Like most loony lefties, you never grew out of the 6th form debating society, did you? :loopy:

God bless you! Still using lazy Sun 1980's terminology there!!! I had heard that the 80's were making a come back, glad to see Sun readership is up too!

You are a funny little thing aren't you? :hihi: I do hope you are too young to vote yet - you have much growing up to do little fella!

Well why don't the Tories come clean and say that's what they are going to do. See how long their lead in the polls lasts then.

Because they can't be honest and win an election - That's always been the Tory way hasn't it? Honesty and being a Tory are rarely compatible...

Well why don't the Tories come clean and say that's what they are going to do. See how long their lead in the polls lasts then.

Because doing what's right isn't always popular and you have to say what's popular in public so that once you get elected you can do what's right.

You don't quite get the idea of how to get elected, do you?

Because doing what's right isn't always popular and you have to say what's popular in public so that once you get elected you can do what's right.

You don't quite get the idea of how to get elected, do you?

Lying is a great way to win elections! Either that, or avoid the truth - I'm sorry, are you still supporting a bunch of numpties who you already accept yourself are liars??? That's a interesting way of placing your vote you've got there!

Because doing what's right isn't always popular and you have to say what's popular in public so that once you get elected you can do what's right.

You don't quite get the idea of how to get elected, do you?


It ain't in the bag yet sunshine!;)

Lying is a great way to win elections! Either that, or avoid the truth - I'm sorry, are you still supporting a bunch of numpties who you already accept yourself are liars??? That's a interesting way of placing your vote you've got there!

I think you're a bit confused about the way politics works, love. Maybe you should ask your husband to explain it when he gets in from work tonight? :hihi:

ALL politicians lie, they have to say what people want to hear in order to get people to vote for them. We judge them by what they do once they're in power.

We all know that New Labour has been a disaster and no-one can name a simgle good thing they've done. Even those who would never have thought of themselves as Tories are now willing to give David a chance on the basis that he can't do any worse than Gordon Brown and there are no other electable parties.

It ain't in the bag yet sunshine!;)

You are so right there - I can see a back lash against all that is Dave come election day... I recall the 80's when everyone voted Labour, but Thatcher kept getting in! Strange one that - Reckon we'll see that again this election too...

You are so right there - I can see a back lash against all that is Dave come election day... I recall the 80's when everyone voted Labour, but Thatcher kept getting in! Strange one that - Reckon we'll see that again this election too...

Hardly anyone admitted to voting Labour. Admitting you wanted Foot or Kinnock to be the leader of your country was akin to wearing your pants on your head in public; it made people think you were mentally unhinged.

You are so right there - I can see a back lash against all that is Dave come election day... I recall the 80's when everyone voted Labour, but Thatcher kept getting in! Strange one that - Reckon we'll see that again this election too...

I don't get a real feeling that most people are particulary keen on smarmy Dave and Osborne. Think Labour need to keep reminding people about how it was they who saved the UK economy from the depression that would have happened without their intervention. Whereas the Tories would have just sat on their hands and watch everything collapse much as they did to Sheffield in the 1980's.

I don't get a real feeling that most people are particulary keen on smarmy Dave and Osborne. Think Labour need to keep reminding people about how it was they who saved the UK economy from the depression that would have happened without their intervention. Whereas the Tories would have just sat on their hands and watch everything collapse much as they did to Sheffield in the 1980's.

Nurse, fetch the straightjacket! We've found the one person in Britain who thinks that Labour saved us from the recession when all the rest of us knew it was they who caused it! :hihi:

I think you're a bit confused about the way politics works, love. Maybe you should ask your husband to explain it when he gets in from work tonight? :hihi:

ALL politicians lie, they have to say what people want to hear in order to get people to vote for them. We judge them by what they do once they're in power.

We all know that New Labour has been a disaster and no-one can name a simgle good thing they've done. Even those who would never have thought of themselves as Tories are now willing to give David a chance on the basis that he can't do any worse than Gordon Brown and there are no other electable parties.

Don't 'love' me kid! Husband? Only if I had had a civil partnership (which I haven't - don't believe in constraining myself to be more acceptable to the straight masses!)

Labour have done many excellent things - they resurected the NHS by shortening waiting lists and even waiting times when you go to a&e or have a out patient appointment, built new schools and equiped them with new kit - I remember the days of crumbling buildings and text books from the dark ages during my 1980's school days, those days are no longer thanks to Labour... I was disappointed that they effectively 'taxed' uni, but I suppose the cash for all the new schools had to come from somewhere, and not all kids go to uni, but all kids sit their GCSEs... Health and Education have been at their core - both affect us all after all! It took years to get both where they are today after being wound down by years of tory rule... The poor have become richer with minimum wages, and fewer children live below the poverty line... There will always some nasty tax dogder who decides to relocate abroad to save a fiver - but their ends will come when all countries demand a living wage - India's wages have risen in the last few years, and will continue to do so, for instance... Many of the larger industries were ground down so far by Thatcher and her Tory party that we will never again be able to compete on a economic stage like Germany can and does ever again - I wouldn't risk a similar assault by the tories to be honest - the damage they inflict can often be irrepairable and without a third viable option for election, I cant see that Labour has opposition... The right wing press have caused a ****storm of lies and half truths to discredit them over the years, but have yet to show the miracle that would be a tory future in a manner that suggests they have anything new to offer... We can only view their past, and it's far from glittering by comparrison...

Nurse, fetch the straightjacket! We've found the one person in Britain who thinks that Labour saved us from the recession when all the rest of us knew it was they who caused it! :hihi:

Now then right-wing wonk, Labour did help create the recession by being in awe of the t****s in the City of London and failing to regulate them, but things would have been MUCH worse if they had not acted so quickly with the stimulus package etc, which the rest of the world followed.
What would the Tories have done: NOTHING!

I don't get a real feeling that most people are particulary keen on smarmy Dave and Osborne. Think Labour need to keep reminding people about how it was they who saved the UK economy from the depression that would have happened without their intervention. Whereas the Tories would have just sat on their hands and watch everything collapse much as they did to Sheffield in the 1980's.

Unfortunately everyone just laughs at Labourites who try that line.

The recession happened because of Gordon's incompetence
the financial meltdown was aided directly by Gordon's incompetence
the appalling financial position we were in as the recession hit was due to Gordon's incompetence
He hasn't saved the world, he has just postponed it at a cost to the taxpayer of trillions due to Gordon's incompetence
The monumental debt he ran up with nothing to show for it and will now have to be paid off is a prime example of Gordon's incompetence

I would have thought that the economy is the last thing Gordon wants to talk about. Which is probably why he isn't talking about it, preferring to talk about bankers' bonuses as if they're remotely relevant.

Nurse, fetch the straightjacket! We've found the one person in Britain who thinks that Labour saved us from the recession when all the rest of us knew it was they who caused it! :hihi:

What effect do you feel the UK government has on US sub prime? This was the catalyst, and we in the UK had nothing to do with it...

Unfortunately everyone just laughs at Labourites who try that line.

The recession happened because of Gordon's incompetence
the financial meltdown was aided directly by Gordon's incompetence
the appalling financial position we were in as the recession hit was due to Gordon's incompetence
He hasn't saved the world, he has just postponed it at a cost to the taxpayer of trillions due to Gordon's incompetence
The monumental debt he ran up with nothing to show for it and will now have to be paid off is a prime example of Gordon's incompetence

I would have thought that the economy is the last thing Gordon wants to talk about. Which is probably why he isn't talking about it, preferring to talk about bankers' bonuses as if they're remotely relevant.

Well these guys seem to think they did a good job as well!

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23731871-britain-lags-behind-as-france-and-germany-leave-recession.do

Nurse, fetch the straightjacket! We've found the one person in Britain who thinks that Labour saved us from the recession when all the rest of us knew it was they who caused it! :hihi:

It was capitalism and the money lending which drives it, the recession was instigated many years ago. Maybe you could blame the next one on the current Labour government.

What effect do you feel the UK government has on US sub prime? This was the catalyst, and we in the UK had nothing to do with it...

One (and there are plenty more) effect was that AIG located to London so it could escape US regulation. This enabled it to insure derivatives which were based on sub-prime mortgages. The banks having their risk 'insured' were able to buy trillions and trillions of these derivatives. Only trouble was, AIG never had any money to pay out if things went belly up. Which they did.

