is a third option, which is that the government can stimulate growth, which will have the effect of raising tax revenue and cutting spending but is not directly either of them.


True, though how does the Government do that? Some would say that you need to cut spending in order to cut taxes to 'free up' entrepreneurs / business. Others would say that you need to raise taxes to raise spending to 'prime the pump'. 



BigTom said:


> What needs dealing with is the issue of people leading longer lives, and raising the retirement age seems to me to be the right way of doing that - not making everyone live a more miserable, and longer, retirement.


I agree. The increase in retirement age would be considerable though. Just amending the age alone would be politically difficult, not sure what the figure would need to be but it would easily be 70+. Anyone fancy telling the country they need to work till they're, say 75? Anyone fancy working till they're 75? Would you vote for a party that did that?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 19, 2011)

Can you respond to the part of my post you ignored please Henno? The part about there not having been an actuarial review of teachers' pensions? If it's all about protecting them and making them sustainable this is absolutely essential.

Why haven't they done it? Come on, let's hear your justification. If this is really a technocratic consideration that would have been the first thing they would have done. Which suggests their motivations are very different from those you are ascribing to them.

And don't you think it might be a good idea for those at the very top, those who earn obscene amounts and either do nothing at all or play a destructive role in the real economy, to contribute? And not just to public sector pensions either.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 19, 2011)

Henno said:


> I agree. The increase in retirement age would be considerable though. Just amending the age alone would be politically difficult, not sure what the figure would need to be but it would easily be 70+. Anyone fancy telling the country they need to work till they're, say 75? Anyone fancy working till they're 75? Would you vote for a party that did that?



If there's been no acturial review of teachers' pensions, how can you state those numbers? I think people are more or less accepting 68, I reckon 70 would be ok.  I have no idea what would need to happen to balance it within itself. If the numbers are not acceptable then the balance needs to come from elsewhere, and that means talking about a huge redistribution of income levels imo.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 19, 2011)

Henno said:


> Well don't forget the employer at the end is the Government, which means the employers money solely obtained from the taxpayers.
> But you're right the subject is more nuanced than my short post. The vast bulk of the cost is borne by the taxpayer. A good article can be found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/06/some_of_the_truth_about_public.html


 
Yeah conceded, didn't think that one through fully. I might come back and comment on the article but she mentioned some figures about the total cost of pensions as a % of gdp frising from 1.7% now to 1.9% towards the end of the decade and back to 1.7% by 2050 or so.. I wish they would source these things, I'd love to know more about this figure - is this from the hutton review?


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 19, 2011)

Lets not forget part of the context for this is on going commitments to Trident and overseas wars. - the UK is not so  pushed into a corner, there are still choices here.

Also, just to make the simple point, civil servants are cheap employees for 30-40 years (the Gov takes back a chunk  in tax from that which it pays (wages) in the first place from taxation).


----------



## Henno (Jun 19, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Can you respond to the part of my post you ignored please Henno? The part about there not having been an actuarial review of teachers' pensions? If it's all about protecting them and making them sustainable this is absolutely essential.
> 
> Why haven't they done it? Come on, let's hear your justification. If this is really a technocratic consideration that would have been the first thing they would have done. Which suggests their motivations are very different from those you are ascribing to them.



An actuarial review of what exactly? The contributions are used to pay today's payments, they are not invested. They aren't used to buy annuities. 



SpineyNorman said:


> And don't you think it might be a good idea for those at the very top, those who earn obscene amounts and either do nothing at all or play a destructive role in the real economy, to contribute? And not just to public sector pensions either.


Yes


----------



## ymu (Jun 19, 2011)

BigTom said:


> I don't think this is true.  I've been in the public sector for the last couple of years and I definitely pay into a pension, as does my employer - I assumed that any pension I get will come out of the pot created by everyone paying into the pension scheme.  Backed and guaranteed by taxpayers yes, but not directly funded by.. State pensions are funded by taxpayers of course, but are public sector pensions?
> If it was just about age of retirement, I don't think there'd be an argument about it, but the combination of changes in increasing payments, switching from RPI to CPI and changing from a final salary to career average along with raising the age of retirement is about much more than the ageing population - which is indeed a problem that needs to be resolved.
> 
> 
> ...


 
Employee and employer contributions account for all but £4bn, which is PAYG, and less than the amount lost to error by DWP and HMRC.

Propaganda-swallowing mugs don't know this.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 19, 2011)

Henno said:


> An actuarial review of what exactly? The contributions are used to pay today's payments, they are not invested. They aren't used to buy annuities.



So what? No final salary pension scheme uses a set cash fund to purchase an annuity. Just one example of one of the reasons why a review is essential: An actuarial review would project the costs of maintaining the existing scheme for both current claimants and those not yet retired. Without this there is no way of knowing whether the existing system is in fact unsustainable. And, as has been mentioned before, some of the other funds in fact contain a surplus.



Henno said:


> Yes



So why argue for the race to the bottom then? You may not be openly arguing for this but it's implicit in everything you type.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 19, 2011)

ymu said:


> Employee and employer contributions account for all but £4bn, which is PAYG, and less than the amount lost to error by DWP and HMRC.
> 
> Propaganda-swallowing mugs don't know this.


 
So the contributions me and my employer pay, do these go into a pension fund, which is held separately to the pot of tax revenue, and that fund may be used to make investments, the return on which is used to pay current pensions and (in all) is coming up around £4bn short (although some funds, like the NHS one, is actually running at a surplus at this point in time)?
I don't know a lot about the actual setup of public sector pensions.


----------



## ymu (Jun 19, 2011)

Yeah, basically. Richard Murphy has some useful blog articles on this.  www.taxresearch.org.uk


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 19, 2011)

Just to complicate matters, some public sector pensions are "funded" schemes (so, could be actuarially reviewed) and some are "unfunded" (so there is nothing to review).

The Local Government Pension Scheme and the Universities Pension Scheme are both FUNDED.  So, individuals and employers both pay an amount of money each payday, which goes into a fund which is carefully managed and which pays out according to its rules.  

The civil service, the teachers, firefighters, police and health workers are all in UNFUNDED schemes. So, the contributions which workers pay just go straight back to the Government, who then directly pay the pensions.

This document might help inform - http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/publicsectorpensions.pdf - although it looks like it may be a little bit out of date now.


----------



## ymu (Jun 19, 2011)

The PAYG element is expected to fall to £2.5bn over the next few years too, as the baby boomers pass on and fewer lifetime p/s workers become eligible.

If they wanna give us back pay on the shit wages we accepted in return, that'd be OK.


----------



## Henno (Jun 19, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> So what? No final salary pension scheme uses a set cash fund to purchase an annuity. Just one example of one of the reasons why a review is essential: An actuarial review would project the costs of maintaining the existing scheme for both current claimants and those not yet retired. Without this there is no way of knowing whether the existing system is in fact unsustainable. And, as has been mentioned before, some of the other funds in fact contain a surplus.



Reviews of the system, the future sustainability are done. If you haven't already done so, then the link I posted earlier contains a good summary of the situation. I'll re-post the link here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/06/some_of_the_truth_about_public.html




SpineyNorman said:


> So why argue for the race to the bottom then? You may not be openly arguing for this but it's implicit in everything you type.



Given a free choice I'd raise the retirement age for everyone i.e. return to the kind of situation we had when state pensions were first created; decent pensions for those near the end of their lives. However I also recognise that that would be deeply unpopular and no party is likely to suggest such a rise in retirement age.
Politically then, it has to be a combination of raising the retirement age, raising contributions and lowering pension payments. Unless your arguing for no change at all (which is blinkered to reality) then all were discussing is the relative mix of those three parameters. Its not a race to the bottom, just a pragmatic reaction to the reality of longer life expectancies.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 19, 2011)

Henno said:


> Given a free choice I'd raise the retirement age for everyone i.e. return to the kind of situation we had when state pensions were first created; decent pensions for those near the end of their lives. However I also recognise that that would be deeply unpopular and no party is likely to suggest such a rise in retirement age.
> Politically then, it has to be a combination of raising the retirement age, raising contributions and lowering pension payments. Unless your arguing for no change at all (which is blinkered to reality) then all were discussing is the relative mix of those three parameters. Its not a race to the bottom, just a pragmatic reaction to the reality of longer life expectancies.


 
I'm sure it will get raised and raised. The problem is it is going to contribute to youth unemployment everytime you do this, and it's already a problem. The second thing is the people championing the rise in pensionable age are those in relatively comfy jobs, who get to arrange their own working environment to some extent. If you've been doing a manual job for 40 years, the chances are your body is just knackered. Also, not everyone will live as long as others, something else that is hard to predict!


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 19, 2011)

Ed Balls can fuck the fuck off too.


----------



## ymu (Jun 19, 2011)

Manual workers also have lower life expectancies, so less time getting paid, or to enjoy it. Work them 'til they drop, eh?


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 19, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> If you've been doing a manual job for 40 years, the chances are your body is just knackered. Also, not everyone will live as long as others, something else that is hard to predict!


 
Quite. My father has been in engineering since he left school at 15. He can just about cope with 4 day weeks now and despite not really having enough money to retire particularly comfortably, he's going to at 65 anyway because otherwise he'll end up in his grave before being able to enjoy at least some hard earned retirement.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 19, 2011)

And not helped by either government, or the banking and 'investment' industry over the years - opt in, opt out, opt back in again - take out private pension schemes because of fears that the old age pension would cease to be by the time he retired that promised everything and failed to deliver, etc.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 19, 2011)

Henno said:


> Reviews of the system, the future sustainability are done. If you haven't already done so, then the link I posted earlier contains a good summary of the situation. I'll re-post the link here
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/06/some_of_the_truth_about_public.html




I'm talking specifically about the university schemes, and for the national schemes there has been *no* actuarial review since 2007. This is fact. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the irrelevant link you just posted. These schemes have managed fund, and so if it was all about making the pensions sustainable they'd need to conduct a review. I find the fact that they haven't highly suspicious, since if they did a review and found that they really were unsustainable there could be no argument.



Henno said:


> Given a free choice I'd raise the retirement age for everyone i.e. return to the kind of situation we had when state pensions were first created; decent pensions for those near the end of their lives. However I also recognise that that would be deeply unpopular and no party is likely to suggest such a rise in retirement age.
> Politically then, it has to be a combination of raising the retirement age, raising contributions and lowering pension payments. Unless your arguing for no change at all (which is blinkered to reality) then all were discussing is the relative mix of those three parameters. Its not a race to the bottom, just a pragmatic reaction to the reality of longer life expectancies.


 
Given a free choice I'd abolish capitalism and have society run on the basis of mutual aid, where the elderly are looked after in recognition of the contribution they made to society when they were younger. However, I realise this is simply not possible right now.

Politically then, I would have a decent state pension for all funded by a genuinely progressive tax system.

Advocates of the race to the bottom always couch their arguments in terms of realism. You're not alone there.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 19, 2011)

I don't know about what's happening at universities elsewhere but at Sheffield the vice chancellor and others at that level (sorry, don't know the titles) have kept their final salary schemes. Those on the higher teaching grades are being moved to a career average scheme, which isn't anywhere near as good as what they signed up for but at least there are guaranteed benefits.

The lower grade staff are being moved to a money purchase scheme and are set to lose in the region of 2/3 of their pension.

Which doesn't really fit with this part of Danny Alexander's statement:




			
				Beaker off the muppets said:
			
		

> Between these two, I believe there is an indisputable case for reforming public sector pensions. They must be affordable, not just now but in the decades to come; and *reform must be sustainable and correct the huge unfairness* on the taxpayer and *on low-earning public sector workers that exists under the current arrangements*; reform must ensure that those in the public sector continue to receive among the best, if not the best, pensions available.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 19, 2011)

Ed Balls is no friend of the unions. Nor is the Labour Party, although some top union bureaucrats like to think so. These industrial disputes are the last chance to fight neo-liberal economic policies. Sadly it is not a just case of union members and supporters being opposed to Tory policies, but also of those of the so-called opposition. Ed Balls might as well be in the coalition as take his current line about the unions. Labour set up the current set of policies which the Tories are developing further - including attacking pensions, so finds it hard to argue against them.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 26, 2011)

Don't think I posted this, UNISON council workers in Birmingham voted yes and will strike on the 30th, over pay and conditions.. there will now be 10 demos from 10am-11am around Birmingham, all feeding to the main strike rally at 12noon
http://birminghamagainstthecuts.wordpress.com/upcoming-actions/june-30th-strike-day-activity/

There is a public meeting called by the unions on tuesday 28th at the council house at 7:30pm (one of the "unite the resistance" series being held around the country)


----------



## trevhagl (Jun 26, 2011)

what would fuck them up more than anything is a work to rule and strict overtime ban - i know a teacher who does about 10 hours unpaid overtime every week


----------



## trevhagl (Jun 26, 2011)

stephj said:


> Quite. My father has been in engineering since he left school at 15. He can just about cope with 4 day weeks now and despite not really having enough money to retire particularly comfortably, he's going to at 65 anyway because otherwise he'll end up in his grave before being able to enjoy at least some hard earned retirement.


 
this is one of the worst things the 3 Tory parties have came out with, absolutely disgusting


----------



## grogwilton (Jun 26, 2011)

trevhagl said:


> what would fuck them up more than anything is a work to rule and strict overtime ban - i know a teacher who does about 10 hours unpaid overtime every week



That would have no economic impact and little media impact, and it would be very hard for unions to monitor who was actually taking part in the action. It would also have a very detrimental effect on kids' education. Worst of all options IMO.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 26, 2011)

grogwilton said:


> That would have no economic impact and little media impact, and it would be very hard for unions to monitor who was actually taking part in the action. It would also have a very detrimental effect on kids' education. Worst of all options IMO.


 Yep. No one would notice but the kids would suffer.


----------



## trevhagl (Jun 27, 2011)

it's a very awkward situation because the govt just don't care whether oik's kids get educated or not....just like they don't care if someone gets their dole payments or not


----------



## dylans (Jun 27, 2011)

trevhagl said:


> it's a very awkward situation because the govt just don't care whether oik's kids get educated or not....just like they don't care if someone gets their dole payments or not


 

They should just go on strike and stay on strike indefinitely until they win. It doesn't have to affect kids education either. Any good parent knows that home life should be stimulating and educational anyway, so all it takes is for parents to ensure their kids play and home life is structured around educational activities. I do this anyway. I estimate that my kid learns at least as much at home as he does at school. If there were an indefinate teachers strike I would just structure it more to take up the slack.


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2011)

'Trade unions and anti-cuts campaigners plan summer of protest

Activists meet days before strike over public sector pensions to plan concerted response to government's austerity programme'

'Trade union leaders and anti-cuts campaigners are to hold talks on Tuesday to hammer out plans for a summer of industrial action and protest against the government's austerity programme.

Members of the direct action group UK Uncut and campaigners from the Coalition of Resistance are among those who have been invited to the TUC headquarters in London to meet the deputy general secretary, Frances O'Grady.'



Pretty amazing really, can't think of any other time in history, where 'activists' have been invited by the TUC to discuss tactics..





http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/27/trade-unions-anti-cuts-protest


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2011)

Guardian strike blog here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jun/27/teachers-strike-public-sector-pensions-live


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 27, 2011)

dylans said:


> They should just go on strike and stay on strike indefinitely until they win. It doesn't have to affect kids education either. Any good parent knows that home life should be stimulating and educational anyway, so all it takes is for parents to ensure their kids play and home life is structured around educational activities. I do this anyway. I estimate that my kid learns at least as much at home as he does at school. If there were an indefinate teachers strike I would just structure it more to take up the slack.



You're lucky. My kids would suffer because taking 2 x autistic kids out isn't really possible, that's why the summer hols are such a pain for them (I think summer hols start to drag for most kids, in the end). Not that I don't support a strike. An indefinite one would quickly work against them, tho, I think.


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2011)

Inspiring Uk Uncut video. the kids are alright...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ucQ48ScFH1E#at=193


----------



## trevhagl (Jun 27, 2011)

there's also lots of parents who work (esp since New Labour's fucked up welfare reforms) so they would be well fucked with a strike but then if someone is robbing you blind you don't have much option


----------



## ymu (Jun 27, 2011)

Yes. Strikes have to cause problems with childcare, unfortunately - although marking can be a big deal at the right time of year (like, umm, now). It's really important that this is set in a broad enough context that parents will largely support the action, and add their weight to calls for these cunts to back the fuck down.


----------



## trevhagl (Jun 27, 2011)

ymu said:


> Yes. Strikes have to cause problems with childcare, unfortunately - although marking can be a big deal at the right time of year (like, umm, now). It's really important that this is set in a broad enough context that parents will largely support the action, and add their weight to calls for these cunts to back the fuck down.


 
there are a lot of idiots about too who think teachers have it easy. I stayed with a teacher the other week and while i went out with her bloke she was stuck marking books all night - UNPAID - the unions need to get across this disgraceful state of affairs. Unpaid labour is stealing by the employer....


----------



## Balbi (Jun 27, 2011)

trevhagl said:


> there are a lot of idiots about too who think teachers have it easy. I stayed with a teacher the other week and while i went out with her bloke she was stuck marking books all night - UNPAID - the unions need to get across this disgraceful state of affairs. Unpaid labour is stealing by the employer....


 
That's everyday for teachers though. I could probably get a private sector job for 21k a year, work 9 - 5 - take no work home with me, get my statutory holidays etc and have a much less stressful life.

But I want to do my job.


----------



## ymu (Jun 27, 2011)

Yeah. The devaluing of teaching is such a ridiculous strategy too. If you don't want to have to pay them more, you have to treat them well. It's takes a true moron to try and cut wages and pensions whilst spitting in their faces and calling them layabouts. 

If you're good at something, you cannot possibly be more productive than teaching others to be good at it too, and send your skills cascading out through countless generations. Teach, and your skills will be useful for more lifetimes than you could possibly count. There's nothing more inspiring than that, and when it comes to school teaching, teaching itself is the skill. It has a bigger impact than anything else. Help people teach well, and allow them to teach well, and the gains are immense. And the first step to achieving that is to value them, not denigrate them. How the fuck is anyone supposed to do their job well under a constant barrage of sneery ignorant criticism?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jun 27, 2011)

tbh, all professions get denigrated as soon as they contest the government or business over anything. Including jobs as unambiguously heroic as firefighter.


----------



## ymu (Jun 27, 2011)

And it's usually a good strategy, to make the attack politically possible.

What they've forgotten is that they're attacking approximately 70% of the population in one way or another, 25% public sector workforce (and their families), all women in work, everyone claiming benefits or tax credits (approx 30%?), grandparents who will be doing more unpaid childcare and taking in destitute younger generations just as they should be enjoying retirement and an easy life, small businessmen who see them designing tax breaks for multinationals whilst choking off training opportunities and increasing graduate pay demands.

They're trying to demonise and hurt too many groups all at the same time. They're telling us we're all shit and deserve no better, basically, and expecting us to agree.

They're quite stupid. We'll win.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jun 27, 2011)

the problem comes if people think, "well, I'm getting fucked, why shouldn't they get fucked too?"


----------



## agricola (Jun 27, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> the problem comes if people think, "well, I'm getting fucked, why shouldn't they get fucked too?"


 
now available in paper format - look for the _Daily Mail_ in a newsagents near you!


----------



## ymu (Jun 27, 2011)

It's up to us, isn't it. Workers who think like that are condemning themselves to an ever downward spiral. That's one of the arguments we have to win. We have to show how much wages have fallen as a % of GDP. How they have fallen, or barely risen, in real terms for 30 years for almost all of us, including the very, very well paid. How the private sector gets away with ignoring NMW legislation, and stealing people's tax and stamp, whilst the public sector can't even pay a contractor without proof that they're registered for tax.

The narrative is being stretched to surreal limits right now, with bankers taking home billions in bonuses whilst they shift the cost of their continued existence onto those who have no power to influence the outcomes, and can always be forced to assume the risk whilst never seeing the profits - when those go up, wages as a % of GDP fall, you see.

If we can't make sufficient numbers of people angry, given that we have truth, evidence, history, economics and all of academe on our side, we don't deserve a revolution. If we end up watching the uprisings in Asia with awe, whilst still impotently kicking air here, I'll be very fucked off about it.


----------



## articul8 (Jun 27, 2011)

treelover said:


> Pretty amazing really, can't think of any other time in history, where 'activists' have been invited by the TUC to discuss tactics..



Amazing indeed - but presumably this is the TUC saying - look don't rock the boat too hard just yet (while we're negotiating) - we have to take everyone with us so the pace will be set by the slowest etc.    Stick with us and we'll work with you..

I don't know how uncut is structured but I hope it doesn't have the kind of centralised leadership that could easily be bought off by this stuff


----------



## trevhagl (Jun 27, 2011)

Balbi said:


> That's everyday for teachers though. I could probably get a private sector job for 21k a year, work 9 - 5 - take no work home with me, get my statutory holidays etc and have a much less stressful life.
> 
> But I want to do my job.


 
and the ironic thing is the government would probably say teachers have it cushy


----------



## trevhagl (Jun 27, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> the problem comes if people think, "well, I'm getting fucked, why shouldn't they get fucked too?"


 
this is the way of thinking for all sad bastards, the way the Govt WANT them to think


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 27, 2011)

trevhagl said:


> and the ironic thing is the government would probably say teachers have it cushy


 
MPs get even longer holidays, loads more pay and massive pensions. I'm not sure how they have the nerve to attack "public sector workers gold plated pensions" because obviously, they are the prime example of that!


----------



## ymu (Jun 27, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> MPs get even longer holidays, loads more pay and massive pensions. I'm not sure how they have the nerve to attack "public sector workers gold plated pensions" because obviously, they are the prime example of that!


 
Funny how these things never get put into context, eh. I liked this tweet, on the hypocrisy of doctors.



> muirgray muir gray
> 
> big BMJ piece on how pay of docs is slipping; still no comparison of docs pay with cleaners' pay in last decade , or docs' pensions with oaps'
> 12 Jun


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2011)

On Sky news, women on benefits outside school, ''they shouldn't go on strike, they have jobs, if you are on benefits you are struggling'', 


so no solidarity there...


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2011)

Its on....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jun/27/teachers-strike-public-sector-pensions-live


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 27, 2011)

treelover said:


> On Sky news, women on benefits outside school, ''they shouldn't go on strike, they have jobs, if you are on benefits you are struggling'',
> 
> 
> so no solidarity there...


 
I wouldn't take that as being indicative of the public mood, it's certainly not what I've been hearing. Sky do have an obvious agenda - I'm not saying such views don't exist, clearly they do - but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the Sky News team had to ask quite a few people before they got the "right" answer.

Still depressing that people think like that though.


----------



## belboid (Jun 27, 2011)

treelover said:


> On Sky news, women on benefits outside school, ''they shouldn't go on strike, they have jobs, if you are on benefits you are struggling'',
> 
> 
> so no solidarity there...


not as if Sky News would deliberately choose to show people who say what Sky News would like them to say, is it?


----------



## BigTom (Jun 27, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Amazing indeed - but presumably this is the TUC saying - look don't rock the boat too hard just yet (while we're negotiating) - we have to take everyone with us so the pace will be set by the slowest etc.    Stick with us and we'll work with you..
> 
> I don't know how uncut is structured but I hope it doesn't have the kind of centralised leadership that could easily be bought off by this stuff



no it doesn't.. there is a central group who do the website, @ukuncut twitter feed and facebook page, and call national days of action but all the local groups are essentially independent from the central group.. it's a network structure not a top-down heirarchical structure.
Things might slow down a bit if the central group decided to be bought off, as they wouldn't call a national day of action which usually spurs quite a few actions, but there would still be local groups doing stuff - there were iirc 4 actions listed for the 30th before ukuncut called a national day of action, and I expect some of the ones added afterwards were already being planned..


----------



## BigTom (Jun 27, 2011)

trevhagl said:


> there's also lots of parents who work (esp since New Labour's fucked up welfare reforms) so they would be well fucked with a strike but then if someone is robbing you blind you don't have much option



I agree with this, however, it's worth noting (and mentioning to parents, esp. those with primary age children) that under section 57a of the employment act 1996, if you can't get childcare and need it because of a strike, you should be entitled to time off.. secondary age children might not work because it might be reasonable for them to be left on their own for the day.. I have no idea if this time off would be paid or not.
(ianal obviously, information came from IWW members)

e2a I'm fully supportive of teachers going out on indefinite strike in the autumn.  I think it'll have to be that to stop the changes to the pension scheme.  It'll be an argument that will need to be won with parents to make sure they are banging on at the government to back down, not the teachers.


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2011)

'I wouldn't take that as being indicative of the public mood, it's certainly not what I've been hearing. Sky do have an obvious agenda - I'm not saying such views don't exist, clearly they do - but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the Sky News team had to ask quite a few people before they got the "right" answer.'

Still depressing that people think like that though. 



i agree with that, all the media will be playing this game in the coming months, but they also vox popped other who vigourously defended the teachers, etc.


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 27, 2011)

belboid said:


> not as if Sky News would deliberately choose to show people who say what Sky News would like them to say, is it?


 
Liberal Conspiracy had a few poll findings here that contradict Sky's line.


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 27, 2011)

Seems UNISON's leadership are working their way out of balloting now with the BBC news reporting claiming they are now not going to ballot because council pensions will be looked at seperately?!


----------



## ymu (Jun 27, 2011)

What proportion of Unison's membership can switch to PCS or MSF or ... some union that might actually take action?


----------



## articul8 (Jun 27, 2011)

MSF?  hasn't existed for years - went into Amicus which in turn went into UNITE.

There might be some NHS managers and the like who could go into PCS (or FDA for that matter) - but don't think it's an option for most UNISON members


----------



## articul8 (Jun 27, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Seems UNISON's leadership are working their way out of balloting now with the BBC news reporting claiming they are now not going to ballot because council pensions will be looked at seperately?!


 
would be typical of Prentis to talk up his game in advance of the conference then back down immediately after


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 27, 2011)

> The attacks by the ConDem regime on the pay and conditions of workers and their families must be resisted at all levels. That means everything from supporting strikes to organising local campaigns against closures of community services like libraries, schools and hospitals



Any guesses?


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 27, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Seems UNISON's leadership are working their way out of balloting now with the BBC news reporting claiming they are now not going to ballot because council pensions will be looked at seperately?!


 
This is a 'desired' outcome according to a TUC document allegedly leaked


----------



## dylans (Jun 27, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Any guesses?


 
BNP?


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 27, 2011)

dylans said:


> BNP?


 
very very hot but NOT the BNP


----------



## dylans (Jun 27, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> very very hot but NOT the BNP


 
Solidarity perhaps?


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 27, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Any guesses?


 
And followed by this gem "Agitate, educate and organise".


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 27, 2011)

dylans said:


> Solidarity perhaps?


 
Bulls eye 

The official BNP quote  is ( as fed partly reveals) 



> British National Party activists must get behind these actions to defend the standard of living and quality of life for our people. We will not be forced to pay for the mistakes of the politicians and bankers. Agitate, educate and organise!"


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 27, 2011)

bloody hell


----------



## articul8 (Jun 27, 2011)

BigTom said:


> no it doesn't.. there is a central group who do the website, @ukuncut twitter feed and facebook page, and call national days of action but all the local groups are essentially independent from the central group.. it's a network structure not a top-down heirarchical structure.
> Things might slow down a bit if the central group decided to be bought off, as they wouldn't call a national day of action which usually spurs quite a few actions, but there would still be local groups doing stuff - there were iirc 4 actions listed for the 30th before ukuncut called a national day of action, and I expect some of the ones added afterwards were already being planned..


 
Hmm...I do worry that the TUC will be doing more telling than listening - let's hope the local groups don't buy it


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2011)

BNP unions, marginal, 

Meanwhile the BBC propaganda begins: on the mass appeal 'The One Show' they have just has that dreadful woman off the Apprentice who has very right wing views having a real go at P/S workers, contrasting them with very hard working Private sector workers( the meme of the coming period)

it was an authored piece, but why was it broadcast,   they won't have apackage from the POv of a P/S worker, will they?

This will now be seen as the 'commonsense' view by many who watch this popular show..


----------



## ymu (Jun 27, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Bulls eye
> 
> The official BNP quote  is ( as fed partly reveals)


 
Isn't that exactly how the far right rose in the '30s, the last time we had global financial meltdown? It's never been quite as simple as "right-wingers 4 rich fuckers".


----------



## dylans (Jun 27, 2011)

ymu said:


> Isn't that exactly how the far right rose in the '30s, the last time we had global financial meltdown? It's never been quite as simple as "right-wingers 4 rich fuckers".


 
Yup. Fascism has always been about offering all things to all people. Populist revolutionary rhetoric for the proles and offers of greatness to the failing petite bourgeoisie who hate those below and fear and envy those above.


----------



## ymu (Jun 27, 2011)

Interesting times. Dangerous times. Best hope we're up to it, eh.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 27, 2011)

Jesus fucking Christ in a sidecar. 

So much rhetoric and one-eyed opinion masquerading as fact despite no actual facts to back it up.

http://melaniephillips.com/teachers-have-a-duty-of-care-to-their-pupils-and-that-is-why-they-should-never-go-on-strike


----------



## binka (Jun 27, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Jesus fucking Christ in a sidecar.
> 
> So much rhetoric and one-eyed opinion masquerading as fact despite no actual facts to back it up.
> 
> http://melaniephillips.com/teachers-have-a-duty-of-care-to-their-pupils-and-that-is-why-they-should-never-go-on-strike


 
read the article on the mail site for some cracking comments:

_I imagine plenty of perverts will have already circled Thursday's date in red in their diaries. Unexpected consequences - groups of children hanging around in shopping centres all day as their parents can't afford to take a day off.

- Garry, Swindon, 27/6/2011 14:52_


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 28, 2011)

binka said:


> read the article on the mail site for some cracking comments:
> 
> _I imagine plenty of perverts will have already circled Thursday's date in red in their diaries. Unexpected consequences - groups of children hanging around in shopping centres all day as their parents can't afford to take a day off.
> 
> - Garry, Swindon, 27/6/2011 14:52_


 
There is a real obsession about child sexual predators these days. Actually they can hang around and watch truants most days anyway


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jun 28, 2011)

Just heard (on Radio 4) that the Scum has asked parents to strike-break schools.  Fuck off Murdoch and go back to slobberinng over your Milton Friedman signed copies.

e2a:  Just seen there's a separate thread on this.  Still, you know what I mean etc etc.


----------



## articul8 (Jun 28, 2011)

binka said:


> read the article on the mail site for some cracking comments:
> 
> _I imagine plenty of perverts will have already circled Thursday's date in red in their diaries. Unexpected consequences - groups of children hanging around in shopping centres all day as their parents can't afford to take a day off.
> 
> - Garry, Swindon, 27/6/2011 14:52_


 
yes, it's no like paedo's can pose as good citizens ready to "keep the school open" (break the strike) is it?


----------



## dylans (Jun 28, 2011)

This is not a serious attempt to turn parents into scabs. Rather it is an attempt to impose the view that parents are universally against the strike and therefore isolate teachers. This is what is going on here.


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

Backfiring nicely then. Mumsnet not happy.


----------



## dylans (Jun 28, 2011)

ymu said:


> Backfiring nicely then. Mumsnet not happy.


 
Yes I think there is considerable sympathy for the teachers despite the media dragging every "spokesperson" for irrelevant right wing pressure groups they can find into every news studio


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 28, 2011)

treelover said:


> BNP unions, marginal,
> 
> Meanwhile the BBC propaganda begins: on the mass appeal 'The One Show' they have just has that dreadful woman off the Apprentice who has very right wing views having a real go at P/S workers, contrasting them with very hard working Private sector workers( the meme of the coming period)
> 
> ...


 
Another vote for switching over to watch Emmerdale then!


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

dylans said:


> Yes I think there is considerable sympathy for the teachers despite the media dragging every "spokesperson" for irrelevant right wing pressure groups they can find into every news studio


 
The NYT reported a poll after the attacks on collective bargaining power for public sector unions were started by the new tea party governors earlier this year. On an issue that was solely about public sector union rights, with no budget implications attached, and hefty media propagandising from the right ...

... 61% came out in support of the public sector unions. In the US.


----------



## Balbi (Jun 28, 2011)

The Scum Says today.....





			
				The Scum said:
			
		

> On Thursday, a hardcore of militant teachers will try to shut all Britain's 23,000 state schools by striking over pensions. It would harm pupils and cause family childcare chaos. The Sun says this cynical strike must not succeed. Today we call on parents and the majority of moderate teachers to keep schools open.
> 
> For decades, education has been in the grip of hardline teaching unions. Their dead hand has crushed progress, destroyed dreams and betrayed pupils by dragging down standards in pursuit of clapped-out Socialist dogma. The time has come to smash the militants' power over classrooms.
> 
> ...



There's so much to be amused by there it actually hurts


----------



## belboid (Jun 28, 2011)

dylans said:


> This is not a serious attempt to turn parents into scabs. Rather it is an attempt to impose the view that parents are universally against the strike and therefore isolate teachers. This is what is going on here.


 
a bloody stupid plan, as when virtually no parents offer to go in, it will look rather more like no one supports gove.  Not exactly the first time he hasn't thought a plan thru tho


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 28, 2011)

Balbi said:


> The Scum Says today.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Aahahahah


----------



## treelover (Jun 28, 2011)

'For decades, education has been in the grip of hardline teaching unions. Their dead hand has crushed progress, destroyed dreams and betrayed pupils by dragging down standards in pursuit of clapped-out Socialist dogma. The time has come to smash the militants' power over classrooms. '


thats really incendiary language for a newspaper(so called) it is more like you would get in the Far Right papers of 1930's Germany...

'power without responsibility' indeed..


----------



## weepiper (Jun 28, 2011)

the editor of the Sun, yesterday


----------



## dylans (Jun 28, 2011)

belboid said:


> a bloody stupid plan, as when virtually no parents offer to go in, it will look rather more like no one supports gove.  Not exactly the first time he hasn't thought a plan thru tho


 
Cue journalists scouring the country up and down to find one and any prize examples of parents scabbing before plastering it across the news


----------



## treelover (Jun 28, 2011)

The Silverbirch strategy in the Miners Strike


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 28, 2011)

As all too often jaded as I am there's maybe's a few changes in my workforce and certainly a hardening of attitude against the government. At staff meetings 481 voted to oppose the pay offer whislt 2 abstained. Serial scabs and long term refusers to join PCS are joining/rejoining in order to strike, higher executive officers not known for their striking are informing their staff they won't be in on Thursday and a carpark meeting held today-in staffs own time-attracted over 300 people which hasn't been seen here for many years. Staff taking away leaflets for the strike rally on Thursday..... Perhaps..........


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Jun 28, 2011)

We need a big one with roits looming and I disappionted that the RMT chicken out...


----------



## belboid (Jun 28, 2011)

the reason for their strike was completely settled (the worker was re-instated).  A tad harsh to call that 'chickening out'


----------



## dennisr (Jun 28, 2011)

belboid said:


> the reason for their strike was completely settled (the worker was re-instated).  A tad harsh to call that 'chickening out'



Exactly - imagine the press coverage. It was a significant climbdown by the management:
*"Hard lesson" for tube management as driver wins reinstatement*
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/12287

Arwyn: "Management have learned a very hard lesson and the RMT has come out stronger. We timed the strike so that the dates would incorporate 30 June. I think the fact that we would have gone on strike then enormously strengthened our hand. I'd like to see this victory as the first victory of the 30 June movement."

And not just a lesson for management - its a lesson for all of us - how to win

The victimised driver they had refused to reinstate until the serious threat of strike action is an SP member.


----------



## articul8 (Jun 28, 2011)

Not meant as a criticism of the RMT necessarily, but wasn't it more a result of the tribunal verdict than the industrial action?


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 28, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Not meant as a criticism of the RMT necessarily, but wasn't it more a result of the tribunal verdict than the industrial action?


 
They are not obliged to take do what the IT says though, they can simply ignore it. However the strength of feeling made clear to LRT the consequences of a refusal to re-instate Arwyn should they choose to do so.


----------



## articul8 (Jun 28, 2011)

Yes but what was the logic of calling a strike before the tribunal reported?  You think they would have re-instated him if it found against?  That would have taken more than a one-day stoppage surely?


----------



## belboid (Jun 28, 2011)

Sure, but more than a one day stoppage was called. Always best to push your case when people as soon as people are up for it, not to lose momentum n all that. 

And, of course, they wanted to strike on the 30th with the others.


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 28, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Yes but what was the logic of calling a strike before the tribunal reported?  You think they would have re-instated him if it found against?  That would have taken more than a one-day stoppage surely?


 
To build momentum, as belboid said, there were numerous strike days voted for and planned. They used the IT and the threat of strikes. The RMT, wisely, was ahead of the game and made sure they were ready for the worst case scenario, a sensible option. It may well also have been the plan by RMT to strike on the 30th that concentrated minds even more at the IT.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 28, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> "The private sector pay for waste in the public sector. The reverse is not the case" etc etc etc etc etc etc


 
No, but the public sector _does_ pay for rampant corruption, greed and incompetence in the private sector.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 28, 2011)

Connexions workers in Birmingham, who have a standing mandate for strike action from a previous ballot will also be out in Brum on the 30th, with pickets at their offices, a mini-rally at their central office and then joining the main strike rally.. http://birminghamagainstthecuts.wor...nison-connexions-workers-to-join-j30-strikes/

I'm getting progressively more annoyed that they couldn't finish my contract tomorrow instead of thursday! still, it's looking big enough to carry on until 4 when I can get to the centre..


----------



## treelover (Jun 28, 2011)

http://thethirdestate.net/

STRIKE BINGO, 

'UNION DINOSAURS', HOUSE!


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 28, 2011)

Very good interview by someone from the Association of Teachers and Lecturers  on the Talk Sport tea time programme in which he got Darren Gough to back the teachers case. Gough was gob smacked 'You mean your paying more in in  order to get less out and have to work more years to get less?'
Adrian Durham informed us that whilst in the private sector where people had to work from dawn to midnight working in the public sector was cushy and that teachers weren't  setting very good role models on the importance of  attending school.

The teachers could do us all a favour by keeping  Adrian Durham at home with his kids for aday so we don't have to listen to this egotistical bore.


----------



## treelover (Jun 28, 2011)

Millipede has come out explicitly against the strike tonight, Kinnock 2

don't remember the politicians worrying about kids missing a day's school when they declared a public holiday for the royal wedding.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Jun 28, 2011)

I always said that the unions controlled by the state... it's all fragmented...bring on the Greeks...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 29, 2011)

What?


----------



## dennisr (Jun 29, 2011)

lopsidedbunny said:


> I always said that the unions controlled by the state... it's all fragmented...bring on the Greeks...


 
no, that's the lizards....


----------



## articul8 (Jun 29, 2011)

I heard David Icke ran them...


