AwayGoalsRule Football Forum

The Internet's Finest Football Forum

Get moneyback specials on your football betting at PaddyPower


It is currently Wed Sep 20, 2017 3:55 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Clarkson gets Public Sector Workers and himself mixed up
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:21 pm 
Offline
Captain
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 2378
Location: Planet Vulcan
Resurrection Joe wrote:
does this mean a new series of Top Gear starts on Sunday? :blink:



He has a book on the shelves for the Christmas sales I think. No doubt Ill get one for christmas, when all I want is chocolate

_________________
Beam me up Spotty


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clarkson gets Public Sector Workers and himself mixed up
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:36 pm 
Offline
Captain
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 2378
Location: Planet Vulcan
Mr Carrot wrote:
For every left winger saying the right caused the problems, there is a right winger saying it's left.

It's ridiculous, they can't both be right.

Just because they are your views, that doesn't make them correct.


They arent just my views, many economists are now coming to the same conclusion, Even Mervyn King, read the articles from David Blanchflower (economist not Labour Politician) I posted links to. Even the evidence of the past supports my views here, the war spending for the second world war ended the depression of the 1930s whilst the cuts made it worse

Mr Carrot wrote:
It's my view, not a fact, that regardless of who was in government it would be the same. We would still be in the pap, just brought about in a different fashion, and instead of you , there would be some right winger slagging the government off saying it wouldn't be like this if the Tories were in.


except that the economy wouldnt be in this state, read what David Blanchflower has to say, remember that in the three quarters before the last election the economy grew and unemployment and the defecit were falling, remember that Thatchers defecit was higher (as a proportion of GDP), unemployment was horendous and the balance of payments was awful.

Mr Carrot wrote:
By the way, they would have lost their money because there was possibilty, slim as it may have been, that the delays could have meant the cancellation of their flight, or a huge a delay until the following day. They are only coming for a couple of days to bring the kids christmas presents over.


I still dont understand why a flight cancellation would lose them all their money, unless you mean because they would hav had to pay a fortune to get there a different way, in which case they should have taken out insurance Flights are delayed and cancelled all the time, its a risk you take every time you fly, I know, my job means I have to travel a lot Im regularly hit by flight delays and cancellations and this time last year I was stuck away from home for a week because of flight cancelations due to the weather

Mr Carrot wrote:
And I also know that "I did the very same in the first sentence" that's my point. For every person saying it's the coalitions fault, there is someone saying it's Labours fault.


There isnt. there never was, the Tories did not get half of the votes in the last election and the Liberals were against the cuts until they were offered seats in a Tory Government, as a result there have been hundreds of defections from Liberal to Labour, the Liberal vote has collapsed, many Tory voters are now calling for the cuts to stop and according to the latest opinion polls, Labour would have a majority if there were an election tommorrow nut of course whilst if there was a Labour Government in power that would be splashed across all the front pages its kept quiet now. What we have is an impression created by a noisy pro Tory Press

_________________
Beam me up Spotty


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clarkson gets Public Sector Workers and himself mixed up
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:51 pm 
Offline
Captain
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 2378
Location: Planet Vulcan
The growth-deniers' game is up. Just look at the numbers.
Posted by David Blanchflower - 11 November 2011 12:44
Contrary to the coalition government's spin, the economy was recovering nicely under the last Labour government.


Today is the day to report back on the battle between the coalition and the opposition over who has been right on the economy. Keynes versus Hayek; growth-deniers versus deficit-deniers (supposedly like me). The jury has now reached its verdict and the coalition is guilty as charged -- they have destroyed growth and pushed the UK into a recession worse than we saw in the 1930s. Contrary to the coalition government's spin, the economy was recovering nicely under the last Labour government.

Yesterday, the European Commission said Britain's economy will grow by just 0.7 per cent this year, 0.6 per cent in 2012 and 1.5 per cent in 2013. The figures are miles below the 1.7 per cent, 2.5 per cent and 2.9 per cent growth forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) in March. It is broadly consistent with the forecasts of the CBI and NIESR. Given that we have already had growth of 1 per cent in the first three quarters of the year, this suggests that the Commission is expecting negative growth of 0.3 per cent in Q4 and/or the earlier quarters to be revised down. The OECD, the IMF and the EU have now given up on George.