Thanks Gordon.

The monumental debt he ran up with nothing to show for it and will now have to be paid off is a prime example of Gordon's incompetence



I'm beginning to wonder if you ever get out!

My eldest lad started a new school a few weeks ago, the old one was knocked down as it was falling to bits and the new one is superb.

Does this class as something to show from the spending?

Nurse, fetch the straightjacket! We've found the one person in Britain who thinks that Labour saved us from the recession when all the rest of us knew it was they who caused it! :hihi:

They must have more clout than I thought, the labour party responsible for a world wide recession………… :suspect:

I'm beginning to wonder if you ever get out!

My eldest lad started a new school a few weeks ago, the old one was knocked down as it was falling to bits and the new one is superb.

Does this class as something to show from the spending?


He probably wishes the money had been left in some wealthy businessman's pockets so it could have bought him a yacht!

One (and there are plenty more) effect was that AIG located to London so it could escape US regulation. This enabled it to insure derivatives which were based on sub-prime mortgages. The banks having their risk 'insured' were able to buy trillions and trillions of these derivatives. Only trouble was, AIG never had any money to pay out if things went belly up. Which they did.

Thanks Gordon.

Gordon Brown invited AIG to the UK then? Or was it just a case of a independent business reloacting to a country where they could trade in the manner they wanted to (good or bad)? Are you sure that there haven't been UK companies relocating to other countries where they get away with paying the staff less? Or can step aside from our H&S regs? Oh yes, that's right, loads of em! Companies are allowed to trade wherever they wish if they have the cash to buy office space - governments have nothing to do with this...

I'm beginning to wonder if you ever get out!

My eldest lad started a new school a few weeks ago, the old one was knocked down as it was falling to bits and the new one is superb.

Does this class as something to show from the spending?

Tricky is a big fan of duck houses it seems - public cash obviously better spent on a tory moat than a kids school!

Tricky is a big fan of duck houses it seems - public cash obviously better spent on a tory moat than a kids school!

ooooooooh! get you three.

Anything that promotes joined up thinking in the little Titanic must be a good thing. He certainly won't have inherited the ability from his father.

ooooooooh! get you three.

Anything that promotes joined up thinking in the little Titanic must be a good thing. He certainly won't have inherited the ability from his father.

Don't worry not that long to go now before your friends can start taking money away from our kids, our sick and our Pensioners to give it back to the well-off!

Hope this makes you feel good!

Reading these replies, I'd be very interested to see how old contributors to this thread are.

Just in the interests of research, you understand

Don't worry not that long to go now before your friends can start taking money away from our kids, our sick and our Pensioners to give it back to the well-off!

Hope this makes you feel good!

Yup, the well-off in China and Japan and wherever else we sold our debt to under Gordon.

Nope, doesn't make me feel good and that's why I'm recommending people vote anything but Labour.

Yup, the well-off in China and Japan and wherever else we sold our debt to under Gordon.

Nope, doesn't make me feel good and that's why I'm recommending people vote anything but Labour.

Tricky what were your views on the minimum wage before it was introduced by Labour?
The Tories vigourously opposed it's introduction claiming it would be a disaster for business.This has proved not to be the case. Do you think that the minimum wage should be abolished if the Tories are returned to power?

Reading these replies, I'd be very interested to see how old contributors to this thread are.

Just in the interests of research, you understand

How old are you?

Not quite the same as dumping whole communities into the dustbin - on purpose - by our own government - and still to this day without any regret.

Dump a community or a nation? Maggie made the correct choice, something that was reflected in the countries growth as a major power and her increased voter share in subsequent elections. She was doing what the country wanted.

Tricky what were your views on the minimum wage before it was introduced by Labour?
The Tories vigourously opposed it's introduction claiming it would be a disaster for business.This has proved not to be the case. Do you think that the minimum wage should be abolished if the Tories are returned to power?

Same question to Anarchist please!

I remember the days of crumbling buildings and text books from the dark ages during my 1980's school days, those days are no longer thanks to Labour

So you went to school in the 80's and Labour lost power in 1979. So back in 1979 the schools where gleaming bastions of perfection but within a few years the buildings aged by 50+ years had they? Or are you saying that the previous Labour government built/maintained the schools with inferior materials meaning they fell apart in a few years?

Same question to Anarchist please!

'Anarchist' you heard the man! your views on the minimum wage please.

Now then right-wing wonk, Labour did help create the recession by being in awe of the t****s in the City of London and failing to regulate them, but things would have been MUCH worse if they had not acted so quickly with the stimulus package etc, which the rest of the world followed.
What would the Tories have done: NOTHING!

Well of course. Most Tory MPs are related to those t****s in the City of London, or take a serious cut of the ill-gotten gains :hihi:

Tricky what were your views on the minimum wage before it was introduced by Labour?
The Tories vigourously opposed it's introduction claiming it would be a disaster for business.This has proved not to be the case. Do you think that the minimum wage should be abolished if the Tories are returned to power?

I thought it was a bad idea.

I don't agree that it can be said to have been an unqualified success no. Although it can't be said to have been an unqualified failure either. It's difficult to judge when the whole economy has been based on a mirage in the form of massive debt creation taking the place of real economic growth.

I think the minimum wage should be abolished. I think once unemployment gets over three and a half million, left-wingers will start to question it too.

I thought it was a bad idea.

I don't agree that it can be said to have been an unqualified success no. Although it can't be said to have been an unqualified failure either. It's difficult to judge when the whole economy has been based on a mirage in the form of massive debt creation taking the place of real economic growth.

I think the minimum wage should be abolished. I think once unemployment gets over three and a half million, left-wingers will start to question it too.

So you think I should go back to earning 50p an hour collecting Fruit out near Maltby!

So you think I should go back to earning 50p an hour collecting Fruit out near Maltby!

Steady on……….does that mean you are in favour of a labour policy

I thought it was a bad idea.

I don't agree that it can be said to have been an unqualified success no. Although it can't be said to have been an unqualified failure either. It's difficult to judge when the whole economy has been based on a mirage in the form of massive debt creation taking the place of real economic growth.

I think the minimum wage should be abolished. I think once unemployment gets over three and a half million, left-wingers will start to question it too.

Thankyou for answering. Do you know if the Tories are planning to abolish it like the did with wages councils back under Thatcher?

So you think I should go back to earning 50p an hour collecting Fruit out near Maltby!

If that's what you would like to do, I won't stand in your way.

However if I wanted to earn £3 an hour rubbing ice onto models' nipples so they're all perky for the photoshoot, you'd try and stop me. :(

If that's what you would like to do, I won't stand in your way.

However if I wanted to earn £3 an hour rubbing ice onto models' nipples so they're all perky for the photoshoot, you'd try and stop me. :(

So you agree it is right that some people should be earning 50p an hour, is this a Tory policy they'll tell the electorate before the election?

So you agree it is right that some people should be earning 50p an hour, is this a Tory policy they'll tell the electorate before the election?

I didn't know that tricky was a member of the Conservatives policy making group. Still you live and learn.

Although as the figures were made up by you anyhow they are irrelevant.

I didn't know that tricky was a member of the Conservatives policy making group. Still you live and learn.

Although as the figures were made up by you anyhow they are irrelevant.

Yep, you've certainly left an everlasting impression that there's a lot you don't know!

Yep, you've certainly left an everlasting impression that there's a lot you don't know!

What he doesn't know he makes up!

So you agree it is right that some people should be earning 50p an hour, is this a Tory policy they'll tell the electorate before the election?

Is that your idea of a cunning trap? it's like you've dug a hole covered it with twigs and waited for someone to fall in. Pity it's only half an inch deep. :hihi:

Is that your idea of a cunning trap? it's like you've dug a hole covered it with twigs and waited for someone to fall in. Pity it's only half an inch deep. :hihi:

Not a cunning trap at all, just trying to get some of the people who post regularly on these political threads to post political opinions.

Not an unreasonable wish I would suggest.

Thankyou for answering. Do you know if the Tories are planning to abolish it ...?

Sorry, missed this one. I believe they plan to retain it.