----------



## trevhagl (Jun 29, 2011)

treelover said:


> Millipede has come out explicitly against the strike tonight, Kinnock 2
> 
> don't remember the politicians worrying about kids missing a day's school when they declared a public holiday for the royal wedding.


 
well said. Shameless opportunist . If that's the way New Labour are going instead of a coalition government we may as well declare a coalition government and oppisition


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 29, 2011)

The way they're going on about one day off is crazy. In the eighties teachers seemed to be on strike all the time!


----------



## Badgers (Jun 29, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> The way they're going on about one day off is crazy. In the eighties teachers seemed to be on strike all the time!


 
Yeah, they don't know they are born etc


----------



## trevhagl (Jun 29, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> The way they're going on about one day off is crazy. In the eighties teachers seemed to be on strike all the time!


 
Cameron is the same as Thatcher so we could be in for an interesting period...


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jun 29, 2011)

A bit of stating the bleedin' obvious here, but check out this Graun article here, and read the comments - overwhelmingly of the "the public sector workers are creaming it off - fuck 'em!" variety (when they're not waffling on about the "meaning" of music in politics today).  Is this what a "liberal" mindset has come to - fuck the poor and when's the next music festival, baby? (I think I know the answer to that one)...and hats off to the Graun for trying to shoehorn a "yes to AV" comment in again.  Surely if the Graun is still down with the Orange Books, they should be opposing this strike too? Such fuckers.


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2011)

plenty of RW libertarians post on CIf, some of them are Randists who would see the poor starve literally...


----------



## shaman75 (Jun 29, 2011)

Everytime I hear another politician telling everyone they are very naughty for striking I just think to myself 'they are fucking worried'


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2011)

Imo, thats a good article by John Harris, the culture hasn't really engaged yet with events, though we have Captain Ska, Lansley rap, etc..

though using Glasto with tickets at £200 a pop isn't really the best example of it, though he may be right about the decadence and hedonism..


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2011)

'Because they won John. The working class was decimated in the 80s. But what went with it was any belief in the creation of a socially-democratic British utopia. Far far far too many traitors for any belief in that anymore. So people are collectively keeping their heads down and making the most of what was once a great country. And whether you like it or not the Guardianista class and all those spliff heads at Glasto are firmly amongst those aforementioned traitors.'

This won't go down well on parts of Urban!


----------



## trevhagl (Jun 29, 2011)

shaman75 said:


> Everytime I hear another politician telling everyone they are very naughty for striking I just think to myself 'they are fucking worried'


 
me too. I expect the banning strikes argument will be touted again tomorrow, by some twat


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 29, 2011)

Some rent a quote gobshite was on the radio today waving his back-of-fag-packet calculations on how much it was all going to cost the UK plc.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jun 29, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Some rent a quote gobshite was on the radio today waving his back-of-fag-packet calculations on how much it was all going to cost the UK plc.



Boo fucking hoo - "but the High Street won't be able to cope!  How will our hard-working mums cope with the kids being off school for one day? [uh, what do you think happens when kids are ill?]  Why are these teachers, nurses, social workers just so selfish?  Why don't they understand that capitalism knows best, and that the free market cares for all?"  (copyright all fuckwits everywhere).


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 29, 2011)

chamber of commerce bod it was. Could just have easily been CBI or any other shill for capitalism.

Anyway, good luck to those of you on strike tomorrow.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 29, 2011)

over 70 pickets, demos & school closures on the batc map for Birmingham: http://birminghamagainstthecuts.wordpress.com/upcoming-actions/june-30th-strike-day-activity/
and I didn't put hardly any of the school closures on there either as there were far too many and it was getting late.  I can't be bothered to add more now.. 

Good Unite the Resistance public meeting last night.. people from the unions saying how the various pension schemes have been audited in the last few years and declared affordable and sustainable by such bodies as the NAO and Public Accounts committee.  It's going to be a big day tomorrow, I hope that lots of the council workers turn out (10,000 of them on strike) as it will make the main rally absolutely huge - at the moment there are 12 (kind of) feeder marches to the rally from around Birmingham, and rallies from Stourbridge and Wolverhampton will also be travelling over to join in.  And I'm at work  
good luck / solidarity to everyone striking or joining the strikers tomorrow


----------



## grogwilton (Jun 29, 2011)

My schools not closing cos NUT and ATL don't make up a large proportion of staff, but every other school in my area is. We still have 11 members out and theyre all going to rallies, and despite being the NUT rep the head offered me a promotion today so I must be doing something right!


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 29, 2011)

Good luck all who will be on strike, I am popping in to the local school picket line on the way to work in the morning


----------



## ymu (Jun 29, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> chamber of commerce bod it was. Could just have easily been CBI or any other shill for capitalism.
> 
> Anyway, good luck to those of you on strike tomorrow.


 
I have just received an invitation to a course meeting, tomorrow. From a client who already knows that I am on strike and need not have picked this day to do it. I replied-all to say that I would be out there defending my pension, and would not be crossing the picket-line to attend. Fuckers better join me.


----------



## shaman75 (Jun 30, 2011)

12 - 15 tents (and a gazebo) at the bottom of the steps in trafalgar square tonight.  a few arrests for those who've refused to give names.  apparently they've been taken to a police station... and then returned to the square after giving their details.


----------



## treelover (Jun 30, 2011)

Its begun, border staff walked out tonight, good luck to all strikers, they will need it, the media misinformation, etc is going to be massive...


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 30, 2011)

Just wanted to say good luck and best wishes to all those striking today, and I hope it goes well.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jun 30, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Some rent a quote gobshite was on the radio today waving his back-of-fag-packet calculations on how much it was all going to cost the UK plc.


Did he say how many jobs it would cost with a large portion of the public having to increase there provision for pensions and so slowing down the 'velocity' of money, did he say that making people secure and convincing them the state would look after them was a huge part of the Chinese plan to encourage its economy?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 30, 2011)

Really looking forward to the strike tomorrow. We were on strike twice in the last 8 years and the mainstream/media didnt give a fuck then, although we DID get some results. This time its big and the country is gonna have to take some notice. Good luck to all of us on strike tomorrow. It's gonna be a nice day so lets get out there and get involved.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 30, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> Just wanted to say good luck and best wishes to all those striking today, and I hope it goes well.


 
This.  Was hoping to lend some support on picket lines but I'll be travelling.


----------



## shagnasty (Jun 30, 2011)

Best wishes and support to all those who strike today.!!good luck!!!


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 30, 2011)

Right, cuppa tea then picket line it is...


----------



## ernestolynch (Jun 30, 2011)

lopsidedbunny said:


> We need a big one with roits looming and I disappionted that the RMT chicken out...


 
Nob-head.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jun 30, 2011)

Very best of luck and solidarity to all the Urbans (and non-Urbans too!) who are striking today.  Sod Milliband's Labour et al - you're all doing the right thing.


----------



## peterkro (Jun 30, 2011)

Best wishes to all those on strike today,also good one to all those that refuse to cross lines especially the school kids.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jun 30, 2011)

peterkro said:


> Best wishes to all those on strike today,also good one to all those that refuse to cross lines especially the school kids.


 
Best wishes from a prince, I'm honoured.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 30, 2011)

I'm off down to support some of my colleagues in a bit.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 30, 2011)

gmb & unite members refused to cross a unison picket line at one of the waste depots this morning - benefit of having been on strike together earlier in the year.  I witnessed scabbing at the line I visited this morning though


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

I'm getting emails from scabs.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

Thanks very much, strikers.  I'm going to lose a day's pay because my kid's school is closed and I'll have to stay at home to look after him.

You get better wages than me, and a better pension.  All paid for out of my taxes.  And now my wages will be even lower.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Jun 30, 2011)

Good luck to anyone on strike today.


----------



## peterkro (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Thanks very much, strikers.  I'm going to lose a day's pay because my kid's school is closed and I'll have to stay at home to look after him.
> 
> You get better wages than me, and a better pension.  All paid for out of my taxes.  And now my wages will be even lower.



Poor baby:


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

peterkro said:


> Poor baby:


 
What a well-considered response.


----------



## dylans (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Thanks very much, strikers.  I'm going to lose a day's pay because my kid's school is closed and I'll have to stay at home to look after him.
> 
> You get better wages than me, and a better pension.  All paid for out of my taxes.  And now my wages will be even lower.


 
You are so concerned about your day off, are you concerned about your childs educational future? Are you happy about your kid being taught by demoralised resentful 68 year old teachers who don't want to be in the classroom? I'm not so with all respect fuck your day off you selfish cunt, this is a fight for our childrens future. If you want better wages and a better pension then join a union and fight for them, if you are not prepared to do that then don't take it out on those who are.

As for your wages being lower due to taxes, can you show me the posts where you complain about the £2 trillion pounds of our money gambled away by the financial banking system? Can you show me where you complain about trident nuclear weapons or the waste of money on endless wars. Can you show me where you complain about the outrageous bonuses paid to bankers after our taxes bailed them out. Can you show me where you complain about the cost of the Royal wedding or the enforced day off school for our kids to pay for that event? No? Then spare me your pathetic resentment at the fact that the people who educate your child should enjoy a decent standard of living.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

dylans said:


> You are so concerned about your day off, are you concerned about your childs educational future? Are you happy about your kid being taught by demoralised resentful 68 year old teachers who don't want to be in the classroom? I'm not so with all respect fuck your day off you selfish cunt, this is a fight for our childrens future.


 
The teachers in my child's school are all about 30 years old.   You're not fighting for our children's future, you're fighting for your extremely good pension at my (and other taxpayers') expense.


----------



## madzone (Jun 30, 2011)

Apologies for not having time to read the thread - I'm expecting a call from the school. Which teaching unions _aren't_ striking today?


----------



## dylans (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The teachers in my child's school are all about 30 years old.   You're not fighting for our children's future, you're fighting for your extremely good pension at my (and other taxpayers') expense.


 
If  you love your child you should want him/her to be educated by motivated professional committed teachers, not a demoralised resentful profession in which the best leave due to the decline in their living standards. (and I'm not a teacher )


----------



## BigTom (Jun 30, 2011)

madzone said:


> Apologies for not having time to read the thread - I'm expecting a call from the school. Which teaching unions _aren't_ striking today?


 
NASUWT and the heads unions (ASCL and NAHT).  NUT and ATL are on strike.  Support staff won't be on strike though as gmb/unison/unite are not striking and we can't join nut or atl.


----------



## madzone (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Thanks very much, strikers.  I'm going to lose a day's pay because my kid's school is closed and I'll have to stay at home to look after him.
> 
> You get better wages than me, and a better pension.  All paid for out of my taxes.  And now my wages will be even lower.


 
Boo fuckin hoo.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

madzone said:


> Boo fuckin hoo.


 
Typical striker's mentality.  "I'm alright, sod the poor git who actually pays my wages".


----------



## BigTom (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The teachers in my child's school are all about 30 years old.   You're not fighting for our children's future, you're fighting for your extremely good pension at my (and other taxpayers') expense.



you do know that the average teacher's pension is around £10k, and that those 30 year old teachers are going to lose almost £300,000 over a 25yr retirement don't you?
This pension change amounts to a 3% pay cut - do you think that a 3% pay cut will attract better teachers or worse teachers to the profession? Do you think that good teachers will stay in schools?

Finally, do you think that people should be entitled to a good pension and a decent retirement?

also, those currently 30 year old teachers might be teaching your grandkids in a generations time so think a bit longer term than only your kids, even if you can't see outside of your family.


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Thanks very much, strikers.  I'm going to lose a day's pay because my kid's school is closed and I'll have to stay at home to look after him.
> 
> You get better wages than me, and a better pension.  All paid for out of my taxes.  And now my wages will be even lower.


 
If you put more effort into defending your employment rights and less into criticising others for defending their own, you might have a decent employer who would give you compassionate leave in such a situation. Good employers do, because they understand that they are employing people for a reason, and keeping them happy in trivially cheap ways is by far the best way to go. Short-sighted greedy cunts screw themselves over in their thoughtless greed.

You picked a seriously losing strategy. Sorry.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 30, 2011)

lopsidedbunny said:


> We need a big one with roits looming and I disappionted that the RMT chicken out...



They weren't balloted rearding this.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

BigTom said:


> you do know that the average teacher's pension is around £10k, and that those 30 year old teachers are going to lose almost £300,000 over a 25yr retirement don't you?
> This pension change amounts to a 3% pay cut - do you think that a 3% pay cut will attract better teachers or worse teachers to the proffesion? Do you think that good teachers will stay in schools?
> 
> Finally, do you think that people should be entitled to a good pension and a decent retirement?


 
Who do you think should pay for the good pension and decent retirement?


----------



## dylans (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Typical striker's mentality.  "I'm alright, sod the poor git who actually pays my wages".


 
I want the people who teach my child to have high wages and a good pension. Why? BECAUSE I WANT MY CHILD TO BE TAUGHT BY THE BEST. If you are happy for your child to be taught by second rate cheap labour then you obviously don't love your child very much


----------



## madzone (Jun 30, 2011)

BigTom said:


> NASUWT and the heads unions (ASCL and NAHT).  NUT and ATL are on strike.  Support staff won't be on strike though as gmb/unison/unite are not striking and we can't join nut or atl.


 
Thanks  Is it ok to ask someone which union they're in? I've had a call from the school telling me off for not sending my yr10 boy in. They kept the school open for yr 9/10 but to me that's undermining the strike action. Some snippy cow said 'Oh, so your son is missing a day's education because you don't want him to cross a picket line that isn't even there?' Fucking snippy cow. She couldn't grasp the fact that there's no actual picket line but to me the fact that teachers are striking creates what effectively constitutes a picket line and my kids aren't crossing it.

I want to know why there's still teaching staff in the school.


----------



## catinthehat (Jun 30, 2011)

If you want quality you pay for it.  Currently in education there is a race for the bottom - how can you get the cheapest provision.  The biggest expense is staff and that is where the savings are being made - and if they deregulate any more you are going to have 'instructors' delivering 'online learning chunks'.  There is a direct link between the terms and conditions of teachers and the quality of education your children get.  Pensions may be the headline but its about a lot more than that.  Whilst I am not naive enough to think that today's strike is going to resolve the crisis in education it may just wake people up a bit to the direction state education is going.  It will cost you a lot more than a days wages if this shower of bastards are able to follow their plans to fruition - when you find yourself billed for extras (luxuries like humanities or art) and your kids being taught by unqualified staff it will be to late to restore the damage that has been done.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

ymu said:


> If you put more effort into defending your employment rights and less into criticising others for defending their own, you might have a decent employer who would give you compassionate leave in such a situation. Good employers do, because they understand that they are employing people for a reason, and keeping them happy in trivially cheap ways is by far the best way to go. Short-sighted greedy cunts screw themselves over in their thoughtless greed.
> 
> You picked a seriously losing strategy. Sorry.




My employer is a small business who can't afford to pay people to stay at home.  That doesn't make him greedy.


----------



## madzone (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Typical striker's mentality.  "I'm alright, sod the poor git who actually pays my wages".


 

I'm not on strike  And as far as I can see it's you who has some reverse 'I'm alright jack' shit going on.


----------



## dylans (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Who do you think should pay for the good pension and decent retirement?


 
Do you want a decent school system or not?


----------



## madzone (Jun 30, 2011)

dylans said:


> I want the people who teach my child to have high wages and a good pension. Why? BECAUSE I WANT MY CHILD TO BE TAUGHT BY THE BEST. If you are happy for your child to be taught by second rate cheap labour then you obviously don't love your child very much


 
It's hardly rocket science is it?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

dylans said:


> I want the people who teach my child to have high wages and a good pension. Why? BECAUSE I WANT MY CHILD TO BE TAUGHT BY THE BEST. If you are happy for your child to be taught by second rate cheap labour then you obviously don't love your child very much


 

Haha!  Now we get to the emotional blackmail.

Bloody strikers.  Foul language, aggression, ride roughshod over the poor gits who pay your wages, and now emotional blackmail.  How much lower can you stoop?


----------



## dylans (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Haha!  Now we get to the emotional blackmail.
> 
> Bloody strikers.  Foul language, aggression, ride roughshod over the poor gits who pay your wages, and now emotional blackmail.  How much lower can you stoop?


 
I'm not a teacher and I'm not on strike you idiot. I'm a parent who wants his child to have the best


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

dylans said:


> Do you want a decent school system or not?


 
Answer my question first.  Who do you think should pay for the good pension and decent retirement?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

dylans said:


> I'm not a teacher and I'm not on strike you idiot. I'm a parent who wants his child to have the best


 
And now insults.  How lovely!


----------



## madzone (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Haha!  Now we get to the emotional blackmail.
> 
> Bloody strikers.  Foul language, aggression, ride roughshod over the poor gits who pay your wages, and now emotional blackmail.  How much lower can you stoop?


 
Where's the emotional blackmail in dylans post? 

I think you're a troll.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Who do you think should pay for the good pension and decent retirement?



I'll answer this question, I hope that you'll show me the respect of answering mine.
I think that the community to which people have contributed over the course of their working life should pay for the good pension and decent retirement (of ALL members of that community - public or private sector workers).  Within capitalism this community is probably best defined as the people/area covered by the nation state.


----------



## dylans (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Answer my question first.  Who do you think should pay for the good pension and decent retirement?


 
Society, you, me, all of us. For the simple reason that we can't afford not to, and if we are talking taxes we can start by making the rich pay theirs. In a society where we bail out banks to the tune of billions and fight never ending wars we can afford to pay our teachers properly


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 30, 2011)

Sertwotka takes Francis Maude to the fucking cleaners:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9526000/9526631.stm


----------



## BigTom (Jun 30, 2011)

madzone said:


> Thanks  Is it ok to ask someone which union they're in? I've had a call from the school telling me off for not sending my yr10 boy in. They kept the school open for yr 9/10 but to me that's undermining the strike action. Some snippy cow said 'Oh, so your son is missing a day's education because you don't want him to cross a picket line that isn't even there?' Fucking snippy cow. She couldn't grasp the fact that there's no actual picket line but to me the fact that teachers are striking creates what effectively constitutes a picket line and my kids aren't crossing it.
> 
> I want to know why there's still teaching staff in the school.



I don't know if it's ok to ask - I guess some people would be offended and others wouldn't care
Some teachers will be NASUWT so not on strike (Although lots of NASUWT members at my school were going to cal lin sick or just tell the school they weren't coming in if the school had been open to pupils), some won't be unionised and there may even be a scab or two.
None of the support staff will be on strike - so if it's a receptionist or a home-school liaison who's called you they won't be on strike.  Doesn't excuse them being snippy and well done for keeping your kid home - it's the right thing to do 

My guess would be that enough of the teachers are NASUWT for the school to have enough staff in to cover a couple of years but not for yrs 7/8


----------



## BigTom (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Answer my question first.  Who do you think should pay for the good pension and decent retirement?


 
pfft... seeing this post now I should have just repsonded the same to you.. answer my questions first..


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

madzone said:


> Where's the emotional blackmail in dylans post?
> 
> I think you're a troll.


 
Dylan charmingly told me that I can't love my child very much if I don't support this selfish strike.


----------



## Looby (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Who do you think should pay for the good pension and decent retirement?


 
We already pay for it and the pensions were renegotiated years ago to ensure they were sustainable in the future.

The cost of public sector pensions is falling not rising.

The extra money will NOT be going into the pension pot, it will go to the treasury to pay for fuck ups that were not ours.

The average public sector pension is around 80 per week, hardly a fortune.

Do you think it's fair that I will pay an extra days pay per month and get less money? I'm already set for a 10% pay cut over 2 years because of inflation. Civil service pay is kept lower to fund our pensions so we are being robbed fucking blind.

My husband and I can't afford an extra 110 per month for our pensions so we will have to pull out altogether. 

So think on before you start all that 'hardworking taxpayer' bullshit. Why don't you do a bit of fucking research instead of regurgitating what you saw in the wright stuff this morning.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Typical striker's mentality.  "I'm alright, sod the poor git who actually pays my wages".



Or: "Fuck the teachers, nurses, social workers and so on, I'm alright Jack.  I DEMAND MY RIGHTS!"

What do you do if your kid's ill on a school day?  Send them in?  Leave them at home by themselves?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 30, 2011)

I've just heard Matthew Elliott of the Taxdodgers Alliance say that public sector pensions are driving the deficit on BBC News. He wasn't challenged.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

Why do public sector workers think they should be treated better than private sector workers?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Who do you think should pay for the good pension and decent retirement?



Who are paying for MPs' pensions and why are they to remain untouched if we can no longer afford them and 'all in this together'?


----------



## Looby (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Why do public sector workers think they should be treated better than private sector workers?


 
They don't. They want private sector workers to fight for their rights to a decent pension, decent pay etc etc

Why should it be a race to the bottom? You've got us wrong, we want fairness for EVERY worker.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 30, 2011)

> Why do public sector workers think they should be treated better than private sector workers?


Why do some private sector workers have this attitude that public sector workers are being treated "better"?

Would you work for the National Minimum Wage?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> Who are paying for MPs' pensions and why are they to remain untouched if we can no longer afford them and 'all in this together'?



I quite agree that MPs pensions need to be brought into line.  MPs are self serving scumshits.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Why do public sector workers think they should be treated better than private sector workers?


 
They don't. They just don't want to compete in a race to the bottom. Fair play to them.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Why do some private sector workers have this attitude that public sector workers are being teated "better"?
> 
> Would you work for the National Minimum Wage?


 
Yes.  Lots of people do.  And lots of people don't have a pension paid for by the taxpayer.  We have to pay for our own private pension.


----------



## Looby (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Why do public sector workers think they should be treated better than private sector workers?


 
My exact job in the private sector attracts a salary increase of over 10k plus benefits.

This myth that we're living it up is laughable. Several of my colleagues have had to take second jobs just to pay the bills.


----------



## peterkro (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Why do public sector workers think they should be treated better than private sector workers?



They don't they think everyone should have at the very least reasonable remuneration and reasonable pension provision.Because some in the private sector have been battered into submission doesn't mean we immediately drag everybody down to that pathetic state.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Why do public sector workers think they should be treated better than private sector workers?


 
I don't, I think Private Sector workers should be treated better (esp. wrt pensions)
Why do you think Private Sectors workers should be treated so badly?
When are you going to asnwer my other qwuestions, I have the courtesy to answe ryours, and without insults either..


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Yes.  Lots of people do.  And lots of people don't have a pension paid for by the taxpayer.  We have to pay for our own private pension.



You wouldn't work for the national minimum wage though. Would you?

Don't blame the public sector for your failure to organise in the workplace.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Yes.  Lots of people do.  And lots of people don't have a pension paid for by the taxpayer.  We have to pay for our own private pension.


 
So instead of attacking the forces of capital and privatisation that creates this situation, you attack fellow workers (those in the public sector)?


----------



## belboid (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Who do you think should pay for the good pension and decent retirement?


 
The teachers pension scheme is _in profit_ and is paid for entirely by the teachers themselves.  So even your selfish and right wing argument can't really excuse attacking the scheme.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 30, 2011)

stephj said:


> So instead of attacking the forces of capital and privatisation that creates this situation, you attack fellow workers (those in the public sector)?



Nail/head


----------



## BigTom (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Yes.  Lots of people do.  And lots of people *don't have a pension paid for by the taxpayer*.  We have to pay for our own private pension.


 
umm.. everyone is entitled to a state pension aren't theyt? 
and don't you think you should get a decent pension, contributed to by everyone in recognition of the work and contributions you've made to society?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Why do public sector workers think they should be treated better than private sector workers?



Why do private sector workers feel they should be treated worse?


----------



## belboid (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Yes.  Lots of people do.  And lots of people don't have a pension paid for by the taxpayer.  We have to pay for our own private pension.


 
paid for by the better wages in the private sector, and bailed out by the government quite recently too.  you are getting just as big a pension subsidy from the government as public sector workers, just by a different route


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 30, 2011)

It's a troll, imo.

Anyway. Lol - transcript of Maude getting caught out bullshitting on the radio by Evan Davies (props to him whoever he is)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/jun/30/politics-live-blog#block-6


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Who do you think should pay for the good pension and decent retirement?


We pay for it. Only £4bn comes from the public purse, and that is because it is more efficient than the govt making higher employer contributions. The funds are in surplus from what we pay in. 

The excess from the public purse is £4bn annually, projected to fall to £2.5bnn annually as the baby-boomers die (). This is less that the cost of civil service errors in benefits and tax credit payments.

Once more, you are being mugged off.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Thanks very much, strikers.  I'm going to lose a day's pay because my kid's school is closed and I'll have to stay at home to look after him.
> 
> You get better wages than me, and a better pension.  All paid for out of my taxes.  And now my wages will be even lower.



All parents I know have to take time off occasionally, or have other plans in place, to cope when their child is sick, or there is a snow day, or staff training or whatever. Among parents there is usually an understanding that sometimes the school can't look after your child. This surely isn't a total shock?

The taxpayer in this case is making up the 'employer contributions' to public pensions. Do you object to private pension schemes where the employer makes a contribution?


----------



## Peter Dow (Jun 30, 2011)

*STRIKE!*

To get the real Fight The Cuts campaign under way full steam, the other fraudulent campaign against the cuts must be exposed as the sham it is. 

I am talking about those Labour and nationalist MPs in the Westminster parliament who claim to oppose cuts yet who swear loyalty to the Queen whose government is imposing these cuts and indeed who aspire to become Queen's ministers of the crown and rule the kingdom for the Queen. 

I am talking about members of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Councillors who will claim to oppose the cuts yet who will be the very ones who will fail to raise local taxes to replace penny for penny every cut made, who will fail to take over responsibility to make welfare payments when the UK Department of Work and Pensions reduces or stops welfare payments and who instead will use the kingdom's police and courts to enforce the cuts and tame any popular resistance to the cuts. 

I am talking about Trades Union Congress officials who will want to invite opposition politicians from parliaments, assemblies and councils to speak at stop-the-cuts rallies. They mean well but trade union leaders do not have the wits to see when politicians are playing politicians' games, posturing opposition but in reality surrendering to cuts. 

Only when all these fake opponents to the cuts are exposed as worthless wind-bags who will sit back and allow cuts can the real Fight The Cuts campaign begin in earnest. 

What is the test? The test is opposition or loyalty to the kingdom and its head of state, the Queen. To fight the cuts seriously we, the people, must call on our national military to fight the kingdom and fight its head of state, the Queen. We, the people, must be prepared to ask our military to kill the Queen if we are serious about killing her government's cuts. 

Therefore take seriously any person claiming to fight the cuts who also calls for immediate military action against the royal family to exclude them from the country on pain of arrest, attack and assassination. 

Given the choice between allowing the Queen's cuts and calling for the Queen's death - which choice does a politician claiming to oppose the cuts make? 

Anyone who is for war against the Queen and her kingdom, as I am, is serious about fighting Her Majesty's Government's cuts, as I am. 

Any politician or indeed any leader up on a stage with a microphone who is not for that war is not really serious about fighting cuts and is more concerned to keep in with the kingdom which has given them position in its bodies such as parliaments, assemblies and councils.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork, flailing around for an argument. It's quite amusing, really.


----------



## dylans (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Dylan charmingly told me that I can't love my child very much if I don't support this selfish strike.


 
It's not difficult to work out is it? I love my child. I want him to have the best start in life. That means I want him to have the best education possible, one that maximises his potential and gives him access to the opportunity for a good life. One better than I have. I want those things because I love my child. Now for him to have the best education possible it is necessary for him to have the best. The best resources and the best teachers. For him to have those things the profession needs to attract skilled motivated people into it and to do that the profession has to be attractive and that means pay, pensions and working conditions. For this reason I support those who are fighting for these things.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> All parents I know have to take time off occasionally, or have other plans in place, to cope when their child is sick, or there is a snow day, or staff training or whatever. Among parents there is usually an understanding that sometimes the school can't look after your child. This surely isn't a total shock?
> 
> The taxpayer in this case is making up the 'employer contributions' to public pensions. Do you object to private pension schemes where the employer makes a contribution?


 
No.  I object to paying public sector workers' salary out of my taxes.  Paying their pensions out of my tax.  And then they stick two fingers up at me and force me to lose a day's salary because they don't think they're getting enough of my tax.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 30, 2011)

Have you ever considered ElizabethofYork that it might be time for those workers in the private sector to start fighting for their own pensions, conditions of employment, etc. rather than attacking fellow workers in the public sector instead?


----------



## dylans (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No.  I object to paying public sector workers' salary out of my taxes.  Paying their pensions out of my tax.  And then they stick two fingers up at me and force me to lose a day's salary because they don't think they're getting enough of my tax.


 
You object to paying for your child to have the best education possible. God forbid you or yours ever have an accident will you object to paying for decent doctors and nurses too? I'm sure if they tried they could find some kid that has done a 2 weeks first aid course to patch you up on the side of the road. Alternatively you could do it yourself from instructions off the internet. Think of the taxes you will save


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 30, 2011)

"Your" tax isn't your money though. It's taken before you get your wages to pay for stuff the country needs. NEEDS. Like teachers & their attendant pensions if they're not in their own scheme. For roads, for libraries.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No.  I object to paying public sector workers' salary out of my taxes.  Paying their pensions out of my tax.  And then they stick two fingers up at me and force me to lose a day's salary because they don't think they're getting enough of my tax.


 
And you accuse others of being 'selfish', good grief!


----------



## peterkro (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No.  I object to paying public sector workers' salary out of my taxes.  Paying their pensions out of my tax.  And then they stick two fingers up at me and force me to lose a day's salary because they don't think they're getting enough of my tax.



I'd suggest you send your sprog to a private school then.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No.  I object to paying public sector workers' salary out of my taxes.  Paying their pensions out of my tax.  And then they stick two fingers up at me and force me to lose a day's salary because they don't think they're getting enough of my tax.



Well, if you don't want public services (btw, are you prepared to take your rubbish to the tip?) go and live in Somalia.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> "Your" tax isn't your money though. It's taken before you get your wages to pay for stuff the country needs. NEEDS. Like teachers & their attendant pensions if they're not in their own scheme. For roads, for libraries.


 
The country doesn't NEED to pay for public sector workers to have better pensions than private sector workers.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The country doesn't NEED to pay for public sector workers to have better pensions than private sector workers.


 
Why are you not asking - why is capitalism and private industry fucking over my pensions?


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No.  I object to paying public sector workers' salary out of my taxes.  Paying their pensions out of my tax.  And then they stick two fingers up at me and force me to lose a day's salary because they don't think they're getting enough of my tax.


 
Who do you think should pay for teachers' wages and pensions? 


And we do think we're getting enough. We just don't want to get any less. The cost of public sector pensions as a proportion of GDP is falling.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The country doesn't NEED to pay for public sector workers to have better pensions than private sector workers.



Time for you to join a union then. No?


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The country doesn't NEED to pay for public sector workers to have better pensions than private sector workers.


 
If pensions became worse, do you think the quality of teachers would go up, or down?


----------



## dylans (Jun 30, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> If pensions became worse, do you think the quality of teachers would go up, or down?


 
She doesn't care if her kid has a second rate education. She hates her kid and selfishly wants him/her to suffer so she can save a bit of tax


----------



## treelover (Jun 30, 2011)

'If you want quality you pay for it. Currently in education there is a race for the bottom - how can you get the cheapest provision. The biggest expense is staff and that is where the savings are being made - and if they deregulate any more you are going to have 'instructors' delivering 'online learning chunks'. There is a direct link between the terms and conditions of teachers and the quality of education your children get. Pensions may be the headline but its about a lot more than that. Whilst I am not naive enough to think that today's strike is going to resolve the crisis in education it may just wake people up a bit to the direction state education is going. It will cost you a lot more than a days wages if this shower of bastards are able to follow their plans to fruition - when you find yourself billed for extras (luxuries like humanities or art) and your kids being taught by unqualified staff it will be to late to restore the damage that has been done. '


This is an excellent post, its all a race to the bottom and private sector workers should realise 'we are all in it together'


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 30, 2011)

Besides, the more you push down public sector wages, pensions and conditions, the private sector will just look to push theirs down too through the same arguments and public services becoming privatised - none of this happens in isolation. Why do you support this, ElizabethofYork?


----------



## treelover (Jun 30, 2011)

Cos she is a R/W Tory/misanthrope...


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

Where was your outrage when those in the private sector (who create the wealth, and pay your wages) were getting decreased pay and getting their pensions stolen by Gordon Brown?


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 30, 2011)

All the whinging about one day off.... should try having a kid in a special school... when it snowed we had about two weeks of them not going to school because of no transport. If that happened in a mainstream school there'd be wall to wall whining about it all over the media. One day's strike is nothing in comparison.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Where was your outrage when those in the private sector (who *create the wealth*, and pay your wages) were getting decreased pay and getting their pensions stolen by Gordon Brown?



House!


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Where was your outrage when those in the private sector (who create the wealth, and pay your wages) were getting decreased pay and getting their pensions stolen by Gordon Brown?


 
That's not a very convincing argument - try again. After you've answered this:




			
				stephj said:
			
		

> Besides, the more you push down public sector wages, pensions and conditions, the private sector will just look to push theirs down too through the same arguments and public services becoming privatised - none of this happens in isolation. Why do you support this, ElizabethofYork?


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 30, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> All the whinging about one day off.... should try having a kid in a special school... when it snowed we had about two weeks of them not going to school because of no transport. If that happened in a mainstream school there'd be wall to wall whining about it all over the media. One day's strike is nothing in comparison.


 
It's really quite over the top isn't it!


----------



## dylans (Jun 30, 2011)

stephj said:


> It's really quite over the top isn't it!


 
Its self defeating selfish small minded cretinism is what it is.


----------



## Roadkill (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No.  I object to paying public sector workers' salary out of my taxes.  Paying their pensions out of my tax.



Well who the hell do you think should pay them, then?  Do you think public sector workers (encompassing everyone from doctors to street cleaners, remember) should be volunteers and do our jobs solely out of the kindness of our hearts, or something? 



> And then they stick two fingers up at me and force me to lose a day's salary because they don't think they're getting enough of my tax.


 
No, we go on strike because we're being asked to pay a whole load more and receive a whole load less, when most of our pension schemes are not in deficit to start with.  I would say 'sorry if you're inconvenienced by it,' because not one of us _wants_ to disrupt other peoples' lives, but tbh I'm finding it hard to have much sympathy, given the profoundly selfish and misinformed attitude you are displaying on this thread.


----------



## catinthehat (Jun 30, 2011)

Its not just about the here and now - your kids will be in school for a lot of years and you need to think about how education is going to pan out over that period.  If you wanted an extension built you might employ the cheapest least qualified extension builders you could find, who use the cheapest materials they could find and bunged it up in the quickest, cheapest way they could.  Your extension might look ok now but its not going to last and its probably going to cost you more in the long run.  The same is true for education - apart from the fact its more important than an extension.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 30, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> Well who the hell do you think should pay them, then?  Do you think public sector workers (encompassing everyone from doctors to street cleaners, remember) should be volunteers and do our jobs solely out of the kindness of our hearts, or something?


 
'Big society' innit!


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jun 30, 2011)

Nice to see ElizabethofYork completely ignoring my question about what she would do if her kid was off sick - presumably losing a day's wages over that is bang out of order too.

You, EoY, are a Mug.


----------



## Looby (Jun 30, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Nice to see ElizabethofYork completely ignoring my question about what she would do if her kid was off sick - presumably losing a day's wages over that is bang out of order too.
> 
> You, EoY, are a Mug.


 
She's completely ignored all my posts too.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Where was your outrage when those in the private sector (who create the wealth, and pay your wages) were getting decreased pay and getting their pensions stolen by Gordon Brown?


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Jun 30, 2011)

dylans said:


> You are so concerned about your day off, are you concerned about your childs educational future? Are you happy about your kid being taught by demoralised resentful 68 year old teachers who don't want to be in the classroom? I'm not so with all respect fuck your day off you selfish cunt, this is a fight for our childrens future. If you want better wages and a better pension then join a union and fight for them, if you are not prepared to do that then don't take it out on those who are.
> 
> As for your wages being lower due to taxes, can you show me the posts where you complain about the £2 trillion pounds of our money gambled away by the financial banking system? Can you show me where you complain about trident nuclear weapons or the waste of money on endless wars. Can you show me where you complain about the outrageous bonuses paid to bankers after our taxes bailed them out. Can you show me where you complain about the cost of the Royal wedding or the enforced day off school for our kids to pay for that event? No? Then spare me your pathetic resentment at the fact that the people who educate your child should enjoy a decent standard of living.



I think the ElizabethofYork failed to read this....


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jun 30, 2011)

So, according to EoY' stunning "logic", if you're a teacher, social worker, nurse etc, you're not a "wealth creator", therefore worse than useless and to be stamped on if you decide to get "uppity".

You should go on the British Democracy Forum, EoY, they'd love you there...


----------



## Onket (Jun 30, 2011)

Sgt Howie said:


> Good luck to anyone on strike today.


 
This^

Good turnout in Windrush Sq, central Brixton this morning with a march down from Lambeth College. Joined for a bit by a mini critical mass-style 50 or so bikes.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 30, 2011)

lopsidedbunny said:


> I think the ElizabethofYork failed to read this....


 
I think EoY has run off chuckling.


----------



## belboid (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No.  I object to paying public sector workers' salary out of my taxes.  Paying their pensions out of my tax.  And then they stick two fingers up at me and force me to lose a day's salary because they don't think they're getting enough of my tax.


 
For the third time - *you dont*. Teachers pay for their own pensions themselves.


----------



## dylans (Jun 30, 2011)

sparklefish said:


> She's completely ignored all my posts too.


 
She ignored everyone's posts and failed to address a single point addressed to her.


----------



## Onket (Jun 30, 2011)

Ranting nut-bucket.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> If pensions became worse, do you think the quality of teachers would go up, or down?


 
Are you saying that people enter the teaching profession so that they can get a nice big pension?

Why do you think teachers (and other public sector workers) should get better pensions than private sector workers?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 30, 2011)

belboid said:


> For the third time - *you dont*. Teachers pay for their own pensions themselves.


 
Is there any handy graph or page with numbers on it for this? Just to throw at twats on Twatter.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Are you saying that people enter the teaching profession so that they can get a nice big pension?
> 
> Why do you think teachers (and other public sector workers) should get better pensions than private sector workers?



Why haven't you joined a union to fight for your rights instead of moaning?


----------



## Onket (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Are you saying that people enter the teaching profession so that they can get a nice big pension?
> 
> Why do you think teachers (and other public sector workers) should get better pensions than private sector workers?


 
Shouldn't you be off looking after your child, rather than spouting shite on the internet?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

Onket said:


> Shouldn't you be off looking after your child, rather than spouting shite on the internet?


 
Is that your considered response?

Let's hope you're not a teacher!


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Why haven't you joined a union to fight for your rights instead of moaning?