The recession can be split into four parts. First, the "down" part which started in the second quarter of 2008 and went on for a total of five consecutive quarters of negative growth, during which output fell by an enormous 7.4 per cent. Second, the "up" part, which also lasted five quarters (from Q3 2009 to Q3 2010) when under Alistar Darling and Gordon Brown, growth increased by 2.8 per cent. Then, the "flatline" phase under George Osborne, which is also fifteen months long (from Q4 2010 to Q4 2011) with growth of 0.2 per cent, assuming we use the EU's estimates. Osborne destroyed Darling's recovery. Then, finally, the "stagnation" phase, lasting 24 months (from Q1 2012 to Q4 2013) with growth of 2.1 per cent over two years, or an average of just over 1 per cent.



So by the end of 2013, only 5.6 per cent of the 7.4 per cent drop in output will have been restored. This is worse than the 1930-1934 double-dip recession, which had only a slightly bigger output drop but was over in 48 months. By the end of 2013, this will number 69 months and counting. It is no good blaming the eurozone, old chap. This means that Osborne will have caused the longest-lasting downturn for at least a century, which because of his incompetence has now turned into a depression of epic proportions. Acording to the EU Commission's forecasts, it will take Slasher Osborne 39 months to achieve the same growth of 2.8 per cent as Alistair Darling's policies achieved in fifteen months. Spin your way out of that one, Mr Fallon. If the problems were all inherited from Labour, how come they were able to grow the economy twice as fast as the coalition has? Blaming the eurozone won't wash.

Judging by Vince Cable's comments yesterday, it looks increasingly unlikely that the coalition has much of a plan B. The Autumn Statement is due at the end of the month, but he appeared to rule out tax cuts or a new burst in spending. Infrastructure projects are fine, but will take a long time to have an effect, as will credit easing. That old Tory chestnut of removing regulation and red-tape, as ever, is likely to do diddly squat. The growth-deniers' game is up. Just look at the numbers.

_________________
Beam me up Spotty


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clarkson gets Public Sector Workers and himself mixed up
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:54 pm 
Offline
Captain
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 2378
Location: Planet Vulcan
Posted by Gavin Kelly - New Statesman 29 November 2011 17:58
When forced to find new resources, the coalition's instinct is to take them from low-to-middle income families.


Just in case you were under any doubt about where the burden of today's widely expected cuts to tax credits will fall, the chart below should make it clear. Over 75 per cent of the pain of today's changes to tax credits is felt by the bottom half of the income distribution. The vast majority of these from families with children.



The decision to scrap the planned increases in Child Tax Credit (hitherto the coalition's one emblem of its commitment to tackle child poverty), together with other cuts to Working Tax Credit, will mean more than £1.2bn of cuts in 2012.

The changes to the child tax credit will mean families lose the extra £110 per child that they had been expecting in 2012; and the freezing of the Working Tax Credit will reduce the incomes of working families by a further £100. How many will be affected altogether? Around 5.5 million families will lose as a result of the changes to child tax credit, with 2 million facing a double hit because of the working tax credit changes.

This latest squeeze on family finances comes on top of a raft of other already announced cuts to tax credits, many of which don't bite until April 2012. Together they add to up to approximately £2.9 billion of cuts in 2012-13, roughly 10 percent of the total tax credit budget.

There were actually a number of relatively small announcements that should be welcomed today - above all the doubling of childcare places for disadvantaged two year olds. But the wrong people where paying for this.

If you really want to unpick what is going on in politics -- above all on the day of spending announcements -- it is always best to ignore the words spoken and instead follow the detail of the choices made. Today revealed one thing above all else -- when put in a corner, and forced to find new resources, the coalition's instinct is clear: take them from the tax credits going to low-to-middle income families.

_________________
Beam me up Spotty


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clarkson gets Public Sector Workers and himself mixed up
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:09 pm 
Offline
Captain
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 2378
Location: Planet Vulcan
Posted by George Eaton - New Statesman 30 November 2011 09:37
Forcing workers to pay more is a political choice, not an economic necessity.

Around two million public sector workers will strike today over the government's reforms to public sector pensions. Photograph: Getty Images.


The biggest strike for a generation has begun, with around 30 unions, including, for the first time in its history, the National Association of Head Teachers, and two million public sector workers walking out in protest at the government's reforms to public sector pensions. According to the Department for Education, around 58 per cent of England's 21,700 state schools will be closed, with a further 13 per cent partially shut.

With most polls showing a small majority against the strike and others showing support evenly split between the strikers and the government, the battle for public opinion has only just begun. Indeed, the most notable poll finding of recent days (courtesy of TNS-BMRB) is that just 4 per cent of private sector workers claim to know a lot about why the strike is happening. Despite the increasingly sharp rhetoric from both sides, the truth is that today's "day of action" may change little.

