TUC Day of Action - 26th March

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Sirius

What about the thousands of bombs dropped in Iraq and Afghanistan because we listened to a lying scheming git and his party. I wonder how much that has cost the tax payer. ???

There you go then. just loose change

---------- Post added at 09:47 ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 ----------

Originally Posted by snowey

Both of them !!!!! we are heading back to the last Tory goverment, as well.

High unemployment/ bank rate/ mortgage, but big money men/banks as usual are well off........

And that is what the general public are seeing. they don't care about the ins and outs of it all. they just see it for what it is.

[Sparkle]

The headlines earlier were "Peaceful protest hijacked by anarchists".
I don't recall "Student protest hijacked by anarchists". Though it's known the anarchists were there during that demo, probably the same vandals we saw yesterday.

I'm just a bit relieved the headlines weren't "Peaceful protest hijacked by students."

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by snowey

Both of them !!!!! we are heading back to the last Tory goverment, as well.

High unemployment/ bank rate/ mortgage, but big money men/banks as usual are well off........

Unemployment goes up in recessions, that's life.

Bank and mortgage rates being too low for too long caused a lot of the problems to begin with.

Welcome to the real world, where governments can't indefinitely spend money they don't have trying to convince you the world is perfect, keep employment down by employing everyone themselves, and run monetary policy for political reasons rather than economic ones with no regard at all for the consequences.

The simple fact is the budget is in deficit even with these cuts. You can't run anythere where your losing money every year, it's not sustainable. It's depressing enough that we won't even begin to reduce the deficit until 2014...

Originally Posted by squealy

Sounds like Gideon to me.

Nah - it was Anthony and James.....

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Damien

The simple fact is the budget is in deficit even with these cuts. You can't run anythere where your losing money every year, it's not sustainable. It's depressing enough that we won't even begin to reduce the deficit until 2014...

Yep, per my previous comments this is a 1% per year cut in real terms.

In cash terms spending will continue to go up.

Public spending will be at the same levels as 2007/2008. In other words this is a winding back of the growth of public sector since the banking crisis started to take hold.

Although if you believe the unions these are savage, vicious cuts that will turn Britain into a desolate war zone where feral tribes roam filthy, littered streets full of burned out cars.

The one really big thing to note about these cuts, the biggest thing about them, is the rhetoric.

That and how much those who can't vote, kids, are getting shafted to keep pensioners and baby boomers, who can and do tend to vote in larger proportions than any other group, on side.

---------- Post added at 12:33 ---------- Previous post was at 12:11 ----------

269. At 02:21am on 27th Mar 2011, Justin150 wrote:
250,000 marchers is an impressive number...

Until you remember that the Countryside Alliance managed 400,000 for a march about fox hunting

So lets put into context, more people support the tradition of dressing up in funny clothes to chase a bushy tailed animal with good PR, than support our public sector.

---------- Post added at 12:35 ---------- Previous post was at 12:33 ----------

As far as the occupation of Fortnum and Mason goes, transparent class warfare.

http://www.nickpickles.co.uk/?p=729

Fortnum is owned by Wittington Investments Limited, which in turn is is 79.2% owned by the Garfield Weston Foundation, and 20.8% owned by members of the Weston family.

And what of the Garfield Weston Foundation? Well, it’s actually one of the UK’s largest grant-making trusts.

From it’s 2009 annual report:

“This year, the Trustees have supported 1518 appeals out of a total of 3513 applications, which is a slight increase over last year. While the annual income has remained at a similar level to last year (around £38.5 million) the total cash donations of £37.6 million are lower than last year £41.1 million. This, however, is a reflection of the need for the Trustees’ to be prudent in order to bring their reserves up to a more conservative level following the substantial commitment to Oxford University of £25 million last year towards the development of the Bodleian Library. The figure of £37.6 million includes the second tranche of
£10 million of this grant and the Trustees are committed to pay the final £5 million next year. The Trustees have also been mindful of the possibility of requests for urgent funding being made by charities which have had their funding from other sources cut due to the difficult economic conditions and wished to maintain some temporary reserves to cover such eventuality.�

Additionally, F&M’s managing director, Beverly Aspinall, joined from that other great corporate evil, (sarcasm, by the way) the John Lewis Partnership, where she’d been for 24 years.

So, the demonstrators chose to attack a company with a female MD that has just funded one of Britain’s top libraries, that donated £37.6m to good causes in 2009 alone, and is building up reserves to help charities hit by the spending cuts.

F&M is owned by Whittington Investments. Whittington also owns a 54% share of Associated British Foods. They allege ABF have dodged over £40 million in tax.

So - hang on - Fortnum and Mason hasn’t actually done anything wrong? Nor has its parent company. ABF has. And the only link is that the two companies have mutual shareholders. But they’re occupying F&M. Indeed, the headline reads “UK Uncut occupy tax dodgers Fortnum and Mason.� - then goes on to describe how they are not.

The UK Uncut press release reeks of it.

http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/blog/press...tnum-and-mason

[Osem]

Whilst I endorse their right to do it, I really don't see how 250,000 or whatever people turning up to protest about what the likes of the TUC and Ed Balls like to claim is such catastrophic economic policy is some sort of major watershed. It doesn't even represent a majority of public sector or union members, let alone the rest of us.

---------- Post added at 13:28 ---------- Previous post was at 13:11 ----------

In respect of the police handling of these events, where are all the usual suspects who're always banging on that police brutality is somehow systemic and endemic? So far as I can see, the vast majority of the police were entirely peacefully engaged dealing with the vast majority of protesters - no police violence, no police intimidation, no police overreaction, no police incitement, no police harrassment! Having frequently heard it said that the police always set out to cause trouble, leave empty vans lying about to incite mayhem and get off on dragging 'disabled students' out of their wheelchairs and assaulting them, I'm surprised there wasn't any trouble affecting the main protest. How could that be I wonder? Did the police brutality department have a bad day? Or could it just be that the vast majority of people weren't breaking the law by attacking police, intimidating others, destroying public property etc. and were treated accordingly? From what I've seen it was only those who were committing serious breaches of the law who came into conflict with the police and quite rightly so!

[Ignitionnet]

It isn't too surprising the public sector is feeling threatened.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle6974029.ece

Since Labour came to power in 1997, the number of public sector workers has increased by 914,000 to more than 6m, just over a fifth of the workforce.

Figures published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that average annual earnings of public sector workers rose to £22,405 last year — compared with £20,988 paid to the average private sector worker.

Official figures show that public sector wages are rising at 2.8%, compared with 1.1% in the private sector.

This has come despite a decline in productivity. According to the ONS, public sector productivity fell by 3.4% in the 10 years from 1997 — compared with a rise of 28% in the private sector over the same period.

If these have any validity it speaks volumes.

By the same token, however, the NHS has had money pumped into it but has likewise become considerably less productive.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/healthcare...iciency-issues

Despite increased resources, NHS productivity has fallen over the past 10 years, according to a report by parliament's public accounts committee.

Since 2000 total NHS productivity fell by an average of 0.2% a year, and by an average of 1.4% a year in hospitals, according to the Office for National Statistics.

Government spending on the NHS increased by 70%, from £60bn in 2000-01 to £102bn in 2010-11, with some 40% spent on services provided by acute and foundation hospitals.

---------- Post added at 13:40 ---------- Previous post was at 13:32 ----------

Another view of things from the gentle, calm and always balanced Old Holborn.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Before people start ranting and having a go at me, lets put one thing into proportion, NO matter who is running this bloody country, Labour look after the working class, The bloody Tories look after the rich.

There are ways that these cuts can be brought in, they stated that it would take FIVE years, what they are doing is basically overnight, When they were talking before the elections, they said they WOULD not increase students fees( they now have) they stated they would not harm the NHS (they have) they stated they would not hit the education system (they have). There must be an awful lot of Tory lovers on this forum.

I was about in the poll tax riots and everrhtying thing that was brought in by Thatcher, and all the aggro she brought, Cameron and Clegg are doing exactly the same.