 
I work for a very small business which can't afford to pay me when I have to take time off because the teachers are on strike.  Which union do you think would be best?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 30, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Sertwotka takes Francis Maude to the fucking cleaners:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9526000/9526631.stm


Jesus you know Maude was crap when even a free-market loving scab like Evan Davis was telling him he's talking shite.




			
				BigTom said:
			
		

> NASUWT and the heads unions (ASCL and NAHT). NUT and ATL are on strike. Support staff won't be on strike though as gmb/unison/unite are not striking and we can't join nut or atl.


Seems like a mistake to me, the fact that general staff and academic staff are now represented by a single union has made the NTEU much more effective (at least at this branch).


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I work for a very small business which can't afford to pay me when I have to take time off because the teachers are on strike.  Which union do you think would be best?



Excuses, excuses....


----------



## peterkro (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Are you saying that people enter the teaching profession so that they can get a nice big pension?
> 
> Why do you think teachers (and other public sector workers) should get better pensions than private sector workers?



They don't get big pensions,they agreed to accept a remuneration which included very modest pension provision which in a very small way offset the appallingly low wages,now the government wants to cancel the binding agreement,make them work eight years longer and pay in substantially more.As has been said time and time again everybody should have reasonable pension provision,private and public.Your at risk of being labelled a troll.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Is that your considered response?
> 
> Let's hope you're not a teacher!



Says "she" who hasn't answered A SINGLE POINT raised to her.

One more time:  What would you do if your child was ill on a school day?  Make them go in?  Leave them at home by themselves?  Ask someone else to look after them?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Excuses, excuses...


 
I'm serious, nino.  Which union do you recommend for a person in my situation?


----------



## Belushi (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Are you saying that people enter the teaching profession so that they can get a nice big pension?
> 
> Why do you think teachers (and other public sector workers) should get better pensions than private sector workers?


 
Why do you think privsate sector workers should get worse ones?


----------



## belboid (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I work for a very small business which can't afford to pay me when I have to take time off because the teachers are on strike.  Which union do you think would be best?


 
bet you dont


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I'm serious, nino.  Which union do you recommend for a person in my situation?



You don't really want to join a union though. You'd rather moan and bitch about the public sector.


----------



## peterkro (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I'm serious, nino.  Which union do you recommend for a person in my situation?



IWW.


----------



## shaman75 (Jun 30, 2011)

police kettle tents in trafalgar square http://yfrog.com/kk7w7bsj


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 30, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> It's a troll, imo.
> 
> Anyway. Lol - transcript of Maude getting caught out bullshitting on the radio by Evan Davies (props to him whoever he is)


Not really he's a total free-market maniac and scab - that's how you know Maude was really, really shit, even Davies thought he was crap.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 30, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> Not really he's a total free-market maniac and scab - that's how you know Maude was really, really shit, even Harris thought he was crap.



Like I say, I've not heard of him before today. But he didn't have to go after Maude like that, so it was pleasing.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I'm serious, nino.  Which union do you recommend for a person in my situation?



As Peterkro said, IWW.. otherwise, what sector is the small business in, because that will define which union you join.. 

fancy asnwering some of my questions yet?
Did you know the average teachers pension is 10k? Do you think that 10k/year is a good retirement? why do you want private sector workers to have terrible pensions? do you think it is right for a worker to have their conditions changed from what they signed up to? do you think your kids & grandkids education will be improved by worsening the pay & conditions of the teachers? 

And a new question - you mentioned the red herring that the private sector creates the wealth, so I'm presuming that you think the public sector only uses the wealth created by the private sector.  How much wealth do you think the private sector wouldcreate if there were no roads (just as an example of a public sector rpvoision, I could pick ltos of other things but I like the roads)?
I'll also ask the question osmeone else did - if you don't want t o apy for teachers and shcools, why aren't you sending your kid to private school?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

BigTom said:


> As Peterkro said, IWW.. otherwise, what sector is the small business in, because that will define which union you join..
> 
> fancy asnwering some of my questions yet?
> Did you know the average teachers pension is 10k? Do you think that 10k/year is a good retirement? why do you want private sector workers to have terrible pensions?


 
What's IWW?

And I don't want private sector people to have terrible pensions.  I just don't know why they think they should have better pensions than private sector workers.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 30, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Like I say, I've not heard of him before today. But he didn't have to go after Maude like that, so it was pleasing.


Evan Davies


----------



## Looby (Jun 30, 2011)

elizabethofyork said:


> what's iww?
> 
> And i don't want private sector people to have terrible pensions.  I just don't know why they think they should have better pensions than private sector workers.


 
we don't! Jesus festering christ, how many times do we have to say it?


----------



## belboid (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> What's IWW?


 
oh, so you can read then.  So why are you ignoring all the questions and comments that contradict your right wing agenda?


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 30, 2011)

I don't think most teachers could carry on doing that job as well as they used to at 68, sure there'll be some exceptions, but it should be voluntary. It's quite a physical job really and could say the same about any other manual job. How do they expect people to be physically capable?


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

Great interview on BBC2 right now. Missed the name, but she is nailing it! On Andrew Neil's show.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 30, 2011)

I'm on strike today. More people in PCS than aren't, at my worksgaff.

I can't pretend I'm actually *doing* anything except writing Glastonbury reports on the festival forum here etc etc, and going to the shops and pub later ...

a day in reminiscence, sort of,  of my non working months before 2010 then  

But I'm not crossing any picket line, and never have, and for what modest amount it's worth, I'm fully in support of all strikers and actions.


----------



## treelover (Jun 30, 2011)

Have the UK uncut actions been well supported? some of the London ones seem to have only a few there doing the brekkies..


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Are you saying that people enter the teaching profession so that they can get a nice big pension?
> 
> Why do you think teachers (and other public sector workers) should get better pensions than private sector workers?


 
When I entered teaching, yes - it was part of the decision I made, to compensate in part for the lower earnings i'd be likely to get over a lifetime.

but i would support everyone getting a decent pension.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 30, 2011)

One or two colleagues in my particular bit of the work place have said that they WILL be going in today. One's an overt Tory. Another claims she's genuinely poor and can't afford to lose a day's wages -- I'm sceptical, but not outright dismissive, she's approaching retirement. Another's only 21 and has never considered joining a Union -- I did gently attempt a while back to say why joining PCS would be a good idea in the case of this third one. Not with success though.

Still, none of the above three are in the Union, so my special condemnation is reserved for the fuckwit scab who IS in the Union, uses them for advice etc, blathers on at times about how we should be 'more like France' re employee anger and actions and strikes etc -- but it's all supremely hypocritcal hot air cos she's GOING IN TODAY 

I dislike her so much -- mostly because she issues Sun-like hate-rants against benefit claimants ('people who don't want to work') and foreigners and gypsies far more often than she talks being a union person -- that I just refused to say a single word to her yesterday -- as for the past eight months. I simply didn't engage, I'd have lost it big time if I had. 

I was only just back at work from Glastonbury yesterday, and adjusting to being back in the 'normal world' was difficult enough by itself.

But if I'd been _able_ to have any kind of chat with her, I'd have asked her why she didn't work the Tuesday instead of the Thursday -- she's a Weds to Fri part timer and could have stayed at home to look after her kids the Thursday -- she's always on about her childcare responsibilities -- so teachers being on strike today was no real excuse for anything. No doubt though there'd have been some child related yet ultra feeble reason why such preplanning wasn't possible. 

So I failed to bother -- mostly out of self preservation towards my own anger levels.

Conclusion : I'm not pally with scabs!


----------



## Onket (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Is that your considered response?
> 
> Let's hope you're not a teacher!


 
Please accept my apologies for stooping to your level.


----------



## madzone (Jun 30, 2011)

sparklefish said:


> we don't! Jesus festering christ, how many times do we have to say it?


 
I love you


----------



## BigTom (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> What's IWW?



IWW = Industrial Workers Of The World (slogans: One Big Union / A Union For All Workers / An Injury To One Is An Injury To All).. any worker can join.. other unions are fairly sector specific, eg: if you're in retail then it's USDAW, if you're in film/theatre/entertainments then it's BECTU.. tell us what the company does and someone will know which union(s) you can join



> And I don't want private sector people to have terrible pensions.  I just don't know why they think they should have better pensions than private sector workers.



If you don't want private sector workers to have terrible pensions, why are you arguing that public sector pensions should be made worse.  What effect do you think worsening public sector pensions will have on private sector pensions?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 30, 2011)

BigTom said:


> If you don't want private sector workers to have terrible pensions, why are you arguing that public sector pensions should be made worse.  What effect do you think worsening public sector pensions will have on private sector pensions?



Heart of the matter. Good questions!


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

sparklefish said:


> we don't! Jesus festering christ, how many times do we have to say it?


 
Defined benefit pensions and the final salary schemes that many public servants still enjoy have largely stopped in the private sector. If we compare the average pension across the country of just £3,900 a year to that of an index-linked £24,000 for a teacher retiring at 60 after 40 years of service, it is clear what the size of this disparity is. It should also be remembered that this pension does not come out of savings that have accumulated over a working life. Most public sector schemes in the UK are "unfunded", meaning that payouts come from current taxpayers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/30/public-sector-pensions-fair


----------



## BigTom (Jun 30, 2011)

William of Walworth said:


> Heart of the matter. Good questions!



she won't answer though  still worth asking mind.. someone else reading this might follow the train of thought to the obvious answer..


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Defined benefit pensions and the final salary schemes that many public servants still enjoy have largely stopped in the private sector. If we compare the average pension across the country of just £3,900 a year to that of an index-linked £24,000 for a teacher retiring at 60 after 40 years of service, it is clear what the size of this disparity is. It should also be remembered that this pension does not come out of savings that have accumulated over a working life. Most public sector schemes in the UK are "unfunded", meaning that payouts come from current taxpayers.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/30/public-sector-pensions-fair


 
and?

(the reason the money doesn't come out of a pot - if that's true - is because the fund is mismanaged, not because the worker hasn't paid for it - the state pension via national insurance works the same way fwiw)


----------



## BigTom (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Defined benefit pensions and the final salary schemes that many public servants still enjoy have largely stopped in the private sector. If we compare the average pension across the country of just £3,900 a year to that of an index-linked £24,000 for *a teacher retiring at 60 after 40 years of service*, it is clear what the size of this disparity is. It should also be remembered that this pension does not come out of savings that have accumulated over a working life. Most public sector schemes in the UK are "unfunded", meaning that payouts come from current taxpayers.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/30/public-sector-pensions-fair



Somebody correct me here, but is that possible? that would mean starting at the age of 20, and teachers all have to have degrees, then a PGCE afaik.. so there's no possibility of getting 40 years service and retiring at 60.. 
the average teacher pension is around 10k .. why don't you quote a figure that is real, not one that is obviously made up?


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 30, 2011)

Also, I have a final salary (defined benefit) pension and work in the public private sector.


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 30, 2011)

BigTom said:


> Somebody correct me here, but is that possible? that would mean starting at the age of 20, and teachers all have to have degrees, then a PGCE afaik.. so there's no possibility of getting 40 years service and retiring at 60..
> the average teacher pension is around 10k .. why don't you quote a figure that is real, not one that is obviously made up?


 
Yup.  Well spotted.  You'd need a bunch of AVCs to make up the years.  It's bollocks all the way through.  Also, 40 years service isn't that much when it's an 80ths scheme.


----------



## belboid (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Defined benefit pensions and the final salary schemes that many public servants still enjoy have largely stopped in the private sector. If we compare the average pension across the country of just £3,900 a year to that of an index-linked £24,000 for a teacher retiring at 60 after 40 years of service, it is clear what the size of this disparity is. It should also be remembered that this pension does not come out of savings that have accumulated over a working life. Most public sector schemes in the UK are "unfunded", meaning that payouts come from current taxpayers.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/30/public-sector-pensions-fair


 
oh look, you're answering a completely different question, what a surprise!

Teachers pensions are covered by the amount teachers pay in.  They pay their pension into general taxation, and get paid out of general taxation.  they pay in more than they get out.  you do not subsidise them one penny. Dont whinge because they get a pension than you, organise to get yourself a better one.


----------



## Belushi (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> What's IWW?
> 
> And I don't want private sector people to have terrible pensions.  I just don't know why they think they should have better pensions than private sector workers.


 
They dont - they think you should follow their example and fight against your employer ripping you off.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

BigTom said:


> Somebody correct me here, but is that possible? that would mean starting at the age of 20, and teachers all have to have degrees, then a PGCE afaik.. so there's no possibility of getting 40 years service and retiring at 60..
> the average teacher pension is around 10k .. why don't you quote a figure that is real, not one that is obviously made up?


 
So still considerably better than the average pension of £3,900.  Thanks for confirming that public sector pensions are better than private.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 30, 2011)

just to say again, the teachers pension scheme was audited in 2007, and found to be sustainable and affordable.  The Civil Service scheme was looked at by NAO and Public Accounts Committee and found to be sustainable and affordable.  The NHS Pensions scheme ran a surplus of £2bn last year.. 
public sector pensions are affordable.  This is simply an attack on public sector workers.  They are attacking pensions rather than pay directly because they know that they can divide the public/private sector on pensions cos private sector pensions are so fucking terrible.

EoY you are playing straight into their hands.  If, as it seems, you think that £3.9k average private sector pension is a disgrace compared to the public sector pensions (ave. around £4k I think for public sector or maybe it was civil service, that might have been £7k..) why don't you want private sector pensions to be better?


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 30, 2011)

belboid said:


> oh look, you're answering a completely different question, what a surprise!
> 
> Teachers pensions are covered by the amount teachers pay in.  They pay their pension into general taxation, and get paid out of general taxation.  they pay in more than they get out.  you do not subsidise them one penny. Dont whinge because they get a pension than you, organise to get yourself a better one.


 
Perhaps now she'll realise why that gumph about envy she was spouting on the cleaner thread is bollocks.


----------



## madzone (Jun 30, 2011)

Is there a facepalm big enough?


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 30, 2011)

It's really pretty desperate stuff "the public sector" v "the private sector" you can't generalise like that, it all depends what your job is in the first place, and how much you're being paid.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

Belushi said:


> They dont - they think you should follow their example and fight against your employer ripping you off.


 
How do you suggest I fight my employer?  A tiny business which can't afford to pay me to have a day off when teachers go on strike, and also can't afford to provide me with a pension scheme.


----------



## Belushi (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Defined benefit pensions and the final salary schemes that many public servants still enjoy have largely stopped in the private sector. [/url]


 
Wouldnt you be better off asking why this is? Especially as those at the top have seen their own wealth increases exponentially during the same period?


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 30, 2011)

I expect your boss pays his cleaner with the pension contributions he doesn't make for you.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> So still considerably better than the average pension of £3,900.  Thanks for confirming that public sector pensions are better than private.



Yes. considerably better. Now, why would reducing public sector pensions be a good thing? what effect will that have on private sector pensions? Why don't you want people to have a decent retirement?
(also worth noting that for public sector as a whole, the average is around £4k so really not that different)


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> How do you suggest I fight my employer?  A tiny business which can't afford to pay me to have a day off when teachers go on strike, and also can't afford to provide me with a pension scheme.


 
Once again:  What would you do if your child was ill on a school day?  Send them to school anyway?  Leave the child at home by itself?  Let somebody else look after them?


----------



## Belushi (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> How do you suggest I fight my employer?  A tiny business which can't afford to pay me to have a day off when teachers go on strike, and also can't afford to provide me with a pension scheme.


 
They'll be legally obliged to provide you with one soon.

How much money are the owners taking out of the business?


----------



## past caring (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> So still considerably better than the average pension of £3,900.  Thanks for confirming that public sector pensions are better than private.



This wouldn't be "the politics of envy" you lot are so keen to bang on about would it?


----------



## belboid (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> So still considerably better than the average pension of £3,900.  Thanks for confirming that public sector pensions are better than private.


 
Are you as dishonest in your normal working life?  No wonder you get paid shit then


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

So.  We've established that public sector workers get considerably better pensions than private sector workers.   At last we're getting somewhere!


----------



## belboid (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> So.  We've established that public sector workers get considerably better pensions than private sector workers.   At last we're getting somewhere!


 
fuck me, its phildwyer in a dress!  'We've established'  arf arf.  You've established nothing other than your stupidity, no one has ever denied that public sector pensions are, on average, better than private ones.  Find one quote from here that says otherwise.


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Defined benefit pensions and the final salary schemes that many public servants still enjoy have largely stopped in the private sector. If we compare the average pension across the country of just £3,900 a year to that of an index-linked £24,000 for a teacher retiring at 60 after 40 years of service, it is clear what the size of this disparity is. It should also be remembered that this pension does not come out of savings that have accumulated over a working life. Most public sector schemes in the UK are "unfunded", meaning that payouts come from current taxpayers.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/30/public-sector-pensions-fair


 
Why are you comparing an average for the private sector with a maximum pension entitlement in the public sector.

Go and find like-for-like figures. If you do it yourself, you might actually learn something.

You are ridiculously easy to mug off. Or a paid propagandist. My money is on the second.

Urban, we have our very own Tory astro-turfer.


----------



## Looby (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Defined benefit pensions and the final salary schemes that many public servants still enjoy have largely stopped in the private sector. If we compare the average pension across the country of just £3,900 a year to that of an index-linked £24,000 for a teacher retiring at 60 after 40 years of service, it is clear what the size of this disparity is. It should also be remembered that this pension does not come out of savings that have accumulated over a working life. Most public sector schemes in the UK are "unfunded", meaning that payouts come from current taxpayers.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/30/public-sector-pensions-fair


 
How does that respond to what I said? You asked why public sector workers think they should get better pensions that private sector. I said they don't.

WE DO NOT WANT BETTER PENSIONS THAN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, WE WANT TO MAINTAIN WHAT WE HAVE. WE ALSO WANT EVERYONE TO HAVE FAIR PAY AND PENSIONS

Is that clear now because I'm starting to wonder if I am using the same language.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> So.  We've established that public sector workers get considerably better pensions than private sector workers.   At last we're getting somewhere!



Why do you want to reduce public sector pensions** rather than increase private sector ones then? Answer BigTom's questions! 

**You claimed at one point that you don't want that, but think through the logical conclusion of your anti public sector resentment.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

belboid said:


> fuck me, its phildwyer in a dress!  'We've established'  arf arf.  You've established nothing other than your stupidity, no one has ever denied that public sector pensions are, on average, better than private ones.  Find one quote from here that says otherwise.


 
Certainly.



sparklefish said:


> we don't! Jesus festering christ, how many times do we have to say it?


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> So still considerably better than the average pension of £3,900.  Thanks for confirming that public sector pensions are better than private.


Is that average a mean or median? You need to tell us or it's meaningless.

Now go and find the mean and median for the public sector.

Then post them.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 30, 2011)

ymu said:


> Why are you comparing an average for the private sector with a maximum pension entitlement in the public sector.
> 
> Go and find like-for-like figures. If you do it yourself, you might actually learn something.
> 
> ...



It's not even a "maximum" pension entitlement - as far as I can see it's an impossible pension entitlement.  I don't think it'd be possible to enter the teaching profession before you were 22 years old (degree + 1 yr PGCE) so at most with retiring at 60 you'd be at 38 years of service.  Most teachers don't enter at 22 either, lots of people do a 2yr PGCE (conversion from their degree to a specialism) and often don't go straight from uni to do it.


----------



## Looby (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Certainly.


 
You complete bellend. I was saying we don't want better pensions than the private sector.


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> How do you suggest I fight my employer?  A tiny business which can't afford to pay me to have a day off when teachers go on strike, and also can't afford to provide me with a pension scheme.


 
You support every strike, so that your employer has to match better wages and conditions in order to get anyone to work for them. Oppose a strike, and you are cutting your own price.

Why can we not have a free market for workers? Why mummy, why?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 30, 2011)

belboid said:
			
		

> fuck me, *its phildwyer in a dress!*  'We've established'  arf arf.  You've established nothing other than your stupidity, no one has ever denied that public sector pensions are, on average, better than private ones.  Find one quote from here that says otherwise.





Or Upchuck in disguise ....

That being so, I'm off ... for now.


----------



## belboid (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Certainly.


 
that doesn't support your case at all. It doesn't say public sector pensions are worse than private ones, it refutes your suggestion that anyone thinks they inherently _should be_ higher. Learn to  read.  then you might not get ripped off on your pension


----------



## past caring (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> So.  We've established that public sector workers get considerably better pensions than private sector workers.   At last we're getting somewhere!


 
All that has been established is your inability to engage with the facts - what remains unclear is whether that's because you're a dishonest cunt or a thick cunt, though I suspect it's the former.


----------



## belboid (Jun 30, 2011)

let's not rule out the possibility of it being both


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Certainly.


 
Either your reading comprehension isn't upto much, or you're being dishonest, as what was actually said was:




			
				sparklefish said:
			
		

> ElizabethofYork said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## BigTom (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Certainly.



 this was in repsonse to you asking why "we" think that private sector workers should ahve a worse pension than public sector workers - we don't.  We think private sector workers should get a decent pension, just like public sector workers.
I don't think anyone hasdenied public sector pensions are better than private sector ones, even though the averages aren;'t that far apart (£3.9k private - your figure - vs £4k public (figure quoted at various public meetings from a variety of union people over the last month.. 10k average for teachers, but if you;re going to compare the whole of the private sector, you;'re best off looking at the whole of the public scetor)


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 30, 2011)

When you get a moment ElizabethofYork...




			
				stephj said:
			
		

> Besides, the more you push down public sector wages, pensions and conditions, the private sector will just look to push theirs down too through the same arguments and public services becoming privatised - none of this happens in isolation. Why do you support this, ElizabethofYork?



And, the answer isn't "But I don't want that" because thats exactly what will happen. The arguments being used by governments and proponents of privatisation now is that private pensions and conditions are worse than public, so let's bring the public sector into line. Will it end there?


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

The Stagecoach bus drivers in Oxford are on £30k with O/T, because there's always Cowley works.

When I lived in Cambridge, which has no manufacturing industry or great alternatives for bus drivers, Stagecoach were threatened with losing their licence for never having enough drivers to run the service, because too few people could afford to work for them. They bussed drivers in from Newcastle and put them up in hotels to save their skins. 

I explained this to a South African who had fled the advent of democracy in his place of birth, and he told me that you just relocate the jobs.

_Umm ... how do you relocate bus drivers? Nurses? Teachers? ..._


----------



## TruXta (Jun 30, 2011)

How? You get them on their bikes, that's how!


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> So.  We've established that public sector workers get considerably better pensions than private sector workers.   At last we're getting somewhere!



Really?  Let's be getting somewhere with this, then:  What would you do if your child was ill on a school day?  Send them to school anyway?  Leave them at home by themselves?  Let somebody else look after them?


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 30, 2011)

Oh and ElizabethofYork, I've just been supporting some colleagues who are striking today - those that are on the low-end of pay and pensions, and some of them are losing a day's pay to go on strike action today. 

Why? Because they know that fighting for their own work conditions, etc. means ultimately trying to protect everyone's. Just because you're in the 'private sector' doesn't mean it doesn't have any knock-on for you, it does - whether it be public services, the market trying to drive down costs and therefore workers wages, pensions, etc. Private sector workers need to not only fight for their own jobs and conditions, but realise that the public sector job struggle is theirs too.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

past caring said:


> All that has been established is your inability to engage with the facts - what remains unclear is whether that's because you're a dishonest cunt or a thick cunt, though I suspect it's the former.


 
Oh dear.  More foul-mouthery because someone has a different opinion from you.


----------



## belboid (Jun 30, 2011)

BigTom said:


> £3.9k private - your figure - vs £4k public (figure quoted at various public meetings from a variety of union people over the last month.. 10k average for teachers,


 
4k for civil servants, I believe, and 5k for the public sector as a whole. Certainly only a tiny bit better than most private sector pensions for most people. And after many years on lwer wages, for which the pension is meant to (partially) make up


----------



## madzone (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Oh dear.  More foul-mouthery because someone has a different opinion from you.


 
Smoke screen....


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 30, 2011)

shit troll is shit


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

ymu said:


> You support every strike, so that your employer has to match better wages and conditions in order to get anyone to work for them. Oppose a strike, and you are cutting your own price.


 
Oh, so you want them to go out of business because they can't afford to pay more.

Riiiiiight.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Oh dear.  More foul-mouthery because someone has a different opinion from you.


 
Ahem.  Be answering post #485 please.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> shit troll is shit



It's terribly childish to call anyone who disagrees with you a troll.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Oh dear.  More foul-mouthery because someone has a different opinion from you.



If you don't like people swearing/insulting you, don't engage with them. instead, engage with those of us who are talking civilly to you.. answer some of the questions that have been put to you.. start with this one:

What effect do you think worsening public sector pensions will have on private sector pensions?

e2a: if you don't want to be called a troll, why not actually engage with some of the discussion and answer questions..


----------



## belboid (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> It's terribly childish to call anyone who disagrees with you a troll.


 
whereas it is incredibly mature to ignore everyone whose points directly contradict yours, and to deliberately distort what someone else wrote in order to justify your own position?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Ahem.  Be answering post #485 please.


 
Just seen this.

My child has been off sick a couple of times.  Both times I asked a friend to help out.  The friend can't help out today as she's on a picket line.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jun 30, 2011)

@ElizabethOfYork - thanks for answering.  Do you support/not support your friend's right to strike/picket, then?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

I support her right to do what she wants.  I don't agree with her reasoning.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I support her right to do what she wants.  I don't agree with her reasoning.



Fine.  Just out of interest (genuine question), is there no-one else who could've helped you out on this in an emergency>


----------



## belboid (Jun 30, 2011)

so, she helps you out, and you stab her in the back.  Nice.


----------



## past caring (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Oh dear.  More foul-mouthery because someone has a different opinion from you.



Nope. Solely because of your thoroughgoing and consistent dishonesty. On this and other threads. You're proved yourself not worth engaging with seriously.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

belboid said:


> so, she helps you out, and you stab her in the back.  Nice.


 
Of course I haven't stabbed her in the back.  We've discussed this and she knows I disagree with the strike.  We are mature enough to be able to disagree about things but still be friends.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jun 30, 2011)

same old bollocks really, everytime there's a strike, somebody always thinks society would be better if it was just every man for himself, and everybody doing their best to undercut the next person.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Of course I haven't stabbed her in the back.  We've discussed this and she knows I disagree with the strike.  We are mature enough to be able to disagree about things but still be friends.


 
Have you told her that you think she doesn't deserve her pension?


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 30, 2011)

It's got to that point...


----------



## past caring (Jun 30, 2011)




----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Oh, so you want them to go out of business because they can't afford to pay more.
> 
> Riiiiiight.


 
If they can't cover the full economic cost of their business, they do not have a viable business.

If workers can't negotiate, bosses are free to dedevelop us until we have worker dormitories all over Suburbia, busses pouring workers into London every day, and  eventually wages that would make an Indian cotton-picker weep. And graduates will emigrate, because the best paid job they can get is in a call centre. 

Want that? Carry on as you are. You spineless cunt.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> Have you told her that you think she doesn't deserve her pension?


 
I've told her that I think public sector pensions should fall into line with the rest of the country.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I've told her that I think public sector pensions should fall into line with the rest of the country.


 
Why don't you want better out of the private sector?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

ymu said:


> If they can't cover the full economic cost of their business, they do not have a viable business.
> 
> If workers can't negotiate, bosses are free to dedevelop us until we have worker dormitories all over Suburbia, busses pouring workers into London every day, and  eventually wages that would make an Indian cotton-picker weep. And graduates will emigrate, because the best paid job they can get is in a call centre.
> 
> Want that? Carry on as you are. You spineless cunt.


 
So you want businesses to fold and people to be put out of work.  How lovely you are.


----------



## belboid (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I've told her that I think public sector pensions should fall into line with the rest of the country.


 
and we've already shown that they, basically, are.


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 30, 2011)

Politics of envy LOL.

You fucking hypocrite.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I've told her that I think public sector pensions should fall into line with the rest of the country.



I suspect your friend is an imaginary one.


----------



## belboid (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> So you want businesses to fold and people to be put out of work.  How lovely you are.


 
lol  you are the one wanting people paid less, with lower standards of living.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> So you want businesses to fold and people to be put out of work.  How lovely you are.


 
Why do just accept what the paymasters and proponents of privatisation and market forces say?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

Are people on Urban actually able to have a discussion without insults or foul language?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> So you want businesses to fold and people to be put out of work.  How lovely you are.



Please keep up, businesses are folding because of the recession. Only this week, Habitat announced it was going into receivership.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I've told her that I think public sector pensions should fall into line with the rest of the country.


 
This friend doesn't exist, does she? You being called a troll is because you're not answering questions while appearing to stir shit up, _and are a troll._


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

belboid said:


> 4k for civil servants, I believe, and 5k for the public sector as a whole. Certainly only a tiny bit better than most private sector pensions for most people. And after many years on lwer wages, for which the pension is meant to (partially) make up



There are more higher paid workers in the public sector, so straight averages don;t work. 25% of the public sector are graduates - including very highly paid doctors and police. 8% of the private sector are graduates, and they pay much, much shitter wages at the bottom than the public sector, and have more unskilled jobs.

Like with like is the only way to look at this.

Plus, loads of private sector workers have public sector pensions. Shed loads of graduates get trained up and then piss off to work for better wages elsewhere. It costs us a fucking fortune - management has to be great or we end up in an endless cycle of recruitment and training without ever having a team up to complement. Must be real idiots to move if the private sector is so much worse, eh?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Are people on Urban actually able to have a discussion without insults or foul language?


 
Perhaps you should try being honest and sincere instead of avoiding questions and making things up. Just a suggestion, like.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Are people on Urban actually able to have a discussion without insults or foul language?


 
Are you actually able to properly respond to some of the posts here - made by people with economic knowledge and experience without regurgitating what those that in power are advocating - driving down _all_ our workers rights, pensions, etc?


----------



## belboid (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Are people on Urban actually able to have a discussion without insults or foul language?


 
are you able to have a discussion at all?  Few people have used 'foul' language (tho yours has been some of the foulest, from my viewpoint). And you have lied, distorted, and ignored. You have not attempted to have a discussion. you've just made crap up.


----------



## dylans (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Of course I haven't stabbed her in the back.  We've discussed this and she knows I disagree with the strike.  We are mature enough to be able to disagree about things but still be friends.


 
Does your friend know that you hate your own children?


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

So now the cunts are sending me an urgent request to come in and sign off an editorial, today, when they've been sitting on it for a week.

They've emailed me the form. The boy has gone out to buy a cheap scanner. I'll send it at one minute past midnight. Cheeky fuckers.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Are people on Urban actually able to have a discussion without insults or foul language?



With people who are less *deliberately* intellectually dishonest than you, and who don't completely ignore inconvenient facts and questions put to them, yes.

Even _with_ you, you've been asked PLENTY of questions by poeple on this thread in a perfectly polite manner --eg BigTom and several others. You've ignored most of those questions, and you've only given evasive/dishonest/selective answers to the others.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> This friend doesn't exist, does she? You being called a troll is because you're not answering questions while appearing to stir shit up, _and are a troll._


 
I see.  So because I don't fit neatly into some sort of stereotypical box, I must be a liar and a troll.

Try to understand that not everyone agrees with you.  Tip:  People are actually allowed to have different opinions!


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> So you want businesses to fold and people to be put out of work.  How lovely you are.


 
So you want your friend to have worse working rights, and a worse pension to retire on - is she not worth it (but you are)?


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 30, 2011)

ymu said:


> There are more higher paid workers in the public sector, so straight averages don;t work. 25% of the public sector are graduates - including very highly paid doctors and police. 8% of the private sector are graduates, and they pay much, much shitter wages at the bottom than the public sector, and have more unskilled jobs.
> 
> Like with like is the only way to look at this.


I was thinking this too... how much would that person be getting paid if they went to the private sector.. quite often more, if their job exists within it. Channel four news annoyed me the other night by talking about "averages" in public v private sector, without mentioning that there's a disproportionately higher level of training/ qualifications within the public sector to do jobs like teaching, medicine, police etc, so they are going to get paid more as a result.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

dylans said:


> Does your friend know that you hate your own children?


----------



## editor (Jun 30, 2011)

Couple of snaps from the Brixton demo. 
http://www.urban75.org/blog/j30-strike-joint-rally-at-windrush-square-brixton/


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I've told her that I think public sector pensions should fall into line with the rest of the country.


 
ie. that her pension is more than she deserves.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 30, 2011)

What does your friend say ElizabethofYork when you tell her she's not worth it?


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 30, 2011)

Did  we clear up who Elizabeth of York should be paying for the wages and pensions of teachers and other public sector employees?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

stephj said:


> What does your friend say ElizabethofYork when you tell her she's not worth it?


 
I've never told her that.  Don't try to twist my words please.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethOfYork - could you not get anyone else to help you out with child cover today?  Not even in an emergency?


----------



## belboid (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I've never told her that.  Don't try to twist my words please.


 
ooh, the cheek of it!


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 30, 2011)

Hang on!

This friend who look's after Elizabeth of York's sick child, can't do so today because she's on strike? on strike from what? she's normally home on a school day...


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 30, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> ElizabethOfYork - could you not get anyone else to help you out with child cover today?  Not even in an emergency?


 
That's really not all that unusual for people not to have any back up. We don't


----------



## Looby (Jun 30, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> Hang on!
> 
> This friend who look's after Elizabeth of York's sick child, can't do so today because she's on strike? on strike from what? she's normally home on a school day...


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I've never told her that.  Don't try to twist my words please.


 
Why don't you say to her then as a 'friend', it's about time I wasn't pissed over by market forces and capitalism and a race to the bottom and instead be supportive that she might just be being treated fairly in her worker conditions and pension entitlement (if indeed she is, the right-wing politicians and business leaders always use examples which are highly misleading).


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> Hang on!
> 
> This friend who look's after Elizabeth of York's sick child, can't do so today because she's on strike? on strike from what? she's normally home on a school day...


 


She works shifts.  Why are you trying so desperately hard to disbelieve me?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I've never told her that.  Don't try to twist my words please.


 
You may not have told her that, it'd probably go down quite badly. In any case it's the true meaning of your position. I wonder what super-generous income she's going to get when she retires? I bet it's really extravagant!


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> That's really not all that unusual for people not to have any back up. We don't


 
Exactly.  That's why loads of parents have had to lose a day's work today.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 30, 2011)

Doctors are well paid but if they're talking about industrial action, you know things are fucked up.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jun/30/doctors-ballot-industrial-action-pensions


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Exactly.  That's why loads of parents have had to lose a day's work today.


 
Including those that are striking in some cases.


----------



## peterkro (Jun 30, 2011)

EoY,have you considered doing something with different with your child today,what with you temporarily free from your slave job and him from his re-education camp.Go out have fun (mostly it's free) you may enjoy it and decide to tell your "I'm only in it to provide jobs for these otherwise destitute people" boss to go fuck himself.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Are people on Urban actually able to have a discussion without insults or foul language?



yes:




			
				me said:
			
		

> If you don't like people swearing/insulting you, don't engage with them. instead, engage with those of us who are talking civilly to you.. answer some of the questions that have been put to you.. start with this one:
> 
> *What effect do you think worsening public sector pensions will have on private sector pensions?*
> 
> e2a: if you don't want to be called a troll, why not actually engage with some of the discussion and answer questions..


 
thing is, it seems like you only respond to those people calling you a stupid fucking cunt so perhaps I should stop being civil?
fancy engaging in discussion? You;'ve still not got round to telling anyone what sector you work in so they can advise you on which 
union(s) you can join.. or answering the quesiton I posted above (the bit in bold).. I think this is the third or fourth time I've asked..


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> She works shifts.  Why are you trying so desperately hard to disbelieve me?


 
so what happens if your child is ill while she's at work? presumably you have to take a day off work, right? it's the sort of thing parents have to be prepared for. it's a pain in the arse, and costly, but it happens. it's part of what you sign up for when yuou have a child.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> so what happens if your child is ill while she's at work? presumably you have to take a day off work, right? it's the sort of thing parents have to be prepared for. it's a pain in the arse, and costly, but it happens. it's part of what you sign up for when yuou have a child.


 
Thank you so much for your advice.  There was me thinking that I'd just leave the kid to fend for himself.


----------



## belboid (Jun 30, 2011)

that would probably be better for him/her than being brought up by as dishonest and spiteful a person as you


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

belboid said:


> that would probably be better for him/her than being brought up by as dishonest and spiteful a person as you


 
Oh diddums!  You really don't like being disagreed with, do you?

How childish!


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Thank you so much for your advice.  There was me thinking that I'd just leave the kid to fend for himself.


 
what i'm saying is that it's hardly a big deal - it happens sometimes and it's hardly worth getting het up over. some years you might need to take three days off to be with your child, for sickness, snow or strike - and some years you might need to take off five. Or one. Par for the course, not unexpected. Getting cross with the strike is like getting cross with your child for being ill. It can't be helped.


----------



## belboid (Jun 30, 2011)

dont give a shit about being disagreed with. But you have explicitly lied, distorted and ignored everyone but yourself. You are an inherently dishonest person.  Nothing to do with any personal feelings, its just a fact.


----------



## Onket (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Oh diddums!  You really don't like being disagreed with, do you?
> 
> How childish!


 
Are you actually just disagreeing for the sake of it? Are you that pissed off with your own employment and having to actually take a day off that you would rather hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people (apparently including at least one friend of yours who regularly helps you out for free) to be worse off in their retirement?

All so that you can be at work today, for an employer too tightfisted to pay into a half decent pension scheme for you!


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 30, 2011)

Been on picket line this morning, at social services and library. Good turnout and lots of public support.


----------



## ExtraRefined (Jun 30, 2011)

belboid said:


> Teachers pensions are covered by the amount teachers pay in.  They pay their pension into general taxation, and get paid out of general taxation.  they pay in more than they get out.  you do not subsidise them one penny.



Anyone got a source on this?


----------



## ernestolynch (Jun 30, 2011)

Can't this ElizabethofYork slag care for her own children? Is she unfit to do so?


----------



## madzone (Jun 30, 2011)

What's your kid been doing while you've been talking shit on here all day, Elizabeth?


----------



## Looby (Jun 30, 2011)

ernestolynch said:


> Can't this ElizabethofYork slag care for her own children? Is she unfit to do so?


 
That's uncalled for.


----------



## lighterthief (Jun 30, 2011)

ymu said:


> You spineless cunt.


Not really adding to the debate, that, is it?


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

No. It is expressing my feelings. This is permitted.


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

sparklefish said:


> That's uncalled for.


That, I agree with.


----------



## lighterthief (Jun 30, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> Anyone got a source on this?


Yep, I'm curious to read more about this too.


----------



## madzone (Jun 30, 2011)

sparklefish said:


> That's uncalled for.



I lol'd


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

madzone said:


> What's your kid been doing while you've been talking shit on here all day, Elizabeth?


 
I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of this question.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of this question.