But there's no doubt that Osborne's new, tougher austerity programme has upped the stakes. As I reported yesterday, the Office for Budget Responsibility predicts that no fewer than 710,000 public sector jobs will be cut by 2017, 310,000 more than previously forecast. In addition, Osborne's plan to cap pay rises at 1 per cent means that some workers will have suffer an average 16 per cent pay cut over the next five years. If public sector workers can't go on strike in these circumstances, when can they?

For now, here are two myths that deserve to be rebutted again. The first is that public sector pensions, in their current form, are "unaffordable". David Cameron, for instance, has frequently claimed that the system is "broke". But as the graph below from the government-commissioned Hutton Report shows, public sector pension payments peaked at 1.9 per cent of GDP in 2010-11 and will gradually fall over the next fifty years to 1.4 per cent in 2059-60. The government's plan to ask employees to work longer and pay more is a political choice, not an economic necessity.



As the Public Accounts Committee observed: "Officials appeared to define affordability on the basis of public perception rather than judgement on the cost in relation to either GDP or total public spending." In other words, the public have been misled and ministers are determined to keep misleading them.

The second is that inadequate pension provision in the private sector is a reason to reduce pension provision in the public sector. The Daily Mail et al repeatedly point out that two-thirds of private sector employees do not have a company pension, compared to just 12 per cent of public sector workers. But this is an argument for improving provision in the private sector, not for driving it down in the public sector. Ministers must not fire the starting gun on a race to the bottom. Indeed, many pensionless private sector workers depend on their partner's public sector pension to ensure a basic standard of living in old age.

We can debate the merits of industrial action as a form of protest. But with public sector workers facing a triple crunch - higher contributions, a tougher inflation index and lower benefits - it's hardly surprising that they feel compelled to defend their rights. Even before any of the Hutton reforms are introduced, George Osborne's decision to uprate benefits in line with CPI, rather than the RPI, has already reduced the value of some pensions by 15 per cent.

Strip away the government's rhetoric ("unaffordable", "untenable") and the truth is that ministers are forcing workers to take another pay cut, forcing them to pick up the tab for a crisis that they did not cause. The public might be on the side of ministers, for now at least, but the facts are on the side of the unions.

_________________
Beam me up Spotty


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clarkson gets Public Sector Workers and himself mixed up
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:45 pm 
Offline
Euro2012 Winner
Euro2012 Winner
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:48 pm
Posts: 7767
Location: Manchester
Highscores: 7
Jeremy Clarkson is the best wummer alive.

_________________
2012
idontfeardeath wrote: Nevermind. It's not like he's going to make the Juve starting 11. :lol:
Spawny wrote: Tata Paul. Enjoy Juve's reserve team, but at least the weather will be nicer.

2013
Quote:
Manchester United fans look away now: Paul Pogba has been crowned the best young player in Europe.

Image :snigger:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clarkson gets Public Sector Workers and himself mixed up
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:51 pm 
Offline
Captain
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 2378
Location: Planet Vulcan
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/12/ ... -clarkson/

_________________
Beam me up Spotty


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clarkson gets Public Sector Workers and himself mixed up
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:18 pm 
Offline
General of the Army
General of the Army
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 10:45 pm
Posts: 41339
Location: Cloud Cuckooland
Highscores: 3
Mr Carrot wrote:
For every left winger saying the right caused the problems, there is a right winger saying it's left.

It's ridiculous, they can't both be right.

i think the CM is a more pressing issue, although i do agree the flanks need a kick up the ass

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImageImage

ImageImage
Quote:
Goodnight, thank you, and may your god go with you


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clarkson gets Public Sector Workers and himself mixed up
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:20 pm 
Offline
General
General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:27 pm
Posts: 17205
Location: Over there.
Highscores: 2
Not sure I'm reading all that! :rolleyes:

Ok, the law should be changed so that a) banks and those who profited from the deliberate transfer of wealth to the rich from everyone else should be charged with something, possibly jail for the ring leaders and this should include members of parliament and industry leaders whoever cooked up the scheme no exceptions. It was theft, and the laws were unjust so that should be reason enough to take action.

And b) we either take all the money back from the banks and let shareholders take the hit, or even better pass a law to totally wipe the debt clean at a stroke, and if the corrupt private company (it's not US government owned as the name suggests) the Federal Reserve Bank and their partners in crime the IMF don't like it then tough 'cause we don't want to be on their loan shark books anymore and we shouldn't be paying. We have the power to print our own currency any time we want and the fact we aren't tells you that there is something going on that shouldn't be.