IF Cameron and Clegg are in power, why is it quiet on the Politcally fron this morning condeming what happened yesterday, They have cut the police budget, and yet they were having there ass's kicked yesterday by mindless thugs, Have they come out and praised them- no.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

By the same token, however, the NHS has had money pumped into it but has likewise become considerably less productive.

Well Labour governments are renowned for wasting money and in the last decade they really excelled but that's another subject.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Before people start ranting and having a go at me, lets put one thing into proportion, NO matter who is running this bloody country, Labour look after the working class, The bloody Tories look after the rich.

Maybe if that's the case you'd like to explain why it is this coalition, not Labour, that is progressively raising the personal income tax allowance, or perhaps you could explain this?

The divide between rich and poor is greater after 13 years of Labour rule than at any time since the Second World War, according to the Government’s own report into inequality.

It concludes that Britain remains a nation riven by class “from cradle to grave”, despite programmes costing billions of pounds in the past decade designed to narrow the gap.

Social mobility measured by both income and profession is low, with worrying signs that the class divide now opens up among children as young as 3.

Seems to me Labour looked after themselves, perhaps with the best of intentions, by trying to get as many people on the public payroll as possible, social engineering through immigration policy and getting as many as possible into welfare via tax credits.

The right government is the one that, rather than obsessing over looking after one segment, keeps the taxes down as much as possible and allows the wealth to be created by enterprise to fund the necessary social services while at the same time trying to minimise barriers to people trying to better themselves.

I have no need to rant or rave at you Arthur, I can just calmly use facts to counter the giant chip you have on your shoulder.

EDIT: Here's a thought though, what do both the last Labour governments have in common? In their attempts to look after the 'working classes' they totally buggered up the economy leaving someone else to clean up the mess and take the flak. At least this time they didn't have the extra time that would have allowed them to splurge yet more and leave us needing the IMF again.

[Down the Pub]

i can see where he is coming from igi................................only if i look through them bleedin rose tinted specs of his

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I have a great way for the NHS to be more productive, make it an offence for ' silly' ailments walking into A& E to use up valuable time, for which overworks the department.

Such as l was in A & E on Monday, and the amount of people that walked in WITH families with silly ailments, l couldn't believe it.

The NHS is the pride of this country, and should be looked after with kid gloves, BUT it has to stopped the big misuse that people use it for.

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I have a great way for the NHS to be more productive, make it an offence for ' silly' ailments walking into A& E to use up valuable time, for which overworks the department.

Such as l was in A & E on Monday, and the amount of people that walked in WITH families with silly ailments, l couldn't believe it.

The NHS is the pride of this country, and should be looked after with kid gloves, BUT it has to stopped the big misuse that people use it for.

what were you in for arthur ...a sprained brain muscle

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I have a great way for the NHS to be more productive, make it an offence for ' silly' ailments walking into A& E to use up valuable time, for which overworks the department.

Such as l was in A & E on Monday, and the amount of people that walked in WITH families with silly ailments, l couldn't believe it.

The NHS is the pride of this country, and should be looked after with kid gloves, BUT it has to stopped the big misuse that people use it for.

Slight problem with that idea, Arthur.

People have different ideas of what constitutes a silly ailment. As such, any such rule might put people off who are suffering a genuine ailment.

For example, you have a pain in your chest. It feels a little like Wind. You know you can be prosecuted for going to the hospital with Wind, so what do you do? Risk prosecute, or risk finding out you are actually going through a heart attack?

A better way to make the NHS more productive is do something that my local HA attempted a few years back. They replaced a small, old, out of date hospital with a state of the art minor injuries unit with the idea that GPs would be able to book facilities to perform treatments and minor operations that their own surgeries are not equiped to perform. With the idea of stopping a lot of these patients with problems involving minor surgery going to A&E.

Unfortunately thanks, in part, to the targets put in place by the previous government for GPs, the local GPs refused to use it. Put simply they didn't have the time to use it. So, at great expense, it was refitted as a hospital.

If the GPs had been persuaded to use it, it would have saved our local NHS millions.