What about the relevance of this question:

What effect do you think worsening public sector pensions will have on private sector pensions?

oh, and if you were serious about unions, let us know what sector you work in...


----------



## madzone (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of this question.


 
There is no kid, is there?


----------



## madzone (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of this question.


 Double bloody post


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 30, 2011)

BigTom said:


> What about the relevance of this question:
> 
> What effect do you think worsening public sector pensions will have on private sector pensions?
> 
> oh, and if you were serious about unions, let us know what sector you work in...



And what effect it has on the economy in general (ie less spending by retirees, working longer so even more youth unemployment).


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 30, 2011)

personally don't care about your kid or your inconvenience, you can suck it up. you inconvenienced for a day or thousands orf p/s workers inconvenienced for their entire old age by short rations and later-than-planned retirement. Democracy wins, you are a whiner.


----------



## editor (Jun 30, 2011)

ymu said:


> You spineless cunt.


You really are going to have to wind your neck in a bit because this kind of abuse is really over the top.


----------



## belboid (Jun 30, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> Yep, I'm curious to read more about this too.


 
the scheme is regularly actuarially reviewed.  the latest review was meant top be two years ago, but it seems to have been dropped as embarrassing (ie, its still in surplus). Results of the last review are around, here


----------



## belboid (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of this question.


 
or of all the other ones you've chosen to ignore


----------



## IC3D (Jun 30, 2011)

Is this all about a moaning woman her fantasy middleclass cleaner and bored kid or the the strike.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 30, 2011)

http://yfrog.com/khcmyycj

Banner drop from BBC Big Screen in Victoria Square, Birmingham.. good few thousand out today by the sounds of it, will find out this evening exactly what went on, or in about an hour if people are still around in town.
still hoping everyone will go from the rally to the ICC where Milliband and Pickles are this afternoon.. but I doubt they will (there's no real way into the ICC for the LGA conference - was tried on Wed (cameron) and Thursday (clegg).


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

editor said:


> You really are going to have to wind your neck in a bit because this kind of abuse is really over the top.


 
Apologies.


----------



## Onket (Jun 30, 2011)

madzone said:


> There is no kid, is there?


----------



## dylans (Jun 30, 2011)

BBC reports a lot of stop and search going on in London and some arrests of black block types


----------



## Onket (Jun 30, 2011)

ymu said:


> Apologies.


 
You spineless cunt!


----------



## BigTom (Jun 30, 2011)

dylans said:


> BBC reports a lot of stop and search going on in London and some arrests of black block types



reading twitter there are quite a few arrests - people getting nicked for wearing black, for wearing shinpads.. people being told to take a drink from their water bottle to show it's not petrol.. lots of stop & searches.. 
met police / tsg being arseholes.
In London, they nicked the person who did a banner drop from a lamppost (took 12 of them to do it apparently).  In Brum, the people who did that banner drop had their names taken so that the police can go and see if they did any damage to the big screen and nick them for it later if they did.. west mids police seem to be pretty sensible in comparison to the met..


----------



## BigTom (Jun 30, 2011)

@CourtNewsUK (on twitter) said:
			
		

> Trial at Southwark Crown Court not sitting after juror refuses to cross picket line #solidarity #j30


----------



## ExtraRefined (Jun 30, 2011)

belboid said:


> the scheme is regularly actuarially reviewed.  the latest review was meant top be two years ago, but it seems to have been dropped as embarrassing (ie, its still in surplus). Results of the last review are around, here



Thanks

Just started having a look at that, this bit immediately caught my eye;



> The notional investment returns shown in Tables D1 and D2 are based on a rate of 3.5% in excess of price inflation (the current rate of return under the SCAPE methodology).  There are, however, no actual investments underlying the balance in the Account; in effect, the balance represents a liability of the Exchequer.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 30, 2011)

BigTom said:


>


----------



## IC3D (Jun 30, 2011)

Does anyone know if the striking plastic cops are marching.


----------



## lighterthief (Jun 30, 2011)

Hmm, might need some help to interpret that document  but doesn't it say that teachers contributed £14.2bn and their employer £33.1bn, and that as of 2004 the scheme was £3.3bn in the red?  That looks like an employer subsidy to me (not saying it's wrong, only that it appears teachers own contributions are insufficient to cover their pension liabilities under the terms of the scheme).  

Happy to stand corrected though.


----------



## belboid (Jun 30, 2011)

yes, the employers pay in as well.  which is rather common.


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

Oh yes.




Sorry, that was at juror refusing to cross the picket line. Very slow connection!


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 30, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> Hmm, might need some help to interpret that document  but doesn't it say that teachers contributed £14.2bn and their employer £33.1bn, and that as of 2004 the scheme was £3.3bn in the red?  That looks like an employer subsidy to me (not saying it's wrong, only that it appears teachers own contributions are insufficient to cover their pension liabilities under the terms of the scheme).
> 
> Happy to stand corrected though.



there was a renegotiation in 2007 to cover the shortfall. unions were involved and an agreed settlement was reached, without any recourse to strike action. there was evidence, and there was room for negotiation - the unions are reasonable.


----------



## belboid (Jun 30, 2011)

the shortfall at the time (actually a projected shortfall, it was still in surplus at that moment) amounted to a massive 1%, covered by a very small %age increase in employee & employer payments


----------



## lighterthief (Jun 30, 2011)

belboid said:


> Teachers pensions are covered by the amount teachers pay in.





belboid said:


> yes, the employers pay in as well. which is rather common.



So strictly speaking teacher's pensions are not covered by the amount teachers pay in but rely on contributions from their employer (which is presumably funded through taxation).


----------



## belboid (Jun 30, 2011)

it is an agreed part of their salary, it is not topped up through general taxation.


----------



## ExtraRefined (Jun 30, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> So strictly speaking teacher's pensions are not covered by the amount teachers pay in but rely on contributions from their employer (which is presumably funded through taxation).


 
Not just that, but the account with the government in which the contributions are stored is credited with interest at 3.5% above inflation. That's about 8% this year, far more than any real pension scheme could realise, and represents a huge additional liability in addition to the employers contribution.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 30, 2011)

BigTom said:


>


 
Good man/woman


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Jun 30, 2011)

So what's happening with the 4 o'clock demo?


----------



## belboid (Jun 30, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> Not just that, but the account with the government in which the contributions are stored is credited with interest at 3.5% above inflation. That's about 8% this year, far more than any real pension scheme could realise, and represents a huge additional liability in addition to the employers contribution.


 
Not true, various pension schemes have achieved just that. Funnily enough, the auditor appointed has, I think, a rather better knowledge of what is likely to be achieved than some tory boy off the internet.


----------



## grit (Jun 30, 2011)

lopsidedbunny said:


> So what's happening with the 4 o'clock demo?


 
I dont know much but my girlfriend just sent me an IM that 3 large groups of police vans have sped by her office on the way to the bank of england FWIW


----------



## treelover (Jun 30, 2011)

Sheffield saw the biggest industrial rally for many a  year, lively and positive, banner drop from Coles was stopped immediately...


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Jun 30, 2011)

there something going on in whitehall and the police are moving people along... I can't see anything...


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Jun 30, 2011)

Just back  from the London demo, well impressive turnout, I was on the Strand at the front  watching it all go past - it must have taken well over a hour.  As I left  loads of protesters and police around Trafalgar Square  still  and radio has just announced that most of the roads round there are still closed off to traffic.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Typical striker's mentality.  "I'm alright, sod the poor git who actually pays my wages".


 
If it weren't for the public sector - including teachers - you wouldn't be able to earn wages; so perhaps a little more solidarity and humility might not go amiss.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## grit (Jun 30, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> you wouldn't be able to earn wages; s


 
How so?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Typical striker's mentality.  "I'm alright, sod the poor git who actually pays my wages".



That's a fuckin' beauty!


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Haha!  Now we get to the emotional blackmail.
> 
> Bloody strikers.  Foul language, aggression, ride roughshod over the poor gits who pay your wages, and now emotional blackmail.  How much lower can you stoop?


 
Lower? Well, denying the essential role that the public sector plays in maintaining the economy where you get paid would be pretty near the bottom of the barrel.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Why do public sector workers think they should be treated better than private sector workers?


 
Why do you think private sector workers should be treated worse? Let's work together for leveling up rather than beating down.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Lower? Well, denying the essential role that the public sector plays in maintaining the economy where you get paid would be pretty near the bottom of the barrel.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
Nobody is denying the importance of the public sector.


----------



## belboid (Jun 30, 2011)

you're just denying that they deserve a decent retirement (after earning less than the private sector for decades)


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

belboid said:


> you're just denying that they deserve a decent retirement (after earning less than the private sector for decades)


 
Wrong again.  Public sector employees earn about the same as private sector.  I'm suggesting they should get similar pensions too.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2011)

So are we.


----------



## belboid (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Wrong again.  Public sector employees earn about the same as private sector.  I'm suggesting they should get similar pensions too.


 
Simply untrue - once all factors are taken into account (eg the significantly higher proportion of graduates in the public sector). And they already DO get similar pensions 4k for civil servants, v 3.9k in the private sector.

All of which has already been stated several times, you have just chosen to ignore it.


----------



## Looby (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Wrong again.  Public sector employees earn about the same as private sector.  I'm suggesting they should get similar pensions too.


 
That's not true. Between me and my husband we could earn about 25k more if we moved to the private sector. We have so far chosen to stick but as my office could close I might not have the choice soon.

Please at least do us the courtesy of looking at the facts and maybe actually READ what posters are saying because you've barely responded to anyones points this afternoon.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

2 out of 3 private sector employees get no pension contribution from their employer.


----------



## Belushi (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> 2 out of 3 private sector employees get no pension contribution from their employer.


 
They should strike.


----------



## dylans (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> 2 out of 3 private sector employees get no pension contribution from their employer.


 
and because of this teachers should get screwed over? your logic is absurd. This is like saying half the world live on less than a dollar a day therefore we should scrap minimum wage.


----------



## Belushi (Jun 30, 2011)

dylans said:


> This is like saying half the world live on less than a dollar a day therefore we should scrap minimum wage.


 
Don't be giving them ideas dylans!


----------



## Looby (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> 2 out of 3 private sector employees get no pension contribution from their employer.


 
That's dreadful, but how exactly is making things worse for us going to help that 2 out of 3? Surely they should get their workplace unionized, negotiate etc etc. You are arguing for a worsening of conditions for all.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> 2 out of 3 private sector employees get no pension contribution from their employer.



Personally speaking, whatever pension I end up with is gonna be pretty blah, to say the least, but you know what?  If teachers, nurses, social workers, social security/welfare etc people get a halfway decent pension at the end of their service - GOOD.  They earned it and they more than deserve it.  And so what if "we" are paying for it?  Much rather that than be forced to fork out yet again to bail out the "free market" (remember them not wanting any Government intervention/interference?) or watch our wonderful elected officials give themselves a gold-plated pension, whilst telling the rest of us to eat shit and be happy with it.

Solidarity with them all - and also to those arrested too.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 30, 2011)

Belushi said:


> They should strike.


 
exactly. why are you not answering these comments?


----------



## Athos (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> 2 out of 3 private sector employees get no pension contribution from their employer.


 
Let's have a race to the bottom then, eh.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> 2 out of 3 private sector employees get no pension contribution from their employer.


 
2 out of 3 people in the South Wales valleys have no jobs.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> exactly. why are you not answering these comments?


 
Most people work for small businesses.  If you go on strike, you are likely to put your employer out of business.   No taxpayer to come to the rescue, you see.

How is that good for anyone?


----------



## ernestolynch (Jun 30, 2011)

madzone said:


> There is no kid, is there?


'She' probably wishes that every day.


----------



## madzone (Jun 30, 2011)

sparklefish said:


> That's dreadful, but how exactly is making things worse for us going to help that 2 out of 3?


 
That seems to be the concept that Elizabeth struggles with the most.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

ernestolynch said:


> 'She' probably wishes that every day.


 
Why not try to contribute to the discussion instead of making snide personal comments?


----------



## Athos (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Most people work for small businesses.  If you go on strike, you are likely to put your employer out of business.   No taxpayer to come to the rescue, you see.
> 
> How is that good for anyone?


 
So you think the owners of these businesses would choose to go bust rather than make concessions to their employees?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

Athos said:


> So you think the owners of these businesses would choose to go bust rather than make concessions to their employees?


 
No, I think that many small businesses can't afford to pay pension contributions to their employees.


----------



## Looby (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Why not try to contribute to the discussion instead of making snide personal comments?


 
Why don't you answer some fucking questions?

How is screwing the public sector over going to improve things for the private sector? If you can't answer then I suggest you stfu because you don't really know what you're arguing for.


----------



## peterkro (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Most people work for small businesses.  If you go on strike, you are likely to put your employer out of business.   No taxpayer to come to the rescue, you see.
> 
> How is that good for anyone?



Could you provide a source for your contention that most people work for small businesses,you may be right but I'd like to see the evidence.It may well be that most people work for SME's but that's not only small businesses.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Why not try to contribute to the discussion instead of making snide personal comments?


 
Why not be a proper 'mother' to your 'child'?


----------



## Looby (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No, I think that many small businesses can't afford to pay pension contributions to their employees.


 
I think if they want to make money from the labour of others then they must take responsibility for those employees.

Same with sick pay, maternity pay, redundancy pay etc etc

If they can't or won't then they should run their own fucking business.

I don't suppose they're fretting about your pension pot when they're driving their BMW or lounging at their villa.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 30, 2011)

sparklefish said:


> I think if they want to make money from the labour of others then they must take responsibility for those employees.
> 
> Same with sick pay, maternity pay, redundancy pay etc etc
> 
> ...


 
What a ridiculous stereotype.  Most small businesses are struggling.


----------



## Belushi (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> What a ridiculous stereotype.  Most small businesses are struggling.


 
Would you mind providing some evidence for this claim?  And the others you've made but not backed up. Thanks.


----------



## treelover (Jun 30, 2011)

any more reports?


----------



## past caring (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> What a ridiculous stereotype.  Most small businesses are struggling.



I can certainly believe that's true of the small business that employs you.


----------



## Athos (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No, I think that many small businesses can't afford to pay pension contributions to their employees.


 
They could afford it; they'd just make less profit.


----------



## peterkro (Jun 30, 2011)

Athos said:


> They could afford it; they'd just make less profit.



It would come off their tax bill so it would still be ordinary workers who footed the bill.


----------



## Athos (Jun 30, 2011)

peterkro said:


> It would come off their tax bill so it would still be ordinary workers who footed the bill.


 
Of course.  It's ordinary workers who create all value.


----------



## treelover (Jun 30, 2011)

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/06/481542.html

photos


----------



## dylans (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> What a ridiculous stereotype.  Most small businesses are struggling.


 
This was exactly the argument the Tories used against minumum wage. It misses the point which is that people don't live to work. They work to live and without decent pay and conditions what's the point? so if your hypothetical small business can't afford to give its employees the minimum level of decent pay and conditions then it's not a viable business and should go bust. Your argument could be used to justify all manner of atrocious labour practices including slavery. I'm sure I could think of a business model that only works by employing child labour at a pound a week but that wouldn't make it right. In fact I can just imagine Victorian chimney sweep companies complaining that raising the working age and enacting health and safety legislation would ruin them. People like you would defend the right of struggling industrial textile mills to employ street urchins.


----------



## madzone (Jun 30, 2011)

Have we established which type of business Lizzie works for?


----------



## dylans (Jun 30, 2011)

madzone said:


> Have we established which type of business Lizzie works for?


 
She's a chimney sweep


----------



## Looby (Jun 30, 2011)

madzone said:


> Have we established which type of business Lizzie works for?


 
If it's one where she has to answer questions or make reasoned arguments no wonder they're struggling.


----------



## agricola (Jun 30, 2011)

dylans said:


> This was exactly the argument the Tories used against minumum wage. It misses the point which is that people don't live to work. They work to live and without decent pay and conditions what's the point? so if your hypothetical small business can't afford to give its employees the minimum level of decent pay and conditions then it's not a viable business and should go bust. Your argument could be used to justify all manner of atrocious labour practices including slavery. I'm sure I could think of a business model that only works by employing child labour at a pound a week but that wouldn't make it right. In fact I can just imagine Victorian chimney sweep companies complaining that raising the working age would ruin them. People like you would defend the right of struggling industrial textile mills to employ street urchins.


 
TBH on the small business point alone "Lizzie" is not wrong - lots of them are struggling, and cannot afford to pay large sums in terms of pay, benefits etc etc.  Of course, the reasons why many of those firms are struggling are usually because of such things as very high business rates, idiot town planning, deeply unfair competition practices from much bigger companies, uncaring (or as _Private Eye_ have demonstrated, actively destructive) attitudes held by the relevant banks, and the general uselessness of UK economic policy since 1997 (of which the NEST scheme will probably have the biggest negative effect).   On your second point, very few small companies are actively bad employers - its usually the medium-to-large scale firms and (especially) agencies who are the worst offenders.


----------



## treelover (Jun 30, 2011)

New Strike song from Captain Ska, its great, fantastic video

'slipping back in time'


----------



## peterkro (Jun 30, 2011)

^^Good stuff.


----------



## little_legs (Jun 30, 2011)

somes kids and loads of teens were protesting too. yay!


----------



## little_legs (Jun 30, 2011)

more


----------



## little_legs (Jun 30, 2011)

I reckon even sick police officers were asked to come to work today, there were too many of them today.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 30, 2011)

treelover said:


> New Strike song from Captain Ska, its great, fantastic video
> 
> 'slipping back in time'



Nuff said.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 30, 2011)

BigTom said:


> http://yfrog.com/khcmyycj
> 
> *Banner drop from BBC Big Screen in Victoria Square, Birmingham.*. good few thousand out today by the sounds of it, will find out this evening exactly what went on, or in about an hour if people are still around in town.
> still hoping everyone will go from the rally to the ICC where Milliband and Pickles are this afternoon.. but I doubt they will (there's no real way into the ICC for the LGA conference - was tried on Wed (cameron) and Thursday (clegg).



Waaaheey!  Someone found a use at last for that thing then!


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jun 30, 2011)

dylans said:


> This was exactly the argument the Tories used against minumum wage. It misses the point which is that people don't live to work. They work to live and without decent pay and conditions what's the point? so if your hypothetical small business can't afford to give its employees the minimum level of decent pay and conditions then it's not a viable business and should go bust. Your argument could be used to justify all manner of atrocious labour practices including slavery. I'm sure I could think of a business model that only works by employing child labour at a pound a week but that wouldn't make it right. In fact I can just imagine Victorian chimney sweep companies complaining that raising the working age and enacting health and safety legislation would ruin them. People like you would defend the right of struggling industrial textile mills to employ street urchins.



You're wrong on this one dylans, most small businesses _are_ struggling at the moment. You only have to look at all the empty units on high streets and in retail parks to realise that. And like agricola, I just don't recognise the small business owner as Victorian tyrant stereotype, it certainly isn't true of the ones I know, some of whom are even paying their employees more than they pay themselves at the moment.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> 2 out of 3 private sector employees get no pension contribution from their employer.


 
Which is why they need to unionise and organise.


----------



## grit (Jun 30, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> You're wrong on this one dylans, most small businesses _are_ struggling at the moment. You only have to look at all the empty units on high streets and in retail parks to realise that. And like agricola, I just don't recognise the small business owner as Victorian tyrant stereotype, it certainly isn't true of the ones I know, some of whom are even paying their employees more than they pay themselves at the moment.


 
Its very common for a small business owner to pay everyone else first and if there is a hit, they take it. I've seen friends max out personal credit cards to make sure they didnt miss payroll.


----------



## belboid (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Most people work for small businesses.


 
No they don't.  yet again you simply do not know your facts.  You are, I'm afraid, talking complete and utter drivel.



And, being a small business doesn't give you the right to treat people like shit.


----------



## IC3D (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Nobody is denying the importance of the public sector.


 





"You belief in nofing Beth."


----------



## dylans (Jun 30, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> You're wrong on this one dylans, most small businesses _are_ struggling at the moment. You only have to look at all the empty units on high streets and in retail parks to realise that. And like agricola, I just don't recognise the small business owner as Victorian tyrant stereotype, it certainly isn't true of the ones I know, some of whom are even paying their employees more than they pay themselves at the moment.


 
I know many  small businesses are struggling. That's not my point, My point is all businesses small or large recognise that there are some unavoidable costs to being in business, one of those unavoidable costs is the duty to pay your workforce properly and to observe an acceptable level of working conditions. If a business can't do that then it isn't a viable business. We wouldn't accept a business not paying its taxes because it is struggling, likewise we shouldn't accept a business not treating its employees properly because it is struggling. My point is that "small businesses are struggling" is the same argument that the tories put forward for opposing the minimum wage and legal rights for workers as well as  for defending low pay and it is not an argument that is any more valid than small businesses using that argument to excuse tax evasion


----------



## agricola (Jun 30, 2011)

dylans said:


> I know many  small businesses are struggling. That's not my point, My point is all businesses small or large recognise that there are some unavoidable costs to being in business, one of those unavoidable costs is the duty to pay your workforce properly and to observe an acceptable level of working conditions. If a business can't do that then it isn't a viable business. We wouldn't accept a business not paying its taxes because it is struggling, likewise we shouldn't accept a business not treating its employees properly because it is struggling. My point is that "small businesses are struggling" is the same argument that the tories put forward for opposing the minimum wage and legal rights for workers as well as  for defending low pay and it is not an argument that is any more valid than small businesses using that argument to excuse tax evasion


 
That is surely wrong though - many big businesses clearly do not accept that they have to pay or treat their workforce properly, yet they remain viable entities (you just have to look at Apple as an example of that, or any of a hundred firms that moved their operations overseas for solely profit reasons).  Nor do that many small businesses practice tax evasion - they cant afford either the penalties of failing (given that HMRC actually enforce the law against them), or the fees of the likes of KPMG (who are required to do it properly).


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 30, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Why not try to contribute to the discussion instead of making snide personal comments?



You proper sound like what editor would sound like if he was trolling!


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 30, 2011)

Not that he does!


----------



## dylans (Jun 30, 2011)

agricola said:


> That is surely wrong though - many big businesses clearly do not accept that they have to pay or treat their workforce properly, yet they remain viable entities (you just have to look at Apple as an example of that, or any of a hundred firms that moved their operations overseas for solely profit reasons).  Nor do that many small businesses practice tax evasion - they cant afford either the penalties of failing (given that HMRC actually enforce the law against them), or the fees of the likes of KPMG (who are required to do it properly).


 
For sure. Doesn't make it right though.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 30, 2011)

Here's a distribution of 'gold plated' civil service pensions. Most people get a few hundred quid a month at best.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 30, 2011)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Here's a distribution of 'gold plated' civil service pensions. Most people get a few hundred quid a month at best.
> View attachment 16076


 
ooh- where's that from? i'd like to use it on facebook / twitter.


----------



## agricola (Jun 30, 2011)

As an aside, did any workplace beat the Met's CCC PCS branch for the percentage of people striking today?


----------



## gunneradt (Jun 30, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Which is why they need to unionise and organise.



you cant force SMEs to make pension contributions - get real


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 30, 2011)

gunneradt said:


> you cant force SMEs to make pension contributions - get real


 
Yes you can.


----------



## gunneradt (Jun 30, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Yes you can.


 
dont be a numpty - it's the employees responsibility to make pension contributions - if the employer can afford it, great  -if they can't, then tough.  I'm sure most employees would rather keep their jobs than have a pension that their employer contributed to


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 30, 2011)

Bosses can take paycuts.


----------



## gunneradt (Jun 30, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Bosses can take paycuts.


 
Right

Im guessing you've never run a business!!


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 30, 2011)

gunneradt said:


> Right
> 
> Im guessing you've never run a business!!


 
You guessed wrong.


----------



## gunneradt (Jun 30, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> You guessed wrong.


 
are you still running one and employing people?


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 30, 2011)

its Doctor Blagsta to you sonny


----------



## gunneradt (Jun 30, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> its Doctor Blagsta to you sonny


 
ha ha - at the end of the day businesses do what they can afford or it's P45 time!!!


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 1, 2011)

Come into this late but that is exactly what happens in the public sector as well.

Don't let me get in the way of your interaction with the 'doctor' though


----------



## yield (Jul 1, 2011)

gunneradt said:


> you cant force SMEs to make pension contributions - get real


Employer pension contributions are tax deductible.


----------



## gunneradt (Jul 1, 2011)

yield said:


> Employer pension contributions are tax deductible.


 
Employer pension contributions also have to be affordable

Employee pension contributions are also adffordable if you're self-employed


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 1, 2011)

gunneradt said:


> you cant force SMEs to make pension contributions - get real


 
Of course you can. Why couldn't you?


----------



## free spirit (Jul 1, 2011)

agricola said:


> As an aside, did any workplace beat the Met's CCC PCS branch for the percentage of people striking today?


loving the desperate way they're spinning the stats in that article...


> And only 27 per cent of schools were closed, with another quarter facing disruption – far less than the nine in ten schools which the unions predicted would be affected.


so, looks like the strikes been a failure then, but wait, what's this later in the article...


> In England, 27 per cent of local authority schools were closed, 24 per cent were partly open and 28 per cent fully open, with the remainder not having yet reported the situation.


so how come they don't actually mention the actual percentage of schools who've not reported? At 21% not reported, the picture looks a lot different when you consider that the most likely reason for a school not to report is that the school is actually shut, and there is nobody to report that it is shut.

So in reality it's likely to be more like 40-45% of schools were shut entirely, 25-30% were partially open, and 30-35% were fully open, or in their terms somewhere around 65-70% are likely to have been either shut or badly affected by the strike, and of the ones that remained fully open quite a few could still have been significantly affected but managed to muddle through to stay fully open.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 1, 2011)

gunneradt said:


> are you still running one and employing people?


 
No, it was a co-op. Closed some years ago.

Point is, that everyone should be entitled to a decent pension. If businesses _really_ can't afford it, then there needs to be a better state pension.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 1, 2011)




----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> No, it was a co-op. Closed some years ago.
> 
> Point is, that everyone should be entitled to a decent pension. If businesses _really_ can't afford it, then there needs to be a better state pension.


 
"Entitlements" have to be paid for.  Many small businesses are struggling and if they were forced to contribute to employees' pension funds they would not be economically viable and would go out of business.

The "better state pension" has to be paid for.  Where do you think the money should come from when the country is in massive debt?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 1, 2011)

How about the bankers who made massive profits and caused the massive debt rather than the majority of working people who didn't?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How about the bankers who made massive profits and caused the massive debt rather than the majority of working people who didn't?


 
The bankers certainly contributed to the financial debt, helped along by the utter mismanagement and overspending by the Labour government.

But how do you suggest they pay for the state pension?  How much should they pay and for how long (without damaging the banking system, of course)


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> "Entitlements" have to be paid for.  Many small businesses are struggling and if they were forced to contribute to employees' pension funds they would not be economically viable and would go out of business.
> 
> The "better state pension" has to be paid for.  Where do you think the money should come from when the country is in massive debt?



Close tax loopholes. Tax the rich. Rich are still getting richer, the idea that there is no money is a lie.


----------



## dennisr (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> What a ridiculous stereotype.  Most small businesses are struggling.



Hey, tosspot - you are the ridiculous stereotype. Crocodile tears for 'small businesses' do not wash when your only real interest is defending the bankers. Small busineses are being crushed by the way the banking system operates.

Officially I am a small business - i support the strikers 100%. Where does that fit in with your pathetic bullshit? - As the poster you were replying to said "if they want to make money from the labour of others then they must take responsibility for those employees" - if you don't you are not being the delusional 'entrprenor" you think you are just a parasite living on the backs of others.

Your last post gives the game away - your only concern is "how to avoid hurting the banking system" - the same banking system that is destroying small businesses you claimed earlier to care so much for. You and your system has no answers and your excuses are wearing pretty thin.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The bankers certainly contributed to the financial debt, helped along by the utter mismanagement and overspending by the Labour government.
> 
> But how do you suggest they pay for the state pension?  How much should they pay and for how long (without damaging the banking system, of course)


 
Labour managed budget far better than previous 30 years of Tories.


----------



## dennisr (Jul 1, 2011)

past caring said:


> I can certainly believe that's true of the small business that employs you.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The "better state pension" has to be paid for.  Where do you think the money should come from when the country is in massive debt?



I could tell you but you wouldn't like the answer.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 1, 2011)

This Torygraph blogger has never taught, yet he thinks that teachers can carry on till they die in the middle of a lesson


> I can see why teachers object to changes to pension plans they had signed up to, but I can’t see why so many union officials and union activist teachers are complaining about the impossibility of teachers working at the age of 68.
> 
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/cultur...-teachers-go-on-teaching-at-68-or-even-older/



Perhaps he should work for a year in an inner city comprehensive just to get a feel of things. Pillock.


----------



## dennisr (Jul 1, 2011)

Don't know if there are march figures in earlier posts but seen these ones: 30,000 marched in london, 3,000 in Liverpool, 5,000 Bristol, 4,000 Brighton, 1,000 Southampton, 600 Preston, 5,000 Birmingham, 800 Truro, 800 Exeter, 700 Norwich, 800 Cardiff, 5,000 Manchester, 800 Leicester, 200 Derby, 100 Lincoln, 1,000 Sheffield, 500 Ipswich, 400 Doncaster, 300 York, 300 Chester, 50 Rotherham, 200 Barnsely, 1,000 Hull.

On Brighton: "4000+ striking workers and members of the community marched through Brighton today to show their opposition to this Government’s austerity measures. Apparently it was the biggest march per head of population in the country. There was an incredibly positive mood"


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> I could tell you but you wouldn't like the answer.


 
Go for it.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

dennisr said:


> Hey, tosspot - you are the ridiculous stereotype. Crocodile tears for 'small businesses' do not wash when your only real interest is defending the bankers. Small busineses are being crushed by the way the banking system operates.
> 
> Officially I am a small business - i support the strikers 100%. Where does that fit in with your pathetic bullshit? - As the poster you were replying to said "if they want to make money from the labour of others then they must take responsibility for those employees" - if you don't you are not being the delusional 'entrprenor" you think you are just a parasite living on the backs of others.
> 
> Your last post gives the game away - your only concern is "how to avoid hurting the banking system" - the same banking system that is destroying small businesses you claimed earlier to care so much for. You and your system has no answers and your excuses are wearing pretty thin.


 
Don't be so rude and childish.  It's not necessary.

I'm not defending the bankers in any way.  I'm asking genuine questions.  It's interesting that people like you get all hot and bothered and abusive for no reason whatsoever.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Go for it.



There really is no point explaining anything to someone who lacks sincerity and honesty. You're already of the opinion that the public sector is bad and that it's bleeding you dry (a myth), so why bother?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Don't be so rude and childish.  It's not necessary.
> 
> I'm not defending the bankers in any way.  I'm asking genuine questions.  It's interesting that people like you get all hot and bothered and abusive for no reason whatsoever.


 
This is what I mean.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Where do you think the money should come from when the country is in massive debt?


 
It's probably worth pointing out that the national debt is lower than it has been for most of the last 300 years.  







But then, you'll doubtless ignore this, just as you've ignored every other fact that contradicts your argument.  You complain about people swearing at you, but it's no wonder people get frustrated when getting a straight answer from you is like trying to shovel smoke.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Don't be so rude and childish.  It's not necessary.
> 
> I'm not defending the bankers in any way.  I'm asking genuine questions.  It's interesting that people like you get all hot and bothered and abusive for no reason whatsoever.


 
Genuine questions, lol


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> There really is no point explaining anything to someone who lacks sincerity and honesty. You're already of the opinion that the public sector is bad and that it's bleeding you dry (a myth), so why bother?


 
I'm not of the opinion that the public sector is bad.  You're reading things into my posts that aren't there.

I can only conclude that you have no answer.


----------



## belboid (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Don't be so rude and childish.  It's not necessary.
> 
> I'm not defending the bankers in any way.  I'm asking genuine questions.  It's interesting that people like you get all hot and bothered and abusive for no reason whatsoever.


 
no reason?  Other than maybe your complete dishonesty. You have lied and talked demonstrable rubbish throughout this thread. Attempted to take a moral high ground when ever anyone has used a naughty word against you, but refuse to deal with simple facts, and bury your head to ignore anything you dont want to hear.  

It's really quite pathetic behaviour on your part.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I'm not of the opinion that the public sector is bad.  You're reading things into my posts that aren't there.
> 
> I can only conclude that you have no answer.


 
How about responding to the points that people put to you?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2011)

Uncomfortable truths, deal 'em lizzy.


----------



## Athos (Jul 1, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> It's probably worth pointing out that the national debt is lower than it has been for most of the last 300 years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Which shows that, in a historical context, we're not in anything like the dire straits the goverment claims.  And here is is a demonstration that that is not the case today, in comparison to other countries.  It's a smokescreen for an ideological programme.  Nothing more.

http://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clock


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> It's probably worth pointing out that the national debt is lower than it has been for most of the last 300 years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
From the same website:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/budget_ukgs.php


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> From the same website:
> http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/budget_ukgs.php


 
So what?


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> From the same website:
> http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/budget_ukgs.php


 
What point are you making?


----------



## belboid (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> From the same website:
> http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/budget_ukgs.php


 
which is meant to prove what?

it proves you can post a link, anything else?

you dont actually understand the figures shown, do you?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> From the same website:
> http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/budget_ukgs.php


 What does that show you liz?


----------



## belboid (Jul 1, 2011)

I see a theme developing


----------



## dylans (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I'm asking genuine questions.  .


But you are not though are you? A discussion involves you considering and replying to the content of peoples posts. Something you absolutely refuse to do, instead you just repeat the same dogmatic drivel totally oblivious to peoples posts. For example, earlier in this thread I posted the following, a post that others have since reposted, You have completely ignored it. So, now, for the third fucking time. 



> *Dylans *
> You are so concerned about your day off, are you concerned about your childs educational future? Are you happy about your kid being taught by demoralised resentful 68 year old teachers who don't want to be in the classroom? I'm not so with all respect fuck your day off you selfish cunt, this is a fight for our childrens future. If you want better wages and a better pension then join a union and fight for them, if you are not prepared to do that then don't take it out on those who are.
> 
> As for your wages being lower due to taxes, can you show me the posts where you complain about the £2 trillion pounds of our money gambled away by the financial banking system? Can you show me where you complain about trident nuclear weapons or the waste of money on endless wars. Can you show me where you complain about the outrageous bonuses paid to bankers after our taxes bailed them out. Can you show me where you complain about the cost of the Royal wedding or the enforced day off school for our kids to pay for that event? No? Then spare me your pathetic resentment at the fact that the people who educate your child should enjoy a decent standard of living.


----------



## gunneradt (Jul 1, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> No, it was a co-op. Closed some years ago.
> 
> Point is, that everyone should be entitled to a decent pension. If businesses _really_ can't afford it, then there needs to be a better state pension.


 
I dont disagree with you in principle.  Most larger businesses can afford to assist with pension payments - most SMEs can't.

Don't forget Gordon's raid on private pensions as soonas he became Chancellor -not looking such a good idea now


----------



## gunneradt (Jul 1, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Of course you can. Why couldn't you?


 
Because they may not be able to afford it


----------



## belboid (Jul 1, 2011)

gunneradt said:


> I dont disagree with you in principle.  Most larger businesses can afford to assist with pension payments - most SMEs can't.


 
Nonsense.  Most SME's simply choose not to make any payments, those that can't are (usually) simply crapply run businesses that wouldn't last anyway.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

dylans said:


> But you are not though are you? A discussion involves you considering and replying to the content of peoples posts. Something you absolutely refuse to do, instead you just repeat the same dogmatic drivel totally oblivious to peoples posts. For example, earlier in this thread I posted the following, a post that others have since reposted, You have completely ignored it. So, now, for the third fucking time.


 
You have absolutely no idea what my opinion is of wars, weapons, the royal wedding or the financial system.  So get off your high horse and don't try to project opinions onto me that I don't hold.


----------



## belboid (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> You have absolutely no idea what my opinion is of wars, weapons, the royal wedding or the financial system.  So get off your high horse and don't try to project opinions onto me that I don't hold.


 
You cant blame anyone for assuming things when you persistently and adamantly refuse to answer questions and points put to you.  It is all rather one way weith you isnt it (take, take, take.  typical tory).

It's why no one believes you actually have a child who couldn't go to school yesterday.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

belboid said:


> You cant blame anyone for assuming things when you persistently and adamantly refuse to answer questions and points put to you.  It is all rather one way weith you isnt it (take, take, take.  typical tory).
> 
> It's why no one believes you actually have a child who couldn't go to school yesterday.


 
????
Bizarre.  Schools were closed yesterday ....


----------



## belboid (Jul 1, 2011)

Yes, but you dont have a child, do you?  You made her up.  Sorry these 'sentence' things are a bit too complicated for you to understand


----------



## gunneradt (Jul 1, 2011)

belboid said:


> Nonsense.  Most SME's simply choose not to make any payments, those that can't are (usually) simply crapply run businesses that wouldn't last anyway.


 
The law requires them to provide a scheme , not make payments.  If you're telling me that the local corner shop can afford to make pension payments on the part of employees, teh you must know different types of businesses to me.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

Err .... I have a child.  

Not sure why you're being so rude, but it seems to be the norm on Urban. 

Anyway, if you chose not to believe me that's fine. I won't lose any sleep about it.


----------



## dennisr (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> You have absolutely no idea what my opinion is of wars, weapons, the royal wedding or the financial system.  So get off your high horse and don't try to project opinions onto me that I don't hold.


 
so fourth time for Dylans then?


----------



## dennisr (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Not sure why you're being so rude, but it seems to be the norm on Urban.



you know where the door is


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

dennisr said:


> you know where the door is



Thanks for proving my point.

But I'll continue posting as long as I wish, thanks.

Sorry you find it so difficult to cope with someone who dares to disagree with the nodding dogs on here.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2011)

_Uncomfortable truths._


----------



## belboid (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Err .... I have a child.
> 
> Not sure why you're being so rude, but it seems to be the norm on Urban.
> 
> Anyway, if you chose not to believe me that's fine. I won't lose any sleep about it.


 
I think lying about people, ignoring all the points which contradict yours (ie, all of them), making various things up (provably so, eg that 'most people are employed by small companies') and posting up random links that you cant explain - _all_ og them are far far ruder than anything anyone has said to/about you.

tell you what, if you go back and quickly cover all those points you've ignored up till now, then I'll believe you about your child.  If not, then I will just have to take it that you are admitting you haven't really got one, and are just being a sad little troll


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

belboid said:


> I think lying about people, ignoring all the points which contradict yours (ie, all of them), making various things up (provably so, eg that 'most people are employed by small companies') and posting up random links that you cant explain - _all_ og them are far far ruder than anything anyone has said to/about you.
> 
> tell you what, if you go back and quickly cover all those points you've ignored up till now, then I'll believe you about your child.  If not, then I will just have to take it that you are admitting you haven't really got one, and are just being a sad little troll


 
Here's the thing.  I don't give a damn whether you believe me or not.