I think the public sector workers are having a laugh tbh... with any other company rather than working the government then they'd already all have lost their jobs and got no pension whatsoever given last years financial results - they're already far better off than the private sector where companies are disappearing completely. To demand money from the tax payer is ludicrous and extremely selfish, thinking that they are above such trivial matters as a bankrupt country etc. Shameless they are. The only way their pensions should be preserved is if the rest of the pensioners get the same rate. If action was taken to cancel the debt (the course I personally favour) then nobody would have to be squeezed at all. It's nonsense to suggest these cutbacks are necessary anyway, they have already cost more in lost tax and increased benefit payments than they have saved from the cost-cutting.

Also the Labour/Conservative debate is pointless, I agree with Mr C. they're identical and have been for years, despite the slight differences in lies told. Like now for example, Labour are shouting "You're cutting too fast and too far!" and the others shout back "And you're not cutting back fast or far enough!" etc. The difference in the figures put forward by each? A miniscule 1.5% IIRC. :rolleyes: They work for the same paymasters, and have the exact same agenda. There is simply nothing to debate.

And yes Reedo, best wummer ever.

_________________
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.

Image
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clarkson gets Public Sector Workers and himself mixed up
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:33 pm 
Offline
Captain
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 2378
Location: Planet Vulcan
conscience wrote:
Not sure I'm reading all that! :rolleyes:

I think the public sector workers are having a laugh tbh... with any other company rather than working the government then they'd already all have lost their jobs and got no pension whatsoever given last years financial results - they're already far better off than the private sector where companies are disappearing completely. To demand money from the tax payer is ludicrous and extremely selfish, thinking that they are above such trivial matters as a bankrupt country etc. Shameless they are. The only way their pensions should be preserved is if the rest of the pensioners get the same rate. If action was taken to cancel the debt (the course I personally favour) then nobody would have to be squeezed at all. It's nonsense to suggest these cutbacks are necessary anyway, they have already cost more in lost tax and increased benefit payments than they have saved from the cost-cutting.


I trust youre being ironic, we tax payers are not subsidising public sector pensions, thats a lie spread by the Tories and their friends yo justify their idealogically inspired attack on the public sector. They pay more than a third of their income into their pensions and at the moment public sector workers are paying more money in than public sector pensioners are taking out/ If they are better off than private sector workers its because they have had to put up with lower pay and higher contributions to get there Now a Government wants to rob from them to give to the rich. and as you say, the cut backs have cost more anyway. Will taking pensions that they have paid for away from people make that any better? I doubt it. ANd they wouldnt have lost their jobs in the private sector, because they are needed and the country is not bankrupt as the Tories claim (see the slinks I posted earlier) although we will be if we let the Tories carry on. And once more as far as injustices with Private sector pensions go, being robbed is not a good reason to resent someone else for not wanting to be robbed.

conscience wrote:
Also the Labour/Conservative debate is pointless, I agree with Mr C. they're identical and have been for years, despite the slight differences in lies told. Like now for example, Labour are shouting "You're cutting too fast and too far!" and the others shout back "And you're not cutting back fast or far enough!" etc. The difference in the figures put forward by each? A miniscule 1.5% IIRC. :rolleyes: They work for the same paymasters, and have the exact same agenda. There is simply nothing to debate.

And yes Reedo, best wummer ever.


That 1.5% actually makes a big difference to the economy and peoples jobs, it represents multi billions of pounds.

_________________
Beam me up Spotty


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clarkson gets Public Sector Workers and himself mixed up
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:43 pm 
Offline
General of the Army
General of the Army

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:53 am
Posts: 31151
Location: Milton Keynes
For me it's simple with the pension they have to work for longer that is a given the average life expectancy in England now is 90 + when these pensions were thought up most people didn't live far past 80.

The only thing I support them on is asking them to pay in more times are hard enough inflation is pushing prices up and disposable income is right down so asking the average public sector workers like nurses or teachers to pay more is harsh as I imagine they're struggling enough as it is.

The major issue with public sector for me is it needs stream lining there's a lot of expensive management cost that could probably be saved and imo would definitely of been saved if it was private sector jobs. Say what you want about big corporations but they know how to trim the fat and cut costs without effecting output. It should be the management (higher earners) taking the cuts to protect everyones pension not an across the board deal imo the chiefs should be paying a higher price than the indians.