"A Department of Social Justice is a likely feature of a Cameron-shaped Whitehall. The pupil premium for inner city schools, the retention of the minimum wage and a commitment to eliminate the 'couple penalty' in the benefits system are examples of the many practical policies that have emerged from the modernisation of the Conservative Party's one nation tradition."

ref (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/fiftythings/)

It's obviously imperative that the Tories give an assurance about the retention of the minimum wage, - not to could be political suicide.

But party election pledges have a history of being overtaken by fiscal necessity once the books are examined in detail.

And anyway retaining the minimum wage is no guarantee that it will maintain its relationship with average wages. What the Tories intend to do about 'in work' benefits like CTC and WTC is probably just as critical to their ideas of 'Social Justice' as the minimum wage.

It's obviously imperative that the Tories give an assurance about the retention of the minimum wage, - not to could be political suicide.

But party election pledges have a history of being overtaken by fiscal necessity once the books are examined in detail.

And anyway retaining the minimum wage is no guarantee that it will maintain its relationship with average wages. What the Tories intend to do about 'in work' benefits like CTC and WTC is probably just as critical to their ideas of 'Social Justice' as the minimum wage.

Quite right Greybeard. It is the tax credits system which, for all it's faults, has helped many people raise their standard of living. When one is on a low wage, an extra £50 or so a week makes a big difference. I would expect an incoming tory administration to combine the working and child elements with a view to reducing them both.

It's obviously imperative that the Tories give an assurance about the retention of the minimum wage, - not to could be political suicide.

But party election pledges have a history of being overtaken by fiscal necessity once the books are examined in detail.

And anyway retaining the minimum wage is no guarantee that it will maintain its relationship with average wages. What the Tories intend to do about 'in work' benefits like CTC and WTC is probably just as critical to their ideas of 'Social Justice' as the minimum wage.

Pretty much in agreement. Not sure it would be 'political suicide' but there's no need to give your opponents ammunition unnecessarily.

The interesting thing will be if there's a sustained period where average wages fall. They'll either have to reduce it or bin it.

Quite right Greybeard. It is the tax credits system which, for all it's faults, has helped many people raise their standard of living. When one is on a low wage, an extra £50 or so a week makes a big difference. I would expect an incoming tory administration to combine the working and child elements with a view to reducing them both.

If you want a better standard of living, get some proper qualifications and get a better job!

The tories have always helped hard-working people who help themselves whereas labour have always helped lazy people who prefer to sit on their backsides. That's the main difference between the two parties.

If you want a better standard of living, get some proper qualifications and get a better job!

The tories have always helped hard-working people who help themselves whereas labour have always helped lazy people who prefer to sit on their backsides. That's the main difference between the two parties.


The Tories have always helped themselves and sod everyone else.

whoever gets in, its going to get worse before it gets better. whilst money is being pumped into institutions and not directly benefitting us, the taxpayer, it will be a long way before any kind of recovery, we are skint, not the country.

1st job for incoming Govmnt

Deport all unemployed Economic Immigrants/Asylum seekers

Ooh look I have just dropped unemployment...how easy was that then?

2nd job for incoming Govmnt

Force UK Based firms to pull out of India and use UK based call centers

Ooh look another drop in unemployment



it isn't rocket science

2nd job for incoming Govmnt

Force UK Based firms to pull out of India and use UK based call centers

Ooh look another drop in unemployment



it isn't rocket science

Oh look another drop in British based businesses.

Don't try launching any rockets.

So you went to school in the 80's and Labour lost power in 1979. So back in 1979 the schools where gleaming bastions of perfection but within a few years the buildings aged by 50+ years had they? Or are you saying that the previous Labour government built/maintained the schools with inferior materials meaning they fell apart in a few years?

By 80's, I mean 1985 - Labour had been out for over 6 years by then so your point in moot...

Dump a community or a nation? Maggie made the correct choice, something that was reflected in the countries growth as a major power and her increased voter share in subsequent elections. She was doing what the country wanted.

Yeah - mass unemployment and creating a future of unemployable famillies - That was just what the country wanted - you are funny! That said, how long have you lived in the UK? Do you actually know what you are talking about??? No offence, but if you don't know what life was like before and after the tories, you can't really comment...

Ok Big Thumb....How would you handle the unemployment issue?

We farm out to the 3rd world jobs that could quite easily be handled with our own workforce simpl to maximise profit margins.

How about this for a "novel" aproach...Let's not maximise profit margins, instead we try to maintain acceptable and functional profit margins.

The cash that cascades throughout our own population is then recycled into the economy via Income Tax PAYE and VAT

The people that enjoy the employment offered by these businesses are far less likely to sink into the gutter and become addicted to the benefit system.

The resulting drop in financial support needed to maintain the related infrastructure needed to nurse these broken families through thier miserable non-productive lives ( Hospitals, Social Workers, Police, Prison space ect ect ect )can therefore be re-invested elsewhere into start-up deals and sweeteners for even more businesses.

The other option is farm out business onto the global market...A few people get very rich...And the rest of us are screwed.

..A few people get very rich...And the rest of us are screwed.

Tory manifesto in one sentence.

By 80's, I mean 1985 - Labour had been out for over 6 years by then so your point in moot...

6 years to go from gleaming perfection to crumbling mess? Did Labour find their builders in the wild west? Yeeeehaaaa!

6 years to go from gleaming perfection to crumbling mess? Did Labour find their builders in the wild west? Yeeeehaaaa!

No Lithuania and Poland

Yeah - mass unemployment and creating a future of unemployable famillies - That was just what the country wanted - you are funny! That said, how long have you lived in the UK? Do you actually know what you are talking about??? No offence, but if you don't know what life was like before and after the tories, you can't really comment...

What do you expect for following a Marxist loony?

Create future unemployed families? Utter rubbish, if you want to work you will, typical of a socialist ostrich to blame all the ills of the lazy and bone idle on a government that saved the UK.

And to question my nationality is utterly laughable. I’m British born and bred, I grew up in the Thatcher and Major era in a part of the country that was prepared to work hard and so I had a nice childhood and school life without the chip on my shoulder that is standard issue to the red army of the north.

Losers always complain, that’s their nature. Thatcher gave you a trouncing and we are all better for it :hihi:

No Lithuania and Poland

Not in the 70's?

1st job for incoming Govmnt

Deport all unemployed Economic Immigrants/Asylum seekers

Ooh look I have just dropped unemployment...how easy was that then?

2nd job for incoming Govmnt

Force UK Based firms to pull out of India and use UK based call centers

Ooh look another drop in unemployment



it isn't rocket science

totally agree with those 2 points! though we should welcome all open armed even if they are taking work!

What do you expect for following a Marxist loony?

Create future unemployed families? Utter rubbish, if you want to work you will, typical of a socialist ostrich to blame all the ills of the lazy and bone idle on a government that saved the UK.

And to question my nationality is utterly laughable. I’m British born and bred, I grew up in the Thatcher and Major era in a part of the country that was prepared to work hard and so I had a nice childhood and school life without the chip on my shoulder that is standard issue to the red army of the north.

Losers always complain, that’s their nature. Thatcher gave you a trouncing and we are all better for it :hihi:


Many people (10's of thousands) in this city used to go to work and work hard in the local steel / engineering industries until somebody called Margaret Thatcher came along and prevented them from doing so!

Many people (10's of thousands) in this city used to go to work and work hard in the local steel / engineering industries until somebody called Margaret Thatcher came along and prevented them from doing so!

As I have already stated, the steel industry was in sharp decline prior to Thatcher. It did in fact then rise until Labour took power in which it then declined once more and has subsequently been sold off to a number of foreign companies. Notably one of Tony Blair’s mates.

Your venom over the steel industry is misdirected.

The miners’ strike is a whole other kettle of fish. Personally I think the miner’s brought it on themselves by following the known communist Scargill. However the poverty and desperation felt by the miners is something that I find unacceptable and more should have been done. The miners’ strike was a failure on both sides. Neither is blameless.

What do you expect for following a Marxist loony?

Create future unemployed families? Utter rubbish, if you want to work you will, typical of a socialist ostrich to blame all the ills of the lazy and bone idle on a government that saved the UK.

And to question my nationality is utterly laughable. I’m British born and bred, I grew up in the Thatcher and Major era in a part of the country that was prepared to work hard and so I had a nice childhood and school life without the chip on my shoulder that is standard issue to the red army of the north.