----------



## dennisr (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Here's the thing.  I don't give a damn whether you believe me or not.


 
ditto


----------



## lighterthief (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Here's the thing.  I don't give a damn whether you believe me or not.


Fair play, stick to your guns   I don't think agree with your point of view, but strongly support your right to express it


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Sorry you find it so difficult to cope with someone who dares to disagree with the nodding dogs on here.


 


Rather than flailing around trying to insult other posters' intelligence, why don't you try and answer the questions that have quite reasonably been put to you?


----------



## dylans (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> You have absolutely no idea what my opinion is of wars, weapons, the royal wedding or the financial system.  So get off your high horse and don't try to project opinions onto me that I don't hold.


 
Well that's a bit puzzling because I have just had a quick browse of your posting history and about half of your posts are whinging about teachers pensions, several are about your cleaner and a few about how wonderful the Queen is. Now I admit it was a quick browse but I didn't see a single post complaining about the financial sector gambling away all our money. Not a single post about the loss of 2 trillion pounds by financial speculation. Which is a bit odd seeing that you have spent the last few days claiming the country is broke. I saw nothing about the squandering of our money on endless wars or the loss of a days education for your kid becuase of the enforced  Royal Wedding holiday. I also failed to see a single post complaining about trident or bankers bonuses or corporate tax avoidance.So judging from your posting history it is reasonable to assume that you give a shit about these very real drains on the economy and they are of less importance to you than offering decent pay and conditions to  the people who teach your children.


----------



## belboid (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Here's the thing.  I don't give a damn whether you believe me or not.


 
Cool.

You're a liar. You can't argue your point, so you make up some drivel to try and appear righteous.  But you're not clever enough to pull it off, and so have made yourself look even more stupid.  Come on now, what lie are you gonna come up with next?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

dylans said:


> Well that's a bit puzzling because I have just had a quick browse of your posting history and about half of your posts are whinging about teachers pensions, several are about your cleaner and a few about how wonderful the Queen is. Now I admit it was a quick browse but I didn't see a single post complaining about the financial sector gambling away all our money. Not a single post. I saw nothing about the squandering of our money on endless wars or the loss of a days education for your kid becuase of the enforced  Royal Wedding holiday. I also failed to see a single post complaining about trident or bankers bonuses or corporate tax avoidance.So judging from your posting history it is reasonable to assume that you give a shit about these very real drains on the economy and they are of less importance to you than offering decent pay and conditions to  the people who teach your children.


 
You'll be able to point me to my posts about how wonderful the queen is, I take it? 

I've never posted here about lots of subjects.  Doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on them.    I've never posted about how terrible beastiality is.  Doesn't mean I approve of it.


----------



## belboid (Jul 1, 2011)

We do know you approve of lying and being inherently dishonest tho, dont we?


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> But I'll continue posting as long as I wish, thanks.
> 
> Sorry you find it so difficult to cope with someone who dares to disagree with the nodding dogs on here.


 
if you responded to the points put to you, you'd get less abuse


----------



## dennisr (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> You'll be able to point me to my posts about how wonderful the queen is, I take it?
> 
> I've never posted here about lots of subjects.  Doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on them.    I've never posted about how terrible beastiality is.  Doesn't mean I approve of it.


 
Roughly translated this is one of those "you don't know about me so you cannot speak about me or my opinions"

on the other hand you can spout off your uninformed opinions about all sorts of shite you know nothing about can't you Lizzie?

Piss off you troll.


----------



## dennisr (Jul 1, 2011)

Short reports from around the country:
*"We need other unions, all the public sector, to come out together"*
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/ar...-massive-30-june-public-sector-pension-strike

West Midlands, Chester, Suffolk, Caerphilly, Merthyr Tydfil, Bradford, Brighton, Leeds, Ystrad Mynach, Warrington, Exeter, Newcastle, London, Sheffield, Hull, Rotherham, York, Grimsby, Barnsley, Huddersfield, Coventry, Keighley, Lincoln, Cardiff, PCS in DWP, Waltham Forest, North Staffordshire, Stafford, Walthamstow, Llanelli, Gower, Wormwood Scrubs (POA), Southend-on-Sea, Worcester, Doncaster, Nottinghamshire, Southampton, Liverpool, Bristol, Preston, Birmingham, Manchester, Truro, Salford, Bolton, West London, Aberystwyth, Hertfordshire, Norwich, Leicester, Derby, Greenwich, Oldham, Hackney, Taunton, Cambridge, Surrey...


----------



## dylans (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> You'll be able to point me to my posts about how wonderful the queen is, I take it?
> 
> I've never posted here about lots of subjects.  Doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on them.    I've never posted about how terrible beastiality is.  Doesn't mean I approve of it.


 
You can check your own posting history look at "the queen visits Ireland" where, strangely you offer no objection to the cost of that trip either. Look, you have posted dozens and dozens of posts over the past few days complaining that the living standards of teachers are too high and that the country can't afford to offer decent conditions to the people who educate our kids. Yet you have nothing to say about the very real waste of billions of pounds by the financial sector and the wars of this govt. It is clear where your sympathies are and that you think working people should pay for an economic crisis caused by the rich


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I've never posted about how terrible beastiality is.  Doesn't mean I approve of it.


 let's see, shall we? http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/threads/351524-animal-farm-bestiality


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

dylans said:


> You can check your own posting history look at "the queen visits Ireland" where, strangely you offer no objection to the cost of that trip either. Look, you have posted dozens and dozens of posts over the past few days complaining that the living standards of teachers are too high and that the country can't afford to offer decent conditions to the people who educate our kids. Yet you have nothing to say about the very real waste of billions of pounds by the financial sector and the wars of this govt. It is clear where your sympathies are.


 
I have never, ever posted anything about how wonderful the queen is.  So that was a lie on your part.

For your information I'm vehemently anti-monarchy and anti the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.  I'm disgusted and angry about the terrible waste by the financial sector, aided by the incompetence of the previous government.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I have never, ever posted anything about how wonderful the queen is.  So that was a lie on your part.
> 
> For your information I'm vehemently anti-monarchy and anti the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.  I'm disgusted and angry about the terrible waste by the financial sector, aided by the incompetence of the previous government.


yes yes but what are you in favour of?


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I have never, ever posted anything about how wonderful the queen is.  So that was a lie on your part.
> 
> For your information I'm vehemently anti-monarchy and anti the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.  I'm disgusted and angry about the terrible waste by the financial sector, aided by the incompetence of the previous government.



From this graph







you can see that Labour had more surplus, for longer that the Tories ever did.  You can also see that it only got out of control after banking collapse.


----------



## dylans (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I have never, ever posted anything about how wonderful the queen is.  So that was a lie on your part.
> 
> For your information I'm vehemently anti-monarchy and anti the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.  I'm disgusted and angry about the terrible waste by the financial sector, aided by the incompetence of the previous government.


 
Yes I can see that from your enormous amount of posts on these subjects


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

dylans said:


> Yes I can see that from your enormous amount of posts on these subjects


 
What is the point of asking me what I think of something, and then disbelieving me when I tell you?

No, I haven't posted about those subjects.  I haven't posted about loads of things.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> What is the point of asking me what I think of something, and then disbelieving me when I tell you?
> 
> No, I haven't posted about those subjects.  I haven't posted about loads of things.


 
let's keep it that way, eh? if your posts on this thread are anything to go by, you'd serve up a dog's dinner about the monarchy, iraq etc ad nauseam.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> What is the point of asking me what I think of something, and then disbelieving me when I tell you?
> 
> No, I haven't posted about those subjects.  I haven't posted about loads of things.


 
You're very rude.


----------



## agricola (Jul 1, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> you can see that Labour had more surplus, for longer that the Tories ever did.  You can also see that it only got out of control after banking collapse.


 
Brown followed the Tories spending plans until 2000, though.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 1, 2011)

agricola said:


> Brown followed the Tories spending plans until 2000, though.


 
Hmmmm...the Tories never actually managed as well though did they.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> You're very rude.


 
What's rude about that?


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> What's rude about that?


 
Your general attitude.  You don't respond to most of the points put to you, then complain when people get annoyed with you.


----------



## agricola (Jul 1, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Hmmmm...the Tories never actually managed as well though did they.


 
They would have if they had won the 1997 election, but as it was Brown benefitted from Clarke's planning.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 1, 2011)

agricola said:


> They would have if they had won the 1997 election, but as it was Brown benefitted from Clarke's planning.


 
Look at the previous Tory record.  Not very good.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Your general attitude.  You don't respond to most of the points put to you, then complain when people get annoyed with you.


 
I'm not complaining.  I think a lot of posters on here are unintentionally very funny!


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I'm not complaining.  I think a lot of posters on here are unintentionally very funny!


 
Dishonest too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I'm not complaining.  I think a lot of posters on here are unintentionally very funny!


 
yes yes but what are you in favour of?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> yes yes but what are you in favour of?


 
Well, I like champagne and days out and holidays and buying new clothes and shoes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Well, I like champagne and days out and holidays and buying new clothes and shoes.


 
you're both shallow and rude


----------



## agricola (Jul 1, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Look at the previous Tory record.  Not very good.


 
That is what the graph appears to show - but for a start the trend in lower deficits (leading eventually to a surplus) was clearly begun after Clarke took office in 1993, plus of course there is the point that Brown didnt actually do anything serious to change the Tory spending plans until 2000.  The credit for that surplus should really belong to Clarke.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jul 1, 2011)

gunneradt said:


> I dont disagree with you in principle.  Most larger businesses can afford to assist with pension payments - most SMEs can't.


 
Every SME in Australia has to pay  the superannuation of its employees so it can be done. Having said that we effectively have 0% unemployment (among whites and asians which is basically all the government cares about) and my local bakery's employment costs mean a Christmas Pudding costs $52.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

agricola said:


> That is what the graph appears to show - but for a start the trend in lower deficits (leading eventually to a surplus) was clearly begun after Clarke took office in 1993, plus of course there is the point that Brown didnt actually do anything serious to change the Tory spending plans until 2000.  The credit for that surplus should really belong to Clarke.


 
True.  

The tories usually hand over a reasonably healthy economy to Labour, who then manage to mess it up.  It happens over and over again.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> True.
> 
> The tories usually hand over a reasonably healthy economy to Labour, who then manage to mess it up.  It happens over and over again.


 yeh because of course labour caused the oil problems in the 1970s and of course labour caused the banking shit a few years back. 

if you're not thick you do a fucking grand job of appearing it.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> True.
> 
> The tories usually hand over a reasonably healthy economy to Labour, who then manage to mess it up.  It happens over and over again.


 
How did new labour mess up the economy?


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> True.
> 
> The tories usually hand over a reasonably healthy economy to Labour, who then manage to mess it up.  It happens over and over again.


 
Was the banking collapse the fault of Labour?


----------



## agricola (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> True.
> 
> The tories usually hand over a reasonably healthy economy to Labour, who then manage to mess it up.  It happens over and over again.


 
It doesnt happen "over and over again", though congratulations on using one of the two favourite myths of the internet tories.  The "homeowners dont have any rights / stab burglars in the face" thread is here, if you want to use the other one.


----------



## belboid (Jul 1, 2011)

funny how lizzie is so keen to change the subject.  Really, what's the point?  She's an ignorant liar who will never admit to not knowing what she is talking about.


----------



## Athos (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> True.
> 
> The tories usually hand over a reasonably healthy economy to Labour, who then manage to mess it up.  It happens over and over again.


 
A shame.  You pushed it too far, there.  Even the most rabid Tory would realise this is nonsense, which I think gives your game away.  You are a troll.  And, in fairness to you, until this post, you were a reasonably effective one; you said enough to produce ire, but not so much to give yourself away - you got some good posters to engage for a reasonable amount of time.  Well done.

Goodbye.


----------



## agricola (Jul 1, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Was the banking collapse the fault of Labour?


 
They do hold at least a portion of the blame for it, yes.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 1, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> From this graph
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A better graph is one that shows debt as a percentage to GDP. http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/d...=G0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&color=c&title=

As you can see, the last labour govt had a better record on keeping the deficit down than Magie. The banking collapse is an obvious exception, but not really Browns' fault.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 1, 2011)

agricola said:


> They do hold at least a portion of the blame for it, yes.


 
In what way?


----------



## belboid (Jul 1, 2011)

agricola said:


> They would have if they had won the 1997 election, but as it was Brown benefitted from Clarke's planning.


 
tosh.  They would have had a completely different taxation regime, which would have led to significantly less income, leading to (probably) smaller surpluses and greater deficits later


----------



## Combustible (Jul 1, 2011)

Most ridiculous strike story?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...anch-sat-park-bench-teachers-went-strike.html


----------



## belboid (Jul 1, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> In what way?


 
wel, in doing fuck all to stop the banking madness. not that the tory scum or liberal failures would have done anything either.

what is m ore laughable about claims the tories had better plans, is that in 2007 _Osborne_ was promising to follow Labour spending plans in the first years after the election!  So they can't have objected to the levels of spending that much.


----------



## belboid (Jul 1, 2011)

Combustible said:


> Most ridiculous strike story?
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...anch-sat-park-bench-teachers-went-strike.html


 
wouldn't be surprised to find EoY claiming that was her daughter


----------



## agricola (Jul 1, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> In what way?


 
That whole light-touch regulation, chum up with the bankers as long as they give us money, thing for a start.  The FSA has also not exactly been a success.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 1, 2011)

agricola said:


> That whole light-touch regulation, chum up with the bankers as long as they give us money, thing for a start.  The FSA has also not exactly been a success.


 
Agreed.  That was a continuation of Tory policy.  It wasn't the cause of the collapse though, but it certainly contributed to the effects.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 1, 2011)

Combustible said:


> Most ridiculous strike story?
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...anch-sat-park-bench-teachers-went-strike.html


 
The comments of DM readers show that even they are aghast at the depths of that story. Bizzare to say the least.


----------



## agricola (Jul 1, 2011)

belboid said:


> tosh.  They would have had a completely different taxation regime, which would have led to significantly less income, leading to (probably) smaller surpluses and greater deficits later


 
That is a bit of a leap - there would be very little reason for them to change course after winning that election, especially when the main reason for winning that election would have been their handling of the economy.  What possible incentive would they have had to do so?


----------



## belboid (Jul 1, 2011)

uhh, they _lost_ because of their handling of the economy. You recall black wednesday (or was hat one a tuesday?) dont you?

They wouldn't have brought in the windfall tax, and would have been under constant pressure to cut other taxes. All of which would have meant less income.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> In what way?


 
Brown's semi-Keynesian "ideology" in which he follows the theory by spending madly in a recession to stimulate the economy, but in times of strong growth he ignores the counter-cyclical aspect of the theory and ... erm ... spends madly. Perhaps he was deliberately avoiding ideology by reverting to idiocy.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 1, 2011)

belboid said:


> wouldn't be surprised to find EoY claiming that was her daughter


 
Shame it wasn't EoY.

A few points after reading this thread - the tax payer funds ALL pensions for EVERYONE. Tesco pensions are paid for by the money customers spend there, same as everywhere in the private sector. We pay for a service/good and some of that money (nowhere near enough) is used to fund the wages and benefits of the workers who provide them - same in the public and private sector.

I have a private sector pension from a job I left a few years ago. It's a final salary scheme, we got 1/60th of our final salary for every year of service. And it was non-contributory - employees made NO contributions whatsoever.

About EoY's ignorant nonsense about public sector wages being higher on average. Why do you think that is? Could it be that the public sector has contracted out all the work performed by low paid workers (cleaning, driving, even a lot of admin work)? This skews the average by lowering the private sector average and increasing the public sector average. When you compare like with like a private sector worker will almost without exception get paid more.

I note that EoY claimed this was a "selfish" strike performed by people who didn't care about the children nor the parents who would be "forced" to take a day off. Then "she" (I suspect it's actually a sad bloke with no friends sitting in his mum's basement) says that the person who normally looks after her child when she's not at school is on strike!

So the ungrateful sod is calling someone who looks after her child out of the kindness of her heart a selfish parasite who doesn't care about children or their parents.

If you're not a troll you're a disgusting excuse for a human being EoY. If you are a troll I suggest you go and get a life.


----------



## belboid (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Perhaps he was deliberately avoiding ideology by reverting to idiocy.


 
He should have called you in, with your expertise


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Brown's semi-Keynesian "ideology" in which he follows the theory by spending madly in a recession to stimulate the economy, but in times of strong growth he ignores the counter-cyclical aspect of the theory and ... erm ... spends madly. Perhaps he was deliberately avoiding ideology by reverting to idiocy.


 
What evidence do you have that Brown was following Keynes?


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 1, 2011)

oops, double post


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 1, 2011)

what's a 'semi-keynesian'?


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 1, 2011)

You can see from here






that Labour's debt was far lower than the Tories ever was.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Brown's semi-Keynesian "ideology" in which he follows the theory by spending madly in a recession to stimulate the economy, but in times of strong growth he ignores the counter-cyclical aspect of the theory and ... erm ... spends madly. Perhaps he was deliberately avoiding ideology by reverting to idiocy.



Except that he _reduced_ the debt when he was Chancellor. Did you take a look at the link I provided?

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/d...=G0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&color=c&title=

EDIT: Blagsta got there first. Quick with their fingers are Brummies.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Shame it wasn't EoY.
> 
> A few points after reading this thread - the tax payer funds ALL pensions for EVERYONE. Tesco pensions are paid for by the money customers spend there, same as everywhere in the private sector. We pay for a service/good and some of that money (nowhere near enough) is used to fund the wages and benefits of the workers who provide them - same in the public and private sector.


 
Dear oh dear.  Economics not your strong suit?


----------



## agricola (Jul 1, 2011)

belboid said:


> uhh, they _lost_ because of their handling of the economy. You recall black wednesday (or was hat one a tuesday?) dont you?
> 
> They wouldn't have brought in the windfall tax, and would have been under constant pressure to cut other taxes. All of which would have meant less income.


 
Yes, but the hypothetical scenario was that they won the 1997 election, and the only likely reason (beyond Blair being prematurely exposed as a corrupt, mendacious and generally evil bastard) for them to have won would have been that their post-1993 economic policy was a success, as it indeed was.  As for cutting taxes = less income, that is not necessarily a given, and in any case might not have mattered if they didnt raise government spending.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Dear oh dear.  Economics not your strong suit?


 
It's certainly not yours.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 1, 2011)

agricola said:


> Yes, but the hypothetical scenario was that they won the 1997 election, and the only likely reason (beyond Blair being prematurely exposed as a corrupt, mendacious and generally evil bastard) for them to have won would have been that *their post-1993 economic policy was a success, as it indeed was*.  As for cutting taxes = less income, that is not necessarily a given, and in any case might not have mattered if they didnt raise government spending.



Not when looked at in terms of % of GDP.


----------



## agricola (Jul 1, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> You can see from here
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
er - thats not what that graph shows, look at 1991.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Brown's semi-Keynesian "ideology" in which he follows the theory by spending madly in a recession to stimulate the economy, but in times of strong growth he ignores the counter-cyclical aspect of the theory and ... erm ... spends madly. Perhaps he was deliberately avoiding ideology by reverting to idiocy.


 
Whereas you've managed to turn idiocy _into_ an ideology.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Dear oh dear.  Economics not your strong suit?


 what's a semi-keynesian?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> You can see from here
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
It doesn't show that, actually.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 1, 2011)

doesn't show what a semi-keynesian is, anyway


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 1, 2011)

agricola said:


> er - thats not what that graph shows, look at 1991.


 
OK, yes, I'll give you that.  Tories managed it for one year, then debt grew again.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Dear oh dear.  Economics not your strong suit?


 
Tell me where I'm going wrong, please. It all comes from the tax payers' pocket - in the case of the public sector it's in taxes, in the case of the private sector it's the money paid for goods and services. So do you want to push down the wages and benefits of Tesco workers so your groceries will be cheaper? Actually, don't answer that one, I'm sure you do.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> It doesn't show that, actually.


 
It disproves your claim that Labour 'spent madly' in the boom times.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> It doesn't show that, actually.


 
Again, I'll give you that.  It does show though, that the idea that Labour spent recklessly is a lie.


----------



## agricola (Jul 1, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Not when looked at in terms of % of GDP.


 
No, but then judging the success of an economic policy on one criteria alone is doomed to failure.  Clarke massively cut the annual deficit, cut taxes, reduced unemployment, oversaw a fall in inflation and even set the course for the % of GDP fall that you are so keen to give Brown the credit for.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 1, 2011)

Maybe if EoY did some work instead of trolling Urban all day "her" employer wouldn't be struggling so much and might be able to offer "her" a decent pension.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Maybe if EoY did some work instead of trolling Urban all day "her" employer wouldn't be struggling so much and might be able to offer "her" a decent pension.


 
Why the "her"?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 1, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Maybe if EoY did some work instead of trolling Urban all day "her" employer wouldn't be struggling so much and might be able to offer "her" a decent pension.


 more of the opinion that what happened to boxer in animal farm should happen to 'her'. imvho.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Why the "her"?



Because I think you're probably a sweaty 40 year old male virgin.


----------



## agricola (Jul 1, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Again, I'll give you that.  It does show though, that the idea that Labour spent recklessly is a lie.


 
Thats the thing though - Labour *did* spend recklessly, as even a brief look at what they actually spent the money on shows.  If they had, for example, renationalised the railways, not relied exclusively on PFI, exercised even a modicum of control over contracts and purchasing, implemented tax credits properly, not invaded Iraq, restored the full grant for students or done many other things then they would have used their time - and our money - a lot better than they actually did.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Why the "her"?


 the 'elizabeth' you daft 'bint'


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 1, 2011)

This one's even better. Look! We are down to the good ol' days of nineteenth century spending levels. (Apart from the first 70 years of course)


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> the 'elizabeth' you daft 'bint'


 
No .... I wondered why Spiney Norman put "her" in inverted comments when he said something about me.

No need to be rude, by the way.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 1, 2011)

agricola said:


> Thats the thing though - Labour *did* spend recklessly, as even a brief look at what they actually spent the money on shows.  If they had, for example, renationalised the railways, not relied exclusively on PFI, exercised even a modicum of control over contracts and purchasing, implemented tax credits properly, not invaded Iraq, restored the full grant for students or done many other things then they would have used their time - and our money - a lot better than they actually did.


 
I'd agree with that. But when the likes of EoY talk about reckless spending they mean Labour spent too much full stop - not that it wasn't spent wisely enough. Which is clearly a load of arse.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No need to be rude, by the way.


 
So why are you calling the person who looks after your child for free when you cannot selfish? Why do you want her to be impoverished in her old age? Seems rude to me.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Because I think you're probably a sweaty 40 year old male virgin.


 
Weird.  I can assure you I'm a woman.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'd agree with that. But when the likes of EoY talk about reckless spending they mean Labour spent too much full stop - not that it wasn't spent wisely enough. Which is clearly a load of arse.


 
Oh, you think the millions spent on bombing Iraq was "spent wisely"?

okay.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No .... I wondered why Spiney Norman put "her" in inverted comments when he said something about me.
> 
> No need to be rude, by the way.


 
now about that semi-keynesian bit...


----------



## ymu (Jul 1, 2011)

That's my version of the debt as a % of GDP graph (thanks to Kanda for putting me onto the dataset, I should update it again, really - will do soon, the link will update automatically).

Let's just talk through what it shows us.

See that massive spike in the small inset graph, which shows almost a century up to 2008.

That tells us where 1939 to 1945 is.

You can see the steep drop just before that spike as Keynesian policies were tried after austerity had failed ('austerity' and 'trickle down' are both Hooverian terms, used back then).

Then the massive spike in war spending, and then a dramatic post-war drop in the ratio as the benefits of the spending and investment in rebuilding infrastructure put money in peacetime pockets, and it circulated, with a boom in technology and consumer goods, much of it created off the back of both discoveries made but also skills acquired during the war.

Then Thatcher comes along and it gets all bouncy. 

Labour inherited a situation that was more or less identical to the one Thatcher inherited and only briefly improved before the impact of her policies bled through. And she had North Sea Oil.

You can see that Brown's attempts to 'abolish boom and bust' (by which I think he did mean a quasi-Keynesian approach of saving in the boom years to spend in the bust) does appear to have flattened the curve, but maybe that is just the effect of artificially suppressing bubbles.

The slight increase just before Northern Rock collapsed is partly North Sea Oil income declining (I think free spirit has posted the graphs for this elsewhere) and also perhaps the first warning signs of a problem in the economy.

The rest is all bankers bailout (direct reported cost so far ~£150bn) and the cost of increased benefits payments and reduced tax take from businesses which have gone bust and workers who have been made unemployed. Because the bankers fucked up.

There is no way you can make the argument that Labour fucked up with high spending. Apart from anything else, in 2007 Osbourne was promising to keep Labour's spending plans in place for three years. They had no problem back then, it is ludicrous to try and claim that it is Labour's fault when they wholeheartedly supported Labour's policy until it all went tits up.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Weird.  I can assure you I'm a woman.


 
Since you've proven yourself to be incapable of telling the truth or engaging honestly I won't take your word for it.


----------



## agricola (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Oh, you think the millions spent on bombing Iraq was "spent wisely"?
> 
> okay.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Weird.  I can assure you I'm a woman.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Oh, you think the millions spent on bombing Iraq was "spent wisely"?
> 
> okay.


 
Are you really that thick? I'm agreeing that it wasn't spent wisely. Pillock.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Are you really that thick? I'm agreeing that it wasn't spent wisely. Pillock.


 
Okay, sorry.  I misread that.


----------



## agricola (Jul 1, 2011)

ymu said:


> There is no way you can make the argument that Labour fucked up. Apart from anything else, in 2007 Osbourne was promising to keep Labour's spending plans in place for three years. They had no problem back then, it is ludicrous to try and claim that it is Labour's fault when they wholeheartedly supported Labour's policy until it all went tits up.


 
The problem with that point is that the reason why Osborne (and Cameron) were claiming that was because of several reasons unconnected with economic policy, not the least of which is that they were desperately trying to detoxify the "Tory brand", which of course meant not being seen to cut spending.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 1, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Are you really that thick? I'm agreeing that it wasn't spent wisely. Pillock.


 
No need to get nasty.


----------



## belboid (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No need to be rude, by the way.


 
There's no need for you to lie and dissemble and deliberately distort, nor for you to ignore and pretend, but you've done all of them in almost every post.  So why dont you just fuck off to your fictitious child you worthless lump of shit?


----------



## belboid (Jul 1, 2011)

agricola said:


> The problem with that point is that the reason why Osborne (and Cameron) were claiming that was because of several reasons unconnected with economic policy, not the least of which is that they were desperately trying to detoxify the "Tory brand", which of course meant not being seen to cut spending.


 
And because they thought the policies were working.  You cannot deny that.


----------



## lighterthief (Jul 1, 2011)

belboid said:


> So why dont you just fuck off to your fictitious child you worthless lump of shit?


That's a killer argument, yes sir.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

belboid said:


> There's no need for you to lie and dissemble and deliberately distort, nor for you to ignore and pretend, but you've done all of them in almost every post.  So why dont you just fuck off to your fictitious child you worthless lump of shit?


 
Oh dear.  Temper temper!


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 1, 2011)

[/enjoyable conversation]


----------



## belboid (Jul 1, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> That's a killer argument, yes sir.


 
there's no point arguing with him tho is there?  he just ignores any points made and repeats his lies. So 'fuck off' is a very generous thing to say to him really. Politer than anything he has come out with


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

belboid said:


> there's no point arguing with him tho is there?  he just ignores any points made and repeats his lies. So 'fuck off' is a very generous thing to say to him really. Politer than anything he has come out with


 
Why do you think I'm a man?  Why don't you believe I've got a child?  I find this really weird.


----------



## belboid (Jul 1, 2011)

Fuck off, you worthless lying wanker.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

belboid said:


> Fuck off, you worthless lying wanker.


----------



## dylans (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Why do you think I'm a man?  Why don't you believe I've got a child?  I find this really weird.


 
I believe you have a child. I am just amazed that you don't love your child enough to want him/her to have a decent education just so you can save a bit of tax. Do you object to him/her having a local GP, dentist, optician too?

I feel sorry for your kid having such a selfish neglectful parent that  cares so little about her child's future they are happy for them to be taught by second rate, underpaid, demoralised, resentful 68 year old  teachers pushing zimmer frames and watching the clock


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

So you're saying that if the teachers have to pay a bit more into their pension, they will refuse to give my child a decent education?


----------



## belboid (Jul 1, 2011)

christ, you cant make one post without dishonesty, can you?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

belboid said:


> christ, you cant make one post without dishonesty, can you?


 
I'm trying to have a discussion.  Why don't you join in, instead of making silly personal comments?


----------



## dylans (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> So you're saying that if the teachers have to pay a bit more into their pension, they will refuse to give my child a decent education?


 
I'm saying that if the profession doesn't offer the most attractive pay and conditions possible then it will fail to attract the best people available. They will take their skills elsewhere. It's not rocket science. You get what you pay for. I want my child to be taught by the best and so should you.


----------



## belboid (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I'm trying to have a discussion.  Why don't you join in, instead of making silly personal comments?


because when I did join in, you chose to ignore any points made, to deliberately distort whatever is said in response to you, and to make things up, you are explicitly NOT 'joining in', so why should anyone play your games?  You are a proven liar, so you should, to be fair, fuck off.


----------



## ymu (Jul 1, 2011)

agricola said:


> The problem with that point is that the reason why Osborne (and Cameron) were claiming that was because of several reasons unconnected with economic policy, not the least of which is that they were desperately trying to detoxify the "Tory brand", which of course meant not being seen to cut spending.


 
Yes. Now, what do you dispute about my analysis of the data, which is the primary evidence my argument is based on? I was referring to Osbourne's deceit, not his competence as chancellor.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

dylans said:


> I'm saying that if the profession doesn't offer the most attractive pay and conditions possible then it will fail to attract the best people available. They will take their skills elsewhere. It's not rocket science. You get what you pay for.


 
Teachers have never earned the most attractive pay and conditions possible, though.  So does this mean that the current teachers are second-rate?


----------



## past caring (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Weird.  I can assure you I'm a woman.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2011)

It's quite amusing how so many of you have to insult me, just because you disagree with me.  It's very childish.


----------



## belboid (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> It's quite amusing how so many of you have to insult me, just because I am a lying shit.  It's very childish.


 
 corrected for you


----------



## dylans (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Teachers have never earned the most attractive pay and conditions possible, though.  So does this mean that the current teachers are second-rate?


 
That's an absurd argument because you are arguing it from a point of view of wanting to worsen pay and conditions.  I think the profession has many wonderful people in it. My kids teachers do a great job and my son loves his school. That said, clearly the profession could do better yes but worsening pay and conditions will only make things worse. We should be paying teachers more and offering better conditions in order to attract the best people possible not attacking them and driving the best people out of the profession


----------



## ymu (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Teachers have never earned the most attractive pay and conditions possible, though.  So does this mean that the current teachers are second-rate?


Many, I would say most, people value security rather more highly than money. That's not to say they want to be poor, but a secure job and reasonable pay would be more attractive to most than a more risky occupation and a bigger house.

Which is why you don't fuck with pensions when they have been part of pay negotiation. Pay is considerably lower in the public sector, and that has been agreed to in return for more flexible working conditions, fairer sick pay and a secure pension. You cannot take those things away without also renegotiating pay and backdating the pay award for any elements that have been reneged on.

Do that, and I'll be happy. I could do with a nice fat cheque right now.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 1, 2011)

ymu said:


> There is no way you can make the argument that Labour fucked up with high spending. Apart from anything else, in 2007 Osbourne was promising to keep Labour's spending plans in place for three years. They had no problem back then, it is ludicrous to try and claim that it is Labour's fault when they wholeheartedly supported Labour's policy until it all went tits up.



Tbf Labour did make some horrendous fuck-ups.  Agricola is quite right to point out that a lot of the money Labour did spend, it spent badly.  Tipping huge amounts of money into the privatised railway rather than grasping the nettle and renationalising the lot (for British Rail in its later years was a lot more efficient and required far less of a subsidy than the railway does now) is one good example.  Another is the PFI, which even the Major government had realised was a bad idea since, although it kept the initial outlay on schools and hospitals (which was much needed after eighteen years of Tory neglect!) off the government's books, it tied the Treasury into very long-term commitments of money for no benefit.  One could also point to the way Labour unquestioningly accepted the Tory idea that the NHS (and much of the rest of the public sector) should ape the private sector, with a split between clients and providers and an internal market, leading to endless bureaucracy and all kinds of unnecessary costs.

Seems to me, in fact, that where Labour did fuck up, it usually did so by trying to be Tory.  Which is why the Tory critique of Labour's record in office is just hypocrisy, given that a) as you point out, Osborne was pledging to match Labour's spending plans, and b) it's extremely difficult to argue that a Tory government over the last decade would have done much better than Labour at cooling down the overheated housing market or to regulate the over-powerful and irresponsible financial services sector any more tightly, both of which left us badly exposed to the recession.


----------



## agricola (Jul 1, 2011)

belboid said:


> And because they thought the policies were working.  You cannot deny that.


 
That all depends on what you mean by "working" - economically (and morally, tbh) it was fairly obvious that the policies they (Labour) were embarking on were wrong, but politically it was not yet obvious - and as I said above, Cameron et al were focused on the politics, not the economics.


----------



## belboid (Jul 1, 2011)

it wasn't obvious at all at the time, many, if not most, mainstream economists went basically along with what Brown was doing


----------



## ymu (Jul 1, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> Tbf Labour did make some horrendous fuck-ups.  Agricola is quite right to point out that a lot of the money Labour did spend, it spent badly.  Tipping huge amounts of money into the privatised railway rather than grasping the nettle and renationalising the lot (for British Rail in its later years was a lot more efficient and required far less of a subsidy than the railway does now) is one good example.  Another is the PFI, which even the Major government had realised was a bad idea since, although it kept the initial outlay on schools and hospitals (which was much needed after eighteen years of Tory neglect!) off the government's books, it tied the Treasury into very long-term commitments of money for no benefit.  One could also point to the way Labour unquestioningly accepted the Tory idea that the NHS (and much of the rest of the public sector) should ape the private sector, with a split between clients and providers and an internal market, leading to endless bureaucracy and all kinds of unnecessary costs.
> 
> Seems to me, in fact, that where Labour did fuck up, it usually did so by trying to be Tory.  Which is why the Tory critique of Labour's record in office is just hypocrisy, given that a) as you point out, Osborne was pledging to match Labour's spending plans, and b) it's extremely difficult to argue that a Tory government over the last decade would have done much better than Labour at cooling down the overheated housing market or regulate the over-powerful and irresponsible financial services sector any more tightly, both of which left us badly exposed to the recession.


 
I agree. But that wording - and it could have been better - refers to the specific question of the size of the debt relative to GDP. It just wasn't a problem. It was at a very low level, lower than most of the preceding century. Spending was not too high. It may have been relatively high, but that boosts GDP - that's why we spend. It was being spent badly in many ways, I agree, but it was doing the job of boosting GDP, albeit on a very short-termist outlook (inevitable if the polity has a short-term electoral cycle).


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 1, 2011)

belboid said:


> it wasn't obvious at all at the time, many, if not most, mainstream economists went basically along with what Brown was doing


 
True ... and all along it was the much maligned ol' left warning that none of this was sustainable.  I remember arguing with someone in 2003 or thereabouts who described me as an outdated left-wing dinosaur who didn't understand the modern economy, simply because I pointed out that personal debt (to cover for dstagnant real wages in many cases) was getting out of hand, and that in trying to introduce trendy market mechanisms to public sevrices Labour was making them less efficient and more costly than if they were simply run as old-fashioned hierarchical organisations.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 1, 2011)

agricola said:


> *No, but then judging the success of an economic policy on one criteria alone is doomed to failure.*  Clarke massively cut the annual deficit, cut taxes, reduced unemployment, oversaw a fall in inflation and even set the course for the % of GDP fall that you are so keen to give Brown the credit for.



Indeed.  Which is why all the current focus on "the deficit" is nonsense.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 1, 2011)

agricola said:


> Thats the thing though - Labour *did* spend recklessly, as even a brief look at what they actually spent the money on shows.  If they had, for example, renationalised the railways, not relied exclusively on PFI, exercised even a modicum of control over contracts and purchasing, implemented tax credits properly, not invaded Iraq, restored the full grant for students or done many other things then they would have used their time - and our money - a lot better than they actually did.


 
Can't disagree with you really.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 1, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No .... I wondered why Spiney Norman put "her" in inverted comments when he said something about me.
> 
> *No need to be rude, by the way.*



You should take your own advice.


----------



## ymu (Jul 1, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Indeed.  Which is why all the current focus on "the deficit" is nonsense.


 
Exactly. You can't have it both ways.

The error was not re-regulating the banks, PFI, allowing wages to fall so far by using tax credits to make up the difference but not controlling runaway reward packages at the top.

There's a very good reason why all the focus is on the deficit. It's the way to make us pay for their greed. Fuck that.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 1, 2011)

Seems that the reality of strikes in the civil service was indeed downplayed by both the news, govt and DWP/Civil Service bigwigs. 
I got an e-mail from DWP 'Office for Scotland' that showed the state of offices yesterday up here in Scotland. The used a 'traffic light' system to describe the state of the offices:-

Closed - Office closed and non-operational       (NB: Closed offices are also red rated)					
Red - Services severely disrupted or non operational					
Amber - Services reduced or partly operational					
Green - Services largely or completely unaffected

For the whole of DWP Scotland it was...

23 Green	
30 Amber	
44 Red	
4  Black

So the vast majority of offices were affected, contrary to media reports. My office was classed as 'Amber' ie 'Services reduced or partly operational' However an HEO in here told me there was 90 staff (including managers) out of over 1300 in work yesterday. So, less than 10% staff in, is not severely disrupted? It's also worth noting that ALL the offices classified as 'Red' were open, but incapable of providing a service. Gives a little bit of background to the claims on the TV yesterday....


----------



## past caring (Jul 1, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> My office was classed as 'Amber' ie 'Services reduced or partly operational' However an HEO in here told me there was 90 staff (including managers) out of over 1300 in work yesterday. So, less than 10% staff in, is not severely disrupted?



You'd almost think they were trying to provide the evidence that further reductions in staffing can be sustained without affecting service.....


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 1, 2011)

ymu said:


> I agree. But that wording - and it could have been better - refers to the specific question of the size of the debt relative to GDP. It just wasn't a problem. It was at a very low level, lower than most of the preceding century. Spending was not too high. It may have been relatively high, but that boosts GDP - that's why we spend. It was being spent badly in many ways, I agree, but it was doing the job of boosting GDP, albeit on a very short-termist outlook (inevitable if the polity has a short-term electoral cycle).