Also, quite a few of my friends are teachers who took the day off yesterday not one of them attended a picket line most of them went and did their christmas shopping or chilled out at home.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clarkson gets Public Sector Workers and himself mixed up
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:46 pm 
Offline
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:56 am
Posts: 7998
Location: 52 Festive Road
Highscores: 6
Mr Spock wrote:
conscience wrote:
Not sure I'm reading all that! :rolleyes:

I think the public sector workers are having a laugh tbh... with any other company rather than working the government then they'd already all have lost their jobs and got no pension whatsoever given last years financial results - they're already far better off than the private sector where companies are disappearing completely. To demand money from the tax payer is ludicrous and extremely selfish, thinking that they are above such trivial matters as a bankrupt country etc. Shameless they are. The only way their pensions should be preserved is if the rest of the pensioners get the same rate. If action was taken to cancel the debt (the course I personally favour) then nobody would have to be squeezed at all. It's nonsense to suggest these cutbacks are necessary anyway, they have already cost more in lost tax and increased benefit payments than they have saved from the cost-cutting.


I trust youre being ironic, we tax payers are not subsidising public sector pensions, thats a lie spread by the Tories and their friends yo justify their idealogically inspired attack on the public sector. They pay more than a third of their income into their pensions and at the moment public sector workers are paying more money in than public sector pensioners are taking out/ If they are better off than private sector workers its because they have had to put up with lower pay and higher contributions to get there Now a Government wants to rob from them to give to the rich. and as you say, the cut backs have cost more anyway. Will taking pensions that they have paid for away from people make that any better? I doubt it. ANd they wouldnt have lost their jobs in the private sector, because they are needed and the country is not bankrupt as the Tories claim (see the slinks I posted earlier) although we will be if we let the Tories carry on. And once more as far as injustices with Private sector pensions go, being robbed is not a good reason to resent someone else for not wanting to be robbed.

conscience wrote:
Also the Labour/Conservative debate is pointless, I agree with Mr C. they're identical and have been for years, despite the slight differences in lies told. Like now for example, Labour are shouting "You're cutting too fast and too far!" and the others shout back "And you're not cutting back fast or far enough!" etc. The difference in the figures put forward by each? A miniscule 1.5% IIRC. :rolleyes: They work for the same paymasters, and have the exact same agenda. There is simply nothing to debate.

And yes Reedo, best wummer ever.


That 1.5% actually makes a big difference to the economy and peoples jobs, it represents multi billions of pounds.


You do realise, somewhere, there is a Tory as fervent as you who could post articles and reasoning to counter your opinions don't you.

There is nothing you can say or post that will change my mind. They are all the same, they just go about it in different ways.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clarkson gets Public Sector Workers and himself mixed up
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:50 pm 
Offline
General of the Army
General of the Army
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 2:12 am
Posts: 19588
Highscores: 1
JSP wrote:
For me it's simple with the pension they have to work for longer that is a given the average life expectancy in England now is 90+


Life expectancy is closer to 80.

_________________
Because I'm young enough to be all pi**ed off
But I'm old enough to be jaded
I'm at the age where I want things to change
But with age my hopes have faded


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clarkson gets Public Sector Workers and himself mixed up
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:52 pm 
Offline
Captain
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 2378
Location: Planet Vulcan
JSP wrote:
For me it's simple with the pension they have to work for longer that is a given the average life expectancy in England now is 90 + when these pensions were thought up most people didn't live far past 80.

The only thing I support them on is asking them to pay in more times are hard enough inflation is pushing prices up and disposable income is right down so asking the average public sector workers like nurses or teachers to pay more is harsh as I imagine they're struggling enough as it is.

The major issue with public sector for me is it needs stream lining there's a lot of expensive management cost that could probably be saved and imo would definitely of been saved if it was private sector jobs. Say what you want about big corporations but they know how to trim the fat and cut costs without effecting output. It should be the management (higher earners) taking the cuts to protect everyones pension not an across the board deal imo the chiefs should be paying a higher price than the indians.

Also, quite a few of my friends are teachers who took the day off yesterday not one of them attended a picket line most of them went and did their christmas shopping or chilled out at home.



The problem that the Chiefs arent being cut, its the indians, my dad retired early, he was a front line worker dealing with pensioners. The DSS were instructed to reduce management jobs so that they could employ more front line staff, they got round that by retiring people early (not managers) and replacing them with temps who they could pay even less so it looked like they were employing more front line staff without having to lay off managers.

These pension cuts hurt the middle income and low paid brackets rather than the fat bosses.

And Ive worked with a few private sector firms that are top heavy with management in my time

_________________
Beam me up Spotty


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clarkson gets Public Sector Workers and himself mixed up
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:07 pm 
Offline
General
General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:27 pm
Posts: 17205
Location: Over there.
Highscores: 2
Mr Spock wrote:
conscience wrote:
Not sure I'm reading all that! :rolleyes:

I think the public sector workers are having a laugh tbh... with any other company rather than working the government then they'd already all have lost their jobs and got no pension whatsoever given last years financial results - they're already far better off than the private sector where companies are disappearing completely. To demand money from the tax payer is ludicrous and extremely selfish, thinking that they are above such trivial matters as a bankrupt country etc. Shameless they are. The only way their pensions should be preserved is if the rest of the pensioners get the same rate. If action was taken to cancel the debt (the course I personally favour) then nobody would have to be squeezed at all. It's nonsense to suggest these cutbacks are necessary anyway, they have already cost more in lost tax and increased benefit payments than they have saved from the cost-cutting.