Losers always complain, that’s their nature. Thatcher gave you a trouncing and we are all better for it :hihi:

Who is the Marxist loony? You are British born and bred, yet distance yourself from Britain by stating that "Thatcher gave you a trouncing"? Or did you imagine that I personally allowed any jumped up gob****e to beat me down? You know nothing of me, so cannot make a judgement of this nature - I wasn't bought up in the North, I'm from the Midlands, but didn't grow up with my eyes closed imagining that everyone was having the life I was living... Open your eyes and maybe you too could notice what is under your nose! You, sir, are a fool...

6 years to go from gleaming perfection to crumbling mess? Did Labour find their builders in the wild west? Yeeeehaaaa!

The Tories were happy to run public services into the ground, and yes they failed to keep up basic repairs, failing also to update materials etc in the state school system, creating problems in a very short time - great work, eh?... It took a Labour government to deal with this, and rid us of the crumbling buildings I mentioned earlier... What a great shame that tories are incapable of dealing with the basics! But then, services that are to be accessed by those who cannot pay for private education and medical services have never been supported by the tories, these areas do not appear on their radar...

And the country is in a good condition now?

[QUOTE=serapis;5503028]As I have already stated, the steel industry was in sharp decline prior to Thatcher. It did in fact then rise until Labour took power in which it then declined once more and has subsequently been sold off to a number of foreign companies. Notably one of Tony Blair’s mates.QUOTE]


Uk steel production fell dramatically under the Tories, and yes it did rise later but only but from a very low base.
The UK steel industry was NOT sold off to one of Blairs mate's, Corus Plc was taken over by Tata, an Indian company who are nothing to do with Mittal who'm I presume you were referring to.:rolleyes: Wrong as usual.

And the country is in a good condition now?

Exactly. But while they can get people bitching about who was better or worse, they get away with it.

Let's face it, we used to be very good at innovation and invention. This country invented railways yet today we have 86 miles of high-speed rail compared to thousands in truly civilised countries like France, Spain, Germany, Japan etc.

We are lions led by donkeys and have been for hundreds of years, but they keep feeding us propaganda about having the best coppers, army, parliament in the world when our leaders have consistently let us down by looking after their own - Labour and Tories.

We are lions led by donkeys and have been for hundreds of years

I like that :)

And I agree, there are many good people in Britain, they just never end up in government.

Exactly. But while they can get people bitching about who was better or worse, they get away with it.

Let's face it, we used to be very good at innovation and invention. This country invented railways yet today we have 86 miles of high-speed rail compared to thousands in truly civilised countries like France, Spain, Germany, Japan etc.
We are lions led by donkeys and have been for hundreds of years, but they keep feeding us propaganda about having the best coppers, army, parliament in the world when our leaders have consistently let us down by looking after their own - Labour and Tories.

Thats because they were willing to pay for it and at the end of the day you only get out what you are willing to put in.

Who is the Marxist loony? You are British born and bred, yet distance yourself from Britain by stating that "Thatcher gave you a trouncing"? Or did you imagine that I personally allowed any jumped up gob****e to beat me down? You know nothing of me, so cannot make a judgement of this nature - I wasn't bought up in the North, I'm from the Midlands, but didn't grow up with my eyes closed imagining that everyone was having the life I was living... Open your eyes and maybe you too could notice what is under your nose! You, sir, are a fool...

If you don’t know who the Marxist loony was who led the miners then you obviously know less about the whole affair then you claim :roll:

Uk steel production fell dramatically under the Tories, and yes it did rise later but only but from a very low base.
The UK steel industry was NOT sold off to one of Blairs mate's, Corus Plc was taken over by Tata, an Indian company who are nothing to do with Mittal who'm I presume you were referring to.:rolleyes: Wrong as usual.

To re-quote what I have already said on this matter:

That still does not change the fact the UK steel industry has declined and been sold off under Labour. Why do you keep ignoring Labours part in all of this? The UK was producing around 19m tonnes of steel under the conservatives, compared to next to nothing today, a comparable decrease with 1970's production and 1980's production.

The UK steel industry died under Labour, something you are willing to ignore in a false point scoring competition. I wonder why :huh:

Then there is the whole Mittal Affair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittal_Affair), in which Tony Blair accepted large contributions only weeks after an election. Mittal went on to shed 6,000 welsh steel workers jobs not long after.

Labour sold off your beloved industry. The conservatives tried to turn an unprofitable industry into a world market leader. Something they did. Then Labour got their hands on it again and killed it off.

To re-quote what I have already said on this matter:



The UK steel industry died under Labour, something you are willing to ignore in a false point scoring competition. I wonder why :huh:

Then there is the whole Mittal Affair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittal_Affair), in which Tony Blair accepted large contributions only weeks after an election. Mittal went on to shed 6,000 welsh steel workers jobs not long after.
Labour sold off your beloved industry. The conservatives tried to turn an unprofitable industry into a world market leader. Something they did. Then Labour got their hands on it again and killed it off.


What are you on about (my bold) the job losses you refer to happened when Llanwern closed. Llanwern was NOTHING whatsoever to do with Mittal:loopy:

How somebody can continue to post on something they have demonstrated they know nothing about is beyond me.

The Tories privatised the industry in 1988. Once it was no longer in state control it was then vulnerable to takeover / merger by larger companies.

As I have stated previously the industry has continued to decline since Labour has been in power, as they have continued to follow the same industrial policy that the Tories did, that is one of no intervention. Atleast under Labour the demolition of the UK'd industrial base hasn't been deliberate.

The sad facts of the matter are that when the Tories took office in '79 manufacturing accounted for over 80% of GDP when they left office in '97 it had fallen to just 18%. It has declined to around 15% at present. Leaving the country unable to export itself out of recession by taking advantage of the weak pound.

What are you on about (my bold) the job losses you refer to happened when Llanwern closed. Llanwern was NOTHING whatsoever to do with Mittal:loopy:

How somebody can continue to post on something they have demonstrated they know nothing about is beyond me.

The Tories privatised the industry in 1988. Once it was no longer in state control it was then vulnerable to takeover / merger by larger companies.

As I have stated previously the industry has continued to decline since Labour has been in power, as they have continued to follow the same industrial policy that the Tories did, that is one of no intervention. Atleast under Labour the demolition of the UK'd industrial base hasn't been deliberate.

The sad facts of the matter are that when the Tories took office in '79 manufacturing accounted for over 80% of GDP when they left office in '97 it had fallen to just 18%. It has declined to around 15% at present. Leaving the country unable to export itself out of recession by taking advantage of the weak pound.

Bad English, I didn’t mean Mittle, but the whole EU steel industry is connected. I see your point.

Privatisation possibly did make the Steel industry vulnerable to takeover but it was under Labour that this happened. For the period of the Conservative government, 1979 to 1997 British Steel was UK owned. Then Two years later it was swallowed by Corus, then subsequently swallowed by Tata Steel. You blame the conservatives for the loss of a national business but completely ignore Labour where at the wheel when this happened.

Which recession are you talking about in reference to the weak pound? The pound is at a similar level to that of the mid 90's and the early 2000's. The pound vs. the Dollar goes up and down pretty uniformly between 1.4 and 1.9 over the last 20 years.

You mention manufacturing but our GDP for 2008 was the second highest in the EU.

Quote:
That still does not change the fact the UK steal industry has declined and been sold off under Labour. Why do you keep ignoring Labours part in all of this? The UK was producing around 19m tonnes of steel under the conservatives, compared to next to nothing today, a comparable decrease with 1970's production and 1980's production.

Thats the trouble in this country the steal industry is thriving.:hihi:

Bad English, I didn’t mean Mittle, but the whole EU steel industry is connected. I see your point.

Privatisation possibly did make the Steel industry vulnerable to takeover but it was under Labour that this happened. For the period of the Conservative government, 1979 to 1997 British Steel was UK owned. Then Two years later it was swallowed by Corus, then subsequently swallowed by Tata Steel. You blame the conservatives for the loss of a national business but completely ignore Labour where at the wheel when this happened.

Which recession are you talking about in reference to the weak pound?


Not at all, see the last sentences of my previous post:

[QUOTE] As I have stated previously the industry has continued to decline since Labour has been in power, as they have continued to follow the same industrial policy that the Tories did, that is one of no intervention. Atleast under Labour the demolition of the UK'd industrial base hasn't been deliberate.

The sad facts of the matter are that when the Tories took office in '79 manufacturing accounted for over 80% of GDP when they left office in '97 it had fallen to just 18%. It has declined to around 15% at present. Leaving the country unable to export itself out of recession by taking advantage of the weak pound.[QUOTE]

I was refering to the current recession.

Quote:
That still does not change the fact the UK steal industry has declined and been sold off under Labour. Why do you keep ignoring Labours part in all of this? The UK was producing around 19m tonnes of steel under the conservatives, compared to next to nothing today, a comparable decrease with 1970's production and 1980's production.

Thats the trouble in this country the steal industry is thriving.:hihi:

haha, well spotted :hihi:

The sad facts of the matter are that when the Tories took office in '79 manufacturing accounted for over 80% of GDP when they left office in '97 it had fallen to just 18%. It has declined to around 15% at present. Leaving the country unable to export itself out of recession by taking advantage of the weak pound.To be fair, the UK's manufacturing sector couldn't hope to compete against India, China and developing countries (notably Brazil), based on a straightforward labour cost comparison alone, which I very much doubt any amount of UK-based scale economies could counter. As far back as 1997, or today. What was the alternative? Keep pumping ever more amounts of taxpayers' hard-earned into an increasingly uncompetitive industry? Where the UK still has the edge, and where it can keep it if steered properly, is in new/emergent technologies and innovation (including in such traditional sectors as steel production).

The problem, as usual and regardless of which party is at the helm, is that "innovation" makes a catchy buzzword to try and build some hope amongst the economical ruins, but "innovation" appears condemned to remain the 5th wheel of the cart where policies and development agendas are concerned, because the Gvt hasn't got the foggiest how to foster and nurture it (should be education sector, really), protect it effectively (all left to private sector/investors' initiative built on experience alone) and commercialise it at a profit (in the way the French can export their high-speed trains, nuclear plants and the like).

Wednesday1, you cannot lay the entire blame for the decline in the British Steel industry at the feet of Thatcher and Majors government. The Steel output declined by about 50% from 1979 into the 80’s but then declined again by the same amount under Labour to the present miniscule amounts.

If you don’t know who the Marxist loony was who led the miners then you obviously know less about the whole affair then you claim :roll:

I didn't realise you had been talking about mining - you hadn't been having that discussion with me... Roll yourself ! :roll::hihi:

I didn't realise you had been talking about mining - you hadn't been having that discussion with me... Roll yourself ! :roll::hihi:

Hmm ... in that case it would appear I know more about what you are talking about than you :rolleyes:

Hmm ... in that case it would appear I know more about what you are talking about than you :rolleyes:

Ok let me take this slowly, so you can grasp what I am saying - you responded to a post from me regarding the state of state schools in the 1980's - You then made a left field comment re marxists in a post where you replied to me - We hadn't been talking mining, we'd been talking schools, and we didn't go to school in mines in the 1980's you know - honestly! Admit you confused posts when you replied to me and let's move on, eh?

Ok let me take this slowly, so you can grasp what I am saying - you responded to a post from me regarding the state of state schools in the 1980's - You then made a left field comment re marxists in a post where you replied to me - We hadn't been talking mining, we'd been talking schools, and we didn't go to school in mines in the 1980's you know - honestly! Admit you confused posts when you replied to me and let's move on, eh?

this is what Serapis does, he tries to move the thread off track so that the important issues aren't discussed.

Ask him how the ridiculous policy that means we'll all be working a year longer now is going to help the unemployed looking for jobs!

this is what Serapis does, he tries to move the thread off track so that the important issues aren't discussed.

Ask him how the ridiculous policy that means we'll all be working a year longer now is going to help the unemployed looking for jobs!

Bless - I just thought he was a bit simple! That said, promoting the garbled messages re what a tory policy might look like probably means that the poor thing is delusional...

"If the Conservatives win the election how high will unemployment rise? "

Who knows but the number of people dying before they get their state pension will, 68 years old. :o

"If the Conservatives win the election how high will unemployment rise? "

Who knows but the number of people dying before they get their state pension will, 68 years old. :o

A policy already put in place by Nu Labour back in 2006.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/state-pension-age-to-rise-to-68-479679.html

And regardless as to what government of what political persuassion we vote for,it will rise further

http://www.citywire.co.uk/personal/-/news/money-property-and-tax/content.aspx?ID=347978

A policy already put in place by Nu Labour back in 2006.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/state-pension-age-to-rise-to-68-479679.html

And regardless as to what government of what political persuassion we vote for,it will rise further

http://www.citywire.co.uk/personal/-/news/money-property-and-tax/content.aspx?ID=347978

A policy which the Tories want to bring forward and take the opportunity to blame labour. :roll:

A policy which the Tories want to bring forward and take the opportunity to blame labour. :roll:

Both parties are equally culpable. Neither has had the guts to get a real handle on the spiraling cost of welfare over the past few decades.

Until contributions to a private pension scheme are made mandatory, disability benefits are only paid to the totally disabled and other benefits are time-bound, nothing will change. In essence, the working populace will have to work until they drop to pay for the feckless.

A policy already put in place by Nu Labour back in 2006.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/state-pension-age-to-rise-to-68-479679.html

And regardless as to what government of what political persuassion we vote for,it will rise further

http://www.citywire.co.uk/personal/-/news/money-property-and-tax/content.aspx?ID=347978

Why does it have to rise?

Again at the risk of repeating myself but no-one has answered my point.

The state penions is £96 per week, to keep someone unemployed is more than that and by keeping us on for another year then you are keeping people unemployed for another year.

Both parties are equally culpable. Neither has had the guts to get a real handle on the spiraling cost of welfare over the past few decades.

Until contributions to a private pension scheme are made mandatory, disability benefits are only paid to the totally disabled and other benefits are time-bound, nothing will change. In essence, the working populace will have to work until they drop to pay for the feckless.

But create more jobs by letting us go earlier rather than later and you'll cut the Welfare Bill.

this is what Serapis does, he tries to move the thread off track so that the important issues aren't discussed.

Ask him how the ridiculous policy that means we'll all be working a year longer now is going to help the unemployed looking for jobs!

Nice snide comment there titanic :roll:

Lady Star has already tied herself up in silly accusations that backfired on her. She then went on to moan about unemployment for the same period of time. It takes no genius to work out that one of the largest employer was the mines with something like 58,000 employees in Yorkshire alone. Then what was the reason for being unemployed. The strikes, which brings us nicely to Scargill, the Marxist loony who led them all to their eventual defeat.

A to B to C .. now that's not too difficult for you is it?

But create more jobs by letting us go earlier rather than later and you'll cut the Welfare Bill.

And that creates "more" jobs how exactly?

A policy which the Tories want to bring forward and take the opportunity to blame labour. :roll:

Who has blamed anyone? Cameron was interviewed today in which he clearly stated what the Labour Party's intentions were and how the Conservatives would bring that forward to help raise revenues.

Its funny how many left thinking people here will bleat on about the rich and how they should folk out to help the country but as soon as they may need to contribute to a solution for a problem caused by all, they want nothing to do with it. Your happy to propose a solution as long as that solution is not going to impede you in anyway :roll:

Why does it have to rise?

Again at the risk of repeating myself but no-one has answered my point.

The state penions is £96 per week, to keep someone unemployed is more than that and by keeping us on for another year then you are keeping people unemployed for another year.

As someone mentioned earlier, the 'State Pension' con is nothing more than a ponzi scheme. All the money goes into one big fat taxation pot and then you're told, 'sorry mate'...........as for your last point, I seriously don't think anyone in power has thought about that. The longer people have to work, the less work for the youngsters. Rob Peter to pay Paul. A pure ponzi scheme.

the working populace will have to work until they drop to pay for the feckless.

Well no matter what the political persuasion people can’t argue with that.

And that creates "more" jobs how exactly?

If I stop working then that creates another job for someone, if I continue working then it doesn't!

If I stop working then that creates another job for someone, if I continue working then it doesn't!

How is that MORE jobs though? The net number of jobs is the same.

Nice snide comment there titanic :roll:

Lady Star has already tied herself up in silly accusations that backfired on her. She then went on to moan about unemployment for the same period of time. It takes no genius to work out that one of the largest employer was the mines with something like 58,000 employees in Yorkshire alone. Then what was the reason for being unemployed. The strikes, which brings us nicely to Scargill, the Marxist loony who led them all to their eventual defeat.

A to B to C .. now that's not too difficult for you is it?


Well that's Serapis for you, set's himself up as an authority on one subject, then goes and put's his foot into again on another topic:rolleyes:.

So the mines were closed down BECAUSE of the strike were they? :hihi:
Don't think so pal, they went on strike because of what they suspected the Tory govt was going to do to them wrt pit closures (+ a pay claim if my memory serves me right). As it turned out by the time Heseltines pit closure programe of the early '90's had been enacted there were far FEWER pits left than even Scargill had forecast back in 1984!

They were in the days when we didn't need to import coal!

How is that MORE jobs though? The net number of jobs is the same.

Ok you are being pedantic but you are right!

I'll re-phrase it just for you:

It will free up more jobs for those looking for work!

If I stop working then that creates another job for someone, if I continue working then it doesn't!

Perhaps our “experts” could tell us why it makes sense making someone work longer that as probably got their “house in order” while paying someone not to work that probably also needs loads of other benefits to get by.

Is it better to pay someone a pension for 20 years or a package of benefits for a lifetime for an entire family?

Well that's Serapis for you, set's himself up as an authority on one subject, then goes and put's his foot into again on another topic:rolleyes:.

So the mines were closed down BECAUSE of the strike were they? :hihi:
Don't think so pal, they went on strike because of what they suspected the Tory govt was going to do to them wrt pit closures (+ a pay claim if my memory serves me right). As it turned out by the time Heseltines pit closure programe of the early '90's had been enacted what were far FEWER pits than even Scargill had forecast back in 1994!

They were in the days when we didn't need to import coal!

The net effect of the strikes was closures. Yorkshire mines were made an example of. You only need to look at the mines that did not take part in for example Nottingham to see how they out lasted those in Yorkshire. I'm not saying it right but Yorkshire paid a heavy price for siding with Scargill who was itching for a fight with the new conservative government, him being an ex member of a communist group and an open Marxist.

Ok you are being pedantic but you are right!

I'll re-phrase it just for you:

It will free up more jobs for those looking for work!

Opening up a job that is already there and creating a job are totally different. Its not pedantic as your earlier statement was utterly false.

They were in the days when we didn't need to import coal!

Like I have said, neither side is blameless. I see no winners coming out of the whole affair.

Opening up a job that is already there and creating a job are totally different. Its not pedantic as your earlier statement was utterly false.

They aren't totally different if you are looking for a job!

I know if I was unemployed and trying to find work I'd be less than impressed with the idea that people will be staying in work for a year longer!

People want to work and I want to retire as early as possible, but Mr cameron has decided today to make me work for another year and to keep another unemployed soul unemployed for another year.

Not one person is defending this on here, not one person!

Would being forced to retire at 65 be more acceptable to most?

I don't know enough about this to make a judgement call as yet personally. I'm a long way from retirement and its not something that has crossed my mind much.

How about more people becoming semi-retired?

How about more people becoming semi-retired?

Excellent idea and I've suggested the same myself in the past!

They aren't totally different if you are looking for a job!

I know if I was unemployed and trying to find work I'd be less than impressed with the idea that people will be staying in work for a year longer!

People want to work and I want to retire as early as possible, but Mr cameron has decided today to make me work for another year and to keep another unemployed soul unemployed for another year.

Not one person is defending this on here, not one person!

There is one now.

A year or two ago we had virtual full employment - apart from the feckless, work-shy or hopeless. So difficult it was to find the right person for a job, that we had to import people from all over the world to fill jobs (now I know some of you will twist this round - so for the purposes of clarification I do not approve of what we did) as a result, we now have people from all over the world here with jobs - a very short sighted thing to do.
If we manage to get back to virtual full employment, then making people work an extra year before they retire will not only save the economy money, it will keep experienced and valuable staff in good positions and it will mean that newer can get jobs without having to import plumbers from poland, taxi drivers from Pakistan, chamber maids from portugal or any of the other varieties we seem to have welcomed onto our tiny little island over the past 12 years. Comprendez?

Oh, and they should be able to spell and add up too!

The net effect of the strikes was closures. Yorkshire mines were made an example of. You only need to look at the mines that did not take part in for example Nottingham to see how they out lasted those in Yorkshire. I'm not saying it right but Yorkshire paid a heavy price for siding with Scargill who was itching for a fight with the new conservative government, him being an ex member of a communist group and an open Marxist.

That is utter rubbish.

The NCB declared their intention to close economic pits when they went for Cortonwood. The clossure plan became clear then, that was the reason for the strike. To blame the strike for clossures is to have the cart before the horse.

The reason Nottinghamshire collieries didn't strike was because Joe Gormley established the precedent in the High Court that it didn't require a National Ballot to make national decisions, something that cost miner's dearly everywhere else in the country aside from Nottinghamshire. A precedent that was then overturned at some cost to the NUM, when they followed the same principles that the High Court had upheld when it came to a National Ballot.

If Scargill was so itching for a battle why did he not speak in favour of the national strike at the conference where the decision for regions to take strike action was agreed?

Scargill maybe many things but he was not to blame for being right about what the Tories had planned for mining, and right to stand up for what the membership had decided.

Would being forced to retire at 65 be more acceptable to most?

I don't know enough about this to make a judgement call as yet personally. I'm a long way from retirement and its not something that has crossed my mind much.

How about more people becoming semi-retired?

Employers shouldn't be able force people to retire at 65, but unfortunately the Age discrimination court case was lost last week. There is still some hope in the review planned for next year.

http://www.ageconcern.org.uk/AgeConcern/forced-retirement-release-250909.asp

Employers shouldn't be able force people to retire at 65, but unfortunately the Age discrimination court case was lost last week. There is still some hope in the review planned for next year.

http://www.ageconcern.org.uk/AgeConcern/forced-retirement-release-250909.asp

Employers should be able to decide who they employ and for how long they wish to do it. It should not be up to someone else to tell them how to run their affairs. Even if they do think they know best.

Employers should be able to decide who they employ and for how long they wish to do it. It should not be up to someone else to tell them how to run their affairs. Even if they do think they know best.

Since we live in a democracy, we all have a say in the way employer's treat their employees.

And it is right that we do have an opinion and this control.

That is utter rubbish.

The NCB declared their intention to close economic pits when they went for Cortonwood. The clossure plan became clear then, that was the reason for the strike. To blame the strike for clossures is to have the cart before the horse.

The reason Nottinghamshire collieries didn't strike was because Joe Gormley established the precedent in the High Court that it didn't require a National Ballot to make national decisions, something that cost miner's dearly everywhere else in the country aside from Nottinghamshire. A precedent that was then overturned at some cost to the NUM, when they followed the same principles that the High Court had upheld when it came to a National Ballot.

If Scargill was so itching for a battle why did he not speak in favour of the national strike at the conference where the decision for regions to take strike action was agreed?

Scargill maybe many things but he was not to blame for being right about what the Tories had planned for mining, and right to stand up for what the membership had decided.

Sorry I meant accelerated closures. I didn't mean that strikes caused the closures. The strikes were because of the fear of closures but the reactions of some of the unions did not endear them to the Thatcher government.

In regards to Scargill not speaking in favour of strikes. Was he even there? I read that a number of regions including Yorkshire didn't even show up to that meeting, or was that a different meeting?

Since we live in a democracy, we all have a say in the way employer's treat their employees.

And it is right that we do have an opinion and this control.

employer's what . . . . treat their employees?

There is one now.

A year or two ago we had virtual full employment - apart from the feckless, work-shy or hopeless. So difficult it was to find the right person for a job, that we had to import people from all over the world to fill jobs (now I know some of you will twist this round - so for the purposes of clarification I do not approve of what we did) as a result, we now have people from all over the world here with jobs - a very short sighted thing to do.
If we manage to get back to virtual full employment, then making people work an extra year before they retire will not only save the economy money, it will keep experienced and valuable staff in good positions and it will mean that newer can get jobs without having to import plumbers from poland, taxi drivers from Pakistan, chamber maids from portugal or any of the other varieties we seem to have welcomed onto our tiny little island over the past 12 years. Comprendez?

Oh, and they should be able to spell and add up too!

We've had virtual full employment once in my life-time, we'll have a million more unemployed coming off Incapacity Benefit, we'll have Christ knows how many retail workers unemployed now that we are being encouraged to save and not spend so I don't believe this is a realistic argument.

On top of these we are now going to deny people the jobs they'd expect from people retiring.

It is sheer madness economically, and it will P**s people off having to continue working!

We've had virtual full employment once in my life-time, we'll have a million more unemployed coming off Incapacity Benefit,

IF they can work, they should not be on Incapacity Benefit in the first place.

we'll have Christ knows how many retail workers unemployed now that we are being encouraged to save and not spend so I don't believe this is a realistic argument.

We are being encouraged to spend not save by way of the lowering of VAT. That was an economic stimulus. Are you in a kind of roundabout way saying the VAT change failed?

On top of these we are now going to deny people the jobs they'd expect from people retiring. It is sheer madness economically, and it will P**s people off having to continue working!

If this saves the economy by securing the fundamental services such as Schooling, Police, and the NHS, I don't care who it annoyers. It’s for the greater good.

Doesn't raising the top rate of tax p*** those off who will be affected?

Sorry I meant accelerated closures. I didn't mean that strikes caused the closures. The strikes were because of the fear of closures but the reactions of some of the unions did not endear them to the Thatcher government.

The actions of Joe Gormley hadn't endeared the miner's to Thatcher. It was because of the actions of the NUM under his leadership in the early 70s that determined her to take revenge.


In regards to Scargill not speaking in favour of strikes. Was he even there? I read that a number of regions including Yorkshire didn't even show up to that meeting, or was that a different meeting?

You must be thinking of a different meeting to the one where it was declared official.

We've had virtual full employment once in my life-time, we'll have a million more unemployed coming off Incapacity Benefit, we'll have Christ knows how many retail workers unemployed now that we are being encouraged to save and not spend so I don't believe this is a realistic argument.

On top of these we are now going to deny people the jobs they'd expect from people retiring.

It is sheer madness economically, and it will P**s people off having to continue working!

I fully recognise that it was short sighted to bring in the migrant workers. Those coming off Incapacity benefit may have to work instead of pretending to be sick (you've seen the ones with sticks they don't need)

I am afraid there is going to be quite a lot of unemployment following another disastrous Labour government (I accept that we live in a democracy, and it was voted for, but they were still wrong and disastrous for the country) in the short term.

The new slight extension of the working lifetime of someone will take place in the medium term, by which time the Tories may have started to put right some of the bad policies of this poor, sorry and bankrupt government.

Some people like to keep working - obviously not as many in the public sector but happy employees in the private sector do.

employer's what . . . . treat their employees?

Yes. You know protections from bullying, the right to be paid, the right to a safe working environment.... that sort of thing.

I fully recognise that it was short sighted to bring in the migrant workers. Those coming off Incapacity benefit may have to work instead of pretending to be sick (you've seen the ones with sticks they don't need)

I am afraid there is going to be quite a lot of unemployment following another disastrous Labour government (I accept that we live in a democracy, and it was voted for, but they were still wrong and disastrous for the country) in the short term.

The new slight extension of the working lifetime of someone will take place in the medium term, by which time the Tories may have started to put right some of the bad policies of this poor, sorry and bankrupt government.

Some people like to keep working - obviously not as many in the public sector but happy employees in the private sector do.

Somehow I doubt the Tories will put anything right since no one can tell much difference between their policies except that the Tories want to make worker's work longer, to pay for the mistakes of the banker's.

Yes. You know protections from bullying, the right to be paid, the right to a safe working environment.... that sort of thing.

And so they should, but when the employer has had enough of employing that someone they should be allowed to stop employing that someone. In the same way that if you go to your local shop for a loaf of bread every day for five years and after that you change to a different shop, you should not be made to continue shopping there.

Somehow I doubt the Torie's will put anything right since no one can tell much difference between their policie's except that the Torie's want to make worker's work longer.

I think, although I can't speak for them, they want people to work. Not just longer.

And so they should, but when the employer has had enough of employing that someone they should be allowed to stop employing that someone. In the same way that if you go to your local shop for a loaf of bread every day for five years and after that you change to a different shop, you should not be made to continue shopping there.

Except your analogy doesn't fit, especially not when you agree with me at the start of your paragraph. Quite clearly we do have a right to have a say in how and on what grounds a decision like that is made.

I think, although I can't speak for them, they want people to work. Not just longer.

They want to scapegoat the poor for the mistakes of their friends in the City.

[SIZE="7"]

If this saves the economy by securing the fundamental services such as Schooling, Police, and the NHS, I don't care who it annoyers. It’s for the greater good.



But it won't save any money as we'll end up paying out more to keep someone unemployed!

State Pension for me £95 per week
JSA for Unemployed person £65, HB £60 (approx) Council Tax Benefit £10- Total £135

The only way this will work is if they expect a lot of the 65 year olds to be unemployed by this age, in this case then it will save a bit.

You must be thinking of a different meeting to the one where it was declared official.

I was thinking of the formal end to the strikes where the NUM voted by a tiny margin to end them. It wasn't Yorkshire that didn't show up it was Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and South Derbyshire. Maybe if they did, things would have been different.

Except your analogy doesn't fit, especially not when you agree with me at the start of your paragraph. Quite clearly we do have a right to have a say in how and on what grounds a decision like that is made.

I agree that a customer in a shop should not bully the baker, and that an employer should not bully his staff. I agree that the baker has the right to be paid and not have his produce stolen by the customer - likewise the employee has the right to be paid. I agree that the customer has the right to purchase the bread in a safe environment and that the employee has the right not to be injured by his employer. My analogy fits perfectly. It is firm and stands like a rock.

They want to scapegoat the poor for the mistakes of their friends in the City.

The major problems with this country are as a result of this goverment.

But it won't save any money as we'll end up paying out more to keep someone unemployed!

State Pension for me £95 per week
JSA for Unemployed person £65, HB £60 (approx) Council Tax Benefit £10- Total £135

The only way this will work is if they expect a lot of the 65 year olds to be unemployed by this age, in this case then it will save a bit.

Does the state pension change for a couple or is it per person?

The major problems with this country are as a result of this goverment.

Ignore the global recession and just blame the Govt. :rolleyes:

And so they should, but when the employer has had enough of employing that someone they should be allowed to stop employing that someone. In the same way that if you go to your local shop for a loaf of bread every day for five years and after that you change to a different shop, you should not be made to continue shopping there.

No.

An employer should only be allowed to break the contract with the employee, under specific circumstances defined by laws that we all have a say in.

I was thinking of the formal end to the strikes where the NUM voted by a tiny margin to end them. It wasn't Yorkshire that didn't show up it was Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and South Derbyshire. Maybe if they did, things would have been different.

If they had turned up the vote would have been even greater to end the strike.

They will bring us massive cuts in public spending, tax breaks for the rich...top rate of tax, inheritance tax, corporation tax ......a fiscal policy that will make the pips squeak for the poor.

Unemployment already rising will get higher but the chances of claiming benefit will of course be curtailed. At the same time, they will personally blame you for being unemployed and up that stigma level to the max

They will cut back at all times social benefits and make it harder to claim disability. You nasty wheelchair people etc will just have to try harder and suffer more

They will cut back on the civil service but create more private quangos with no local or national accountability.

They will accelerate privatisation of health care and tell us we cannot keep throwing money at the problem. Parts of the service, free of charge will go and be replaced by insurance schemes or bled dry of funds that will force people to go private. They will give big tax breaks to people who take up private insurance.

I predict a free fall economy within a year of them taking office...but we will be told it is harsh but necessary medicine

If you have a mortgage...better protect now, if you have the chance of getting a fixed rate mortgage:hihi:. Interest rates will double within a year and with the credit crunch, repossessions will hit an all time high. They will of course blame you for living beyond your means, although they were the party that originally promoted house ownership in the eighties.

They will be vague on Europe...booing and hissing on the sidelines...signing up to economic packages and backsliding on the social contract side. We will stagnate in relation to Europe ...they still cannot get their heads round Europe. We will not join the Euro under a Tory Govt. Save the pound anyone?

They will of course, like Labour follow the Americans blindly in Afghanistan, where of course we will continue to get our arses kicked.

They will give more economic freedom to individual schools in order to discriminate and create further social barriers in education. They will periodically bash teachers and blame them for all societies ills. They will of course change massive amounts of the curriculum unecessarily and chicken out from changing A levels. They will starve higher ed of funds and there will be massive rises in student fees.

Periodically, they will target minority groups and doubt their loyalty to the country. They will attack single parents and teenage mothers and of course blame them for all socities ills. They will persists with the idea that society began to disintegrate due to the 1960-s. They will detain more asylum seekers but pursue the same previous policy because they realise that a non unionised and cheap workforce is good for their economy.

They will increase the pay of the police and pay nurses, teachers and the fireservice less. Funny...the Tories hate the fireservice. They will give more draconian powers to the police as have labour and there will be riots but it will be the fault of the -enemy within-

..but inflation will fall

I wish Labour had a different policy but alas noExactly! if Labour had only had different policies over the past decade,we would not be having to face all this stiff medicine from the Tories!........................all this parochial bleating gets on my tits! Britain is drowning in a sea of debt! Wages are too high! Property values are too high! We are all living in too much luxury at the side of what we earn as a country.I think we know that a massive correction is getting under way,best get used to it and be prepared to adjust your lifestyle.Out of the seven and a half million jobs lost globally to this credit crunch,most will never come back again,at least not in the same form.We will never in our lifetime see a property boom of the magnitude of the recent one,unless values collapse much much further.Wealth is shifting daily from west to east and there's
going to be no stopping it!

Ignore the global recession and just blame the Govt. :rolleyes:

We are part of the globe. Indeed we are the fourth major economy. this govt took ALL the credit for the global boom (even stupidly claiming to have put an end to boom and bust). They must take some, if not most, of the blame for the they state we find ourselves in. The Tripartate of the Bank of england. The selling of the gold reserves. The mortgaging of this country. The overgorging of the public sector and the restrictions placed on employers and wealth creators.

No.

An employer should only be allowed to break the contract with the employee, under specific circumstances defined by laws that we all have a say in.

The laws are so biased towards the employee that it discourages further employment (and I agree that this government was democratically elected, but it doesnt make them right.) In the same way that the conservative government was democratically elected in the eighties and went on to smash the unions that were holding this country to ransom. I would guess that you don't approve of this particular aspect of democracy though and continue to argue against it

Does the state pension change for a couple or is it per person?

I've found the details:

State Pension - £95.25 a week for a single person and £152.30 for a couple.
JSA - £64.3 a week for a single person and £100.95 for a couple.

If both (in the couple) claim JSA then they receive a greater amount from the state. However if only one is unemployed (which is more common in a recession), this changes significantly. Housing benefit and council tax benefit do not apply and the only income is then the £64.3 a week regardless of the other persons salary (unless they themselves are on a low salary and receiving other benefits)

The most common scenario would be for one person in a couple to be unemployed and these people receive significantly less that those on the state pension.

We are part of the globe. Indeed we are the fourth major economy. this govt took ALL the credit for the global boom (even stupidly claiming to have put an end to boom and bust). They must take some, if not most, of the blame for the they state we find ourselves in. The Tripartate of the Bank of england. The selling of the gold reserves. The mortgaging of this country. The overgorging of the public sector and the restrictions placed on employers and wealth creators.

The UK was the second in line for the blame for the economic crash due to our huge financial sector. What do you think tempted the hundreds of foreign owned financial institutions into basing their operations in the UK? It certainly was not the weather. Maybe it was the toothless regulatory body that had been told to turn a blind eye to the banks and their practices. Who knows?

Ignore the global recession and just blame the Govt. :rolleyes:

Which way do you want it? Full credit for the economic boom and therefore full credit for the downturn. If you think the government is blameless for the recession, they cannot take credit for the boom either because the boom was the cause of the crash.

Sorry folks for that too excited1

The UK was the second in line for the blame for the economic crash due to our huge financial sector. What do you think tempted the hundreds of foreign owned financial institutions into basing their operations in the UK? It certainly was not the weather. Maybe it was the toothless regulatory body that had been told to turn a blind eye to the banks and their practices. Who knows?

Quite - and, I am sure, we deregulated first forcing the US to stop the separation of high street and investment banks introduced following the 1929 crash. If they hadn't, then all the money would have flowed through a weakly regulated london. So actually it was probably totally the chancellor's fault in 1997. Now let me think who was that then?

I've found the details:

State Pension - £95.25 a week for a single person and £152.30 for a couple.
JSA - £64.3 a week for a single person and £100.95 for a couple.

If both (in the couple) claim JSA then they receive a greater amount from the state. However if only one is unemployed (which is more common in a recession), this changes significantly. Housing benefit and council tax benefit do not apply and the only income is then the £64.3 a week regardless of the other persons salary (unless they themselves are on a low salary and receiving other benefits)

The most common scenario would be for one person in a couple to be unemployed and these people receive significantly less that those on the state pension.

I think your figures are correct, however I personally believe the biggest problem with Unemployment is getting the young people into work and these tend to be single, meaning Housing and Council Tax Benefit then becomes a factor.

Whereas people reaching Retirement Age will be more likely to be owning their own home so less reliant on Housing and Council Tax Benefit.

I think both categories would qualify for free prescriptions!

I just think it is a massive oversight on both the political parties part, a bit of common sense needs to prevail and we should be staggering a transition from the age of 64 that allows people in work to reduce the working week and gets the unemployed people into a position to be able to replace them straight away.

Good to see you put that ****ing arsehole Serapis in his place.


hardly:loopy:

We are part of the globe. Indeed we are the fourth major economy. this govt took ALL the credit for the global boom (even stupidly claiming to have put an end to boom and bust). They must take some, if not most, of the blame for the they state we find ourselves in. The Tripartate of the Bank of england. The selling of the gold reserves. The mortgaging of this country. The overgorging of the public sector and the restrictions placed on employers and wealth creators.

Who gave New Labour credit for the boom?

So far as I can see they continued the Tory policies that have got us in this mess.

The laws are so biased towards the employee that it discourages further employment (and I agree that this government was democratically elected, but it doesnt make them right.)

Now we know you are mad and callous, inadequate protections for workers have resulted in countless deaths and industrial injuries with the employer getting off scot free. Employees are easily sacked on trumped up charges as soon as they put a foot wrong.


In the same way that the conservative government was democratically elected in the eighties and went on to smash the unions that were holding this country to ransom. I would guess that you don't approve of this particular aspect of democracy though and continue to argue against it

A Govt that was hugely unpopular and only victorious because of the disunity in the labour party because of the likes of Kinnock and ironically because of Thatcher's role in the Falklands crisis that we now know was largely caused by her negligence.

Who gave New Labour credit for the boom?

So far as I can see they continued the Tory policies that have got us in this mess.

Gordon Brown, in many speeches.

Which way do you want it? Full credit for the economic boom and therefore full credit for the downturn. If you think the government is blameless for the recession, they cannot take credit for the boom either because the boom was the cause of the crash.

I have never given labour any credit for this 'boom'. If there was a boom it was caused by the off the accounting sheet book-keeping that was the Tory invention of PPP or PFI.

Sorry folks for that too excited1

I saw what you wrote and I think you owe me an apology.

Gordon Brown, in many speeches.

Well Gordon Brown and I have several disagreements, not least on his record as a Chancellor :hihi:

Who gave New Labour credit for the boom?

So far as I can see they continued the Tory policies that have got us in this mess.

even for you that's stretching it a bit. Blaming the tories from 12 years ago. Are you saying that Labour has had no effect on the economy over the last 12 years.

Oh it was his Toniness and all the front bench that claimed to have put an end to boom and bust.

Now we know you are mad and callous, inadequate protections for workers have resulted in countless deaths and industrial injuries with the employer getting off scot free. Employees are easily sacked on trumped up charges as soon as they put a foot wrong.



i refer you to my earlier post about safety. You are lying again and trying to twist and invent words. see post 277


A Govt that was hugely unpopular and only victorious because of the disunity in the labour party because of the likes of Kinnock and ironically because of Thatcher's role in the Falklands crisis that we now know was largely caused by her negligence.
but still democratically elected so you are once again proved emphatically to be Janus like in your views