 
This is true, although I'd modify it slightly.  Spending wasn't too high (although as already rehearsed not all of it was money well spent) but because Labour were desperate not to be seen to be sticking up taxes (again, they were trying to be Tory!), not enough tax was being raised to back it.  As a result they were running a budget deficit before the recession, which wasn't sensible since it was only likely to grow when the economy contracted.

Not, of course, that that legitimises the Tories' strategy now.  It's no coincidence that the economy is flatlining as the spending cuts, and their knock-on effect on demand, kick in...



ymu said:


> There's a very good reason why all the focus is on the deficit. It's the way to make us pay for their greed. Fuck that.



Quite.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 1, 2011)

past caring said:


> You'd almost think they were trying to provide the evidence that further reductions in staffing can be sustained without affecting service.....


 
Perish the thought, but I wouldn't put it past them.... Mind you there was virtually zero work done it was barely affected.... Hehehehe


----------



## ymu (Jul 1, 2011)

Yes, I agree with all of that. They were too scared of the propaganda myths about the economy.

It's all very Ramsey McDonald, really. Like Labour were on a borrowed majority as long as they didn't scare the horses. But this time, self-inflicted.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 1, 2011)

ymu said:


> It's all very Ramsey McDonald, really. Like Labour were on a borrowed majority as long as they didn't scare the horses. But this time, self-inflicted.


 
Yup.  That massive majority in 1997 was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change things decisively for the better, and Labour squandered most of it.  It's sickening. 

Arguably worse is the fact that supposedly centre-left parties presided over all of this neoliberal nonsense all across Europe, and it's their political credibility that's been wrecked by the recession.  Much as many of those centre-left parties were and are rubbish, the conservative parties who've been able to exploit the situation are in most cases worse...


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 1, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> Yup.  That massive majority in 1997 was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change things decisively for the better, and Labour squandered most of it.  It's sickening.


 
But as you say, there was the promise not to raise taxes, that was the reason for the massive majority. So really they had no mandate to change things for what you and I might call the better.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 1, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> But as you say, there was the promise not to raise taxes, that was the reason for the massive majority. So really they had no mandate to change things for what you and I might call the better.



That pledge not to raise taxes is pretty much what I mean when I say Labour were trying to be Tory.  They shouldn't have made it.  

I don't for a minute believe that they wouldn't have secured a thumping majority at the 1997 election either way, given the discredited Tory government they were up against and the fact that they were way ahead in the opinion polls well before John Smith died and Blair started pulling the party much more overtly to the right.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 1, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> That pledge not to raise taxes is pretty much what I mean when I say Labour were trying to be Tory.  They shouldn't have made it.
> 
> I don't for a minute believe that they wouldn't have secured a thumping majority at the 1997 election either way, given the discredited Tory government they were up against and the fact that they were way ahead in the opinion polls well before John Smith died and Blair started pulling the party much more overtly to the right.



I wouldn't be too sure, Labour were getting good at being ahead in the polls mid term and then losing when it mattered. John Smith may well have won in 97 and that would have been brilliant, but my guess is that he wouldn't have had anywhere near the majority that  Blair got. He just didn't have the Blair's charisma, not to mention the promise not to raise taxes.


----------



## ymu (Jul 1, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> But as you say, there was the promise not to raise taxes, that was the reason for the massive majority. So really they had no mandate to change things for what you and I might call the better.


They lowered taxes.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 2, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I wouldn't be too sure, Labour were getting good at being ahead in the polls mid term and then losing when it mattered. John Smith may well have won in 97 and that would have been brilliant, but my guess is that he wouldn't have had anywhere near the majority that  Blair got. He just didn't have the Blair's charisma, not to mention the promise not to raise taxes.


 No, it was Blair  creeping to the Sun newspaper wot won it. It was a Faustian Pact that Blair entered, knowing that he had no soul to lose.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 2, 2011)

'People are not excepting the idea of "shared sacrifice", because it's clear the idea of "shared sacrifice" is not shared by others.' Quite and Greece?

[video]http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/1/hundreds_of_thousands_of_greek_and[/video]


----------



## audiotech (Jul 2, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> No, it was Blair  creeping to the Sun newspaper wot won it. It was a Faustian Pact that Blair entered, knowing that he had no soul to lose.



In reality it was that "radical lefty", Kinnock, who led the way. Benn's comments sums up Kinnock's trajectory to crass, political opportunism. Catch the end of this (better still watch the whole if you have the urge?).


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 2, 2011)

ymu said:


> Many, I would say most, people value security rather more highly than money. That's not to say they want to be poor, but a secure job and reasonable pay would be more attractive to most than a more risky occupation and a bigger house.
> 
> Which is why you don't fuck with pensions when they have been part of pay negotiation. Pay is considerably lower in the public sector, and that has been agreed to in return for more flexible working conditions, fairer sick pay and a secure pension. You cannot take those things away without also renegotiating pay and backdating the pay award for any elements that have been reneged on.
> 
> Do that, and I'll be happy. I could do with a nice fat cheque right now.



Ymu, The problem with the argument about Public Sector workers being paid less just doesn't hold water anymore. Whether it ever did. I used to work for the DHSS as was in the late 1980's and at 18 was on more than many of my friends parents, had flexi-time, index linked pensions, ridiculous job security and did a job that frankly, was the easiest I ever did. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/09/bad-science-ben-goldacre)  And still the Unions went out on strike for more money.

The reality is the worst paid jobs are all in the Private Sector (retail, licence trade, farming etc.) most people who are self-employed see Pensions as a luxury they can only ever dream of and I suppose the clincher is that most people in the Private Sector see those in the Public sector as being there as a vocation not a job and find it galling that people who earn double the minimum wage as a starting salary, with potential of earning over £100,000 a year (Headmaster, Council Members etc. "New research conducted for BBC Panorama found that there were more than 38,000 public employees earning above £100,000 and 1,000 people on more than £200,000." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11319918) with very few qualifications, should then be complaining to protect their wages which are paid for from the taxes of those struggling to survive.

There is also an argument that high salaries are needed in the Public Sector to attract talent.  Well sadly, that's not true either.  Talent isn't attracted to the majority of the Public Sector at all.  It's very nature is anti-talent.  Organisations that are bureaucratic, regulation controlled and staffed by poorly educated people, such as Job centres, DWP etc. do not attract people who are dynamic, driven and well educated. Talented people aspire for greatness and want to make a mark - this cannot be done in the confines of organisations that despise change.

Take a look the documentary, BBC Two's "Can Gerry Robinson Fix the NHS?" get a real understanding of that problem:

"What just didn't seem to be possible was for them to be able to do that... I've never come across it to quite such an extent before, that sense that you simply couldn't change it. That needs to change."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6250441.stm

Or ask the Teachers who are so keen to set up "free schools" so they can really show off their talents. I'm making a documentary on the subject and the one thing, time and time again, that these teachers said, is they were too constrained by the regulations imposed on them to let their talents shine. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13839827

We need to see a return of respecting our Public Servants as people who are only in their roles for the betterment of society.  Make Councillors volunteers again, avoid worrying about money, unless it drops below a livable wage and let's see a lot more sacrifices for those the Public Sector is paid to serve and then you'll get UK wide support from all sectors.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 2, 2011)

How's the prostitution business Paul?


----------



## agricola (Jul 2, 2011)

One of Gerry Robinson's solutions to "fixing" the NHS:



> Sir Gerry, one of the UK's most successful businessmen, was given the task of cutting waiting lists at one hospital within six months - with no extra cash - in BBC Two's Can Gerry Robinson Fix the NHS?
> 
> One of his solutions was to treble the salaries of NHS managers.
> 
> He told Newsnight: "What other organisation that employs a million people would not genuinely go out and pay the money that it takes to get the very, very best people to run it?


----------



## ymu (Jul 2, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Ymu, The problem with the argument about Public Sector workers being paid less just doesn't hold water anymore. Whether it ever did. I used to work for the DHSS as was in the late 1980's and at 18 was on more than many of my friends parents, had flexi-time, index linked pensions, ridiculous job security and did a job that frankly, was the easiest I ever did. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/09/bad-science-ben-goldacre)  And still the Unions went out on strike for more money.
> 
> The reality is the worst paid jobs are all in the Private Sector (retail, licence trade, farming etc.) most people who are self-employed see Pensions as a luxury they can only ever dream of and I suppose the clincher is that most people in the Private Sector see those in the Public sector as being there as a vocation not a job and find it galling that people who earn double the minimum wage as a starting salary, with potential of earning over £100,000 a year (Headmaster, Council Members etc. "New research conducted for BBC Panorama found that there were more than 38,000 public employees earning above £100,000 and 1,000 people on more than £200,000." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11319918) with very few qualifications, should then be complaining to protect their wages which are paid for from the taxes of those struggling to survive.


 
The worst paid jobs are in the private sector, yes. Because most unskilled jobs have been outsourced, and private employers get away with exploitative practices more easily.

But it is an absolute nonsense to claim that public sector workers are paid more if you compare like-for-like. That is why we have better pensions, and why we have trouble hanging onto people once they're trained.

No more of this nonsense without some credible evidence please.



> Let's start with some facts. Steve Tatton of Incomes Data Services (IDS), the pay monitor, finds virtually every category of public sector worker would be better paid if they worked in the same job in the private sector. Cabinet Office figures for senior civil servants show a grade 5 deputy director gets 22% less than their equivalent manager in the private sector. A grade 2 director general, one step below permanent secretary, gets 64% less than their private sector opposite number.
> 
> Even when you look at some of the most notorious public sector salaries, the director general of the BBC's show-stopping £816,000 is less than the pay of the head of near-bankrupt ITV on £900,000, and a lot less than the head of Sky on £2m. That is not a good enough reason for the BBC top brass taking such walloping sums, but it shows how public pay is several steps behind private pay in most occupations and grades. Local government chief executives are another outlier, paid exorbitantly because mostly Tory-run councils insist on poaching them from each other on ever inflating pay rates.
> 
> ...


----------



## Looby (Jul 2, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Ymu, The problem with the argument about Public Sector workers being paid less just doesn't hold water anymore. Whether it ever did. I used to work for the DHSS as was in the late 1980's and at 18 was on more than many of my friends parents, had flexi-time, index linked pensions, ridiculous job security and did a job that frankly, was the easiest I ever did. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/09/bad-science-ben-goldacre)  And still the Unions went out on strike for more money.
> 
> The reality is the worst paid jobs are all in the Private Sector (retail, licence trade, farming etc.) most people who are self-employed see Pensions as a luxury they can only ever dream of and I suppose the clincher is that most people in the Private Sector see those in the Public sector as being there as a vocation not a job and find it galling that people who earn double the minimum wage as a starting salary, with potential of earning over £100,000 a year (Headmaster, Council Members etc. "New research conducted for BBC Panorama found that there were more than 38,000 public employees earning above £100,000 and 1,000 people on more than £200,000." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11319918) with very few qualifications, should then be complaining to protect their wages which are paid for from the taxes of those struggling to survive.
> 
> There is also an argument that high salaries are needed in the Public Sector to attract talent.  Well sadly, that's not true either.  Talent isn't attracted to the majority of the Public Sector at all.  It's very nature is anti-talent.  Organisations that are bureaucratic, regulation controlled and staffed by poorly educated people, such as Job centres, DWP etc. do not attract people who are dynamic, driven and well educated. Talented people aspire for greatness and want to make a mark - this cannot be done in the confines of organisations that despise change.


 
What the fuck are you on about? You don't have a bloody clue. For a start, many of the people I joined my department with are graduates. Not so much the older ones as many have been in the CS from school but certainly many of those under 45.

Secondly, we are paid well below the going rate in the private sector for the equivalent job and this is the case for most public sector workers that aren't in senior grades.

The obscene wages of ex-com and our CEOs wildly skews the average wage figures. 

I chose to join the civil service in the main because I didn't want to spend my working life making money for private sector fatcats. Doesn't mean I should have to earn considerably less than my counterparts in the private sector.

Believe me, times have changed a lot since you worked for the DSS.


----------



## ymu (Jul 2, 2011)

Hang on, double the minimum wage as a starting salary? Junior doctors, yes. Teenage police constables fresh out of training, yes. Anyone else, no. Fuck's sake, it took me twenty years to get paid that much. 

The median wage in the public sector is less than double the minimum wage. Half are earning less than £23k, so how in hell do you figure £24k is a normal starting salary?


----------



## dennisr (Jul 2, 2011)

ymu said:


> The median wage in the public sector is less than double the minimum wage. Half are earning less than £23k, so how in hell do you figure £24k is a normal starting salary?



*anti-strike rhetoric based on lies shocker!*


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 2, 2011)

This is quite a useful report on caution when comparing average wages in provate and public sectors

http://www.incomesdata.co.uk/areas-of-expertise/pay-reward/private-public-sector-earnings.pdf


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 2, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I'm not of the opinion that the public sector is bad.  You're reading things into my posts that aren't there.
> 
> I can only conclude that you have no answer.



1. I don't think so.
2. Like I said, you wouldn't want to hear the answer.

How do you think structural deficits are caused? We're talking structural deficit here, not national debt.


----------



## ymu (Jul 2, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> This is quite a useful report on caution when comparing average wages in provate and public sectors
> 
> http://www.incomesdata.co.uk/areas-of-expertise/pay-reward/private-public-sector-earnings.pdf


Ah, that's a great find. Thanks.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 2, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> No, it was Blair  creeping to the Sun newspaper wot won it. It was a Faustian Pact that Blair entered, knowing that he had no soul to lose.



Yes, the Murdoch deal was a factor too, one of many factors that resulted in such a massive majority. But would John Smith have made the same deal?


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 2, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Yes, the Murdoch deal was a factor too, one of many factors that resulted in such a massive majority. But would John Smith have made the same deal?


 
Well he was on the right of Labour, and started the shift of Labour being more open to Thatcherite/neo-lib principles on the market and economy, so probably.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 2, 2011)

stephj said:


> Well he was on the right of Labour, and started the shift of Labour being more open to Thatcherite/neo-lib principles on the market and economy, so probably.



Yes, perhaps he would have if he'd been offered it. I wonder if Kinnock would have in '92 if _he'd_ been offered a deal?


----------



## BigTom (Jul 3, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Y
> # "New research conducted for BBC Panorama found that there were more than 38,000 public employees earning above £100,000 and 1,000 people on more than £200,000." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11319918) #



with 6.16 million employees this means that about 0.6% of public sector workers earn over 100k.  I wonder if there are comparable figures for the private sector?
Others with better knowledge are taking apart your post anyway but I'm curious about this point and whether it works for your argument as well.


Madzone, if you're still reading this, way back you asked if EoY had said what sector she works in, in order that we can answer her question about which union she can join, as she expressed a burning desire to do so.  She has never said what sector she works in.  It's not a difficult question to answer, and she apparently wants to answer it, so the only reason I can come up with for her failure to do so is that she doesn't actually have a job, let alone one with a small company, and nor has she ever had a job.  Because if she had had a job then she could at least claim she does that job for a small company and thus be able to bullshit her way onwards in case of someone who actually does the job talking about it (eg: imagine if she claimed to be an actuary and then Kabbes came along and started asking her about it - it'd quickly become clear she was lying).
As to whether she has a kid, or is a she .. well.. who knows? even trolls have kids sometimes.. 

back to J30 - photos from Birmingham: http://birminghamagainstthecuts.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/j30-mass-strikes-in-photos/
heard 7,000 from the media and 8,000-10,000 from swp/right to work/tuc .. so probably around 7,000-8,000 in Birmingham - filled new street apparently. Largest demonstration in the city centre for many, many years (Longbridge demos when they were being sold to/by (?) BMW were bigger).
It looks like a great day for us, biggest outside of London which is a huge achievement for the city, obviously helped massively by unison council workers striking here, but even so it's a big achievement.  Not sure how we maintain that momentum.. next big thing is the Lib Dem conference demo on sept 18th..


----------



## sihhi (Jul 4, 2011)

> with 6.16 million employees this means that about 0.6% of public sector workers earn over 100k. I wonder if there are comparable figures for the private sector?



Marc Bolland Marks and Spencer earns around £15 million a year. The skew is strongly in favour of the rich in the private sector.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 4, 2011)

sihhi said:


> Marc Bolland Marks and Spencer earns around £15 million a year. The skew is strongly in favour of the rich in the private sector.



I'm sure it is - certainly at the very top anyway.. I'm just wondering if there were figures for how many people in the private sector earn over 100k so that we could say 1% or 3% or 0.2% of people in the private sector do, in order to examine the statistic that PaulAtherton used to support his argument and see whether it is in fact just as much bollocks as the rest of his post.


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 4, 2011)

BigTom said:


> with 6.16 million employees this means that about 0.6% of public sector workers earn over 100k.  I wonder if there are comparable figures for the private sector?
> Others with better knowledge are taking apart your post anyway but I'm curious about this point and whether it works for your argument as well.
> 
> 
> ...


 
Seriously, EoY may be full of crap but why do people constantly question she's a she... makes no sense?


----------



## BigTom (Jul 4, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Seriously, EoY may be full of crap but why do people constantly question she's a she... makes no sense?



'cos she is blatantly a troll, so her gender is undetermined, but many seem to think that the most likely gender for a troll is male or that a male troll is likely to think that it'd be a good idea to pretend to be a woman (even though to me that makes no sense - if I was to go a'trolling I'd keep as much as possible true to my reality in order that I can build a more convincing persona.  I definitely wouldn't change my gender).


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 4, 2011)

I'm not a troll and I'm not a man.

FFS - just because I disagree with you, you call me a troll.  How pathetic.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 4, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I'm not a troll and I'm not a man.
> 
> FFS - just because I disagree with you, you call me a troll.  How pathetic.


 
You get called a troll cos you refuse to engage with most of the points put to you.  You appear to just want to be a contrarian.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 4, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I'm not a troll and I'm not a man.
> 
> FFS - just because I disagree with you, you call me a troll.  How pathetic.


 
come on then - I told you why I say you are a troll... 

What sector does your company do business in? You said you would like to know which union you can join, I've said 3 or 4 times you need to answer this question to get an answer but you don't.  It's not a hard question, or a complicated one and you've expressed a desire to answer said question, but don't.  Therefore you are a troll.  
Plus obviously you ignore lots of other questions like what effect do you think worsening public sector pensions will have on private sector pensions.. then bang on about how no-one wants to have a conversation.. 
If you don't want to be called a troll you need to actually talk to people, and answer the questions/points they put to you, plenty on here who get disagreed with a lot but don't get called trolls - look at extrarefined, sass or downward dog (these are from memory so I hope I've remembered them correctly) - because they actually talk and respond to questions..


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 4, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I'm not a troll and I'm not a man.
> 
> FFS - just because I disagree with you, you call me a troll.  How pathetic.


I believe you. You're just an idiot.


----------



## ymu (Jul 4, 2011)

I think the stupidity and inabilty to engage is too implausible, I'm afraid. Pure troll.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 4, 2011)

Nice insults there.

I can't be on here all the time answering loads of questions.  

Someone asked earlier about what sort of job I do.  I work in a cafe owned by a friend.


----------



## dylans (Jul 4, 2011)

I think you're a troll because no real parent hates their children


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 4, 2011)

dylans said:


> I think you're a troll because no real parent hates their children


 
Idiot.  Just because I don't agree with the teachers going on strike doesn't mean I hate my children.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 4, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Nice insults there.
> 
> I can't be on here all the time answering loads of questions.
> 
> Someone asked earlier about what sort of job I do.  I work in a cafe owned by a friend.


 
USDAW or IWW, maybe even Unite.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 4, 2011)

Thank you.


----------



## dylans (Jul 4, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Idiot.  Just because I don't agree with the teachers going on strike doesn't mean I hate my children.


 
You just don't care if they have a decent education or not


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 5, 2011)

"Tough love" - she wants to set them to work as chimney sweeps like in the good old days. And can you explain how you justify calling the woman who looks after your kids for free "selfish" please?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 5, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> "Tough love" - she wants to set them to work as chimney sweeps like in the good old days.


 

Course I do, love.  Course I do.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 5, 2011)

feel like answering my other question yet? just to remind you:

How do you think worsening public sector pensions will affect private sector pensions?

oh, and yeah the logical outcome of some of your arguments on this thread is exactly what SpineyNorman is suggesting.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 5, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Course I do, love.  Course I do.


 
Why did you snip out and fail to answer the question I posed? This is why you're being called a troll.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Why did you snip out and fail to answer the question I posed? This is why you're being called a troll.


 
where i'm sat she's being called something beginning with the second consonant.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 5, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> where i'm sat she's being called something beginning with the second consonant.


 
That too


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 5, 2011)

Complicated?


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 5, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Ymu, The problem with the argument about Public Sector workers being paid less just doesn't hold water anymore. Whether it ever did. I used to work for the DHSS as was in the late 1980's and at 18 was on more than many of my friends parents, had flexi-time, index linked pensions, ridiculous job security and did a job that frankly, was the easiest I ever did. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/09/bad-science-ben-goldacre)  And still the Unions went out on strike for more money.



This is just insulting twaddle.  Your own personal anecdotes prove nothing - any more than does the fact I've worked in a few badly-run factories that have since folded.  I'm not about to spin that out into a morality play about the decline of British manufacturing, and nor should you spin such generalisations from your own experience. Meanwhile, Goldacre's link certainly doesn't prove your point.  Indeed, it reinforces the point that, and as various other threads on here have rehearsed, the reality is that, when you compare public-sector jobs with their direct equivalent in the private sector, where such a thing even exists, the public sector worker generally earns less, albeit with more job security and a better pension as compensation.  Until this government got their hooks into our pensions, anyway...



> There is also an argument that high salaries are needed in the Public Sector to attract talent.  Well sadly, that's not true either.  Talent isn't attracted to the majority of the Public Sector at all.  It's very nature is anti-talent.  Organisations that are bureaucratic, regulation controlled and staffed by poorly educated people, such as Job centres, DWP etc. do not attract people who are dynamic, driven and well educated. Talented people aspire for greatness and want to make a mark - this cannot be done in the confines of organisations that despise change.



What, so all public-sector organisations 'despise change'?  Seems to me that you have this vision in your head of whatever brown-painted 70s office you worked in, and you've generalised this out to the whole of the public sector.  It's nonsense.  Remember, the 'public sector' encompasses everything from those drab council offices up to world-beating universities, cutting-edge medical research and treatment institutions, some of the most proficient armed forces in the world, highly skilled emergency service workers, and so on.  Are you really trying to claim that all of these are staffed by time servers who won't tolerate change?  If so, go away and do some more research before you embarrass yourself on screen the way you are here.

Also, think on this.  You prattle on about the public sector, but how many major private sector businesses in this country - leading players in major industries at that - have folded because they failed to change?  Look at the car industry, shipping, shipbuilding, metallurgical industries, etc etc.  All of them declined for complex reasons, but conservatism and resistance to change were unquestionably part of it.  And not a public sector worker in sight - except when some of said industries were nationalised, of course, by which time it was generally too late to save the situation.  Drop this ridiculous assumption that the public sector is always inert and the private sector always lean, efficient and keen to innovate, and we might get somewhere...



> We need to see a return of respecting our Public Servants as people who are only in their roles for the betterment of society.  Make Councillors volunteers again, avoid worrying about money, unless it drops below a livable wage and let's see a lot more sacrifices for those the Public Sector is paid to serve and then you'll get UK wide support from all sectors.



Wtf?    You think that highly-skilled people who already make vast sacrifices of time and energy should stand by and watch their wages sink to subsistence levels just to earn some nebulous 'support' from the likes of you?  You're even more stupid than you sounded at first.

Seriously, as a public sector worker in a pretty highly skilled and fast-changing field, I'm genuinely insulted by what you've just written.  Fuck off and take your ill-informed and pointless documentaries with you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Complicated?


 
no, it's as many letters as you have fingers (not including thumb) on a normal hand.

or as many as the sum of your big toes and thumbs, assuming you have the normal complement.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 5, 2011)

hehe, I like how roadie's all kicking arse and takin names on all the austerity threads


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 5, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> hehe, I like how roadie's all kicking arse and takin names on all the austerity threads


 
Well it's a tough job, but someone's gotta do it.


----------



## ymu (Jul 5, 2011)

The UK has 1% of the world's population, 2% of the world's pharma market and 10% of the world's pharma manufacturing. Does it ever occur to anyone to ask why what remaining industry we have is so heavily dominated by high tech industry? Do they think employers will stay for low taxes when the supply of good graduates and publicly-funded research dries up?



> Business secretary Vince Cable announced this week that he wants to "ration" British science, potentially eliminating the 46% of UK research that is not defined as world class. My immediate reaction was: you must be crazy.
> 
> Cable's narrow interpretation of quality is an astonishing insult to the thousands of British scientists who help this country (and its ministers) have a well above average reputation and global influence. Cable didn't mention that most of the 46% he considers less worthy is actually classed (by the independently run Research Assessment Exercise) as internationally or nationally recognised for its "originality, significance, and rigour". In fact, in 2008 it found that only 2% of UK research "falls below the standard of nationally recognised work". It is this work that should be cut.
> 
> ...



Ignorance from a politician is never astonishing, but it never fails to gobsmack me when people fall for this propoganda shit so easily. What the fuck is going on?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> The UK has 1% of the world's population, 2% of the world's pharma market and 10% of the world's pharma manufacturing. Does it ever occur to anyone to ask why what remaining industry we have is so heavily dominated by high tech industry? Do they think employers will stay for low taxes when the supply of good graduates and publicly-funded research dries up?
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance from a politician is never astonishing, but it never fails to gobsmack me when people fall for this propoganda shit so easily. What the fuck is going on?


you talk about the supply of 'good graduates'.

have you given any consideration to what happens when the supply of new graduates dwindles as is predicted to happen over the next 20 years as numbers of 18 year olds decline?


----------



## ymu (Jul 6, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> you talk about the supply of 'good graduates'.
> 
> have you given any consideration to what happens when the supply of new graduates dwindles as is predicted to happen over the next 20 years as numbers of 18 year olds decline?



I can't see how the size of the birth cohort would affect our need to have universities which can attract high-tech industry and can turn out graduates with real degrees and not pieces of paper they were given because they were paying for it. Perhaps you could explain?


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 6, 2011)

I knew I shouldn't have looked at the Mail's website just before heading for bed.

Public sector salary myth exploded: State workers earn MORE - not less- than equivalent staff in the private sector

Yet again, however, this drivel repeats the canard that even Hutton dismissed about 'gold-plated' pensions, focuses on highly-paid staff rather than the majority, and gives no direct comparisons between comparable private- and public-sector jobs.  It just deals in averages, which is deeply misleading when so many low-paid jobs formerly ion the public sector have now been outsourced.

Tempting though it is to dismiss this as yet another of the Fail's hobby horses, one wonders what they might be trying to distract attention from...


----------



## ymu (Jul 6, 2011)

Probably hoping to keep some enraged lefties busy.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 6, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> I knew I shouldn't have looked at the Mail's website just before heading for bed.
> 
> Public sector salary myth exploded: State workers earn MORE - not less- than equivalent staff in the private sector
> 
> ...


 
Do you have any ideas?


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> How's the prostitution business Paul?



Pretty good, as it has always been throughout history.


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> The worst paid jobs are in the private sector, yes. Because most unskilled jobs have been outsourced, and private employers get away with exploitative practices more easily.
> 
> But it is an absolute nonsense to claim that public sector workers are paid more if you compare like-for-like. That is why we have better pensions, and why we have trouble hanging onto people once they're trained.
> 
> No more of this nonsense without some credible evidence please.



As Public Employees generate no wealth, it is impossible to do like for like comparisons. However I'm happy to swap credible evidence with you - but Polly Toynbee (columnist) can never be considered as credible evidence.

How about picking a couple of Public Sector jobs we can try and agree on with a Private Sector equivalent and then we can evaluate both not just on Pay & benefits but agree on a contribution weighting for Wealth production and Social benefit?


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 16, 2011)

sparklefish said:


> What the fuck are you on about? You don't have a bloody clue. For a start, many of the people I joined my department with are graduates. Not so much the older ones as many have been in the CS from school but certainly many of those under 45.
> 
> Secondly, we are paid well below the going rate in the private sector for the equivalent job and this is the case for most public sector workers that aren't in senior grades.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure of your point about graduates, it all depends what they graduated in, where there qualifications came from, what grade they have and what use they have to their jobs?

Would you like to back your claim about being lower paid with some evidence? For example, perhaps you could tell me the role that you do and what you believe is your Private Sector counterpart?

I agree average figures are spectacularly unhelpful so let's just use advertised salaries for comparisons sake.

If you're not contributing economically to the wealth of the country - why do you think you should be paid the same or more than somebody who does?

I'm very aware of the changes that have happened since I left the DHSS, well at least in the the Civil Service, far more employees for a start, though at least Job security has diminished, "buggering the bursar" will at least get you fired.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 16, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> If you're not contributing economically to the wealth of the country - why do you think you should be paid the same or more than somebody who does?


 
Oh fuck off with this shite.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 16, 2011)

Try running a business with no roads, streetlights, with uneducated and ill employees, with no police or fireservice and see how far you get.


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 16, 2011)

stephj said:


> Oh fuck off with this shite.


 
I just feel sorry for someone who can't value human worth beyond how much money they generate for the economy. Keeping people alive doesn't seem as important as making money.


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 16, 2011)

ymu said:


> Hang on, double the minimum wage as a starting salary? Junior doctors, yes. Teenage police constables fresh out of training, yes. Anyone else, no. Fuck's sake, it took me twenty years to get paid that much.
> 
> The median wage in the public sector is less than double the minimum wage. Half are earning less than £23k, so how in hell do you figure £24k is a normal starting salary?


 
As the minimum wage is £5.93 per hour for an employee 21 years or over, a working week is 37 1/2 hours so an annual salary, for a private sector employee working for a year would be £11,563.5.

Starting salaries I was thinking about was Nursing (http://www.prospects.ac.uk/adult_nurse_salary.htm), Civil Service http://www.prospects.ac.uk/civil_service_administrator_salary.htm), Social Workers (http://www.prospects.ac.uk/social_worker_salary.htm) & Teachers (http://www.prospects.ac.uk/secondary_school_teacher_salary.htm). 

Admittedly Traffic Wardens start on just £17,000, but that of course requires no qualifications whatsoever (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/06/military.pay)?

Perhaps you'd be good enough to share what roles you are aware of that start on the lower end of the starting salary scales?


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Try running a business with no roads, streetlights, with uneducated and ill employees, with no police or fireservice and see how far you get.



All of which were born out of the private sector and then nationalised and not the other way around.


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 16, 2011)

stephj said:


> Oh fuck off with this shite.


 
I'm genuinely interested in an answer to that.  If there is no wealth, there are no taxes, if there are no taxes, there is no public sector and all arguments are moot.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 16, 2011)

So Paul, can you explain what magical qualities private sector enterprise embody that allow them to produce wealth when its public sector counterparts cannot?

Can you explain why, say, private hospitals produce wealth when NHS ones don't? Can you explain why the nationalised steel and coal industries produced no wealth whereas once privatised they somehow, probably using alchemy or something, began to produce wealth?

Or is it the case that you're assuming that since no private profit is made no wealth can possibly have been produced?

Or, alternatively, are you just an idiot who swallows what he reads in the Torygraph/Mail/Insert rag of choice here?


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 16, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> I'm genuinely interested in an answer to that.  If there is no wealth, there are no taxes, if there are no taxes, there is no public sector and all arguments are moot.


 
Where do you get to the logic that, therefore, only people who make a lot of money matter in society and deserve to be rewarded?
Of course, if some of these wealth generators were in public hands, your argument wouldn't make sense, again.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 16, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> All of which were born out of the private sector and then nationalised and not the other way around.


 
What are you on about?


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 16, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> I'm genuinely interested in an answer to that.  If there is no wealth, there are no taxes, if there are no taxes, there is no public sector and all arguments are moot.


 
If there is no public sector, there is no wealth.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 16, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> All of which were born out of the private sector and then nationalised and not the other way around.


 
What? Why does that even matter? And anyway - that's demonstrably false - when, precisely, were motorways in private hands?


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 16, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> I just feel sorry for someone who can't value human worth beyond how much money they generate for the economy. Keeping people alive doesn't seem as important as making money.


 
Angel, Bad day to pick that analogy.  However that wasn't my argument.  We know we put a cheap price on life.  Think how much a soldier gets paid. Then how much it costs to keep a prisoner.

But if you're arguing that we shouldn't live in a consumerist, democratised system, then fair enough.

But we do, and my argument began by saying we want people in the caring professions as vocations not as jobs.  This ensures that there primary core is to do good as with all public servants otherwise there would be no good reason not to privatise everything and let the market dictate salaries etc.

Without money, in our current system, nothing works.  I struggle to see how asking somebody who doesn't create wealth but diminishes it, should be worried about comparative pay?


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 16, 2011)

Private fire services hardly covered themselves in glory.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 16, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Angel, Bad day to pick that analogy.  However that wasn't my argument.  We know we put a cheap price on life.  Think how much a soldier gets paid. Then how much it costs to keep a prisoner.
> 
> But if you're arguing that we shouldn't live in a consumerist, democratised system, then fair enough.
> 
> ...


 
Who diminishes wealth?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 16, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Angel, Bad day to pick that analogy.  However that wasn't my argument.  We know we put a cheap price on life.  Think how much a soldier gets paid. Then how much it costs to keep a prisoner.
> 
> But if you're arguing that we shouldn't live in a consumerist, democratised system, then fair enough.
> 
> ...


 
1) explain how the private sector produces wealth, then explain why the public sector doesn't

2) public sector employees demonstrably do produce wealth - if you disagree explain why a carer, doctor, nurse, whatever, in a private hospital produces wealth whereas their counterpart in the public sector doesn't.

Then stick your fingers in a plug socket.


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 16, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> What? Why does that even matter? And anyway - that's demonstrably false - when, precisely, were motorways in private hands?


 
It matters, because if we you're arguing for Public Services, there has to be good reason.  I want Public Services, but if the comparison are going to be made between the Public sector and Private, why not privatise everything.  I'd argue for Public Services for a variety of reasons but none to do with higher or equivalent financial remuneration for employees.

As for Motorways, they are just a different type of road, which began life as a pathway with a toll to crossover private land.

If something is demonstrably false then please demonstrate.


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 16, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> 1) explain how the private sector produces wealth, then explain why the public sector doesn't
> 
> 2) public sector employees demonstrably do produce wealth - if you disagree explain why a carer, doctor, nurse, whatever, in a private hospital produces wealth whereas their counterpart in the public sector doesn't.
> 
> Then stick your fingers in a plug socket.



Simple - Private makes Profit - Public Doesn't.

Why the name calling by the way?


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 16, 2011)

The private sector wouldn't exist without the public sector.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 16, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Simple - Private makes Profit - Public Doesn't.
> 
> Why the name calling by the way?


 
Profit = wealth?


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> If there is no public sector, there is no wealth.


 
Oh do make that argument?


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 16, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Oh do make that argument?


 
I just did. You ignored it.


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Profit = wealth?


 
What's your definition of Wealth?


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 16, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> What's your definition of Wealth?


 
Answer my question.


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> I just did. You ignored it.



You just stated something.  That's not making an argument.  If the Public Sector was privatised and abolished then there would still be profit. Why do think the absence of the Public Sector would suggest there would no Private Sector. There is nothing it does that cannot be done for profit.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 16, 2011)

You could do with reading a little history.


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Answer my question.


 
Pretty pointless unless we have agreed definition of what Wealth is.  I use it in the standard economic definition of the term.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 16, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Pretty pointless unless we have agreed definition of what Wealth is.  I use it in the standard economic definition of the term.


 you'll be able to answer my question, with references then


----------



## weltweit (Jul 16, 2011)

if a private coal mine extracts and sells £1,000 of coal for a cost of £750 it makes £250 profit for its owners. 

if a state coal mine extracts and sells £1,000 of coal for a cost of £750 it ALSO makes £250 profit for its owners.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 16, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> you talk about the supply of 'good graduates'.
> 
> have you given any consideration to what happens when the supply of new graduates dwindles as is predicted to happen over the next 20 years as numbers of 18 year olds decline?



importing foreign ones  poles, czechs, turks, indians, russians all sorts


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 16, 2011)

weltweit said:


> if a private coal mine extracts and sells £1,000 of coal for a cost of £750 it makes £250 profit for its owners.
> 
> if a state coal mine extracts and sells £1,000 of coal for a cost of £750 it ALSO makes £250 profit for its owners.



Not actually true, the owners of the a Nationalised industry are the tax payers but they do not necessarily see this.  The state absorbs it.  This equation also suggests liabilities, debts etc. are the same.  Which clearly they are not.

Nationalised Mines were allowed to trade at tremendous losses for decades to keep employment figures.  Which means the burden of debts rests with us, the tax payer, whether it was profitable or not, unlike in the Private Sector where it would just cease to trade.

And don't forget the banks were bailed out to protect the publics finances and not the banks (I was a strong supporter of letting the banks go under, but that of course would require all the Millions of people in Britain who'd hand their salaries to them, to lose them too).


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 16, 2011)

Wealth is about resources and services - you're talking about profit/surplus value. And if you weren't such a proudly ignorant cunt there'd be no need for name calling.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 16, 2011)

La la land


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 16, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Not actually true, the owners of the a Nationalised industry are the tax payers but they do not necessarily see this.  The state absorbs it.  This equation also suggests liabilities, debts etc. are the same.  Which clearly they are not.
> 
> Nationalised Mines were allowed to trade at tremendous losses for decades to keep employment figures.  Which means the burden of debts rests with us, the tax payer, whether it was profitable or not, unlike in the Private Sector where it would just cease to trade.
> 
> And don't forget the banks were bailed out to protect the publics finances and not the banks (I was a strong supporter of letting the banks go under, but that of course would require all the Millions of people in Britain who'd hand their salaries to them, to lose them too).


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 16, 2011)

This is someone who thinks prostitution is a force for good BTW.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 16, 2011)

PaulAtherton and his chums, yesterday:


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 16, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Simple - Private makes Profit - Public Doesn't.



That's only the case if you ignore the role the public sector has *always* played in facilitating the private sector.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> The private sector wouldn't exist without the public sector.


 
There's certainly a symbiotic relationship.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> You could do with reading a little history.


 
More than a little.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 16, 2011)

weltweit said:


> if a private coal mine extracts and sells £1,000 of coal for a cost of £750 it makes £250 profit for its owners.
> 
> if a state coal mine extracts and sells £1,000 of coal for a cost of £750 it ALSO makes £250 profit for its owners.


 
The difference residing in where the profit is directed.


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 16, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Wealth is about resources and services - you're talking about profit/surplus value. And if you weren't such a proudly ignorant cunt there'd be no need for name calling.



"Defining wealth can be a normative process with various ethical implications, since often wealth maximization is seen as a goal or is thought to be a normative principle of its own." Anthony T. Kronman, "Wealth Maximization as a Normative Principle", The Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 9 (March 1980)

Wealth is about the accumulation of Value in its most basic sense.  But hey, I appreciate you have a world view that you need to hold onto.  So I'll leave our engagement there.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 16, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Not actually true, the owners of the a Nationalised industry are the tax payers but they do not necessarily see this.  The state absorbs it.  This equation also suggests liabilities, debts etc. are the same.  Which clearly they are not.



Profit is simply a function of income minus costs, ownership is irrelevant. There can be private and or state owned enterprises and each can make profit or they can make loss. 



PaulAtherton said:


> Nationalised Mines were allowed to trade at tremendous losses for decades to keep employment figures.  Which means the burden of debts rests with us, the tax payer, whether it was profitable or not, unlike in the Private Sector where it would just cease to trade.



I am not sure of the relevance of this. State enterprises can make profits for the taxpayer, I believe the post office made good profits for many years, I have no idea what its current status is. 

In some states, all enterprises are state owned, the state takes all profits and or losses. 

In some instances a state may decide to maintain a loss making enterprise for other reasons. States do things for more that just the profit motive. 



PaulAtherton said:


> And don't forget the banks were bailed out to protect the publics finances and not the banks (I was a strong supporter of letting the banks go under, but that of course would require all the Millions of people in Britain who'd hand their salaries to them, to lose them too).


 
Relevance to the issue?


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 16, 2011)

Value does not necessarily equal profit.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 16, 2011)

PaulAtherton; said:
			
		

> 11938982Wealth is about the accumulation of Value in its most basic sense.  But hey, I appreciate you have a world view that you need to hold onto.  So I'll leave our engagement there.


 
In other words not the same as profit, which is merely surplus value. Yours is the world view with no basis in material reality, not mine.

The public sector produces goods and services - it therefore produces wealth. It can therefore also earn us money - money from exports, same as private business. Your world view posits that there is some separation between the two, you're abstracting everything away from the actual material world.

You're the dogmatist, not me.

Go back to reading Ayn Rand, Mr. sweaty palms.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 16, 2011)

Profit is always a manifestation of value, but not all value is profit. Just dogs always have four legs, but not all four legged animals are dogs. I'm surprised you find this difficult to grasp Paul.


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 16, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> More than a little.


 
VP Perhaps you could suggest some light reading that would aid these folks argument.  You're one of the few that can normally back up what you say with written evidence.   

Of most interest would be, what industries have ever been instigated by the Public sector rather than acquired by them, perhaps some research showing the comparison of Private & State ownership of mines over the past 50 years and especially on the history of the Public Sector after the Romans left?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 16, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Not actually true, the owners of the a Nationalised industry are the tax payers but they do not necessarily see this.  The state absorbs it.  This equation also suggests liabilities, debts etc. are the same.  Which clearly they are not.
> 
> Nationalised Mines were allowed to trade at tremendous losses for decades to keep employment figures.



Please back up this claim.

After all, it's hardly consonant with the reality of a constantly-shrinking "estate" of mines and body of miners from nationalisation right through to re-privatisation, or with the balance sheets for British Coal during the nationalised period. There were periods where British Coal ran a loss, but as with most companies that borrow on their future earnings to tide them over in hard times, they recouped those losses, and came out, at the time of Heseltine's final massacre, ahead of the game.

I have the suspicion that you're retailing some hoary old folk-lore from the right, without having examined whether it has basis in fact or fantasy 




> Which means the burden of debts rests with us, the tax payer, whether it was profitable or not, unlike in the Private Sector where it would just cease to trade.



So businesses with temporary solvency issues don't borrow?



> And don't forget the banks were bailed out to protect the publics finances and not the banks (I was a strong supporter of letting the banks go under, but that of course would require all the Millions of people in Britain who'd hand their salaries to them, to lose them too).


 Now you're being stupid. The banks were bailed out to stop a run occurring. As such, it was the use of public money to bail out private business. The small benefits to the public finances were very much secondary to that. It helped prevent a chain of events that could have destroyed the UK economy, not just broken a few of its' ribs.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 16, 2011)

I can just feel the trickle down right now.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 16, 2011)

Just coming back to this:



PaulAtherton said:


> "Defining wealth can be a normative process with various ethical implications, since often wealth maximization is seen as a goal or is thought to be a normative principle of its own." Anthony T. Kronman, "Wealth Maximization as a Normative Principle", The Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 9 (March 1980)


 
How does this back up your assertion that profit = wealth by the way? Yes, wealth is about value. But not just _surplus_ value, or profit.

Care to find a link or quotation that backs up your argument rather than mine?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 16, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> VP Perhaps you could suggest some light reading that would aid these folks argument.  You're one of the few that can normally back up what you say with written evidence.
> 
> Of most interest would be, what industries have ever been instigated by the Public sector rather than acquired by them, perhaps some research showing the comparison of Private & State ownership of mines over the past 50 years and especially on the history of the Public Sector after the Romans left?


 
Why does who instigated the industry matter, unless you're advancing the hoary claim that the public sector is non-innovative?

My point is that the state, whether in it's primitive or modern form, *always* acts to facilitate the work of the private sector/private capital, whether that has been as land grant, mineral rights, military assistance or bureaucratic service. Our history books show at least 13 centuries of this, even in GCSE-level texts.

As for the mines, a look at the tables in Richards' "Miners On Strike" is always good for disproving the myths around nationalised mine ownership.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 16, 2011)

stephj said:


> I can just feel the trickle down right now.


 
Here you go, steph.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 16, 2011)

Capital - pissing on me for years


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 16, 2011)

The internet wouldn't exist without public sector.


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 17, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Please back up this claim.
> 
> After all, it's hardly consonant with the reality of a constantly-shrinking "estate" of mines and body of miners from nationalisation right through to re-privatisation, or with the balance sheets for British Coal during the nationalised period. There were periods where British Coal ran a loss, but as with most companies that borrow on their future earnings to tide them over in hard times, they recouped those losses, and came out, at the time of Heseltine's final massacre, ahead of the game.
> 
> I have the suspicion that you're retailing some hoary old folk-lore from the right, without having examined whether it has basis in fact or fantasy"



I lived through the Miners strike in the village with the last Welsh mine to close (Ystrad Mynach / Penalta Colliery). It's where I was growing up at the time, I knew Miners, Owners, Management at the NCB and most of my friends grew up in miner families.  

Everybody knew the mines were losing money, that wasn't the fight. Coal is finite, you couldn't just produce more, the quality was declining, the cost of getting it out of the ground was increasing and the health implications for the miners were astronomic (http://www.welshcoalmines.co.uk/). 

The fight wasn't about jobs but sustaining a way of life. Keeping together a community.  And I'm not arguing that, that wasn't a reasonable thing to fight for on the surface of things, but it was never how it was presented.  

Scargill wanted the fight he clearly couldn't win. 

He made it about business, and on a business argument, everybody knew they had lost.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3503545.stm



> So businesses with temporary solvency issues don't borrow?



Of course they do, but if they call it incorrectly, the bank forecloses and losses are kept to a minimum (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/24/jaguar-land-rover-close-factory).  The state takes politics into consideration and aren't necessarily making business decisions. And therein lies the problem.



> Now you're being stupid. The banks were bailed out to stop a run occurring. As such, it was the use of public money to bail out private business. The small benefits to the public finances were very much secondary to that. It helped prevent a chain of events that could have destroyed the UK economy, not just broken a few of its' ribs.



Stupid, really? As the only people who would have really suffered by a run on the Bank is the Public ("It's a Wonderful Life").  Let's not forget Soros's success on Black Wednesday (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/feb/09/freedomofinformation.uk1). If the economy collapses there are those who are betting on it and make good financial returns. As I said already, I agree with you, we should have let the banks collapse. But do you genuinely believe anybody in the banks would have suffered that badly as opposed to the public at large? To save the banks was a political decision, not a financial one (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...fficial-cost-of-the-bank-bailout-1833830.html).


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 17, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> The internet wouldn't exist without public sector.


 
Rubbish.  

Tim Berners-Lee was working for a private company when he developed html. 

The use of networking computers for defence purposes (which is what I am assuming you are referring too, when you say the Internet wouldn't exist without the Public Sector), would have evolved in a myriad of other ways.

Satellite communications were already solidly into development, as was cable television, radio communications, even Intranets and Extranets were already being trialled.


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 17, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Why does who instigated the industry matter, unless you're advancing the hoary claim that the public sector is non-innovative?



VP I'm interested to know what industries have been attributed to the Public Sector, if any, as I'm curious to know if Industry was always driven by Private innovation or if there has been Public Innovation and I would have thought you'd have references to this. 

This, by the way, is called gaining knowledge.



> My point is that the state, whether in it's primitive or modern form, *always* acts to facilitate the work of the private sector/private capital, whether that has been as land grant, mineral rights, military assistance or bureaucratic service. Our history books show at least 13 centuries of this, even in GCSE-level texts.



Are you talking about a Monarchistic State or the decline of Britain as laid out in De Excidio Britanniae, when you're talking about Military Assistance are you thinking of the Private Armies pre-Tudor or the Modern Army after the civil war. Would you suggest that State bureaucracy only impinged on the nation after the advent of the Doomsday Book?

And would you accept that the Monarchy in these periods were little more than Chief Executives requiring to tax the populace in order to raise armies and extend their prowess?   



> As for the mines, a look at the tables in Richards' "Miners On Strike" is always good for disproving the myths around nationalised mine ownership.



Do they happen to be available online? And what myths do they disprove?


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 17, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Profit is simply a function of income minus costs, ownership is irrelevant. There can be private and or state owned enterprises and each can make profit or they can make loss.



Respectfully disagree. I think of Profit in it's economic term not in terms of straight accounting.

"Profits are a direct measure of the net increase in total value generated by employing scarce resources in one particular use rather than in their most valuable alternative use in some other undertaking. Economic profitability indicates (in the absence of externalities) that consumers value the product more than any others that could have been produced with the resources expended. Conversely, losses indicate that resources have been used unwisely — the firm has miscalculated, and the resources committed could better have been used to produce other products more desired by consumers. Hence follows the famous conclusion of Adam Smith that in selfishly seeking to maximize his profits the businessman unwittingly is also maximizing the benefits to society as a whole from the efficient utilization of the resources under his control."




> I am not sure of the relevance of this. State enterprises can make profits for the taxpayer, I believe the post office made good profits for many years, I have no idea what its current status is.
> 
> In some states, all enterprises are state owned, the state takes all profits and or losses.



See definition above.



> Relevance to the issue?



Preempting responses to my previous paragraph.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 17, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Rubbish.
> 
> Tim Berners-Lee was working for a private company when he developed html.
> 
> ...


 
"would have", fucking la la land, I'm talking about what actually happened, which was that the internet was developed by state funded organisations.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 17, 2011)

.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 17, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Pretty pointless unless we have agreed definition of what Wealth is.  I use it in the standard economic definition of the term.



For others - this is what should tell you that PaulAtherton has only a shallow economic knowledge.  To suggest that there is a standard economic definition of wealth is to reveal that you haven't read very much economic theory.. 

Paul, I found it odd that you would rely on Adam Smith to backup your definition of profit later in the thread, when Adam Smith viewed wealth as being the sum total of everything that is produced - ie: all the material products that arise from production, plus profit.  I don't remember him talking about services and whether he would count them as wealth since they do not produce a tangible product, but do facilitate the production/consumption of tangible products.
Marx too considered wealth to be about the material outcomes of production.  In fact, in as much as I remember, no economic theorist discounted the value of the material outcomes of production from their measure of the wealth of a population.. perhaps someone like Von Mises but I've never got round to reading his stuff..

I would like to explore this with you in a genuine manner, because I cannot understand your position, either from it's own point of view (that wealth=profit) or from a wider point of view (whereby wealth also includes the material outcomes of production, and takes into account the addition that services make to the level of material outcome, even where that increase is not done directly (ie: with education - I think it'd be broadly accepted that having an educated workforce will help you to produce stuff, but it'd be difficult (prob. impossible) to actually measure affect in any meaningful way).

So within your own framework, I would like to know more about why you think that - in principle - a public sector company the produces profit (such as in the mine example given above, or Royal Mail which currently produces a profit) does not actually create wealth, and why would this change overnight if it was privatised, but none of the outputs of the business changed.  As much as possible, I would like to talk about this question in a generalised, hypothetical/in principle manner so that it could be applied to all public sector organisations.

I'd also like to know what you think about private sector companies profit made on public sector contracts?  Getting quite complicated, the cleaners at my school are from a private company.. is that part of the school wealth generating even though public sector education isn't wealth generating?

(for clarity, and in case you didn't guess, I am of the opinion that wealth = material outcomes of production, excluding profit.  If you think profit is wealth, then you can have all that money, I'll keep the stuff that's been produced to create the wealth and we'll see who survives longest.. Therefore, for me, if a public sector organisation increases the amount being produced by a population than it is creating wealth.. I'd love to have a discussion with someone who will actually discuss this and not run away as most tend to do)


----------



## smokedout (Jul 17, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> VP I'm interested to know what industries have been attributed to the Public Sector, if any, as I'm curious to know if Industry was always driven by Private innovation or if there has been Public Innovation and I would have thought you'd have references to this.



space travel was pretty innovative


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 17, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Rubbish.
> 
> Tim Berners-Lee was working for a private company when he developed html.



Hmmm.



> While being an independent contractor at CERN from June to December 1980, Berners-Lee proposed a project based on the concept of hypertext, to facilitate sharing and updating information among researchers.[10] While there, he built a prototype system named ENQUIRE.[11]
> 
> After leaving CERN in 1980, he went to work at John Poole's Image Computer Systems, Ltd, in Bournemouth, England.[12] The project he worked on was a real-time remote procedure call which gave him experience in computer networking.[12] In 1984 he returned to CERN as a fellow.[11]
> 
> In 1989, CERN was the largest Internet node in Europe, and Berners-Lee saw an opportunity to join hypertext with the Internet: "I just had to take the hypertext idea and connect it to the Transmission Control Protocol and domain name system ideas and—ta-da! — the World Wide Web."[13] He wrote his initial proposal in March 1989, and in 1990, with the help of Robert Cailliau, produced a revision which was accepted by his manager, Mike Sendall.[14] He used similar ideas to those underlying the ENQUIRE system to create the World Wide Web, for which he designed and built the first Web browser, which also functioned as an editor (WorldWideWeb, running on the NeXTSTEP operating system), and the first Web server, CERN HTTPd (short for Hypertext Transfer Protocol daemon). The first web site built was at CERN, and was first put on line on 6 August 1991.



Looks to me that while TBL may have spent a few productive years in the private sector, his first big break, and the culmination of his project both took place at CERN - which is not a private company, but is rather sponsored by twenty European governments.

What a pity you're not as smart as you think you are, Paul.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 17, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> I lived through the Miners strike in the village with the last Welsh mine to close (Ystrad Mynach / Penalta Colliery). It's where I was growing up at the time, I knew Miners, Owners, Management at the NCB and most of my friends grew up in miner families.
> 
> Everybody knew the mines were losing money, that wasn't the fight. Coal is finite, you couldn't just produce more, the quality was declining, the cost of getting it out of the ground was increasing and the health implications for the miners were astronomic (http://www.welshcoalmines.co.uk/).
> 
> ...



1). Great _spiel_ about the Welsh mines, the only problem being that there were mines in the rest of the mainland UK too.

2) Your _spiel_ doesn't acknowledge the fact that the problems in Welsh mining didn't pertain across the board, but mainly to one sector of Welsh mining.

3) Great that you can play the "I'm related to/friends with miners" card. Here's mine: One of my great-great-grandfather's sons died at the Cadeby Main disaster, another of them (15 years old at the time, and a pony-driver) lost a leg. Fortunate, because he could still do his job.

4) You elide the NCB's politically-motivated attempts from the 1950s onwards, to shift production away from the more militant peripheral coalfields (such as the Rhondda), to the east midlands, often using rising production costs as an excuse to close mines with a militant workforce in favour of those with supposedly more pragmatic employees.




> Of course they do, but if they call it incorrectly, the bank forecloses and losses are kept to a minimum (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/24/jaguar-land-rover-close-factory).  The state takes politics into consideration and aren't necessarily making business decisions. And therein lies the problem.



Sorry, but you're just burbling generalities and received wisdom. Businesses often "call it" correctly and still suffer foreclosure, or "call it" incorrectly and don't. As for the state taking politics into consideration, that they do so most often benefits....private capital. What they do is make a *holistic* decision, which takes account of social and economic implications, and in doing so, yet again, they absorb the effects f the externalities that should (more rightly, if business is as wise and successful as you claim) be picked up by private capital. 



> Stupid, really?



Yes.



> As the only people who would have really suffered by a run on the Bank is the Public ("It's a Wonderful Life").  Let's not forget Soros's success on Black Wednesday (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/feb/09/freedomofinformation.uk1). If the economy collapses there are those who are betting on it and make good financial returns. As I said already, I agree with you, we should have let the banks collapse. But do you genuinely believe anybody in the banks would have suffered that badly as opposed to the public at large? To save the banks was a political decision, not a financial one (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...fficial-cost-of-the-bank-bailout-1833830.html).


 
You miss the point, or you avoid it. Most individual depositors/members of the public would have been safe, covered by the usual deposit guarantees. Exposure would have been a week or a month's salary at most. It would have been business, not just the banks, who would have suffered from a run, and from multiple effects too, ranging from the inevitable liquidity crisis, to a far harsher credit squeeze and a collapse of exports.

BTW, I don't believe at all that the banks should have been allowed to collapse, and the political decision to save them had and has a sound financial base. That it doesn't accord to the neo-liberal economic principles that currently predominate financial thinking is true, but doesn't make it wrong, as anyone who could read beyond the textbooks for an MBA would know. The "political decision" encompassed the financial decision, but sensibly took account of social consequences too, something business itself should be compelled to do, rather than being allowed to walk away scot-free from the social and environmental costs it raises.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 17, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> VP I'm interested to know what industries have been attributed to the Public Sector, if any, as I'm curious to know if Industry was always driven by Private innovation or if there has been Public Innovation and I would have thought you'd have references to this.



Define what *you* mean by "public" and "private", as I'd hate to mis-categorise anything.



> This, by the way, is called gaining knowledge.



Odd. I see "gaining knowledge" as searching for yourself, not asking people to hand you pre-digested gobbets.




> Are you talking about a Monarchistic State or the decline of Britain as laid out in De Excidio Britanniae, when you're talking about Military Assistance are you thinking of the Private Armies pre-Tudor or the Modern Army after the civil war.



In both cases, both, as they were semi-contiguous, and accorded to the perceptions of "state" and "private" in play at the times. 



> Would you suggest that State bureaucracy only impinged on the nation after the advent of the Doomsday Book?



No, because state bureaucracy preceded the Norman conquest at least as far as the Roman settlement. It may not have been operated in as unitary a manner, but it certainly existed.



> And would you accept that the Monarchy in these periods were little more than Chief Executives requiring to tax the populace in order to raise armies and extend their prowess?



No, because that would ignore the political and social implications of their reigns.




> Do they happen to be available online?



No. You'd have to buy the book.



> And what myths do they disprove?


 
A variety, the much-used claims of extraction difficulties (which actually pertained to less than half the mines the claim was used about); the net taxpayer subsidy of the industry (taken across the existence of nationalised coal, the industry was a net contributor, with profits covering and exceeding losses); the especial militancy of miners (lost work-days under nationalisation never exceeded those of the private industry, and progressively diminished from nationalisation onward); the myth of poor productivity (more than 90% of mines under nationalisation progressively produced more coal ton for ton, decade for decade).

I will, however, see if I can borrow a scanner, and post the various tables up.


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 18, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He was a private contractor whilst at CERN when he developed ENQUIRE the foundations of WWW which meant he was in employ of the private sector, which was exactly my point.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 18, 2011)

You've got a point???


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 18, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> He was a private contractor whilst at CERN when he developed ENQUIRE the foundations of WWW which meant he was in employ of the private sector, which was exactly my point.


 
A private contractor to a public sector body. We haven't had an idiot quite as big as you for a long time, but thanks for playing.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 18, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> A private contractor to a public sector body. We haven't had an idiot quite as big as you for a long time, but thanks for playing.


 
He's got a little way to go if he wants to beat onarchy on that front.


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 18, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> A private contractor to a public sector body. We haven't had an idiot quite as big as you for a long time, but thanks for playing.


 
I'm looking for information and reasoned debate.  But it seems sadly, this site is mainly full of name callers, with no substance to their responses.  You carry on playing.  I'll address those with something to share.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 18, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> I'm looking for information and reasoned debate.  But it seems sadly, this site is mainly full of name callers, with no substance to their responses.  You carry on playing.  I'll address those with something to share.


 
lol


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 18, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> A private contractor to a public sector body. We haven't had an idiot quite as big as you for a long time, but thanks for playing.


 
Why didn't he patent it, if he was such a believer in privitisation?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> He was a private contractor whilst at CERN when he developed ENQUIRE the foundations of WWW which meant he was in employ of the private sector, which was exactly my point.


 
Who paid his wages, and would have held rights over anything he developed for them, Paul?

You're using sophistry, and I suspect that you know it.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 18, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> He's got a little way to go if he wants to beat onarchy on that front.


 
Onarchy was more of a 'cackling madman' - THE FOOLS THEY LAUGHED AT MY WORK I'LL DESTROY THEM ALL - than a mere idiot.

But I take your point.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> A private contractor to a public sector body. We haven't had an idiot quite as big as you for a long time, but thanks for playing.


 
Back when I was a Civil Servant, if you were a private contractor working for a government body you were, _ipso facto_, employed by the public sector. Paul is playing with words in order to get them to mean something other than what they do.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> He's got a little way to go if he wants to beat onarchy on that front.


 
Onanwanky. He was a one, wasn't he? Madder than a full wasp nest that's just had a wasp bomb lit under it.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 18, 2011)

violentpanda said:


> onanwanky. He was a one, wasn't he? Madder than a full wasp nest that's just had a wasp bomb lit under it.


 
HE'LL DESTROY US ALL.

colourless green ideas sleep furiously - just to let me get in the block capitals there.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 18, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> As for Motorways, they are just a different type of road, which began life as a pathway with a toll to crossover private land.



If you start with this sort of idiocy, then it's not surprising that you end up as you do...flailing and lost.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## BigTom (Jul 18, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> I'm looking for information and reasoned debate.  But it seems sadly, this site is mainly full of name callers, with no substance to their responses.  You carry on playing.  I'll address those with something to share.



Paul, I found it odd that you would rely on Adam Smith to backup your definition of profit later in the thread, when Adam Smith viewed wealth as being the sum total of everything that is produced - ie: all the material products that arise from production, plus profit. I don't remember him talking about services and whether he would count them as wealth since they do not produce a tangible product, but do facilitate the production/consumption of tangible products.
Marx too considered wealth to be about the material outcomes of production. In fact, in as much as I remember, no economic theorist discounted the value of the material outcomes of production from their measure of the wealth of a population.. perhaps someone like Von Mises but I've never got round to reading his stuff..

I would like to explore this with you in a genuine manner, because I cannot understand your position, either from it's own point of view (that wealth=profit) or from a wider point of view (whereby wealth also includes the material outcomes of production, and takes into account the addition that services make to the level of material outcome, even where that increase is not done directly (ie: with education - I think it'd be broadly accepted that having an educated workforce will help you to produce stuff, but it'd be difficult (prob. impossible) to actually measure affect in any meaningful way).

So within your own framework, I would like to know more about why you think that - in principle - a public sector company that produces profit (such as in the mine example given above, or Royal Mail which currently produces a profit) does not actually create wealth, and why would this change overnight if it was privatised, but none of the outputs of the business changed. As much as possible, I would like to talk about this question in a generalised, hypothetical/in principle manner so that it could be applied to all public sector organisations.

I'd also like to know what you think about private sector companies profit made on public sector contracts? Getting quite complicated, the cleaners at my school are from a private company.. is that part of the school wealth generating even though public sector education isn't wealth generating?

(for clarity, and in case you didn't guess, I am of the opinion that wealth = material outcomes of production, excluding profit. If you think profit is wealth, then you can have all that money, I'll keep the stuff that's been produced to create the wealth and we'll see who survives longest.. Therefore, for me, if a public sector organisation increases the amount being produced by a population than it is creating wealth.. I'd love to have a discussion with someone who will actually discuss this and not run away as most tend to do)


----------



## yield (Jul 18, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> I'm looking for information and reasoned debate.  But it seems sadly, this site is mainly full of name callers, with no substance to their responses.  You carry on playing.  I'll address those with something to share.


 
 There's plenty to share. You've been caught out. Raise your game.


----------



## little_legs (Jul 19, 2011)

Paul the pimp on June 30:


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 20, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> Why didn't he patent it, if he was such a believer in privitisation?



If he'd patented it, it wouldn't have worked.


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 20, 2011)

BigTom said:


> Paul, I found it odd that you would rely on Adam Smith to backup your definition of profit later in the thread, when Adam Smith viewed wealth as being the sum total of everything that is produced - ie: all the material products that arise from production, plus profit. I don't remember him talking about services and whether he would count them as wealth since they do not produce a tangible product, but do facilitate the production/consumption of tangible products.
> Marx too considered wealth to be about the material outcomes of production. In fact, in as much as I remember, no economic theorist discounted the value of the material outcomes of production from their measure of the wealth of a population.. perhaps someone like Von Mises but I've never got round to reading his stuff..
> 
> I would like to explore this with you in a genuine manner, because I cannot understand your position, either from it's own point of view (that wealth=profit) or from a wider point of view (whereby wealth also includes the material outcomes of production, and takes into account the addition that services make to the level of material outcome, even where that increase is not done directly (ie: with education - I think it'd be broadly accepted that having an educated workforce will help you to produce stuff, but it'd be difficult (prob. impossible) to actually measure affect in any meaningful way).
> ...



BigTom wasn't ignoring you.  But this requires an in-depth analysis of money circulation, an agreement of the definition of Wealth, ownership and a construct and agreement into what the current British economy is. I'll come back to this over the weekend when I have some time.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 20, 2011)

Translation: I'm a fecking idiot who wasn't expecting to be called on my bullshit.


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 20, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Back when I was a Civil Servant, if you were a private contractor working for a government body you were, _ipso facto_, employed by the public sector. Paul is playing with words in order to get them to mean something other than what they do.


 
That's not been true for decades (if it ever was).  A contractor is just that, not an employee.  You agree on a contract and are paid on a per project basis.  You are merely a supplier to the government in the same way as any other customer you have in the Private Sector. 

If you're in construction then the Government may be your only customer (you couldn't dream to earn the kind of money in the Private Sector that the Government is prepared to pay - take a look at the recent PFI's - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ic-sector-projects-massive-money-spinner.html - sorry the Radio 4 File on 4 no longer exists online)  

Or as another example BAE DETICA (http://www.detica.com/) - who develop all kinds of IT solutions for the government and hold all the rights for the 
technology they produce to use elsewhere - which means the taxpayer pays for development that they don't often benefit from.

ViolentP, If you were in procurement in IT, perhaps you could explain, why the IT was so disseminated across Government Departments, starting with the barcode system implemented into the DHSS in 1984 and going all the way through to the recently scrapped DNA Database or the LexisNexus system implemented into Local Council's but which was charged individually for each council and cannot communicate across the UK?


----------



## BigTom (Jul 20, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> BigTom wasn't ignoring you.  But this requires an in-depth analysis of money circulation, an agreement of the definition of Wealth, ownership and a construct and agreement into what the current British economy is. I'll come back to this over the weekend when I have some time.



 cheers - I'm away at secret garden party this weekend so I'll get back to you sometime next week


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 20, 2011)

BigTom said:


> Paul, I found it odd that you would rely on Adam Smith to backup your definition of profit later in the thread...



To be fair, Tom, he didn't rely on Smith. The person whose definition of profit he C & P'd (unattributed) from here relied on Smith.


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> That's not been true for decades (if it ever was).  A contractor is just that, not an employee.  You agree on a contract and are paid on a per project basis.  You are merely a supplier to the government in the same way as any other customer you have in the Private Sector.
> 
> If you're in construction then the Government may be your only customer (you couldn't dream to earn the kind of money in the Private Sector that the Government is prepared to pay - take a look at the recent PFI's - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ic-sector-projects-massive-money-spinner.html - sorry the Radio 4 File on 4 no longer exists online)
> 
> ...


 
None of that is relevant to the original point tho, is it?  Looks like you are trying desperately to shift the ground from your own, false, claim.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 20, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> That's not been true for decades (if it ever was).  A contractor is just that, not an employee.  You agree on a contract and are paid on a per project basis.  You are merely a supplier to the government in the same way as any other customer you have in the Private Sector.



Who has operational and executive responsibility for your work as a contractor, Paul?



> If you're in construction then the Government may be your only customer (you couldn't dream to earn the kind of money in the Private Sector that the Government is prepared to pay - take a look at the recent PFI's - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ic-sector-projects-massive-money-spinner.html - sorry the Radio 4 File on 4 no longer exists online)
> 
> Or as another example BAE DETICA (http://www.detica.com/) - who develop all kinds of IT solutions for the government and hold all the rights for the
> technology they produce to use elsewhere - which means the taxpayer pays for development that they don't often benefit from.



Irrelevant, we're not talking about corporations, we were discussing an individual.



> ViolentP, If you were in procurement in IT, perhaps you could explain, why the IT was so disseminated across Government Departments, starting with the barcode system implemented into the DHSS in 1984 and going all the way through to the recently scrapped DNA Database or the LexisNexus system implemented into Local Council's but which was charged individually for each council and cannot communicate across the UK?


 
I wasn't in IT procurement, but just about every dept uses contractors.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> None of that is relevant to the original point tho, is it?


 
You noticed that too?


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 20, 2011)

I suppose it was always too much to hope that Atherton might be able to advance some evidence to support his absurd caricature of all public-sector organisations as monoliths impervious to change.  As for the rest of his recent contributions, well, they're all pretty thin stuff - reading them back, they're redolent of second-rate A-level economics essays, and almost without exception they miss the point anyway.

For instance, weltweit's question re. coal mines.  Perhaps not a great example, since it gave him an excuse to erect a straw man about the failings of nationalised industries to take pot shots at. Actually, the performance of specific nationalised industries in this country is barely relevant, since all it goes to show is that successive governments here frequently nationalised industries less for ideological reasons and mainly as a means of staving off collapse.  British Leyland would be another good example.  The question still stands, however.  By what mystical process is a private industry 'productive' and a public one not?  A private hospital and a public one perform pretty much the same function: why, then, should one be construed as a productive part of the economy and the other merely as a burden?

Nor has he satisfactorily addressed the point that public investment is absolutely crucial to the functioning of the economy.  Where would we be without the health service, police force, education system, and the rest...?

As for privatising all of the above functions and more, he might want to ponder a little on phrases such as 'public goods' and 'natural monopoly' before trying to dig himself out of this particular hole.  He might also undertake a little research into the history of private fire services and the rest: as Blagsta says, they hardly covered themselves in glory.  

Ah, he says, but those who must work for the state should consider it a 'vocation' and accept minimal remuneration on that basis.  One wonders about the weird leaps of logic one has to make to assume that a vocation should not be as well paid as any other occupation, especially when it comes to essential services.  One wonders, too, whether he has actually thought this through properly.  How many people would actually sign up to be coppers, firemen and the rest - and take on all that responsibility and at times that danger - for poverty wages?  I wouldn't, and I doubt many others would either.  

And so on, and so forth.  I can't pretend I'm not faintly alarmed that a documentary maker - and therefore an opinion former almost by definition - has such a simplistic and ill-considered view of the world.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 20, 2011)

He's a documentary maker?  Who for? Fox?


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 20, 2011)

Google him. He's made a "documentary" about prostitution being a force for good.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 20, 2011)

Think I'll take your word for it. One can only assume that he considers it a force for good because otherwise he'd never get laid.


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 21, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Who has operational and executive responsibility for your work as a contractor, Paul?



I'm unclear of what you mean about this question.  The contractor has responsibility of his work and has to deliver to the contract.  The Executive decision of whether to contract, lies with organisation contracting.  But the deliverables are with the contractor and if not achieved would need to be pursued for breach of contract. 



> Irrelevant, we're not talking about corporations, we were discussing an individual.



Not in the least bit irrelevant to your question

"Who paid his wages, and would have held rights over anything he developed for them, Paul?" 

As I explained, he wasn't paid wages as he wasn't an employee, as he was self-employed, he could have easily been trading under the auspices of a limited company and the fact that all IT companies retain their rights, it would appear no reason why he wouldn't have done this with his.



> I wasn't in IT procurement, but just about every dept uses contractors.



But we were specifically talking about IT and it's contractual variables?


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 21, 2011)

belboid said:


> None of that is relevant to the original point tho, is it?  Looks like you are trying desperately to shift the ground from your own, false, claim.



Which original point? I've been asked differing questions all over the place.

But what I was most interested in doing was



> How about picking a couple of Public Sector jobs we can try and agree on with a Private Sector equivalent and then we can evaluate both not just on Pay & benefits but agree on a contribution weighting for Wealth production and Social benefit?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 21, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> I'm unclear of what you mean about this question.  The contractor has responsibility of his work and has to deliver to the contract.  The Executive decision of whether to contract, lies with organisation contracting.  But the deliverables are with the contractor and if not achieved would need to be pursued for breach of contract.



I'll try and make this simple for you.

A Civil Service department hires an IT contractor to deliver a particular job. The contractor has contractual obligations to fulfill, and can be penalised if they don't fulfill them. I, as the person in that Civil Service department responsible for managing that contract, have operational and executive responsibility to make sure of that fulfillment.

In other words, I have much the same responsibilities for the contractor as I do for junior colleagues.



> Not in the least bit irrelevant to your question
> 
> "Who paid his wages, and would have held rights over anything he developed for them, Paul?"
> 
> As I explained, he wasn't paid wages as he wasn't an employee, as he was self-employed, he could have easily been trading under the auspices of a limited company and the fact that all IT companies retain their rights, it would appear no reason why he wouldn't have done this with his.



More sophistry, Paul. You know by wages that I meant "who pays his contracted fee?".

You're also talking just a wee bit of shite with regard to retention of rights. Any contracting party with an ounce of sense negotiates rights on a case-by-case basis. The civil service, at least on the specialist rather than the infrastructural side of IT development, is usually quite hot about assigning of rights to the contracting party.



> But we were specifically talking about IT and it's contractual variables?


 
Do you really believe that the same basic rules for contracture, procurement, etc don';t apply across the Civil Service?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 21, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'll try and make this simple for you.
> 
> A Civil Service department hires an IT contractor to deliver a particular job. The contractor has contractual obligations to fulfill, and can be penalised if they don't fulfill them. I, as the person in that Civil Service department responsible for managing that contract, have operational and executive responsibility to make sure of that fulfillment.
> 
> In other words, I have much the same responsibilities for the contractor as I do for junior colleagues.


 You don't have to perform the IT contract,  you incur no penalties for wrong or late delivery - the contractor does. Your job is to make sure nothing obstructs the contractor performing the contract: what the fuck are you talking about Mr Keep it Simple?

Maybe you should seek advice from 'the silks' in 'the Commons'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 21, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> You don't have to perform the IT contract,  you incur no penalties for wrong or late delivery - the contractor does. Your job is to make sure nothing obstructs the contractor performing the contract: what the fuck are you talking about Mr Keep it Simple?



Still acting like a petulant foul-mouthed child, I see. In fact, what do I mean, "acting like"? You *are* a petulant, foul-mouthed child.

It means that if the contract isn't fulfilled, the Civil Servant in charge gets it in the neck, unless they're have friends in the right offices. Simple enough for you?



> Maybe you should seek advice from 'the silks' in 'the Commons'.


 
Maybe you should grow up, grow a pair and stop trying to take arguments cross-thread.


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 22, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'll try and make this simple for you.
> 
> A Civil Service department hires an IT contractor to deliver a particular job. The contractor has contractual obligations to fulfill, and can be penalised if they don't fulfill them. I, as the person in that Civil Service department responsible for managing that contract, have operational and executive responsibility to make sure of that fulfillment.
> 
> In other words, I have much the same responsibilities for the contractor as I do for junior colleagues.



That's contradictory.  How can you have operational or executive responsibility over deliverables that are contracted? You have no decision making powers, no responsibility for the work and no ability to change the parameters of the contract without the express permission of the contractee. As previously stated, you are not their employer.

Your only recourse upon failed delivery is to pursue for compensation through the courts on the basis of breach of contract, as I've previously stated.

Who did you used to work for?



> More sophistry, Paul. You know by wages that I meant "who pays his contracted fee?".



Actually, I didn't. You had previously used the term employer.  If you say what you mean, then it will be clear to everybody.



> You're also talking just a wee bit of shite with regard to retention of rights. Any contracting party with an ounce of sense negotiates rights on a case-by-case basis. The civil service, at least on the specialist rather than the infrastructural side of IT development, is usually quite hot about assigning of rights to the contracting party.



OK, so you're saying the civil service are "hot about assigning of rights to the contracting party".  Which clearly means that the Civil Service assigns rights to the contracting party.  Which is, exactly what I said.



> Do you really believe that the same basic rules for contracture, procurement, etc don';t apply across the Civil Service?


 
I know they don't.  Every department has vastly different rules for contracts & procurement.

They made a whole set up specifically in relation to the Olympics.

Can we get back to the point at hand now. I.e. Comparing like for like jobs and salaries & benefits in the Public Sector against those in the Private Sector.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 22, 2011)

PA - are you standing by this drivel; 'as for Motorways, they are just a different type of road, which began life as a pathway with a toll to crossover private land'? 

Louis MacNeice


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 22, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> PA - are you standing by this drivel; 'as for Motorways, they are just a different type of road, which began life as a pathway with a toll to crossover private land'?
> 
> Louis MacNeice



As you've taken this quote completely out of context (it was a direct response to a question),  what are you asking that I'm standing by? 

And what relevance does this have to the Public Sector/Private Sector pay debate, which is where my thread started?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 22, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> As you've taken this quote completely out of context (it was a direct response to a question),  what are you asking that I'm standing by?
> 
> And what relevance does this have to the Public Sector/Private Sector pay debate, which is where my thread started?



You were providing it as evidence of the superiority and ubiquity of private/for profit mechanisms; I am pointing out that it is historically inaccurate and internally incoherent.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 22, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> OK, so you're saying the civil service are "hot about assigning of rights to the contracting party".  Which clearly means that the Civil Service assigns rights to the contracting party.  Which is, exactly what I said.


 

It doesn't clearly mean anything of the sort. It means that they *negotiate* for assignation of rights to themselves (the contracting party) rather than to the contractor (the contracted party). 



> Can we get back to the point at hand now. I.e. Comparing like for like jobs and salaries & benefits in the Public Sector against those in the Private Sector.



If only that had been what you were doing, Paul. If only...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 22, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> As you've taken this quote completely out of context (it was a direct response to a question),  what are you asking that I'm standing by?
> 
> And what relevance does this have to the Public Sector/Private Sector pay debate, which is where *my thread* started?


 
You mean this one, which you hijacked?

Why not be a _mensch_ and start a separate one?


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 22, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> You were providing it as evidence of the superiority and ubiquity of private/for profit mechanisms; I am pointing out that it is historically inaccurate and internally incoherent.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



I had merely pointed out that whether it was railways or roads, they had all started life in the Private Sector.  I had placed no value judgement on this fact.  But my point being that if public services were to run on the basis of profit, then they should be privatised and there would be no justifiable reason not do so, as these things existed privately in the first place. 

This throwaway comment about Motorways is relatively insignificant in the scheme of things.  But, I'll address it. 

When do you acknowledge that roads came into being - I'm guessing you would say with the Romans right? Then left to go to ruin a 1,000 years later, agreed? So, would you concur the first notion of self-sustaining roads came to Britain with Pavage and the toll road in the 13th Century (Private tolls for the maintenance of roads across private land - issued by decree of the King)?  Then in essence nationalised with the Turnpike Act in 1696?

If so, what are you claiming to be historically inaccurate? (I have no idea what "internally incoherent" means - perhaps you could elucidate?)

More importantly though you didn't address my question:

"And what relevance does this have to the Public Sector/Private Sector pay debate, which is where my thread started?"


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 22, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> It doesn't clearly mean anything of the sort. It means that they *negotiate* for assignation of rights to themselves (the contracting party) rather than to the contractor (the contracted party).



The rights belong to the contractor in IP (intellectual property).  It is their intellectual property.  If you're suggesting that the Civil Service were assigning rights to themselves, then they would have to own the rights in the first place in order to do so, which CLEARLY they don't, as if they did, they would not require the services of a contractor.

As you didn't contest my other points can I conclude we are in agreement on those?


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 22, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You mean this one, which you hijacked?
> 
> Why not be a _mensch_ and start a separate one?


 
Because, I came onto this thread (I engaged with it, not hijacked it - and the thread of communication that we are engaging with thus started with my original post) to discuss the strikes and the pay debate in response to a post Ymu made on 1st July 2011 about Pay.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 22, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> The rights belong to the contractor in IP (intellectual property).  It is their intellectual property.  If you're suggesting that the Civil Service were assigning rights to themselves, then they would have to own the rights in the first place in order to do so, which CLEARLY they don't, as if they did, they would not require the services of a contractor.



Did the word "negotiate" pass you by?



> As you didn't contest my other points can I conclude we are in agreement on those?


 
You can conclude whatever you like. You're clearly going to, regardless.


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 22, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Did the word "negotiate" pass you by?



No, but you said "It means that they negotiate for assignation of rights to themselves (the contracting party) rather than to the contractor (the contracted party)"

Which would imply by definition they have the rights to assign. One hopes you never had to draft a contract in your previous role?

As previously stated and exampled, no IT Contractor would give up their IP, that's what they trade on, it would require them to reinvent the wheel for every project, which would neither be profitable nor sensible.





> You can conclude whatever you like. You're clearly going to, regardless.



Then why, pray, would I ask the question?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 22, 2011)

There's some serious mental gymnastics going on here lol


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 22, 2011)

Oh, and Paul, I wasn't asking you to make up some bollocks about the evolution of roads. I'm talking about real, material things not meaningless abstractions. So please explain how, for example, the M1 began as a privately owned pathway. And weren't the first proper roads built by the Romans? I think that counts as a state (ie. Public sector).


----------



## dennisr (Jul 22, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Oh, and Paul, I wasn't asking you to make up some bollocks about the evolution of roads. I'm talking about real, material things not meaningless abstractions. So please explain how, for example, the M1 began as a privately owned pathway. And weren't the first proper roads built by the Romans? I think that counts as a state (ie. Public sector).


 
Question to Paul the gymnast: Were the first pathways invented before (ie the majority of history) or after the invention of private property?...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 22, 2011)

dennisr said:


> Question to Paul the gymnast: Were the first pathways invented before (ie the majority of history) or after the invention of private property?...


 
One could extend the logic and ask whether the neolithic trackways were public or private concerns.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 23, 2011)

I'd imagine the dinosaurs wore pathways into the earth - were they property of Rex corporation or summat?


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 23, 2011)

dennisr said:


> Question to Paul the gymnast: Were the first pathways invented before (ie the majority of history) or after the invention of private property?...


 
Define Private Property?  One could argue that Neolithic Cavemen would fight to protect their families in the Caves they inhabited.  Would it by definition be their's because they owned it by possession ergo Private Property?

And for the record this is the last question I am answering about throw away comments.  

I'd like to get back to this thread and my core issue which is the comparison of Public Sector against Private Sector pay in relation to justifying the general strikes being suggested.  

Has anyone got any comparisons to make?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 23, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Simple - Private makes Profit - Public Doesn't.



Well, duh. What's your point - apart from pointless point-scoring?


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 23, 2011)

Why pluck an answer I gave to a direct question put to me by somebody else sometime ago and try to imply it was a point I was trying to make?

This all started with me trying to get some evidence to support the notion that Public Sector workers are paid less than Private Sector workers.

And that if the public sector wishes to be treated the same as the private there would be no reason not to privatise it.

Do you have anything to add to that debate?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 23, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Why pluck an answer I gave to a direct question put to me by somebody else sometime ago and try to imply it was a point I was trying to make?



Who died and made you emperor? Is there a rule that says I can't respond to a post; any post? 



> This all started with me trying to get some evidence to support the notion that Public Sector workers are paid less than Private Sector workers.



They are or perhaps you think that care workers are on the same salaries as chief execs?



> And that if the public sector wishes to be treated the same as the private there would be no reason not to privatise it.



It's a false dichotomy and a strawman. Where did you pick that up from?



> Do you have anything to add to that debate?



Yes, plenty. How about you? Btw, you've derailed the thread with your posturing.


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 23, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Who died and made you emperor? Is there a rule that says I can't respond to a post; any post?



No.  But I was asking why, not implying you couldn't.  I just didn't see the point to it? Was there one?




> They are or perhaps you think that care workers are on the same salaries as chief execs?



Well seeing as Chief Executives & Carers both work in the Public Sector not sure of your point here?



> It's a false dichotomy and a strawman. Where did you pick that up from?



On what grounds?



> Yes, plenty. How about you? Btw, you've derailed the thread with your posturing.


 
Good, let's hear it?  I've responded to other people's posturing questions.  As I'm doing here. 

All of my recent posts are intent on getting back onto the thread but nobody seems to want to go there.  

But hopefully you can put us back on track by elucidating your thoughts on the Strike for money against public service?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 23, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> No.  But I was asking why, not implying you couldn't.  I just didn't see the point to it? Was there one?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're either completely stupid or wilfully ignorant. One thing is for certain, you've deployed an army of strawmen to fight for you. As this demonstrates,



> Well seeing as Chief Executives & Carers both work in the Public Sector not sure of your point here?



If that isn't wilful ignorance, then I'm the Sultan of Brunei. Do you know how much care workers earn or are you making it all up in your tiny mind?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 23, 2011)

Of course it's willful ignorance. You can't subscribe to right wing "libertarianism" without either ignoring reality or distorting it in a similar way to Kent Hovind style young earth creationists. If the reality doesn't fit your dogma, then you redefine the concepts so you can pretend it does - hence the wealth = profit nonsense.

And if wealth does = profit then I don't care about wealth. I care about doing whatever it takes to secure and distribute resources (which, were it not for the daft redefinition of wealth, could be called wealth, but we'll leave that) so that the needs of everyone in society can be met.


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 23, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> You're either completely stupid or wilfully ignorant. One thing is for certain, you've deployed an army of strawmen to fight for you. As this demonstrates,
> 
> 
> 
> If that isn't wilful ignorance, then I'm the Sultan of Brunei. Do you know how much care workers earn or are you making it all up in your tiny mind?



Well hello Sultan.  Shame you have no substance to your points, just more name calling. 

And seeing as I employ carers, yes I'm very aware of what they make.  I'm also very aware of what Chief Executives of Local Councils earn too. (My debate was the difference about Public & Private pay of equivalent jobs not the difference in pay between levels of employment within each sector).

Are you suggesting that everybody should be paid the same regardless? 

Having said that, I think it's abhorrent what Chief Executives are paid in Councils.  I also think it appalling that Councils have contracted out most of the care work to organisations like Allied Healthcare - whereby the councils pay twice the salary of a carer to a private company who then passes that to the carer having taken well over 2/3rds of it for themselves.  It's neither efficient, caring  or focused on the needs of their residents in the boroughs they are supposed to serve.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your rants. If you've nothing constructive to add I'll desist from addressing you.


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 23, 2011)

BigTom said:


> Paul, I found it odd that you would rely on Adam Smith to backup your definition of profit later in the thread, when Adam Smith viewed wealth as being the sum total of everything that is produced - ie: all the material products that arise from production, plus profit. I don't remember him talking about services and whether he would count them as wealth since they do not produce a tangible product, but do facilitate the production/consumption of tangible products.
> Marx too considered wealth to be about the material outcomes of production. In fact, in as much as I remember, no economic theorist discounted the value of the material outcomes of production from their measure of the wealth of a population.. perhaps someone like Von Mises but I've never got round to reading his stuff..
> 
> I would like to explore this with you in a genuine manner, because I cannot understand your position, either from it's own point of view (that wealth=profit) or from a wider point of view (whereby wealth also includes the material outcomes of production, and takes into account the addition that services make to the level of material outcome, even where that increase is not done directly (ie: with education - I think it'd be broadly accepted that having an educated workforce will help you to produce stuff, but it'd be difficult (prob. impossible) to actually measure affect in any meaningful way).
> ...



As VP rightly pointed out, I didn't use Smith, but we'd all agree that Smith was the founder of the study of modern economics, right?

Would you also agree that we have a mixed economy (more akin to a communist one than a capitalist), which is predicated on what I would call a Consumerist Economy? Which extends well beyond the precepts of Smith.
(whilst still controversial I would start with Thorstein Velben, then for modern interpretations Janet Knoedler and Anne Mayhew).

Could we also agree that notions of manufacturing & service are constructs that have almost no meaning in the 21st Century as we start to see real life millionaires constructed in virtual worlds such as Second Life or FaceBook (http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2006/11/second_lifes_fi.html) (for this read Vernon Smith, Magnus Thor Torfason & Eyjolfur Gudmundsson).

Can we also agree that the construct of money circulation (specifically in the UK) is now just a mere faith rather than a reality (for fun, but beautifully explained check out SouthPark http://akirathedon.com/blobblog/video-south-park-13x03-margaritaville/)?  The original notion of having a finite amount of notional money in circulation based on a Gold Reserve has ceased to exist i.e. The Gold Standard (see Frank Shostak http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae3_4_3.pdf).

We now just have notional money not based on anything.  Qualitative easing took that one stage further, by in essence printing more money without actually printing more money (http://www.nolanchart.com/article8843_The_Gold_Standard_Printing_Money_and_the_Federal_Reserve.html).  Which meant that the notional money didn't deflate as it should have done (see Zimbabwe for what happens when you print more money http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/world/africa/02zimbabwe.html).

So whilst we still have manufacturing, farming etc. the constructs of the old economists really have no place in the 21st Century.

Which leads me to my point about Wealth.  Wealth is measured in monetary terms by Government (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal_wealth/13-5-table-2005.pdf).  And if Wealth can only be measured in such monetary terms then it follows that to increase wealth requires the increase of the ownership of money (Cash, Bonds, Stocks, Equity, assets etc.).

If we agree on these points, then I'll continue, if not, perhaps you'd be good enough to come to some other notion of agreement as our starting point to address your questions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 23, 2011)

Smith didn't "found modern economics" so much as tie together pre-existing strands of ideas into a coherent whole.

Even then, hardly anyone reads Smith properly. They prefer to dig out apposite quotes that support what they're saying rather than taking him in his original context.

Oh, and it's Thorsten Ve*bl*en, and his work is hardly considered "controversial" nowadays.


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 24, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Smith didn't "found modern economics" so much as tie together pre-existing strands of ideas into a coherent whole.



Hence why I said he "was the founder of the study of modern economics" not that he founded modern economics 



> Even then, hardly anyone reads Smith properly. They prefer to dig out apposite quotes that support what they're saying rather than taking him in his original context.


 Evidence?



> Oh, and it's Thorsten Ve*bl*en, and his work is hardly considered "controversial" nowadays.


 Thanks for the typo check, interesting you spot that, but didn't read the opening sentence correctly though. 

Any evidence to support the contention that he still doesn't remain controversial?

Having said that, what was your point overall?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 24, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Well hello Sultan.  Shame you have no substance to your points, just more name calling.



Projection.



> And seeing as I employ carers, yes I'm very aware of what they make.  I'm also very aware of what Chief Executives of Local Councils earn too. (My debate was the difference about Public & Private pay of equivalent jobs not the difference in pay between levels of employment within each sector).



Then why did you suggest that carers and Chief Execs were the same? Btw, I don't believe you "employ carers".



> Are you suggesting that everybody should be paid the same regardless?



Do you always jump to such conclusions?



> Having said that, I think it's abhorrent what Chief Executives are paid in Councils.  I also think it appalling that Councils have contracted out most of the care work to organisations like Allied Healthcare - whereby the councils pay twice the salary of a carer to a private company who then passes that to the carer having taken well over 2/3rds of it for themselves.  It's neither efficient, caring  or focused on the needs of their residents in the boroughs they are supposed to serve.



You've pretty much undermined your earlier thesis. Bravo.



> But don't let the facts get in the way of your rants. If you've nothing constructive to add I'll desist from addressing you.



Says the poster with the fact-free posts. I've not done any "ranting".It's all in your head, simpleton.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 24, 2011)

> As VP rightly pointed out, I didn't use Smith, but we'd all agree that Smith was the founder of the study of modern economics, right?



This proves that you're not interested in an exchange of views. You sort of made this up, didn't you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 24, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Hence why I said he "was the founder of the study of modern economics" not that he founded modern economics
> 
> Evidence?



Take, for example, The Adam Smith Institute, a "think-tank" constructed almost entirely around an interpretation of Smith's "invisible hand" metaphor. You could also take the Vienna School (aka Austrian School) of economics' use of Smith's invisible hand to reinforce their idea of the market as a process in a constant state of flux, non-amenable to modelling, when such an interpretation only stands of you don't read "The Wealth of Nations" as a de-mythologising of economics, an attempt to do away with the sort of claims that members of the Vienna School made.



> Thanks for the typo check, interesting you spot that, but didn't read the opening sentence correctly though.



I own (and have read, heaven save me) "The Theory of the Leisure Class", and can see the spine from where I sit typing. Of course I'm going to spot a typo when two examples, one in error, are both within my direct line of sight.

As for your opening sentence, the same argument pertains. Smith didn't "found the study", he drew together strands. Others came later and added stuff, some of which stuff predated Smith, much of which post-dated him.



> Any evidence to support the contention that he still doesn't remain controversial?



What, besides the fact that many of his ideas have been incorporated into theories of consumption for more than 60 years? 
You could, I suppose, also ignore that Veblen's take on business as a parasite in a symbiotic relationship with industry was proven every time "business" bailed out on industry in the 20th century and is a widely-accepted truism in economic reporting and writing , or that his idea that technological advance does not equate to cultural progress or social evolution has been endorsed in just about every generation of economists and sociologists since he formulated it?



> Having said that, what was your point overall?


 
I suppose that if I have a point, in these criticisms of your pronouncements, it's that you're a _spieler_. You give it the chat, but you generalise. It's like you're citing something you've just googled.

Now, maybe that's a function of your writing style, but maybe not. Who knows how graduates in Business Administration are taught to write (except other students of that field)?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 24, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> This proves that you're not interested in an exchange of views. You sort of made this up, didn't you?


 
Like I said, he cited the first hit on a google. Unattributed.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 24, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Having said that, I think it's abhorrent what Chief Executives are paid in Councils.  I also think it appalling that Councils have contracted out most of the care work to organisations like Allied Healthcare - whereby the councils pay twice the salary of a carer to a private company who then passes that to the carer having taken well over 2/3rds of it for themselves.  It's neither efficient, caring  or focused on the needs of their residents in the boroughs they are supposed to serve.


 
That's the private sector you utter fruitloop.


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 24, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Projection.



I've never once insulted somebody since coming on this site. So don't see how this could be projection.



> Then why did you suggest that carers and Chief Execs were the same? Btw, I don't believe you "employ carers".



I didn't suggest they were the same, I said they are working in the same sector.  Are you even reading what I'm writing? And not that I have to prove a point but http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/205...on-s-story-07-07-10-pdf-july-8-2010-11-3?dn=y



> Do you always jump to such conclusions?



A question could never be deemed a conclusion.



> You've pretty much undermined your earlier thesis. Bravo.



How?




> Says the poster with the fact-free posts. I've not done any "ranting".It's all in your head, simpleton.


 
Would you be kind enough to point to one single citation or external reference you've sourced to support your claims.  And why the vitriol?


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 24, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Like I said, he cited the first hit on a google. Unattributed.


 
I quoted "" a piece that I wasn't able to attribute to a single source for a general definition of Profit. Which was a long way from being the first thing that I was able to reference online but certainly the most appropriate.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 24, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> I've never once insulted somebody since coming on this site.


 
You insult us every time you indulge in the dishonest sophistry you're so fond of.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 24, 2011)

The master documentary maker is all over the place


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 24, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Take, for example, The Adam Smith Institute, a "think-tank" constructed almost entirely around an interpretation of Smith's "invisible hand" metaphor. You could also take the Vienna School (aka Austrian School) of economics' use of Smith's invisible hand to reinforce their idea of the market as a process in a constant state of flux, non-amenable to modelling, when such an interpretation only stands of you don't read "The Wealth of Nations" as a de-mythologising of economics, an attempt to do away with the sort of claims that members of the Vienna School made.



Two examples does not support your claim that 





> hardly anyone reads Smith properly


, which I must say would also suggest that only YOU and a few others on the entire planet, have such a thorough grasp of economic theory that you are in a place to make such a claim. 

One can only conclude therefore that you have a Doctorate and are recognised as an authority in the subject of Economics to deliver a generalisation as vast as this, with such confidence?



> I own (and have read, heaven save me) "The Theory of the Leisure Class", and can see the spine from where I sit typing. Of course I'm going to spot a typo when two examples, one in error, are both within my direct line of sight.


 Though are unable to quote correctly from the source directly in front of you i.e. mine.



> As for your opening sentence, the same argument pertains. Smith didn't "found the study", he drew together strands. Others came later and added stuff, some of which stuff predated Smith, much of which post-dated him.


 Acknowledging that you misquoted me is a good start. 

It is largely accepted that Smith was the founder of the study of Modern Economics (http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/01/religion) in both School & University texts (http://blogger-progress.blogspot.com/2009/02/adam-smith-father-of-modern-economics.html).  Even arguments against this idea begin the case acknowledging that fact (http://mises.org/daily/4810)

So what reading are you doing to suggest otherwise?



> What, besides the fact that many of his ideas have been incorporated into theories of consumption for more than 60 years?
> You could, I suppose, also ignore that Veblen's take on business as a parasite in a symbiotic relationship with industry was proven every time "business" bailed out on industry in the 20th century and is a widely-accepted truism in economic reporting and writing , or that his idea that technological advance does not equate to cultural progress or social evolution has been endorsed in just about every generation of economists and sociologists since he formulated it?


 
Your contention was his work is still not controversial, which would imply that there is full agreement amongst the economic community on the basis of his Darwinian approaches, his aesthetics arguments and the engineers and the Industrial Republic, which is clearly not true (Rick Tilman http://www.amazon.com/Intellectual-Legacy-Thorstein-Veblen-Contributions/dp/0313299463, Malcolm Rutherford http://web.uvic.ca/econ/research/papers/pdfs/ddp9901.pdf and Oliver Brette http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/a...ional-change-beyond-technological-determinism to name but a few)  



> "I suppose that if I have a point, in these criticisms of your pronouncements, it's that you're a _spieler_. You give it the chat, but you generalise. It's like you're citing something you've just googled."
> 
> Now, maybe that's a function of your writing style, but maybe not. Who knows how graduates in Business Administration are taught to write (except other students of that field)?


 
One would hardly call two generalisations and a typo, criticisms, even by non academic standards.

But, I'm hardly going to write an academic thesis on a forum. However, the core issues are supported in exactly the same way as you would present in an academic essay, by citing sources to support claims. But let's not forget this was not addressed to you but BigTom (who, as we know, won't be back until tomorrow). 

So, I still don't understand the purpose of your engagement, especially as even you acknowledge, that you barely have a point to make 





> "I suppose that if I have a point"


?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 24, 2011)

Christ you're tedious. Go away please.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 24, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Two examples does not support your claim that...



Actually, two examples *do* support my claims. What they *don't* do is PROVE it.

Sharpen up, eh? 



> which I must say would also suggest that only YOU and a few others on the entire planet, have such a thorough grasp of economic theory that you are in a place to make such a claim.



I'm sure you *must* say it, but that's probably because you're not too bright. You can't be, if you interpret a sad state of affairs such as Smith being under-read and misrepresented as me suggesting that I'm privy to information that few in the world know.



> One can only conclude therefore that you have a Doctorate and are recognised as an authority in the subject of Economics to deliver a generalisation as vast as this, with such confidence?



*You* might conclude that. You're special that way. 

Even at sarcasm you're not particularly gifted. 



> Though are unable to quote correctly from the source directly in front of you i.e. mine.



I didn't quote you, I paraphrased you. Quite a difference.



> Acknowledging that you misquoted me is a good start.



I didn't quote you, therefore I wouldn't be able to misquote you.



> It is largely accepted that Smith was the founder of the study of Modern Economics (http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/01/religion) in both School & University texts (http://blogger-progress.blogspot.com/2009/02/adam-smith-father-of-modern-economics.html).  Even arguments against this idea begin the case acknowledging that fact (http://mises.org/daily/4810)
> 
> So what reading are you doing to suggest otherwise?



Well, I'm certainly not reading blogs that advertise postgrad programmes and refer to Smith as the father rather than the founder.

Me, I'd read Hume's "A Treatise On Human Nature" and "Essays Moral & Political", *then* read Smith. Smith is heavily influenced by Hume. As I said. Smith drew together the strands. You posting up web-pages whose titles refer to Smith as "the founder" doesn't change that.



> Your contention was his work is still not controversial, which would imply that there is full agreement amongst the economic community...



Are you touched? It implies nothing of the sort! For a start (as you'd know, if you knew what you were talking about), there is no such thing as "full agreement" in the economic community. *That* is the nature of the social sciences.

Veblen's work isn't controversial. His ideas are drawn on across the social sciences, and in economics. If they *were* controversial, they wouldn't be everyday currency.



> on the basis of his Darwinian approaches, his aesthetics arguments and the engineers and the Industrial Republic, which is clearly not true (Rick Tilman http://www.amazon.com/Intellectual-Legacy-Thorstein-Veblen-Contributions/dp/0313299463, Malcolm Rutherford http://web.uvic.ca/econ/research/papers/pdfs/ddp9901.pdf and Oliver Brette http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/a...ional-change-beyond-technological-determinism to name but a few)



So bloody what?

Anyone with access to an ATHENS account, or who can use Google Scholar can dig up citations that argue against a point. That doesn't make the point any less of a point. Veblen's ideas are common currency. Live with it.




> One would hardly call two generalisations and a typo, criticisms, even by non academic standards.
> 
> 
> But, I'm hardly going to write an academic thesis on a forum. However, the core issues are supported in exactly the same way as you would present in an academic essay, by citing sources to support claims.



It's not "exactly the same". For a start, you haven't demonstrated that you understand the contents of the links you've chucked in, just that you can use Google and understand the use of key phrases.



> But let's not forget this was not addressed to you but BigTom (who, as we know, won't be back until tomorrow).



Oh, sorry your majesty. I didn't realise that mere mortals like myself weren't allowed to respond to your attempts at intellectual masturbation.



> So, I still don't understand the purpose of your engagement, especially as even you acknowledge, that you barely have a point to make ?


 
Ah, selective editing of someone's post as a device to represent them as saying something that they haven't said. What I actually said was, of course, "I suppose that if I have a point, in these criticisms of your pronouncements, it's that you're a spieler".
So, I wasn't saying that I don't have a point, I was presenting the fact that if my criticism had a focus, it was that you're a Billy Bullshitter.

Hope that's cleared that up. I'd hate for you to *accidentally* misrepresent me again with a bit of selective editing. 

Are the rumours I've been hearing that you don't confine your selective editing to bulletin boards accurate, I wonder?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 24, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Christ you're tedious. Go away please.


 
Sorry for boring you, Norm.


----------



## PaulAtherton (Jul 25, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Actually, two examples *do* support my claims. What they *don't* do is PROVE it.



Sharpen up, eh? [/QUOTE]

I'm going to use the toilet paper word of the week here - that's sophistry!

To suggest 2 examples even supports a claim that you're aware of what everybody on the planet does - is a stretch that the most ardent of your supporters would struggle with.[/QUOTE]




> I'm sure you *must* say it, but that's probably because you're not too bright. You can't be, if you interpret a sad state of affairs such as Smith being under-read and misrepresented as me suggesting that I'm privy to information that few in the world know.



To make statement like "hardly anyone reads Smith properly" suggests that you have full knowledge, of who does and doesn't read Smith and then knowing which ones do are able to distinguish which one read him properly (as defined by you). What other conclusion would you draw? 




> *You* might conclude that. You're special that way.



So do you have any qualifications or would you prefer to continue to proselytise?



> I didn't quote you, I paraphrased you. Quite a difference.



You placed the term within quotes.  Thereby implying it was a direct quote.  You didn't paraphrase - to do so would have required to have given the full quote and then suggest what you believe it meant afterwards. A basic interpretation is given on this site (http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/619/01/)



> I didn't quote you, therefore I wouldn't be able to misquote you.



Yes, you placed the term within quotation marks, if you didn't believe you were quoting me why did you do this? (http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/577/01/)



> Well, I'm certainly not reading blogs that advertise postgrad programmes and refer to Smith as the father rather than the founder.


 So post graduates in Economics don't meet your standards either?



> Me, I'd read Hume's "A Treatise On Human Nature" and "Essays Moral & Political", *then* read Smith. Smith is heavily influenced by Hume. As I said. Smith drew together the strands. You posting up web-pages whose titles refer to Smith as "the founder" doesn't change that.



I also said that every standard text book supports this contention and asked you to tell me what your reading that disputes this - do you have any references? Or are you only able to state what most people already know?




> Are you touched? It implies nothing of the sort! For a start (as you'd know, if you knew what you were talking about), there is no such thing as "full agreement" in the economic community. *That* is the nature of the social sciences.



So by definition every economic theory is controversial.



> Veblen's work isn't controversial. His ideas are drawn on across the social sciences, and in economics. If they *were* controversial, they wouldn't be everyday currency.
> 
> So bloody what?
> 
> Anyone with access to an ATHENS account, or who can use Google Scholar can dig up citations that argue against a point. That doesn't make the point any less of a point. Veblen's ideas are common currency. Live with it.



Here you don't even support your contention, let alone prove it.



> It's not "exactly the same". For a start, you haven't demonstrated that you understand the contents of the links you've chucked in, just that you can use Google and understand the use of key phrases.


 If you read the works, they clearly evidence my point.



> Oh, sorry your majesty. I didn't realise that mere mortals like myself weren't allowed to respond to your attempts at intellectual masturbation.



So no real point then.



> Ah, selective editing of someone's post as a device to represent them as saying something that they haven't said. What I actually said was, of course, "I suppose that if I have a point, in these criticisms of your pronouncements, it's that you're a spieler".
> So, I wasn't saying that I don't have a point, I was presenting the fact that if my criticism had a focus, it was that you're a Billy Bullshitter.
> 
> Hope that's cleared that up. I'd hate for you to *accidentally* misrepresent me again with a bit of selective editing.
> ...


 
Seeing as I posted your entire quote, how on gods earth could that be selective editing? More poor reading on your behalf I'm afraid.  A testament to your myopic standpoint. 

You'll be pleased to know, I'll be busy for the rest of the week.  But will come back on the weekend)))


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 25, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> I've never once insulted somebody since coming on this site. So don't see how this could be projection.



A projection is not the same thing as an "insult".  Then you don't understand what projection is, do you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection




> I didn't suggest they were the same, I said they are working in the same sector.  Are you even reading what I'm writing? And not that I have to prove a point but http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/205...on-s-story-07-07-10-pdf-july-8-2010-11-3?dn=y



Which is pretty much the same thing. It all points to lazy thinking. 





> A question could never be deemed a conclusion.



What the hell are you talking about?





> How?



I already demonstrated "how". 




> Would you be kind enough to point to one single citation or external reference you've sourced to support your claims.  And why the vitriol?



The old "go and look it up for me" tactic. You'll have to do better than that.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 25, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Like I said, he cited the first hit on a google. Unattributed.



Yep.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 25, 2011)

@vp - that wasn't directed at you, I was talking about Mr Atherton. Should have quoted him really. My apologies.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 25, 2011)

I'm just back from a festival and rather worse for wear, so I've not responded to everything but there is some stuff I can respond to straight away and I think the conversation can move on regardless 



PaulAtherton said:


> As VP rightly pointed out, I didn't use Smith, but we'd all agree that Smith was the founder of the study of modern economics, right?



In terms of founders, I'd argue that the Physiocrats have a better shout than Smith, but I'd agree that Smith is both more influential and more important and that he did begin the Classical Liberalism strand of economic theory.  I don't see this as being an important point though, and I don't think we should get bogged down in a minor, almost pedantic, disagreement



> Would you also agree that we have a mixed economy (more akin to a communist one than a capitalist), which is predicated on what I would call a Consumerist Economy? Which extends well beyond the precepts of Smith.
> (whilst still controversial I would start with Thorstein Velben, then for modern interpretations Janet Knoedler and Anne Mayhew).



Agree about mixed economy, don't agree about more communist but don't see the point of getting into a debate about that.  Probably agree on consumerist economy in parts but I'd need to have a re-read of things to really answer that.  Generally agree about extending beyond the precepts of Smith I would think, but there might be specific disagreements.



> Could we also agree that notions of manufacturing & service are constructs that have almost no meaning in the 21st Century as we start to see real life millionaires constructed in virtual worlds such as Second Life or FaceBook (http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2006/11/second_lifes_fi.html) (for this read Vernon Smith, Magnus Thor Torfason & Eyjolfur Gudmundsson).



Whilst in essence I agree, the practical fact of the matter is that production/manufacturing produces tangible goods, whilst services produce intangible goods.  This makes the tertiary sector different in a quite fundamental way to the primary & secondary sectors.  It means that they have different sets of measurements available to them.  It also is easier to see/understand the increase in wealth that comes from the primary/secondary sectors but hard for the tertiary sector.



> Can we also agree that the construct of money circulation (specifically in the UK) is now just a mere faith rather than a reality (for fun, but beautifully explained check out SouthPark http://akirathedon.com/blobblog/video-south-park-13x03-margaritaville/)?  The original notion of having a finite amount of notional money in circulation based on a Gold Reserve has ceased to exist i.e. The Gold Standard (see Frank Shostak http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae3_4_3.pdf).
> 
> We now just have notional money not based on anything.  Qualitative easing took that one stage further, by in essence printing more money without actually printing more money (http://www.nolanchart.com/article8843_The_Gold_Standard_Printing_Money_and_the_Federal_Reserve.html).  Which meant that the notional money didn't deflate as it should have done (see Zimbabwe for what happens when you print more money http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/world/africa/02zimbabwe.html).



This is something I'd need to come back to if you want me to.  Given that I disagree with almost everything else in your post, I'd hazard a guess that I'd disagree with this 



> So whilst we still have manufacturing, farming etc. the constructs of the old economists really have no place in the 21st Century.



No, the "old economists" (do you have a date/theorist at which point old becomes new?) studied fundamentally the same system we have now.  It has changed, significantly.  You need to read old theorists with that in mind - the physiocrats are really outdated because their concept of economics is tied into the idea that land ~ value which is certainly no longer true but you can see why economists studying the very beginnings of capitalism, living in a still broadly agrarian economy, would think that.. 
Anyway, the old economists definitely have things to tell us about the 21st economy, and how we best manage it - Hayek vs Keynes is being played out in front of our eyes right now.



> Which leads me to my point about Wealth.  Wealth is measured in monetary terms by Government (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal_wealth/13-5-table-2005.pdf).  And if Wealth can only be measured in such monetary terms then it follows that to increase wealth requires the increase of the ownership of money (Cash, Bonds, Stocks, Equity, assets etc.).



Obviously I agree that government measures wealth in money, but money isn't the only way to measure wealth.  It's used because it's the only way to measure everything that is produced in the same unit.  There are other ways, perhaps better ways, to measure wealth.  We can measure food in terms of the calories & nutrients the provide, we can measure things like oil, coal, gas, wind farms etc. in terms of the energy they provide.
Even if we just talk about money as a measurement of wealth, you've put the horse before the cart with the conclusion you've drawn.  Money is the measure of wealth, it is not wealth.  To increase money (not sure why you've said "ownership of money") what you need to do is increase wealth, then you'll increase money because that's what you are using to measure wealth.. but you no more increase wealth by increasing money than you grow taller by gaining CMs in height.

There's nothing special about money as a measurement.  Well, being applicable to everything is quite special to be fair, but it doesn't mean it's the best way to measure something.  for instance, I'm told (and I haven't yet verified this fact beyond my trust in the person who informed me of it, so apologies if I'm wrong) that the extraction of oil from tar sands in Canada uses more energy that is extracted in the form of oil, because oil is so valuable that the other forms of energy are cheaper.. so by the measure of money/profit, wealth is increased - but energy - the thing we actually want - is decreased... 




> If we agree on these points, then I'll continue, if not, perhaps you'd be good enough to come to some other notion of agreement as our starting point to address your questions.


 
Too tired to really do this  briefly I'd say that money is just one of a number of ways of measuring wealth, and that what money measures when it used to measure an economy (for instance GDP) is the total amount of goods/services produced by an economy (usually defined (not in dictionary terms, in geographic/political terms) in reference to the nation state, or more recently supra-national organisations such as the EU or NAFTA)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 25, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Seeing as I posted your entire quote, how on gods earth could that be selective editing? More poor reading on your behalf I'm afraid.  A testament to your myopic standpoint.



So now you've moved on to bare-faced lying?

You posted "I suppose that if I have a point", a selective culling from a sentence that actually said "I suppose that if I have a point, in these criticisms of your pronouncements, it's that you're a spieler". In other words you posted the first 8 words of a 19-word sentence. You selectively edited that sentence, removing the final 11 words, in order to score points.

You're a _spieler_, Paul. A Billy Bullshitter who, like all Billy Bullshitters, hates being found out.



> You'll be pleased to know, I'll be busy for the rest of the week.  But will come back on the weekend)))


 
Oh joy!


E2A: By the way, I'm long-sighted rather than short-sighted.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 25, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> @vp - that wasn't directed at you, I was talking about Mr Atherton. Should have quoted him really. My apologies.


 
I know, Norm. But I accept that I'm partially responsible for Billy Paul continuing to post his flights of google-fueled ego, for which I apologise.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 28, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I know, Norm. But I accept that I'm partially responsible for Billy Paul continuing to post his flights of google-fueled ego, for which I apologise.







PaulAtherton said:


> But will come back on the weekend)))


 

Please don't


----------



## PaulAtherton (Aug 29, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> So now you've moved on to bare-faced lying?
> 
> You posted "I suppose that if I have a point", a selective culling from a sentence that actually said "I suppose that if I have a point, in these criticisms of your pronouncements, it's that you're a spieler". In other words you posted the first 8 words of a 19-word sentence. You selectively edited that sentence, removing the final 11 words, in order to score points.
> 
> ...



I had already posted that quote in full three paragraphs earlier, to my abbreviated version of it, which I'd also addressed. As I said poor reading on your behalf.

So an apology from you would be in order.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 31, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> I had already posted that quote in full three paragraphs earlier, to my abbreviated version of it, which I'd also addressed. As I said poor reading on your behalf.
> 
> So an apology from you would be in order.



Blimey, you've returned, and only a month later than you said! fancy addressing my reply at the bottom of the previous page at all?


----------



## PaulAtherton (Sep 2, 2011)

BigTom said:


> Blimey, you've returned, and only a month later than you said! fancy addressing my reply at the bottom of the previous page at all?


Hi BigTom, Real life intervening at the moment (health been very poor).  But will respond as soon as I can.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 3, 2011)

Sorry to hear about your health Paul, I hope you do respond at some point.


----------



## gaijingirl (Oct 8, 2011)

Just as an addendum.. I received a letter from NASUWT earlier this week - they are balloting members to strike later this term.  This what they say:

"This is not just about pensions; all of our conditions of service are under attack.  For example:

The three hour limit on classroom observations is to go.
The Prime Minister has announced that he would like to shorten the summer holiday.
There is a 2 year pay freeze whilst inflation is running at over 5% (an effective pay cut of 10%).
The technical move from RPI to CPI when setting pensions will cost you nearly half a million pounds (assuming your pension is £20k pa and you live to draw it for 30 years).  This on top of the proposals to make you pya more, work longer and receive less.
Performance management regulations are to change, removing the 3-hour limit on classroom observations, and the make it more like you are on a permanent capability procedure.
The Government wants schools to have "greater flexibility" which puts Rarely Cover, PPA and the ban on administrative tasks in the firing line.

On top of all of this, members still tell us that workload continues to be their biggest concern."


----------



## Guineveretoo (Oct 8, 2011)

About 20 unions are planning industrial action on 30 November. This is going to be the biggest strike for decades, and is certainly closer to a general strike than the June one, which only involved a few unions.


----------



## gaijingirl (Oct 8, 2011)

so when NASUWT refer to a strike later this term - are they talking about that date do you think?


----------



## Guineveretoo (Oct 8, 2011)

Almost certainly. I don't know whether NASUWT are balloting for continuous strike action or what, but the date of 30 November is the one to keep an eye on.  If we get a yes vote, it'll be as close to a general strike as it could possibly be. They reckon it could be the biggest strike in living history. The  top civil servants and top managers in the NHS and local government are putting out lots of misinformation about it, despite their unions also balloting!


----------



## gaijingirl (Oct 8, 2011)

thanks - interesting news.


----------



## shaun balls (Oct 8, 2011)

Pre-ballot info check letters were out for Unite healthcare a couple of weeks ago. I have a daft question though - does dual membership in the case of both unions balloting in one workplace cause any complications? Any odd technicalities?


----------