I trust youre being ironic, we tax payers are not subsidising public sector pensions, thats a lie spread by the Tories and their friends yo justify their idealogically inspired attack on the public sector. They pay more than a third of their income into their pensions and at the moment public sector workers are paying more money in than public sector pensioners are taking out/ If they are better off than private sector workers its because they have had to put up with lower pay and higher contributions to get there Now a Government wants to rob from them to give to the rich. and as you say, the cut backs have cost more anyway. Will taking pensions that they have paid for away from people make that any better? I doubt it. ANd they wouldnt have lost their jobs in the private sector, because they are needed and the country is not bankrupt as the Tories claim (see the slinks I posted earlier) although we will be if we let the Tories carry on. And once more as far as injustices with Private sector pensions go, being robbed is not a good reason to resent someone else for not wanting to be robbed.

conscience wrote:
Also the Labour/Conservative debate is pointless, I agree with Mr C. they're identical and have been for years, despite the slight differences in lies told. Like now for example, Labour are shouting "You're cutting too fast and too far!" and the others shout back "And you're not cutting back fast or far enough!" etc. The difference in the figures put forward by each? A miniscule 1.5% IIRC. :rolleyes: They work for the same paymasters, and have the exact same agenda. There is simply nothing to debate.

And yes Reedo, best wummer ever.


That 1.5% actually makes a big difference to the economy and peoples jobs, it represents multi billions of pounds.


Not deliberately, no. The tax payer isn't subsidising pensions, no - they're footing the whole bill. I get your point though, that it's not the deal they agreed to but the fact is that the money handed over by trusting government employees was spent or lost long ago, and any money that might have been left will certainly have been taken with the stock market going down and the great banking heist aka the bailout. The government don't have the cash, and if they borrow it then it's secured against the promise of making the tax payers repay the debt.

Not seen your stuff yet, I may go back and read the entire thread later, but yeah I know all about that we aren't actually bankrupt so that no cuts are necessary at all, it's a scam pure and simple.

"...being robbed is not a good reason to resent someone else for not wanting to be robbed."

Agreed. But while everybody else IS getting robbed why should just one section of the employment market be protected and get extra benefits and cash? They have a case, unquestionably, but why aren't they arguing against cuts to everyone... where was the industrial action to support other employees and the unemployed? Just seemed a little selfish to me while we have record unemployment due to massive job losses.

As for the political stuff, Conservative = Labour = Conservative = Lib Dems = Labour = etc. If you want a longer running example, see how many times Labour and Conservative views have swapped sides when they swapped places from government to opposition? And how many times despite slagging off the other's policies whilst on one side, once they swap one adopt the other's policies and the other inherits the arguments against it. Clearly there's one policy, that of the ruling government that doesn't change and is enacted by both/all parties. And there's one opposition argument that whoever is in opposition takes up. EG Cameron and Clegg both referred to PFI as "dodgy accounting" whereas now they're in power they are signing record numbers of these very one-sided against the public contracts. It's a joke to think we have any choice whatsoever, which is why there's no point voting... you're getting the same thing regardless because we live in a dictatorship.

The 1.5% may be a few billion, but it's still peanuts in the grand scheme of things. It's the same policy which is why you'll notice that for all the arguments between them, they won't argue numbers on this issue only saying one is too quick/one is too slow... the numbers would reveal just how similar they are.

_________________
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.

Image
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clarkson gets Public Sector Workers and himself mixed up
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:20 pm 
Offline
Captain
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 2378
Location: Planet Vulcan
Mr Carrot wrote:

You do realise, somewhere, there is a Tory as fervent as you who could post articles and reasoning to counter your opinions don't you.

There is nothing you can say or post that will change my mind. They are all the same, they just go about it in different ways.


Their reasoning doesnt work, and the last two years has proved that, so did the depression of the 1930s, when austerity measures made things worse and war spending got us out of it (maybe we should build a couple of big aircraft carriers? - ooh we were doing but cuts to the programme by THIS GOVERNMENT have meant we will get one less effective carrier, later and at a higher cost in the end) . So have the economic figures discussed in the articles I published, not one has won an argument with the former chief economist of the Bank of England, David Blanchflower. And even the right wing and Tory Telegraph have been printing articles now questioning the current economic policies

Their problem is that they assume that the better economic performance of the last 3 quarters of the last Labour Government would have stopped anyway, based on nothing more than the spurious claim that if you reduce public sector spending and put thousands out of work the Private sector will step in and do the work and employ those people. Its like saying the fact that I took longer to get from A to B in a Ford Anglia than I took to get from C to D in a Porsche has nothing to do with the fact that the Porsche is a faster car because I don't like the Porsche so it would have slowed down to the speed I went in the Anglia anyway. Which it might, you never know but you can only compare like for like and on that basis Labours Policies were working and this Governments are not.

As for there being no difference, Labour failed to do a lot of things that they should have done, but then if they had, they wouldnt have won the 1997 election, they should have taken all instead of part of the railways back into public ownership, they should have done more to tackle the banks, but didnt feel they could so only did 1/4 of the job, they should have taken the utilities back into public ownership but felt the public didnt want to, but they spent billions on rebuilding and replacing schools and hospitals that the Tories had allowed to rot, were forced to spend billions making the railways safe after the Tories allowed them to rot to the point where they actually killed people, they introduced tax credits and the minimum wage that took a million kids out of poverty, they gave us free access to museums, gave pensioners back some (but no where near enough) of the money Thatcher stole from them and thats just a few quick examples, that come off the top of my head, but remember, every small step was made with huge resistance from the Tory media who are able to scare the average Joe & Josephine and continues to do so, they divide us so that they can rule and rob us.

The problem Labour Governments have is that they have to avoid scaring the middle ground in order to get into Government and so cant do too much too fast, so people like me go to meetings and moan that they arent doing enough, but then I dont have to get people to vote for me.

Next time a millionaire Tory politician says we are all in this together, ask them what sacrifices they have made.

And remember, people who wont vote because they dont see a difference are a big part of the problem, because they let the ones who wont vote if there is too big a differenced dictate what governments do.

_________________
Beam me up Spotty


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clarkson gets Public Sector Workers and himself mixed up
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:46 pm 
Offline
General
General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:27 pm
Posts: 17205
Location: Over there.
Highscores: 2
Mr Spock wrote:
Next time a millionaire Tory politician says we are all in this together, ask them what sacrifices they have made.

And remember, people who wont vote because they dont see a difference are a big part of the problem, because they let the ones who wont vote if there is too big a differenced dictate what governments do.


True, they're nearly all millionaires I think I remember reading.

But then, how much money has Tony Blair got? And the extras EG £2m a year as a JP Morgan advisor.

I don't agree non-voters are part of the problem. Even if we all spoiled our papers and forced a combined coalition government - surely the best possible outcome short of a revolution - every MP I'm aware of would all pursue the same corporate-banking agenda regardless while filling their pockets and screwing us in the process. There's not a single one of them I'd put your name to over them representing me, I'd be too embarassed and ashamed to pick any of them with my blessing so what's the point?

Sure there'll be a few token policies that back up either side of the argument depending on which party cut what, but the illusion of choice is just that imho; an illusion.

_________________
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.

Image
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clarkson gets Public Sector Workers and himself mixed up
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:47 pm 
Offline
General of the Army
General of the Army
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 2:12 am
Posts: 19588
Highscores: 1
Whose up for Civil War?

_________________
Because I'm young enough to be all pi**ed off
But I'm old enough to be jaded
I'm at the age where I want things to change
But with age my hopes have faded


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clarkson gets Public Sector Workers and himself mixed up
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:51 pm 
Offline
Captain
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 2378
Location: Planet Vulcan
conscience wrote:

Not deliberately, no. The tax payer isn't subsidising pensions, no - they're footing the whole bill. I get your point though, that it's not the deal they agreed to but the fact is that the money handed over by trusting government employees was spent or lost long ago, and any money that might have been left will certainly have been taken with the stock market going down and the great banking heist aka the bailout. The government don't have the cash, and if they borrow it then it's secured against the promise of making the tax payers repay the debt.


1, How many times do I have to point this out, there is more being paid in to these pension schemes by public sector workers according to Unison than is being paid to public sector pensioners, the schemes are not like the state pension scheme where your contributions go into the general public purse and your pension gate paid from the same pot, they operate like any private pension scheme. my wifes do and so does my Dads. The bit the Government pay is the contributions they like any other employer pays, but the claw that back by paying civil servants less than private sector employees get and have clawed even more of it back by freezing public sector wages and believe it or not if the Civil Service pensions dont change from where they are now, the Governments contributions will fall anyway(the figures are in one of the articles I linked to).
2,the Government do have the cash, they are simply lying to us, the Last Labour Government reduced the National debt and the defecit to all time lows and in the last two years in order to keep Britain working they increased the defecit to a level that was still lower than they inherited from the Thatcher/Major years, if we could afford it then, why cant we afford it now? Governments have always borrowed money, its neccessary that they do so to keep money circulating in the economy and ours can afford to borrow more now because interest rates are so low. The cuts arent even reducing the defecit anyway they are actually increasing it, and thats based on the Governments own doctored figures. Remember too that every penny the Government spends circulates 12 times round the economy. Spending cuts actually reduce the income Governments get from people paying tax and increase the need to borrow.



conscience wrote:
Not seen your stuff yet, I may go back and read the entire thread later, but yeah I know all about that we aren't actually bankrupt so that no cuts are necessary at all, it's a scam pure and simple.


Im confused now, you argue with me then agree with me

conscience wrote:
"...being robbed is not a good reason to resent someone else for not wanting to be robbed."

Agreed. But while everybody else IS getting robbed why should just one section of the employment market be protected and get extra benefits and cash? They have a case, unquestionably, but why aren't they arguing against cuts to everyone... where was the industrial action to support other employees and the unemployed? Just seemed a little selfish to me while we have record unemployment due to massive job losses.


Because no one should be getting robbed, that one section of the population shouldnt be protected more than anyone else, none of us should be treated that way, but they're not asking for special protection. They're asking not to be singled out for special punishment because we have a Government that thinks that they should all be out of a job and all the services they provide should only be provided by private insurance companies This is the thin end of the wedge.

conscience wrote:
"As for the political stuff, Conservative = Labour = Conservative = Lib Dems = Labour = etc. If you want a longer running example, see how many times Labour and Conservative views have swapped sides when they swapped places from government to opposition? And how many times despite slagging off the other's policies whilst on one side, once they swap one adopt the other's policies and the other inherits the arguments against it. Clearly there's one policy, that of the ruling government that doesn't change and is enacted by both/all parties. And there's one opposition argument that whoever is in opposition takes up. EG Cameron and Clegg both referred to PFI as "dodgy accounting" whereas now they're in power they are signing record numbers of these very one-sided against the public contracts. It's a joke to think we have any choice whatsoever, which is why there's no point voting... you're getting the same thing regardless because we live in a dictatorship.

The 1.5% may be a few billion, but it's still peanuts in the grand scheme of things. It's the same policy which is why you'll notice that for all the arguments between them, they won't argue numbers on this issue only saying one is too quick/one is too slow... the numbers would reveal just how similar they are.


Half a dozen or so have gone from the Tories to Labour, I think its less the other way, lots of Liberals have gone Labour in disgust at what they are part of which kind of contradicts your argument, and had I time I could spend a week listing the differences. The problem is that the British people are being manipulated into not voting for Labour until they 'moderate' their policies, but frankly as the last two years have proved Id rather have Gordon Brown and a watered down Labour Government than what we have now.

in terms of growth in GDP that difference makes a huge difference, its the difference between 100000 families being lifted out of poverty and 100000 families going back into poverty, its the difference between thousands of jobs being created and thousand lost, its the difference between our manufacturing sector growing and it shrinking.

labour may not be perfect, but at worst they are by a long way the lesser of two evils

_________________
Beam me up Spotty


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clarkson gets Public Sector Workers and himself mixed up
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:56 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:49 pm
Posts: 3436
Location: with the cool cats
Highscores: 8
The pensions in the private sector are shit, so let's ensure the pensions in the public sector are shit, too. Nice.

Did you know that a lot of public sector pensions are NOT paid for directly through taxation, e.g. most local government schemes? Or that the Government spends more money on giving tax relief for private sector pension contributions than it spends on pension payments for the public sector (those pension payments funded directly by the taxpayer)? So, even if these reforms go ahead, they'll not save the government any significant money.

This is a political row, not a financial one, and like most political rows these days, it is fuelled by misinformation. Governments of both colours have ensured over the last 40 years or so that the employer has a lot less responsibility of care for its employees, hence the wholesale destruction of the private sector pension provision and the new proposals to make it easier to sack people. Next on the agenda is ensuring public sector workers are treated as shabbily as private sector workers.

My partner, who works long hours in a stressful public sector job, will find herself £100 a month worse off when these new rules come into force - the increase to her monthly pension contributions. She'll have to work seven years longer, yet the final pension she will receive will be greatly reduced (contrary to what the Government says). Even if her pension stayed as it is now, it is far from 'gilt edged'. Yeah, how dare she be miffed, Mr Clarkson. She should be thankful we're all in this together.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron