FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Democracy - Anti Austerity Protests Pt 2
Democracy - Anti Austerity Protests Pt 2
Jump to: Newest in thread
"Does the minimum wage actually account to be a liveable wage? Can you earn enough on minimum wage to pay your taxes, pay your bills and have a little left over? I don't think so! But you get tax credits to top it up. I'd be all for scrapping the tax credit system and increasing the personal allowance with the money saved, seems like a far more straightforward way of administering it." Why on earth should the government have to subsidise someone who is working full time? If you are working full time, don't have enough money to pay your taxes, pay your bills and have a little left over then the system is broken! What a notion - that work should pay! " Work should pay? Careful now, you sound like IDS..." His formula for 'making work pay' is making people on benefits poorer so that in relation to them you have more more money without actually having more money than had before. So why do people working full time need tax credits if work is paying? | |||
"Does the minimum wage actually account to be a liveable wage? Can you earn enough on minimum wage to pay your taxes, pay your bills and have a little left over? I don't think so! But you get tax credits to top it up. I'd be all for scrapping the tax credit system and increasing the personal allowance with the money saved, seems like a far more straightforward way of administering it." Why on earth should the government have to subsidise someone who is working full time? If you are working full time, don't have enough money to pay your taxes, pay your bills and have a little left over then the system is broken! What a notion - that work should pay! " Work should pay? Careful now, you sound like IDS... His formula for 'making work pay' is making people on benefits poorer so that in relation to them you have more more money without actually having more money than had before. So why do people working full time need tax credits if work is paying? " Because the cost of living has outpaced wage growth. Say the minimum wage was to be increased to £10 an hour. People who currently earn £10 an hour, would their wages increase to reflect the fact that they are in a more highly skilled job than one that pays minimum wage. And so on up the chain? Where does it stop? | |||
| |||
| |||
"Does the minimum wage actually account to be a liveable wage? Can you earn enough on minimum wage to pay your taxes, pay your bills and have a little left over? I don't think so! But you get tax credits to top it up. I'd be all for scrapping the tax credit system and increasing the personal allowance with the money saved, seems like a far more straightforward way of administering it." Why on earth should the government have to subsidise someone who is working full time? If you are working full time, don't have enough money to pay your taxes, pay your bills and have a little left over then the system is broken! What a notion - that work should pay! " Work should pay? Careful now, you sound like IDS... His formula for 'making work pay' is making people on benefits poorer so that in relation to them you have more more money without actually having more money than had before. So why do people working full time need tax credits if work is paying? Because the cost of living has outpaced wage growth. Say the minimum wage was to be increased to £10 an hour. People who currently earn £10 an hour, would their wages increase to reflect the fact that they are in a more highly skilled job than one that pays minimum wage. And so on up the chain? Where does it stop?" Clearly the definition of minimum is lost on some. It's up to businesses themselves if they pay more than the minimum. If they don't then someone on £10/hour will be no worse off. Perhaps your question should be why someone who is considered to be 'skilled' is only on £10/hour! If our economy is doing so well then spread that 'wellness' out. | |||
"Does the minimum wage actually account to be a liveable wage? Can you earn enough on minimum wage to pay your taxes, pay your bills and have a little left over? I don't think so! But you get tax credits to top it up. I'd be all for scrapping the tax credit system and increasing the personal allowance with the money saved, seems like a far more straightforward way of administering it." Why on earth should the government have to subsidise someone who is working full time? If you are working full time, don't have enough money to pay your taxes, pay your bills and have a little left over then the system is broken! What a notion - that work should pay! " Work should pay? Careful now, you sound like IDS... His formula for 'making work pay' is making people on benefits poorer so that in relation to them you have more more money without actually having more money than had before. So why do people working full time need tax credits if work is paying? Because the cost of living has outpaced wage growth. Say the minimum wage was to be increased to £10 an hour. People who currently earn £10 an hour, would their wages increase to reflect the fact that they are in a more highly skilled job than one that pays minimum wage. And so on up the chain? Where does it stop? Clearly the definition of minimum is lost on some. It's up to businesses themselves if they pay more than the minimum. If they don't then someone on £10/hour will be no worse off. Perhaps your question should be why someone who is considered to be 'skilled' is only on £10/hour! If our economy is doing so well then spread that 'wellness' out." No I understand perfectly well the concept of a minimum. And I said "more highly skilled", not skilled. Someone on £10 an hour would be no worse off, but would be getting paid the same as the person who would previously have been getting minimum wage. Doesn't seem fair to me, but then I'm selfish, self-serving Tory scum eh, so what do I know. | |||
"Doesn't seem fair to me, but then I'm selfish, self-serving Tory scum eh, so what do I know. " I won't dispute! | |||
"Does the minimum wage actually account to be a liveable wage? Can you earn enough on minimum wage to pay your taxes, pay your bills and have a little left over? I don't think so! But you get tax credits to top it up. I'd be all for scrapping the tax credit system and increasing the personal allowance with the money saved, seems like a far more straightforward way of administering it." Why on earth should the government have to subsidise someone who is working full time? If you are working full time, don't have enough money to pay your taxes, pay your bills and have a little left over then the system is broken! What a notion - that work should pay! " Work should pay? Careful now, you sound like IDS... His formula for 'making work pay' is making people on benefits poorer so that in relation to them you have more more money without actually having more money than had before. So why do people working full time need tax credits if work is paying? Because the cost of living has outpaced wage growth. Say the minimum wage was to be increased to £10 an hour. People who currently earn £10 an hour, would their wages increase to reflect the fact that they are in a more highly skilled job than one that pays minimum wage. And so on up the chain? Where does it stop?" It's pretty obvious where it stops lol. It stops at the CEO's who (pre thatcher) have gone from earning 10 times the average wage within their organisations to (in some cases) over 150 times... | |||
| |||
"I haven't read all the posts on the previous thread but I have read enough. So many people on here are claiming Conservative are making people homeless... What about my friend, who is single mother of a young child, who works full time, and was able to buy her own home - to secure a future for her family, using a government run scheme. What about my sister who managed to step up on the property ladder and get a better rate mortgage? What about all the serving soldiers lives that were saved by pulling out of Afghan? Because Labour probably would have kept that dragging on. What about all the innocent Afghan civilians that still have their lives? What about all the people who are genuinely disabled, being able to keep their benefits due to new tests ing out the fakers. What about the people that have gained well paying jobs from the privatisation and contractual employment for certain organisations? Those are just a few of the reasons I am happy for things to continue on the up, as they have for the last 5 years... "  | |||
"Does the minimum wage actually account to be a liveable wage? Can you earn enough on minimum wage to pay your taxes, pay your bills and have a little left over? I don't think so! But you get tax credits to top it up. I'd be all for scrapping the tax credit system and increasing the personal allowance with the money saved, seems like a far more straightforward way of administering it." Why on earth should the government have to subsidise someone who is working full time? If you are working full time, don't have enough money to pay your taxes, pay your bills and have a little left over then the system is broken! What a notion - that work should pay! " Work should pay? Careful now, you sound like IDS... His formula for 'making work pay' is making people on benefits poorer so that in relation to them you have more more money without actually having more money than had before. So why do people working full time need tax credits if work is paying? Because the cost of living has outpaced wage growth. Say the minimum wage was to be increased to £10 an hour. People who currently earn £10 an hour, would their wages increase to reflect the fact that they are in a more highly skilled job than one that pays minimum wage. And so on up the chain? Where does it stop? It's pretty obvious where it stops lol. It stops at the CEO's who (pre thatcher) have gone from earning 10 times the average wage within their organisations to (in some cases) over 150 times..." Of course, I forgot it was all the nasty CEOs' faults. How about in most businesses which people work in, because most people work for SMEs in this country, where the business owner will be drawing nowhere near that sort of multiple (if it's even a multiple at all?) | |||
| |||
" It's pretty obvious where it stops lol. It stops at the CEO's who (pre thatcher) have gone from earning 10 times the average wage within their organisations to (in some cases) over 150 times... Of course, I forgot it was all the nasty CEOs' faults. How about in most businesses which people work in, because most people work for SMEs in this country, where the business owner will be drawing nowhere near that sort of multiple (if it's even a multiple at all?)" It works exactly as you say, minimum wage rises and said current £10 earners get pissed off. A shrewd rival realises that he/she can poach some top talent. So they offer £20 an hour for what was previously a £10 an hour position. Obviously this has a chain effect and they have to increase everybody's salary. To fund this they pay themselves 1mill dividends instead of 2. They does this because they know that the potential growth from the added pools of talent means that in a few years they can be paying themselves 3 mill. Other business owners recognise this and start to do the same. Result CEO's across the country take a hit in wages because the employment market dictates that they have to pay their employees fairer wages. This is a prime example of where government policy can and should be used to curtail the darker side of free market fundamentalism! How you argue against that? | |||
"I haven't read all the posts on the previous thread but I have read enough. So many people on here are claiming Conservative are making people homeless... What about my friend, who is single mother of a young child, who works full time, and was able to buy her own home - to secure a future for her family, using a government run scheme. What about my sister who managed to step up on the property ladder and get a better rate mortgage? What about all the serving soldiers lives that were saved by pulling out of Afghan? Because Labour probably would have kept that dragging on. What about all the innocent Afghan civilians that still have their lives? What about all the people who are genuinely disabled, being able to keep their benefits due to new tests ing out the fakers. What about the people that have gained well paying jobs from the privatisation and contractual employment for certain organisations? Those are just a few of the reasons I am happy for things to continue on the up, as they have for the last 5 years... " . Excellent post . I assist someone who is mentally disabled and have yet to notice any of these so called cuts. We did not hear many people complaining when mortgage rates fell . In future those who retire will also have total control over their pension funds . This was a very significant reform by the Conservative Government . | |||
| |||
" It's pretty obvious where it stops lol. It stops at the CEO's who (pre thatcher) have gone from earning 10 times the average wage within their organisations to (in some cases) over 150 times... Of course, I forgot it was all the nasty CEOs' faults. How about in most businesses which people work in, because most people work for SMEs in this country, where the business owner will be drawing nowhere near that sort of multiple (if it's even a multiple at all?) It works exactly as you say, minimum wage rises and said current £10 earners get pissed off. A shrewd rival realises that he/she can poach some top talent. So they offer £20 an hour for what was previously a £10 an hour position. Obviously this has a chain effect and they have to increase everybody's salary. To fund this they pay themselves 1mill dividends instead of 2. They does this because they know that the potential growth from the added pools of talent means that in a few years they can be paying themselves 3 mill. Other business owners recognise this and start to do the same. Result CEO's across the country take a hit in wages because the employment market dictates that they have to pay their employees fairer wages. This is a prime example of where government policy can and should be used to curtail the darker side of free market fundamentalism! How you argue against that? " That works where it's a large business with a CEO drawing that £2m dividend. How about public sector organisations where the wage differential is more like 1 to 10 (on an FTE basis); and SMEs, which I referred to in my previous post, which employ more people in this country than large companies? Is their choice between their wage bill putting them out of business or not being able to get any decent staff because they've all gone to work for that nasty multinational down the road? | |||
"I haven't read all the posts on the previous thread but I have read enough. So many people on here are claiming Conservative are making people homeless... What about my friend, who is single mother of a young child, who works full time, and was able to buy her own home - to secure a future for her family, using a government run scheme. What about my sister who managed to step up on the property ladder and get a better rate mortgage? What about all the serving soldiers lives that were saved by pulling out of Afghan? Because Labour probably would have kept that dragging on. What about all the innocent Afghan civilians that still have their lives? What about all the people who are genuinely disabled, being able to keep their benefits due to new tests ing out the fakers. What about the people that have gained well paying jobs from the privatisation and contractual employment for certain organisations? Those are just a few of the reasons I am happy for things to continue on the up, as they have for the last 5 years... . Excellent post . I assist someone who is mentally disabled and have yet to notice any of these so called cuts. We did not hear many people complaining when mortgage rates fell . In future those who retire will also have total control over their pension funds . This was a very significant reform by the Conservative Government . " Pension 'reform' is nothing more than a stealth tax. | |||
" It's pretty obvious where it stops lol. It stops at the CEO's who (pre thatcher) have gone from earning 10 times the average wage within their organisations to (in some cases) over 150 times... Of course, I forgot it was all the nasty CEOs' faults. How about in most businesses which people work in, because most people work for SMEs in this country, where the business owner will be drawing nowhere near that sort of multiple (if it's even a multiple at all?) It works exactly as you say, minimum wage rises and said current £10 earners get pissed off. A shrewd rival realises that he/she can poach some top talent. So they offer £20 an hour for what was previously a £10 an hour position. Obviously this has a chain effect and they have to increase everybody's salary. To fund this they pay themselves 1mill dividends instead of 2. They does this because they know that the potential growth from the added pools of talent means that in a few years they can be paying themselves 3 mill. Other business owners recognise this and start to do the same. Result CEO's across the country take a hit in wages because the employment market dictates that they have to pay their employees fairer wages. This is a prime example of where government policy can and should be used to curtail the darker side of free market fundamentalism! How you argue against that? That works where it's a large business with a CEO drawing that £2m dividend. How about public sector organisations where the wage differential is more like 1 to 10 (on an FTE basis); and SMEs, which I referred to in my previous post, which employ more people in this country than large companies? Is their choice between their wage bill putting them out of business or not being able to get any decent staff because they've all gone to work for that nasty multinational down the road? " Well it works like this. The Government obviously have to raise all civil service wages in line with their own policies, to do this they lower the lower tax limit slightly, however they announce this alongside the raise in minimum wage, so that overall people are still making a net gain. This means that 2/3 of employment demographics the public sector and those employed by plc's are on better wages. They then have higher disposable incomes to spend on other small businesses. Small business owners can then pay their staff better wages. | |||
"I haven't read all the posts on the previous thread but I have read enough. So many people on here are claiming Conservative are making people homeless... What about my friend, who is single mother of a young child, who works full time, and was able to buy her own home - to secure a future for her family, using a government run scheme. What about my sister who managed to step up on the property ladder and get a better rate mortgage? What about all the serving soldiers lives that were saved by pulling out of Afghan? Because Labour probably would have kept that dragging on. What about all the innocent Afghan civilians that still have their lives? What about all the people who are genuinely disabled, being able to keep their benefits due to new tests ing out the fakers. What about the people that have gained well paying jobs from the privatisation and contractual employment for certain organisations? Those are just a few of the reasons I am happy for things to continue on the up, as they have for the last 5 years... " The Americans decided to pull out of Afghanistan and we had to follow suit. It would have went that way which ever govt was in power! Plus once the cons had decimated what was left of our forces, we were never going to be able to sustain that level of deployment anymore. Also I'm yet to see where privatisation has bought well paid jobs! LoL it usually involves making profit through the non imaginative route of trashing staff's terms, cutting their wages and increasing there workload or hours! Then the money that was once sent back into the economy via the staff etc... Is now farmed of to the hedge funds, cayman Islands etc... Seriously who would vote for this crap! | |||
| |||
" It's pretty obvious where it stops lol. It stops at the CEO's who (pre thatcher) have gone from earning 10 times the average wage within their organisations to (in some cases) over 150 times... Of course, I forgot it was all the nasty CEOs' faults. How about in most businesses which people work in, because most people work for SMEs in this country, where the business owner will be drawing nowhere near that sort of multiple (if it's even a multiple at all?) It works exactly as you say, minimum wage rises and said current £10 earners get pissed off. A shrewd rival realises that he/she can poach some top talent. So they offer £20 an hour for what was previously a £10 an hour position. Obviously this has a chain effect and they have to increase everybody's salary. To fund this they pay themselves 1mill dividends instead of 2. They does this because they know that the potential growth from the added pools of talent means that in a few years they can be paying themselves 3 mill. Other business owners recognise this and start to do the same. Result CEO's across the country take a hit in wages because the employment market dictates that they have to pay their employees fairer wages. This is a prime example of where government policy can and should be used to curtail the darker side of free market fundamentalism! How you argue against that? That works where it's a large business with a CEO drawing that £2m dividend. How about public sector organisations where the wage differential is more like 1 to 10 (on an FTE basis); and SMEs, which I referred to in my previous post, which employ more people in this country than large companies? Is their choice between their wage bill putting them out of business or not being able to get any decent staff because they've all gone to work for that nasty multinational down the road? Well it works like this. The Government obviously have to raise all civil service wages in line with their own policies, to do this they lower the lower tax limit slightly, however they announce this alongside the raise in minimum wage, so that overall people are still making a net gain. This means that 2/3 of employment demographics the public sector and those employed by plc's are on better wages. They then have higher disposable incomes to spend on other small businesses. Small business owners can then pay their staff better wages. " . If there is no increase in productivity , surely this means that prices just go up. | |||
" It's pretty obvious where it stops lol. It stops at the CEO's who (pre thatcher) have gone from earning 10 times the average wage within their organisations to (in some cases) over 150 times... Of course, I forgot it was all the nasty CEOs' faults. How about in most businesses which people work in, because most people work for SMEs in this country, where the business owner will be drawing nowhere near that sort of multiple (if it's even a multiple at all?) It works exactly as you say, minimum wage rises and said current £10 earners get pissed off. A shrewd rival realises that he/she can poach some top talent. So they offer £20 an hour for what was previously a £10 an hour position. Obviously this has a chain effect and they have to increase everybody's salary. To fund this they pay themselves 1mill dividends instead of 2. They does this because they know that the potential growth from the added pools of talent means that in a few years they can be paying themselves 3 mill. Other business owners recognise this and start to do the same. Result CEO's across the country take a hit in wages because the employment market dictates that they have to pay their employees fairer wages. This is a prime example of where government policy can and should be used to curtail the darker side of free market fundamentalism! How you argue against that? " . Unless productivity increases , all this does is increase the cost base . We have to be able to compete on the work markets . | |||
"I haven't read all the posts on the previous thread but I have read enough. So many people on here are claiming Conservative are making people homeless... What about my friend, who is single mother of a young child, who works full time, and was able to buy her own home - to secure a future for her family, using a government run scheme. What about my sister who managed to step up on the property ladder and get a better rate mortgage? What about all the serving soldiers lives that were saved by pulling out of Afghan? Because Labour probably would have kept that dragging on. What about all the innocent Afghan civilians that still have their lives? What about all the people who are genuinely disabled, being able to keep their benefits due to new tests ing out the fakers. What about the people that have gained well paying jobs from the privatisation and contractual employment for certain organisations? Those are just a few of the reasons I am happy for things to continue on the up, as they have for the last 5 years... The Americans decided to pull out of Afghanistan and we had to follow suit. It would have went that way which ever govt was in power! Plus once the cons had decimated what was left of our forces, we were never going to be able to sustain that level of deployment anymore. Also I'm yet to see where privatisation has bought well paid jobs! LoL it usually involves making profit through the non imaginative route of trashing staff's terms, cutting their wages and increasing there workload or hours! Then the money that was once sent back into the economy via the staff etc... Is now farmed of to the hedge funds, cayman Islands etc... Seriously who would vote for this crap!" . The privatisation of British Telecom was a hugh success and lead to better customer services . | |||
" Pension 'reform' is nothing more than a stealth tax." they spend it there not entitled to a state pension so they get nothin if they touch it and its taxed at the amount they take out of the pot | |||
" If there is no increase in productivity , surely this means that prices just go up. " It would have to be closely regulated. It all revolves around the CEO's taking a hit in dividends rather than subsidising wages through increasing costs. | |||
" If there is no increase in productivity , surely this means that prices just go up. It would have to be closely regulated. It all revolves around the CEO's taking a hit in dividends rather than subsidising wages through increasing costs. " Unbelievable | |||
"Doesn't seem fair to me, but then I'm selfish, self-serving Tory scum eh, so what do I know. I won't dispute! " Well you should because those sort of beliefs have just served up for Labour it's worst defeat in a generation and, if they persist in the Labour movement, it will be a generation or more before Labour sees power again. | |||
"I haven't read all the posts on the previous thread but I have read enough. So many people on here are claiming Conservative are making people homeless... What about my friend, who is single mother of a young child, who works full time, and was able to buy her own home - to secure a future for her family, using a government run scheme. What about my sister who managed to step up on the property ladder and get a better rate mortgage? What about all the serving soldiers lives that were saved by pulling out of Afghan? Because Labour probably would have kept that dragging on. What about all the innocent Afghan civilians that still have their lives? What about all the people who are genuinely disabled, being able to keep their benefits due to new tests ing out the fakers. What about the people that have gained well paying jobs from the privatisation and contractual employment for certain organisations? Those are just a few of the reasons I am happy for things to continue on the up, as they have for the last 5 years... " | |||
| |||
"I haven't read all the posts on the previous thread but I have read enough. So many people on here are claiming Conservative are making people homeless... What about my friend, who is single mother of a young child, who works full time, and was able to buy her own home - to secure a future for her family, using a government run scheme. What about my sister who managed to step up on the property ladder and get a better rate mortgage? What about all the serving soldiers lives that were saved by pulling out of Afghan? Because Labour probably would have kept that dragging on. What about all the innocent Afghan civilians that still have their lives? What about all the people who are genuinely disabled, being able to keep their benefits due to new tests ing out the fakers. What about the people that have gained well paying jobs from the privatisation and contractual employment for certain organisations? Those are just a few of the reasons I am happy for things to continue on the up, as they have for the last 5 years... The Americans decided to pull out of Afghanistan and we had to follow suit. It would have went that way which ever govt was in power! Plus once the cons had decimated what was left of our forces, we were never going to be able to sustain that level of deployment anymore. Also I'm yet to see where privatisation has bought well paid jobs! LoL it usually involves making profit through the non imaginative route of trashing staff's terms, cutting their wages and increasing there workload or hours! Then the money that was once sent back into the economy via the staff etc... Is now farmed of to the hedge funds, cayman Islands etc... Seriously who would vote for this crap!. The privatisation of British Telecom was a hugh success and lead to better customer services ." I never buy that one being that the same results would have came through natural modernisation. I would point to the fact that such a large proportion of our telecoms have been gobbled up by European state owned/part state owned telecoms companies! Like much of our economy has. These were state owned means of production, and returned profit to pay for the running of a civilised society. It also provided us with a trade surplus, something we have not had for over 30 years! We have an over financialised economy and no industrial strategy No wonder we are suffering a low pay economy. | |||
"Back in 2012 " Atos " Reported Profits of 40 Million in their first year !!! Thanks to the Tories we now Pick on the Disabled.. As well as the Homeless !!" First year? Tony Blair started the contract back in 1998. Gordon Brown introduced the 'work capability assessments' in 2007. Last year the Tories negotiated an early termination of the contract due to concerns about the treatment of disabled people. Sorry if the facts dont fit the 'All Tory bad, All Labour good' narrative. But lets smash up a few shops, that'll help everyone 
Mr ddc | |||
"The nation has voted in the party who care not for those on lower pay scales, whatever they may say. " If Labour and it's supporters really believe that the Conservative party and the people who voted for them don't care about those on lower pay that probably explains why Labour was totally unable to appeal to those people and consequently lost the election. " The ideology is to put up and shut up. They are happy with a low wages economy. " Actually most Conservatives are not happy with a low wage economy. It's not hard to work out that a low wage economy ultimately leads to a poorer economy making it more difficult for government to raise taxes and businesses to sell their goods and services. " There is enough profit to pay more but most is shuffled out of the country by every known tax scam. " Not that I'm in favour of any form of tax evasion but that comment is simply non sequitur. Surely the more tax a company pays the less money it has to potentially pay it's employees so, if anything, companies evading tax would be more likely to increase the wages it pays not reduce them. " There shouldn't have to be tax credits etc, meaning that the rest of us subsidies low pay," Totally agree up to here " but we've joined the race to the bottom. Divide and conquer has been deployed the last few years. " Totally agree. It's a disgrace some of lies being put about to divide people against each other for political advantage. Lies like the gap between the rich and the poor has grown bigger over the last 5 years when the reality is that, for the fist time in over 20 years, it's actually decreased. " Don't direct attention and unease across and down but upwards. " Or better still, don't direct attention and unease in any direction at false scapegoats but look to yourself to see what you can do to make things better. " Benefits sanctions and deaths of the disabled, families stripped of benefits for 3 years with no income. " Without providing some context and specific cases this is just an emotional but unsubstantiated statement. " People at the top are worse than animals, to do this and set each of us against ourselves. " People at the top are people. I would say that the person dehumanising them is the one trying to set us against each other. " The government has little to no plan for growth, and stagnant wages do not support it magically happening. " Yes they do. Whether it will work or not may be debateable. " Fixed term parliament is here, so hold on tight." | |||
"I haven't read all the posts on the previous thread but I have read enough. So many people on here are claiming Conservative are making people homeless... What about my friend, who is single mother of a young child, who works full time, and was able to buy her own home - to secure a future for her family, using a government run scheme. What about my sister who managed to step up on the property ladder and get a better rate mortgage? What about all the serving soldiers lives that were saved by pulling out of Afghan? Because Labour probably would have kept that dragging on. What about all the innocent Afghan civilians that still have their lives? What about all the people who are genuinely disabled, being able to keep their benefits due to new tests ing out the fakers. What about the people that have gained well paying jobs from the privatisation and contractual employment for certain organisations? Those are just a few of the reasons I am happy for things to continue on the up, as they have for the last 5 years... The Americans decided to pull out of Afghanistan and we had to follow suit. It would have went that way which ever govt was in power! Plus once the cons had decimated what was left of our forces, we were never going to be able to sustain that level of deployment anymore. Also I'm yet to see where privatisation has bought well paid jobs! LoL it usually involves making profit through the non imaginative route of trashing staff's terms, cutting their wages and increasing there workload or hours! Then the money that was once sent back into the economy via the staff etc... Is now farmed of to the hedge funds, cayman Islands etc... Seriously who would vote for this crap!" No one would vote for that crap which means either that's not the way it normally works or the electorate is stupid. I believe it's the former, which do you believe? | |||
" If there is no increase in productivity , surely this means that prices just go up. It would have to be closely regulated. It all revolves around the CEO's taking a hit in dividends rather than subsidising wages through increasing costs. " . In this case , you are proposing a substantial cut in pensioners income . Most pension funds rely on dividend income to pay investors who are normally large pension funds . People will not invest in companies unless there is a return on their funds . | |||
"I haven't read all the posts on the previous thread but I have read enough. So many people on here are claiming Conservative are making people homeless... What about my friend, who is single mother of a young child, who works full time, and was able to buy her own home - to secure a future for her family, using a government run scheme. What about my sister who managed to step up on the property ladder and get a better rate mortgage? What about all the serving soldiers lives that were saved by pulling out of Afghan? Because Labour probably would have kept that dragging on. What about all the innocent Afghan civilians that still have their lives? What about all the people who are genuinely disabled, being able to keep their benefits due to new tests ing out the fakers. What about the people that have gained well paying jobs from the privatisation and contractual employment for certain organisations? Those are just a few of the reasons I am happy for things to continue on the up, as they have for the last 5 years... The Americans decided to pull out of Afghanistan and we had to follow suit. It would have went that way which ever govt was in power! Plus once the cons had decimated what was left of our forces, we were never going to be able to sustain that level of deployment anymore. Also I'm yet to see where privatisation has bought well paid jobs! LoL it usually involves making profit through the non imaginative route of trashing staff's terms, cutting their wages and increasing there workload or hours! Then the money that was once sent back into the economy via the staff etc... Is now farmed of to the hedge funds, cayman Islands etc... Seriously who would vote for this crap!" | |||
| |||
"Interesting that many people on here believe that politics plays a huge influence on how companies are run. How many of you have actually ran a company and sat around a board table and decided things like how much to pay staff, how much to invest etc? The best companies reward their staff well (relative to what their staff could earn for similar work elsewhere). The best companies continuously educate their staff. The best companies incentivise their staff so that when the company does well, they do well. The best companies invest for the future. The best companies consider the social and environmental issues regarding how their company operates. The companies that operate with best practices often generate the best returns over the long run that benefits everyone who has a pension. Politics creates a taxation framework, but ultimately has very little to do with how companies operate."
I completely agree in fact I'd say it's more the other way round with businesses running politics | |||
"Interesting that many people on here believe that politics plays a huge influence on how companies are run. How many of you have actually ran a company and sat around a board table and decided things like how much to pay staff, how much to invest etc? The best companies reward their staff well (relative to what their staff could earn for similar work elsewhere). The best companies continuously educate their staff. The best companies incentivise their staff so that when the company does well, they do well. The best companies invest for the future. The best companies consider the social and environmental issues regarding how their company operates. The companies that operate with best practices often generate the best returns over the long run that benefits everyone who has a pension. Politics creates a taxation framework, but ultimately has very little to do with how companies operate.
I completely agree in fact I'd say it's more the other way round with businesses running politics". Unfortunately in a free country, you just have to put up with protests, the alternative is a slippery slope too fascist governments | |||
| |||
"There's been an obsession with scale over the past twenty or so years. I don't know if that's politically driven but it fits the model of creating bubbles etc. Big business has a very significant impact on politics. Take a look at the main funders for the parties. " Their media backers.... along with their tax arrangements!  | |||
"Doesn't seem fair to me, but then I'm selfish, self-serving Tory scum eh, so what do I know. I won't dispute! Well you should because those sort of beliefs have just served up for Labour it's worst defeat in a generation and, if they persist in the Labour movement, it will be a generation or more before Labour sees power again." Ah ha, someone spotted what I was getting at  | |||
" If there is no increase in productivity , surely this means that prices just go up. It would have to be closely regulated. It all revolves around the CEO's taking a hit in dividends rather than subsidising wages through increasing costs. . In this case , you are proposing a substantial cut in pensioners income . Most pension funds rely on dividend income to pay investors who are normally large pension funds . People will not invest in companies unless there is a return on their funds . " Not a clue what you mean here. How does a CEO's personal income affect anything other than a CEO's personal income? They make the figure up themselves.. | |||
"............ Also I'm yet to see where privatisation has bought well paid jobs! LoL it usually involves making profit through the non imaginative route of trashing staff's terms, cutting their wages and increasing there workload or hours! Then the money that was once sent back into the economy via the staff etc... Is now farmed of to the hedge funds, cayman Islands etc... Seriously who would vote for this crap!" This may not be popular or what you want to hear but.... Companies, not governments create the best and most well paid jobs and quite rightly so. We are all up in arms whenever public servants are perceived to have inflated salaries and perks. As a nation, we have to compete in the world market and that means that to a large company, an unskilled person in the UK has the same value as an unskilled person in India. The only way to secure better pay and conditions in the foreseeable future will be to improve your skill set and enhance your value. Talk of low pay and poor conditions is a reflection of the value that the employee is offering the employer. It would be commercial suicide to pay your best staff poor wages because it is staff productivity that determines how profitable a business will be. Therefore in order to secure better pay and conditions - up your skill set and enhance your value. The comments about privatisation just leading to poor pay is ridiculous. BT employ some of the best engineers in the country and pay them well. My best buddy is a BT Engineer as was his Dad. We talk often in the pub and his Dad marvels at how much his son is paid, how much BT invest in him in training and professional development and generally just how much better his son has it than when was working. | |||
"Interesting that many people on here believe that politics plays a huge influence on how companies are run. How many of you have actually ran a company and sat around a board table and decided things like how much to pay staff, how much to invest etc? The best companies reward their staff well (relative to what their staff could earn for similar work elsewhere). The best companies continuously educate their staff. The best companies incentivise their staff so that when the company does well, they do well. The best companies invest for the future. The best companies consider the social and environmental issues regarding how their company operates. The companies that operate with best practices often generate the best returns over the long run that benefits everyone who has a pension. Politics creates a taxation framework, but ultimately has very little to do with how companies operate." You are completely right. It shouldn't be that way though. We should have a strong government who puts the needs of normal people before big business. That person wasn't Ed Miliband, and it certainly isn't Cameron and his covert TTIP dealings. | |||
" If there is no increase in productivity , surely this means that prices just go up. It would have to be closely regulated. It all revolves around the CEO's taking a hit in dividends rather than subsidising wages through increasing costs. . In this case , you are proposing a substantial cut in pensioners income . Most pension funds rely on dividend income to pay investors who are normally large pension funds . People will not invest in companies unless there is a return on their funds . Not a clue what you mean here. How does a CEO's personal income affect anything other than a CEO's personal income? They make the figure up themselves.. " A dividend is what is paid by a limited company to its shareholders. | |||
"............ Also I'm yet to see where privatisation has bought well paid jobs! LoL it usually involves making profit through the non imaginative route of trashing staff's terms, cutting their wages and increasing there workload or hours! Then the money that was once sent back into the economy via the staff etc... Is now farmed of to the hedge funds, cayman Islands etc... Seriously who would vote for this crap! This may not be popular or what you want to hear but.... Companies, not governments create the best and most well paid jobs and quite rightly so. We are all up in arms whenever public servants are perceived to have inflated salaries and perks. As a nation, we have to compete in the world market and that means that to a large company, an unskilled person in the UK has the same value as an unskilled person in India. The only way to secure better pay and conditions in the foreseeable future will be to improve your skill set and enhance your value. Talk of low pay and poor conditions is a reflection of the value that the employee is offering the employer. It would be commercial suicide to pay your best staff poor wages because it is staff productivity that determines how profitable a business will be. Therefore in order to secure better pay and conditions - up your skill set and enhance your value. The comments about privatisation just leading to poor pay is ridiculous. BT employ some of the best engineers in the country and pay them well. My best buddy is a BT Engineer as was his Dad. We talk often in the pub and his Dad marvels at how much his son is paid, how much BT invest in him in training and professional development and generally just how much better his son has it than when was working. " . I don't anybody's bothered about who creates the job, just that the job is created. I think what the young lad is pointing out is that BT are no more productive today than they were under government control! For instance according to BT it takes around 15 days to install a new phone line although many thousands will tell you this is an ambitious time scale, many have waited weeks. The official wait time in the early 80s was 7 days. So productivity is not always linked to privatisation. Ask anybody who works in the old former utilities! | |||
"Interesting that many people on here believe that politics plays a huge influence on how companies are run. How many of you have actually ran a company and sat around a board table and decided things like how much to pay staff, how much to invest etc? The best companies reward their staff well (relative to what their staff could earn for similar work elsewhere). The best companies continuously educate their staff. The best companies incentivise their staff so that when the company does well, they do well. The best companies invest for the future. The best companies consider the social and environmental issues regarding how their company operates. The companies that operate with best practices often generate the best returns over the long run that benefits everyone who has a pension. Politics creates a taxation framework, but ultimately has very little to do with how companies operate. You are completely right. It shouldn't be that way though. We should have a strong government who puts the needs of normal people before big business. That person wasn't Ed Miliband, and it certainly isn't Cameron and his covert TTIP dealings. " There is nothing covert about TTIP; it's a trade agreement between North American and the EU. It's definitely not Cameron's pet or covert project. | |||
| |||
"It would be interesting to know peoples thoughts on the demise of the LibDems." They've unfairly punished Clegg for taking them into a position where they actually wielded some influence. There always seemed to be a tendency among Lib Dems to be that party who could say whatever they liked because they were never going to have to do any of it. Once they had to choose which parts of their manifesto to fight for (increasing the personal allowance) and which to let go (tuition fees) - and I think of those two items, he chose the right one to stand firm on - they've lost their appeal to a lot of their core base. They're still quite strong in local government despite the losses and they will build that back up. | |||
"It would be interesting to know peoples thoughts on the demise of the LibDems." . I think they deserve what they got for lying! You either have principles or you don't, at any time they felt those principles would be broken they could have said no | |||
"Interesting that many people on here believe that politics plays a huge influence on how companies are run. How many of you have actually ran a company and sat around a board table and decided things like how much to pay staff, how much to invest etc? The best companies reward their staff well (relative to what their staff could earn for similar work elsewhere). The best companies continuously educate their staff. The best companies incentivise their staff so that when the company does well, they do well. The best companies invest for the future. The best companies consider the social and environmental issues regarding how their company operates. The companies that operate with best practices often generate the best returns over the long run that benefits everyone who has a pension. Politics creates a taxation framework, but ultimately has very little to do with how companies operate. You are completely right. It shouldn't be that way though. We should have a strong government who puts the needs of normal people before big business. That person wasn't Ed Miliband, and it certainly isn't Cameron and his covert TTIP dealings. There is nothing covert about TTIP; it's a trade agreement between North American and the EU. It's definitely not Cameron's pet or covert project." Nothing covert except that all of the dealings are going on behind closed doors, and the only information which we get is through requests under the freedom of information act. Cameron is going along with the interest of American corporations rather than the electorate. As expected. It's a trade agreement which will mean that corporations can sue the United Kingdom. It is one of the biggest threats to democracy we face. | |||
"It would be interesting to know peoples thoughts on the demise of the LibDems." Sad. I personally think that the Lib Dems did a very good job in coalition and it bemuses me as to why if they have been punished for being in government, the conservatives have actually benefitted. I don't understand that move yet. I think that it does not say a great deal about the typical Lib Dem voter if they are punishing the Party because the Party did the right thing for the country. | |||
"Interesting that many people on here believe that politics plays a huge influence on how companies are run. How many of you have actually ran a company and sat around a board table and decided things like how much to pay staff, how much to invest etc? The best companies reward their staff well (relative to what their staff could earn for similar work elsewhere). The best companies continuously educate their staff. The best companies incentivise their staff so that when the company does well, they do well. The best companies invest for the future. The best companies consider the social and environmental issues regarding how their company operates. The companies that operate with best practices often generate the best returns over the long run that benefits everyone who has a pension. Politics creates a taxation framework, but ultimately has very little to do with how companies operate. You are completely right. It shouldn't be that way though. We should have a strong government who puts the needs of normal people before big business. That person wasn't Ed Miliband, and it certainly isn't Cameron and his covert TTIP dealings. There is nothing covert about TTIP; it's a trade agreement between North American and the EU. It's definitely not Cameron's pet or covert project. Nothing covert except that all of the dealings are going on behind closed doors, and the only information which we get is through requests under the freedom of information act. Cameron is going along with the interest of American corporations rather than the electorate. As expected. It's a trade agreement which will mean that corporations can sue the United Kingdom. It is one of the biggest threats to democracy we face. " . And one purposely designed to sell the nhs off too American corporations, so that we too can have the level of care of the lowest 50 million Americans who have NO accesses to even a doctor let alone medicine | |||
"It would be interesting to know peoples thoughts on the demise of the LibDems. Sad. I personally think that the Lib Dems did a very good job in coalition and it bemuses me as to why if they have been punished for being in government, the conservatives have actually benefitted. I don't understand that move yet. I think that it does not say a great deal about the typical Lib Dem voter if they are punishing the Party because the Party did the right thing for the country. " . That's because libdem voters expected at least some small amount of principles, whereas Tory voters have grown accustomed to bring lied to | |||
 at the answer to my question on the other thread and the very last post on it.
There for the grace of God go I springs to mind... | |||
" If there is no increase in productivity , surely this means that prices just go up. It would have to be closely regulated. It all revolves around the CEO's taking a hit in dividends rather than subsidising wages through increasing costs. . In this case , you are proposing a substantial cut in pensioners income . Most pension funds rely on dividend income to pay investors who are normally large pension funds . People will not invest in companies unless there is a return on their funds . Not a clue what you mean here. How does a CEO's personal income affect anything other than a CEO's personal income? They make the figure up themselves.. A dividend is what is paid by a limited company to its shareholders." Share holders obviously wouldn't lose out, that would be commercial suicide. I really don't see how people think fairer pay throughout any organisation's structure is a bad thing. A higher minimum wage would go a long way. Many of the problems we have now are the result of neo-liberal economics policy adopted by Thatcher. | |||
"It would be interesting to know peoples thoughts on the demise of the LibDems. Sad. I personally think that the Lib Dems did a very good job in coalition and it bemuses me as to why if they have been punished for being in government, the conservatives have actually benefitted. I don't understand that move yet. I think that it does not say a great deal about the typical Lib Dem voter if they are punishing the Party because the Party did the right thing for the country. . That's because libdem voters expected at least some small amount of principles, whereas Tory voters have grown accustomed to bring lied to" So all that talk from the LibDems about working with other parties and compromising in order to get things done (which the LibDems had always argued for since even before SDP and Liberal pact) was actually just a load of bollocks. I'm actually quite shocked by LibDem voters reaction to actually getting power and getting many of the LibDems policies onto the agenda. | |||
| |||
" If there is no increase in productivity , surely this means that prices just go up. It would have to be closely regulated. It all revolves around the CEO's taking a hit in dividends rather than subsidising wages through increasing costs. . In this case , you are proposing a substantial cut in pensioners income . Most pension funds rely on dividend income to pay investors who are normally large pension funds . People will not invest in companies unless there is a return on their funds . Not a clue what you mean here. How does a CEO's personal income affect anything other than a CEO's personal income? They make the figure up themselves.. A dividend is what is paid by a limited company to its shareholders. Share holders obviously wouldn't lose out, that would be commercial suicide. I really don't see how people think fairer pay throughout any organisation's structure is a bad thing. A higher minimum wage would go a long way. Many of the problems we have now are the result of neo-liberal economics policy adopted by Thatcher." So do you think that people should be paid more than they are actually worth to the organisation? How would that work? | |||
"It would be interesting to know peoples thoughts on the demise of the LibDems. Sad. I personally think that the Lib Dems did a very good job in coalition and it bemuses me as to why if they have been punished for being in government, the conservatives have actually benefitted. I don't understand that move yet. I think that it does not say a great deal about the typical Lib Dem voter if they are punishing the Party because the Party did the right thing for the country. . That's because libdem voters expected at least some small amount of principles, whereas Tory voters have grown accustomed to bring lied to So all that talk from the LibDems about working with other parties and compromising in order to get things done (which the LibDems had always argued for since even before SDP and Liberal pact) was actually just a load of bollocks. I'm actually quite shocked by LibDem voters reaction to actually getting power and getting many of the LibDems policies onto the agenda." I agree. Jagger and Richard got it right back in the day... "You can't always get what you want, but if you try real hard, you might just get what you need." Problem these days is that people feel the need to display moral outrage at the first opportunity when they dont get everything that they want. | |||
" If there is no increase in productivity , surely this means that prices just go up. It would have to be closely regulated. It all revolves around the CEO's taking a hit in dividends rather than subsidising wages through increasing costs. . In this case , you are proposing a substantial cut in pensioners income . Most pension funds rely on dividend income to pay investors who are normally large pension funds . People will not invest in companies unless there is a return on their funds . Not a clue what you mean here. How does a CEO's personal income affect anything other than a CEO's personal income? They make the figure up themselves.. A dividend is what is paid by a limited company to its shareholders. Share holders obviously wouldn't lose out, that would be commercial suicide. I really don't see how people think fairer pay throughout any organisation's structure is a bad thing. A higher minimum wage would go a long way. Many of the problems we have now are the result of neo-liberal economics policy adopted by Thatcher." Why are you talking about dividends then? I don't think a fairer pay structure is a bad thing. I think you're assuming that it's all about big companies with highly paid CEOs, the point I'm making is the over 50% of people in this company are employed by small and medium size businesses who don't have a fat cat CEO to absorb that kind of immediate increase in costs. | |||
| |||
"Does it make sense for Scotland's First Minister (whoever s/he is) to be paid more than the UK Prime Minister?" Is that right? Well, well.... | |||
"It would be interesting to know peoples thoughts on the demise of the LibDems. Sad. I personally think that the Lib Dems did a very good job in coalition and it bemuses me as to why if they have been punished for being in government, the conservatives have actually benefitted. I don't understand that move yet. I think that it does not say a great deal about the typical Lib Dem voter if they are punishing the Party because the Party did the right thing for the country. . That's because libdem voters expected at least some small amount of principles, whereas Tory voters have grown accustomed to bring lied to So all that talk from the LibDems about working with other parties and compromising in order to get things done (which the LibDems had always argued for since even before SDP and Liberal pact) was actually just a load of bollocks. I'm actually quite shocked by LibDem voters reaction to actually getting power and getting many of the LibDems policies onto the agenda." So am I. But I think it's more about who they went into coalition with rather than anything they actually did or didn't do. Would you rather have one thing implemented that you believe strongly in, or none of them? In my world, one positive outcome is better than no positive outcomes, but it's ok because your 'principles' were the most important thing and at least they're intact.... | |||
"I feel sorry for the Lib Dems that never wanted the coalition. I liked Clegg, they're the party I most sympathised with, I voted for them at previous elections. But they fully deserved what they got. They are needed however and I hope they recover, having learned a lesson." What is that lesson? Is it that they should never go into a coalition again or just that they should never go into a coalition with the Conservatives or is it something else. In my opinion if the lesson to be learned is the first then voting LibDem is no different from voting Labour, if the lesson learned is the second then voting LibDem is no different from voting Green or even Monster Raving Loony. So, having voted for them in the past occasionally, I'm hoping there is some other lesson that you think they should learn and that you'll share what that lesson is. | |||
"Does it make sense for Scotland's First Minister (whoever s/he is) to be paid more than the UK Prime Minister?" It doesn't seem to quite stack up, but I've always found the comparison of other public sector workers' pay against the PM a bit meaningless (e.g. the outrage that ensues when a Council or NHS CX does). Wonder if s/he will be subject to the same accusations of just being in it for the money and feathering his/her nest though....? | |||
| |||
"I feel sorry for the Lib Dems that never wanted the coalition. I liked Clegg, they're the party I most sympathised with, I voted for them at previous elections. But they fully deserved what they got. They are needed however and I hope they recover, having learned a lesson. What is that lesson? Is it that they should never go into a coalition again or just that they should never go into a coalition with the Conservatives or is it something else. In my opinion if the lesson to be learned is the first then voting LibDem is no different from voting Labour, if the lesson learned is the second then voting LibDem is no different from voting Green or even Monster Raving Loony. So, having voted for them in the past occasionally, I'm hoping there is some other lesson that you think they should learn and that you'll share what that lesson is." Oops got first and second wrong way round in second part of post.  | |||
"It would be interesting to know peoples thoughts on the demise of the LibDems. Sad. I personally think that the Lib Dems did a very good job in coalition and it bemuses me as to why if they have been punished for being in government, the conservatives have actually benefitted. I don't understand that move yet. I think that it does not say a great deal about the typical Lib Dem voter if they are punishing the Party because the Party did the right thing for the country. . That's because libdem voters expected at least some small amount of principles, whereas Tory voters have grown accustomed to bring lied to So all that talk from the LibDems about working with other parties and compromising in order to get things done (which the LibDems had always argued for since even before SDP and Liberal pact) was actually just a load of bollocks. I'm actually quite shocked by LibDem voters reaction to actually getting power and getting many of the LibDems policies onto the agenda. I agree. Jagger and Richard got it right back in the day... "You can't always get what you want, but if you try real hard, you might just get what you need." Problem these days is that people feel the need to display moral outrage at the first opportunity when they dont get everything that they want." . Well it's apt I suppose that Richards and Jagger had a habit of copying Lennon and McCartney as that's exactly what clegg did with Cameron. The song is actually about the disillusionment with politics in the 60s,I guess something's never change. The libdems had a principled stand on free university education. If you then get into bed and with the Tories and agree instead to put it up three fold, instead of making it free, you have to expect the worse considering most of your core voters have a vested interest in that very policy! If the green party got into power and started building coal powered fl power stations I guess there'd lose alot of their core voters too?. | |||
"Many people supported the LibDems because they didn't want to be represented by the Tories or Labour. It's understandable for them to be pissed off when they discover their support has been used to prop up a Tory govt." Put they always said they would work with either. What did people who voted for them except. | |||
"I feel sorry for the Lib Dems that never wanted the coalition. I liked Clegg, they're the party I most sympathised with, I voted for them at previous elections. But they fully deserved what they got. They are needed however and I hope they recover, having learned a lesson. What is that lesson? Is it that they should never go into a coalition again or just that they should never go into a coalition with the Conservatives or is it something else. In my opinion if the lesson to be learned is the first then voting LibDem is no different from voting Labour, if the lesson learned is the second then voting LibDem is no different from voting Green or even Monster Raving Loony. So, having voted for them in the past occasionally, I'm hoping there is some other lesson that you think they should learn and that you'll share what that lesson is." The argument Clegg used is that the Tories had first chance at govt on the basis they had the most support. This was, and is, bollocks. Most had voted for an alternative to Cameron. Nobody (except Clegg) expected that coalition. The lesson is to consult with those that support you and listen. Had that happened I don't believe there would have been a ConDem govt. | |||
"Many people supported the LibDems because they didn't want to be represented by the Tories or Labour. It's understandable for them to be pissed off when they discover their support has been used to prop up a Tory govt." That was me! | |||
"I feel sorry for the Lib Dems that never wanted the coalition. I liked Clegg, they're the party I most sympathised with, I voted for them at previous elections. But they fully deserved what they got. They are needed however and I hope they recover, having learned a lesson. What is that lesson? Is it that they should never go into a coalition again or just that they should never go into a coalition with the Conservatives or is it something else. In my opinion if the lesson to be learned is the first then voting LibDem is no different from voting Labour, if the lesson learned is the second then voting LibDem is no different from voting Green or even Monster Raving Loony. So, having voted for them in the past occasionally, I'm hoping there is some other lesson that you think they should learn and that you'll share what that lesson is. The argument Clegg used is that the Tories had first chance at govt on the basis they had the most support. This was, and is, bollocks. Most had voted for an alternative to Cameron. Nobody (except Clegg) expected that coalition. " But even more voted for an alternative to Brown and Labour. It's a fundamental mistake to believe that all those who voted LibDem were anti-tory, just as many, like myself on occasion, are anti-Labour. " The lesson is to consult with those that support you and listen. Had that happened I don't believe there would have been a ConDem govt. " But Labour didn't have the numbers to make a majority even with the LibDems so, if not a ConDem government what else could there have been. | |||
| |||
"I am still at the answer to my question on the other thread and the very last post on it.
There for the grace of God go I springs to mind... "Why are you so surprised? A lot of people don't care about the reality of low paid work against the high cost of living. | |||
| |||
"Many people supported the LibDems because they didn't want to be represented by the Tories or Labour. It's understandable for them to be pissed off when they discover their support has been used to prop up a Tory govt. That was me! " So why vote for a party that says that it will work with either if in fact you're only happy if it works with neither? | |||
"The 'fundamental mistake' was made rather obvious last Thursday" Clearly but I'm still not sure exactly what that mistake was! | |||
"Many people supported the LibDems because they didn't want to be represented by the Tories or Labour. It's understandable for them to be pissed off when they discover their support has been used to prop up a Tory govt. That was me! So why vote for a party that says that it will work with either if in fact you're only happy if it works with neither?" Speaking personally - this is irrelevant. I voted for the LibDems in 2005, not a coalition. Clegg made his choice. Voters have now made theirs in response to his choice | |||
"The 'fundamental mistake' was made rather obvious last Thursday Clearly but I'm still not sure exactly what that mistake was!" I think you are, you're just bored as am I now. Keep rereading the posts if that helps amuse you. | |||
| |||
"I am still at the answer to my question on the other thread and the very last post on it.
There for the grace of God go I springs to mind...
Why are you so surprised?
A lot of people don't care about the reality of low paid work against the high cost of living. "And many others do, but they don't lay all the blame for that at the feet of the government. | |||
"Many people supported the LibDems because they didn't want to be represented by the Tories or Labour. It's understandable for them to be pissed off when they discover their support has been used to prop up a Tory govt. That was me! So why vote for a party that says that it will work with either if in fact you're only happy if it works with neither?" They weren't saying that in 2010. In the run-up to the 2010 election, Paddy Ashdown, on Question Time, said he could not conceive working with the Tories in any way because of their ideological differences. He soon changed his mind and the Lib Dems were doomed from then. | |||
"Many people supported the LibDems because they didn't want to be represented by the Tories or Labour. It's understandable for them to be pissed off when they discover their support has been used to prop up a Tory govt. That was me! So why vote for a party that says that it will work with either if in fact you're only happy if it works with neither? They weren't saying that in 2010. In the run-up to the 2010 election, Paddy Ashdown, on Question Time, said he could not conceive working with the Tories in any way because of their ideological differences. He soon changed his mind and the Lib Dems were doomed from then. " You would absolutely HATE proportional representation then I take it? Or would that be OK? When is it OK to work with a conservative leed government and when is it not OK? I think far too many people in this country are so contrary that they don't see the irony in the principles that they allegedly stand for. It is a fundamental Liberal principle to have Proportional Representation yet many abandoned the Lib Dems for working with the conservatives and with PR they would have been forced to work with them anyway. | |||
"Many people supported the LibDems because they didn't want to be represented by the Tories or Labour. It's understandable for them to be pissed off when they discover their support has been used to prop up a Tory govt. That was me! So why vote for a party that says that it will work with either if in fact you're only happy if it works with neither? They weren't saying that in 2010. In the run-up to the 2010 election, Paddy Ashdown, on Question Time, said he could not conceive working with the Tories in any way because of their ideological differences. He soon changed his mind and the Lib Dems were doomed from then. You would absolutely HATE proportional representation then I take it? Or would that be OK? When is it OK to work with a conservative leed government and when is it not OK? I think far too many people in this country are so contrary that they don't see the irony in the principles that they allegedly stand for. It is a fundamental Liberal principle to have Proportional Representation yet many abandoned the Lib Dems for working with the conservatives and with PR they would have been forced to work with them anyway." Maybe the liberals don't want Proportional representation now because they know UKIP would get more seats than them. | |||
"Many people supported the LibDems because they didn't want to be represented by the Tories or Labour. It's understandable for them to be pissed off when they discover their support has been used to prop up a Tory govt. That was me! So why vote for a party that says that it will work with either if in fact you're only happy if it works with neither? They weren't saying that in 2010. In the run-up to the 2010 election, Paddy Ashdown, on Question Time, said he could not conceive working with the Tories in any way because of their ideological differences. He soon changed his mind and the Lib Dems were doomed from then. You would absolutely HATE proportional representation then I take it? Or would that be OK? When is it OK to work with a conservative leed government and when is it not OK? I think far too many people in this country are so contrary that they don't see the irony in the principles that they allegedly stand for. It is a fundamental Liberal principle to have Proportional Representation yet many abandoned the Lib Dems for working with the conservatives and with PR they would have been forced to work with them anyway." Just because the numbers give you the option of a coalition it does not mean you have to form one. Had the coalition been more equitable, had the Lib Dems not allowed themselves to be shafted by the Tories then maybe I'd feel differently. PR does not 'force' you to work with anyone. You can accept or decline the terms to go into coalition. A PR system would have given the Tories more options for who to work with other than the Lib Dems in 2010 and you know it! | |||
"I feel sorry for the Lib Dems that never wanted the coalition. I liked Clegg, they're the party I most sympathised with, I voted for them at previous elections. But they fully deserved what they got. They are needed however and I hope they recover, having learned a lesson. What is that lesson? Is it that they should never go into a coalition again or just that they should never go into a coalition with the Conservatives or is it something else. In my opinion if the lesson to be learned is the first then voting LibDem is no different from voting Labour, if the lesson learned is the second then voting LibDem is no different from voting Green or even Monster Raving Loony. So, having voted for them in the past occasionally, I'm hoping there is some other lesson that you think they should learn and that you'll share what that lesson is. The argument Clegg used is that the Tories had first chance at govt on the basis they had the most support. This was, and is, bollocks. Most had voted for an alternative to Cameron. Nobody (except Clegg) expected that coalition. The lesson is to consult with those that support you and listen. Had that happened I don't believe there would have been a ConDem govt. " Is'nt the clue in the name Liberal "Democrat". As the Conservatives had the most seats in 2010, the democratic thing for Clegg to do was to form a coalition with the tories. | |||
"I feel sorry for the Lib Dems that never wanted the coalition. I liked Clegg, they're the party I most sympathised with, I voted for them at previous elections. But they fully deserved what they got. They are needed however and I hope they recover, having learned a lesson. What is that lesson? Is it that they should never go into a coalition again or just that they should never go into a coalition with the Conservatives or is it something else. In my opinion if the lesson to be learned is the first then voting LibDem is no different from voting Labour, if the lesson learned is the second then voting LibDem is no different from voting Green or even Monster Raving Loony. So, having voted for them in the past occasionally, I'm hoping there is some other lesson that you think they should learn and that you'll share what that lesson is. The argument Clegg used is that the Tories had first chance at govt on the basis they had the most support. This was, and is, bollocks. Most had voted for an alternative to Cameron. Nobody (except Clegg) expected that coalition. The lesson is to consult with those that support you and listen. Had that happened I don't believe there would have been a ConDem govt. Is'nt the clue in the name Liberal "Democrat". As the Conservatives had the most seats in 2010, the democratic thing for Clegg to do was to form a coalition with the tories. " If democratic means ignore the will and values of your voters then yes! | |||
"Many people supported the LibDems because they didn't want to be represented by the Tories or Labour. It's understandable for them to be pissed off when they discover their support has been used to prop up a Tory govt. That was me! So why vote for a party that says that it will work with either if in fact you're only happy if it works with neither? They weren't saying that in 2010. In the run-up to the 2010 election, Paddy Ashdown, on Question Time, said he could not conceive working with the Tories in any way because of their ideological differences. He soon changed his mind and the Lib Dems were doomed from then. You would absolutely HATE proportional representation then I take it? Or would that be OK? When is it OK to work with a conservative leed government and when is it not OK? I think far too many people in this country are so contrary that they don't see the irony in the principles that they allegedly stand for. It is a fundamental Liberal principle to have Proportional Representation yet many abandoned the Lib Dems for working with the conservatives and with PR they would have been forced to work with them anyway." . I'm sorry my answers are long but some questions have deeper purpose!. I think most people would prefer parties to work together for the common good, however the libdems had a principled stand on free education not tripling the current fees. So let's take the problem of university education, it costs money to educate people, that money comes in the form of debt, previously that debt came from the state and was reclaimed in tax's, now that debt has a name attached to it and is repaid by the individual, it's also been moved from government accounts to private banks, the cost is still exactly the same, it's no more productive than what it was, we've merely got into debt consolidation process. But let's examine who profited from that debt, well the student has future profit maybe yes through a better job but the immediate people who profiteered are the people paying tax now, builders, teachers, managers, school equipment makers, book publishers and I dare say quite a few brewers and pub landlords and yet who repays the debt the person who might prosper in twenty years time?. Tax doesn't have to be taxing they just make it that way to stop people realising there being screwed over | |||
| |||
"Ok, this is my analysis of why the LibDems have been decimated. Probably about 1/4 of the LibDem vote was actually Labour voters who only voted LibDem to keep the Tories out. They haven't voted for the LibDems this time (and consequently the Tories have got in in those seats). Another large section of the their vote, lets say another 1/4, were protest voters. Protest voters won't vote for a party of government so that vote probably went to UKIP and Greens. Unfortunately for them, doing that is always going to be to the advantage either Labour or the Conservatives depending on who's having a good election. Another 1/4 were probably Tory voters who voted for them to keep Labour out. Many of these may have switched to UKIP if they thought it stood a better chance. Others in this camp will have been upset by the LibDems over distancing themselves from the Conservatives in the runup and during the election campaign so voted Conservative instead. Finally about 1/4 of their voters were committed Liberals or Social Democrats. They have stayed with them." . What's in a name. I'm a member of the green party but I'm actually quite white. I know lots of conservatives who are spend thrifts. Nobody in the labour party actually likes "labouring" Not many people from any party aren't liberal Were all democrats and take part in democracy The politics game is ridiculous, it's why I joined the green party in 99 because they didn't do politics just ideas! | |||
"I haven't read all the posts on the previous thread but I have read enough. So many people on here are claiming Conservative are making people homeless... What about my friend, who is single mother of a young child, who works full time, and was able to buy her own home - to secure a future for her family, using a government run scheme. What about my sister who managed to step up on the property ladder and get a better rate mortgage? What about all the serving soldiers lives that were saved by pulling out of Afghan? Because Labour probably would have kept that dragging on. What about all the innocent Afghan civilians that still have their lives? What about all the people who are genuinely disabled, being able to keep their benefits due to new tests ing out the fakers. What about the people that have gained well paying jobs from the privatisation and contractual employment for certain organisations? Those are just a few of the reasons I am happy for things to continue on the up, as they have for the last 5 years... "(m) adding on A specific Mr G. Brown in 2001 in a written memorandum to a leading banks in Britain informed that they did not have to keep the minimum Capital Requirements stipulated by Basle II. These stipulations were and are very clever and in one sentence "Stop banks going bust". Then we had a crash Mr Brown blamed every one and every body, however the majority of the failed banks and building societies in Britain were failing because they, under Labour, had been encourage to lend out on mortgages 100-120% on the value. Simple maths...and an old saying "what goes up, comes down". If the government had not had to spend £200 billion in shoring up the building societies and banks the country would be less in a mess... So think of that one...There would be more money to create jobs, build needed houses, more police on the streets and less National Debt. And by the way I do not vote in Britain and vote for The Social Democrats in Switzerland but they have (as Swiss Labour) have more common sense in their little fingers then the whole bunch in Britain and don't moan but attempt to give ideas and solutions  | |||
"Ok, this is my analysis of why the LibDems have been decimated. Probably about 1/4 of the LibDem vote was actually Labour voters who only voted LibDem to keep the Tories out. They haven't voted for the LibDems this time (and consequently the Tories have got in in those seats). Another large section of the their vote, lets say another 1/4, were protest voters. Protest voters won't vote for a party of government so that vote probably went to UKIP and Greens. Unfortunately for them, doing that is always going to be to the advantage either Labour or the Conservatives depending on who's having a good election. Another 1/4 were probably Tory voters who voted for them to keep Labour out. Many of these may have switched to UKIP if they thought it stood a better chance. Others in this camp will have been upset by the LibDems over distancing themselves from the Conservatives in the runup and during the election campaign so voted Conservative instead. Finally about 1/4 of their voters were committed Liberals or Social Democrats. They have stayed with them.. What's in a name. I'm a member of the green party but I'm actually quite white. I know lots of conservatives who are spend thrifts. Nobody in the labour party actually likes "labouring" Not many people from any party aren't liberal Were all democrats and take part in democracy The politics game is ridiculous, it's why I joined the green party in 99 because they didn't do politics just ideas!" Well yer, nearly every one likes to thing they are both a liberal and a democrat but the terms Liberal and Social Democrat have a political meaning. Both are centrist movements with Social Democrats being slightly left of centre but Liberals being more difficult to define (hence the old Liberal party tending to be left of centre whilst the Liberal Unionist party being definitely right of centre). Social Democrats tend to be more concerned about social issues whilst Liberals put a much higher regard on individual freedoms and personal liberty. This is a gross over generalisation and simplification but I hope it clarifies what I was saying. | |||
| |||
"I haven't read all the posts on the previous thread but I have read enough. So many people on here are claiming Conservative are making people homeless... What about my friend, who is single mother of a young child, who works full time, and was able to buy her own home - to secure a future for her family, using a government run scheme. What about my sister who managed to step up on the property ladder and get a better rate mortgage? What about all the serving soldiers lives that were saved by pulling out of Afghan? Because Labour probably would have kept that dragging on. What about all the innocent Afghan civilians that still have their lives? What about all the people who are genuinely disabled, being able to keep their benefits due to new tests ing out the fakers. What about the people that have gained well paying jobs from the privatisation and contractual employment for certain organisations? Those are just a few of the reasons I am happy for things to continue on the up, as they have for the last 5 years...
(m) adding on
A specific Mr G. Brown in 2001 in a written memorandum to a leading banks in Britain informed that they did not have to keep the minimum Capital Requirements stipulated by Basle II. These stipulations were and are very clever and in one sentence "Stop banks going bust".
Then we had a crash Mr Brown blamed every one and every body, however the majority of the failed banks and building societies in Britain were failing because they, under Labour, had been encourage to lend out on mortgages 100-120% on the value.
Simple maths...and an old saying "what goes up, comes down".
If the government had not had to spend £200 billion in shoring up the building societies and banks the country would be less in a mess...
So think of that one...There would be more money to create jobs, build needed houses, more police on the streets and less National Debt.
And by the way I do not vote in Britain and vote for The Social Democrats in Switzerland but they have (as Swiss Labour) have more common sense in their little fingers then the whole bunch in Britain and don't moan but attempt to give ideas and solutions ". Close but my personal opinion is the entire modern capitalism problem started with the 73 oil crises, the term used as the sick man of Europe is overly used by people, but in reality the energy crises moved the world on to globalisation, where most of Europe and America the old industrialised giants couldn't compete with the emerging economies, Japan stole all the UKs motorcycle market by making bikes cheaper and better, the same happened in the US, only Germany managed to transfer their economy into an exporter of goods that could compete through quality, even that has not kept them immune and today there forced to either manipulate their currency or move manufacturing abroad. This caused the neo-cons of Thatcher and Regan to deregulate the financial industry in 82 in attempt to make a living off commerce (nothing knew even Lenin wrote in his book the higher state of capitalism that eventually all capitalist economies would be forced down this line). So they deregulated the banks and in turn the banks inflated asset bubble after bubble, over the years we've seen the economy go into the booms and busts that come with asset inflation!. The banks have started pushing there own agenda by the late 90s, the politicians dance to their tunes, after the tech bubble burst in 98-99 it almost brought the banks down then because of the debt leverages removal, this bubble was why brown then did at their request sell our gold and remove further still any fractional reserve(they could at that time make their own limits), all this was done in good faith with the banks and the economists that it was genuinely a good way to go, nearly all the g8 were complaisant in this!. The entire western world is upto their necks in debt and their is no simple solution to it except to keep inflating the debt, which is exactly why all the g8 are doing it.(this is a policy I could go along happily with if we had spent that debt on really good infrastructure changes that would have provided some wealth in the end, but actually all we did is spend this debt on consumerism which caused the problem of the emerging economies even more (I mean where would China have got to if we hadn't bought all their cheap tat) Where does it all end, well my guess is when people go bust it usually takes a few years and then it crashes very quickly. Or the power of the G8 will wipe out the debt and we will have a new world currency. Real wealthy only comes through two mechanisms, productivity and natural resources everything else including banking is a temporary manufactured nonsense! | |||
"You're forgetting that in 2005 Clegg was easily the most impresssive of the leaders and there was (for a short time) a sense that the LibDems just might be a political force in their own right. Some people voted in the hope of something different. What they got was more of the same and the unpalatable sense that they had facilitated it. They may well get their chance again. This parliament won't be anywhere near as easy as is being assumed. Had this been the result at the previous election the story would have been of a weak Tory victory, it's only the surprise at the result that has shifted the emphasis from this. People will be looking for good opposition very soon. Currently there is none. " I think a lot depends on how the Europe issue pans out. Hopefully the right wing Europhobes will have learned the lesson from 1992, will back the renegotiations, take what ever stance they choose in the referendum and fall in behind whatever the decided will of the people is in that referendum. I actually think this time round the biggest problem is likely to come from the Europhiles, especially if the referendum result is to leave the EU. I know I'd find it very difficult to continue to lend my support to a party that was actually in the process of taking Britain out of the EU. | |||
| |||
" I agree. Jagger and Richard got it right back in the day... "You can't always get what you want, but if you try real hard, you might just get what you need." Problem these days is that people feel the need to display moral outrage at the first opportunity when they dont get everything that they want." What people don't seem to understand is that when Jagger & Richard wrote that song the average wage was £10 a week. Since then there have been wage rises over wage rises and no one is any better off. Asking for a wage rise does no one any good as the cost of everything has to rise to pay for the rise. That means that the working man/woman is always chasing an ever increasing cost of living. The ordinary working man worked fewer hours to provide for their family than current working men. Eventually it will be realised that what is required is a system that increases the standard of living without increasing the cost of living. | |||
" (m) adding on A specific Mr G. Brown in 2001 in a written memorandum to a leading banks in Britain informed that they did not have to keep the minimum Capital Requirements stipulated by Basle II. These stipulations were and are very clever and in one sentence "Stop banks going bust". Then we had a crash Mr Brown blamed every one and every body, however the majority of the failed banks and building societies in Britain were failing because they, under Labour, had been encourage to lend out on mortgages 100-120% on the value. Simple maths...and an old saying "what goes up, comes down". If the government had not had to spend £200 billion in shoring up the building societies and banks the country would be less in a mess... So think of that one...There would be more money to create jobs, build needed houses, more police on the streets and less National Debt. And by the way I do not vote in Britain and vote for The Social Democrats in Switzerland but they have (as Swiss Labour) have more common sense in their little fingers then the whole bunch in Britain and don't moan but attempt to give ideas and solutions .
Close but my personal opinion is the entire modern capitalism problem started with the 73 oil crises, the term used as the sick man of Europe is overly used by people, but in reality the energy crises moved the world on to globalisation, where most of Europe and America the old industrialised giants couldn't compete with the emerging economies, Japan stole all the UKs motorcycle market by making bikes cheaper and better, the same happened in the US, only Germany managed to transfer their economy into an exporter of goods that could compete through quality, even that has not kept them immune and today there forced to either manipulate their currency or move manufacturing abroad.
This caused the neo-cons of Thatcher and Regan to deregulate the financial industry in 82 in attempt to make a living off commerce (nothing knew even Lenin wrote in his book the higher state of capitalism that eventually all capitalist economies would be forced down this line).
So they deregulated the banks and in turn the banks inflated asset bubble after bubble, over the years we've seen the economy go into the booms and busts that come with asset inflation!.
The banks have started pushing there own agenda by the late 90s, the politicians dance to their tunes, after the tech bubble burst in 98-99 it almost brought the banks down then because of the debt leverages removal, this bubble was why brown then did at their request sell our gold and remove further still any fractional reserve(they could at that time make their own limits), all this was done in good faith with the banks and the economists that it was genuinely a good way to go, nearly all the g8 were complaisant in this!.
The entire western world is upto their necks in debt and their is no simple solution to it except to keep inflating the debt, which is exactly why all the g8 are doing it.(this is a policy I could go along happily with if we had spent that debt on really good infrastructure changes that would have provided some wealth in the end, but actually all we did is spend this debt on consumerism which caused the problem of the emerging economies even more (I mean where would China have got to if we hadn't bought all their cheap tat)
Where does it all end, well my guess is when people go bust it usually takes a few years and then it crashes very quickly.
Or the power of the G8 will wipe out the debt and we will have a new world currency.
Real wealthy only comes through two mechanisms, productivity and natural resources everything else including banking is a temporary manufactured nonsense!"Its good to see sense and truth spoken to counter the brain wash tripe that is taken on, I've family members working in the financial sector, cant stand listening to them go on about this is how economics work | |||
"I haven't read all the posts on the previous thread but I have read enough. So many people on here are claiming Conservative are making people homeless... What about my friend, who is single mother of a young child, who works full time, and was able to buy her own home - to secure a future for her family, using a government run scheme. What about my sister who managed to step up on the property ladder and get a better rate mortgage? What about all the serving soldiers lives that were saved by pulling out of Afghan? Because Labour probably would have kept that dragging on. What about all the innocent Afghan civilians that still have their lives? What about all the people who are genuinely disabled, being able to keep their benefits due to new tests ing out the fakers. What about the people that have gained well paying jobs from the privatisation and contractual employment for certain organisations? Those are just a few of the reasons I am happy for things to continue on the up, as they have for the last 5 years...
(m) adding on
A specific Mr G. Brown in 2001 in a written memorandum to a leading banks in Britain informed that they did not have to keep the minimum Capital Requirements stipulated by Basle II. These stipulations were and are very clever and in one sentence "Stop banks going bust".
Then we had a crash Mr Brown blamed every one and every body, however the majority of the failed banks and building societies in Britain were failing because they, under Labour, had been encourage to lend out on mortgages 100-120% on the value.
Simple maths...and an old saying "what goes up, comes down".
If the government had not had to spend £200 billion in shoring up the building societies and banks the country would be less in a mess...
So think of that one...There would be more money to create jobs, build needed houses, more police on the streets and less National Debt.
And by the way I do not vote in Britain and vote for The Social Democrats in Switzerland but they have (as Swiss Labour) have more common sense in their little fingers then the whole bunch in Britain and don't moan but attempt to give ideas and solutions .
Close but my personal opinion is the entire modern capitalism problem started with the 73 oil crises, the term used as the sick man of Europe is overly used by people, but in reality the energy crises moved the world on to globalisation, where most of Europe and America the old industrialised giants couldn't compete with the emerging economies, Japan stole all the UKs motorcycle market by making bikes cheaper and better, the same happened in the US, only Germany managed to transfer their economy into an exporter of goods that could compete through quality, even that has not kept them immune and today there forced to either manipulate their currency or move manufacturing abroad.
This caused the neo-cons of Thatcher and Regan to deregulate the financial industry in 82 in attempt to make a living off commerce (nothing knew even Lenin wrote in his book the higher state of capitalism that eventually all capitalist economies would be forced down this line).
So they deregulated the banks and in turn the banks inflated asset bubble after bubble, over the years we've seen the economy go into the booms and busts that come with asset inflation!.
The banks have started pushing there own agenda by the late 90s, the politicians dance to their tunes, after the tech bubble burst in 98-99 it almost brought the banks down then because of the debt leverages removal, this bubble was why brown then did at their request sell our gold and remove further still any fractional reserve(they could at that time make their own limits), all this was done in good faith with the banks and the economists that it was genuinely a good way to go, nearly all the g8 were complaisant in this!.
The entire western world is upto their necks in debt and their is no simple solution to it except to keep inflating the debt, which is exactly why all the g8 are doing it.(this is a policy I could go along happily with if we had spent that debt on really good infrastructure changes that would have provided some wealth in the end, but actually all we did is spend this debt on consumerism which caused the problem of the emerging economies even more (I mean where would China have got to if we hadn't bought all their cheap tat)
Where does it all end, well my guess is when people go bust it usually takes a few years and then it crashes very quickly.
Or the power of the G8 will wipe out the debt and we will have a new world currency.
Real wealthy only comes through two mechanisms, productivity and natural resources everything else including banking is a temporary manufactured nonsense!"I have to say that's a pretty good analysis. I'm suitably impressed. Not sure I totally agree with all of it but I'll hold judgment for now. Without meaning to be condescending to others on here but do you not think you might be shooting over the heads of many? | |||
Like Liverpool winning the league I think it will remain a fantasy | |||
"It's sad to say but these are the real problems facing not only us but the world, whether one oxbridge student of economics wearing blue or another student of Oxbridge economics wearing red is in power makes not the slightest bit of difference, the only thing that serves to do is distract the average voter.... Of course it is possible for the west to change too help solve some of the problems but like all change we must first admit the problem and that is money and how it gets created, in my mind we must get off this merry go round and get back to an intrinsically based currency, obviously this would create winners and losers but in the end it would allow market forces to take there rightful place in capitalism. This is currently the only workable solution without tearing the entire system apart and starting afresh an option we both know won't happen without calamity! But while we have narrow minded career politicians who's only thought is getting reelected in not holding out much hope so my best guess is bankruptcy I've often shot over the heads of a few on here in my own imagination
Like Liverpool winning the league I think it will remain a fantasy "Last five words sum up those "theories." Keep reading the books, meanwhile the world passes by. | |||
"It's sad to say but these are the real problems facing not only us but the world, whether one oxbridge student of economics wearing blue or another student of Oxbridge economics wearing red is in power makes not the slightest bit of difference, the only thing that serves to do is distract the average voter.... Of course it is possible for the west to change too help solve some of the problems but like all change we must first admit the problem and that is money and how it gets created, in my mind we must get off this merry go round and get back to an intrinsically based currency, obviously this would create winners and losers but in the end it would allow market forces to take there rightful place in capitalism. This is currently the only workable solution without tearing the entire system apart and starting afresh an option we both know won't happen without calamity! But while we have narrow minded career politicians who's only thought is getting reelected in not holding out much hope so my best guess is bankruptcy I've often shot over the heads of a few on here in my own imagination
Like Liverpool winning the league I think it will remain a fantasy
Last five words sum up those "theories."
Keep reading the books, meanwhile the world passes by."Don't worry it's round it comes back my way in 24hrs time! Yeah books!! And education what a waste of time I don't know why I bother I should just drag my knuckles along the ground shouting ug alot that would keep you happy no doubt | |||
"It's sad to say but these are the real problems facing not only us but the world, whether one oxbridge student of economics wearing blue or another student of Oxbridge economics wearing red is in power makes not the slightest bit of difference, the only thing that serves to do is distract the average voter.... Of course it is possible for the west to change too help solve some of the problems but like all change we must first admit the problem and that is money and how it gets created, in my mind we must get off this merry go round and get back to an intrinsically based currency, obviously this would create winners and losers but in the end it would allow market forces to take there rightful place in capitalism. This is currently the only workable solution without tearing the entire system apart and starting afresh an option we both know won't happen without calamity! But while we have narrow minded career politicians who's only thought is getting reelected in not holding out much hope so my best guess is bankruptcy I've often shot over the heads of a few on here in my own imagination
Like Liverpool winning the league I think it will remain a fantasy
Last five words sum up those "theories."
Keep reading the books, meanwhile the world passes by."I'm not so sure that we should dismiss this quite so quickly. One of the longest period of sustained economic growth at an international level was from 1945 to about 1965. During that period most countries in the world were part of the Bretton Woods system of monetary control. This effectively was a fixed rate exchange system tied to the US dollar which was itself tied to a specific value of gold. In the short term fixed exchange rates can be disadvantages (as seen in Grease) but it does prevent speculative currency bubbles and ultimately forces real improvements in productivity as opposed to just inflationary devaluations in currencies. The biggest problem in getting back to that sort of system would be the intense pain that would be inflicted on the working people of any country that has allowed itself to prosper by devaluing its currency (That's pretty much all of Europe and America). I'm not suggesting that we should go back to that system but I'm not convinced that we can forever carry on with a system that effectively just keeps on printing paper (even if most of it is virtual paper) in order to give the illusion of wealth to the masses. 2008 may have just been a warning. | |||
" It's pretty obvious where it stops lol. It stops at the CEO's who (pre thatcher) have gone from earning 10 times the average wage within their organisations to (in some cases) over 150 times... Of course, I forgot it was all the nasty CEOs' faults. How about in most businesses which people work in, because most people work for SMEs in this country, where the business owner will be drawing nowhere near that sort of multiple (if it's even a multiple at all?) It works exactly as you say, minimum wage rises and said current £10 earners get pissed off. A shrewd rival realises that he/she can poach some top talent. So they offer £20 an hour for what was previously a £10 an hour position. Obviously this has a chain effect and they have to increase everybody's salary. To fund this they pay themselves 1mill dividends instead of 2. They does this because they know that the potential growth from the added pools of talent means that in a few years they can be paying themselves 3 mill. Other business owners recognise this and start to do the same. Result CEO's across the country take a hit in wages because the employment market dictates that they have to pay their employees fairer wages. This is a prime example of where government policy can and should be used to curtail the darker side of free market fundamentalism! How you argue against that? That works where it's a large business with a CEO drawing that £2m dividend. How about public sector organisations where the wage differential is more like 1 to 10 (on an FTE basis); and SMEs, which I referred to in my previous post, which employ more people in this country than large companies? Is their choice between their wage bill putting them out of business or not being able to get any decent staff because they've all gone to work for that nasty multinational down the road? Well it works like this. The Government obviously have to raise all civil service wages in line with their own policies, to do this they lower the lower tax limit slightly, however they announce this alongside the raise in minimum wage, so that overall people are still making a net gain. This means that 2/3 of employment demographics the public sector and those employed by plc's are on better wages. They then have higher disposable incomes to spend on other small businesses. Small business owners can then pay their staff better wages. " I have my own business. Fortunately I don't have the issue of having to pay anyone minimum wage, as all my staff earn well in excess of min wage. However, the min wage figure is kind of irrelevant, as THIS is how it would actually work:- Say I have 8 staff each earning £8 per hour, and I'm then told I have to pay them £10 per hour. My labour costs have just gone up by 25%, or the equivalent of 2 people. I would therefore be looking to bring down my labour bill, and would be looking at ways of producing more with less, or reducing training, or giving fewer holidays, or no Christmas bonuses, or a combination of many different things. This may result in redundancies, or indeed mean that I delay or even cancel further recruitment. | |||
" It's pretty obvious where it stops lol. It stops at the CEO's who (pre thatcher) have gone from earning 10 times the average wage within their organisations to (in some cases) over 150 times... Of course, I forgot it was all the nasty CEOs' faults. How about in most businesses which people work in, because most people work for SMEs in this country, where the business owner will be drawing nowhere near that sort of multiple (if it's even a multiple at all?) It works exactly as you say, minimum wage rises and said current £10 earners get pissed off. A shrewd rival realises that he/she can poach some top talent. So they offer £20 an hour for what was previously a £10 an hour position. Obviously this has a chain effect and they have to increase everybody's salary. To fund this they pay themselves 1mill dividends instead of 2. They does this because they know that the potential growth from the added pools of talent means that in a few years they can be paying themselves 3 mill. Other business owners recognise this and start to do the same. Result CEO's across the country take a hit in wages because the employment market dictates that they have to pay their employees fairer wages. This is a prime example of where government policy can and should be used to curtail the darker side of free market fundamentalism! How you argue against that? That works where it's a large business with a CEO drawing that £2m dividend. How about public sector organisations where the wage differential is more like 1 to 10 (on an FTE basis); and SMEs, which I referred to in my previous post, which employ more people in this country than large companies? Is their choice between their wage bill putting them out of business or not being able to get any decent staff because they've all gone to work for that nasty multinational down the road? Well it works like this. The Government obviously have to raise all civil service wages in line with their own policies, to do this they lower the lower tax limit slightly, however they announce this alongside the raise in minimum wage, so that overall people are still making a net gain. This means that 2/3 of employment demographics the public sector and those employed by plc's are on better wages. They then have higher disposable incomes to spend on other small businesses. Small business owners can then pay their staff better wages. I have my own business. Fortunately I don't have the issue of having to pay anyone minimum wage, as all my staff earn well in excess of min wage. However, the min wage figure is kind of irrelevant, as THIS is how it would actually work:- Say I have 8 staff each earning £8 per hour, and I'm then told I have to pay them £10 per hour. My labour costs have just gone up by 25%, or the equivalent of 2 people. I would therefore be looking to bring down my labour bill, and would be looking at ways of producing more with less, or reducing training, or giving fewer holidays, or no Christmas bonuses, or a combination of many different things. This may result in redundancies, or indeed mean that I delay or even cancel further recruitment. " But, on the other hand (or maybe not because I'm not totally clear which way you're facing on this issue) if a company is not paying people a living wage and as a consequence those people have to claim in-work-benefits then surly all we are doing is subsidising un competitive companies out of general taxation. This to me is just the same as what we did with direct subsidies to companies in the 1970's. It didn't help in the end then and I don't believe it's really helping anyone now. If a company can not afford to pay a living wage to its workforce then it does not deserve to be in business. Why should I have to subsidise it out of my tax and company profits? | |||
" 2008 may have just been a warning. " It quite possibly was, but so what? There is absolutely NOTHING that you, I or sexy-bum can do about it. Reading books and convincing yourself that world will be going into financial meltdown again... soon. Is pretty pointless without the entire planet getting on board and that is not going to happen. We (and to a degree our Masters  ) are mere minions in the greater scheme of things and so my view is that if (big IF) something is going to happen like a financial meltdown, global warming catastrophe, tsunami - or whatever. There is nothing I can do other than get as much out of life as I can whilst I can.
I have told sexy- bum before. He reminds me of a religious guy that used to stand outside Old Trafford preaching about the end of the world when I was about 14. He is probably still there now!
I would rather keep my mind active with positive thoughts about keeping myself and family happy and comfortable. There is no point in polluting your mind with negativity and a conviction that the world is going to end because of global warming and/or a financial meltdown whichever comes first. | |||
"I haven't read all the posts on the previous thread but I have read enough. So many people on here are claiming Conservative are making people homeless... What about my friend, who is single mother of a young child, who works full time, and was able to buy her own home - to secure a future for her family, using a government run scheme. What about my sister who managed to step up on the property ladder and get a better rate mortgage? What about all the serving soldiers lives that were saved by pulling out of Afghan? Because Labour probably would have kept that dragging on. What about all the innocent Afghan civilians that still have their lives? What about all the people who are genuinely disabled, being able to keep their benefits due to new tests ing out the fakers. What about the people that have gained well paying jobs from the privatisation and contractual employment for certain organisations? Those are just a few of the reasons I am happy for things to continue on the up, as they have for the last 5 years... The Americans decided to pull out of Afghanistan and we had to follow suit. It would have went that way which ever govt was in power! Plus once the cons had decimated what was left of our forces, we were never going to be able to sustain that level of deployment anymore. Also I'm yet to see where privatisation has bought well paid jobs! LoL it usually involves making profit through the non imaginative route of trashing staff's terms, cutting their wages and increasing there workload or hours! Then the money that was once sent back into the economy via the staff etc... Is now farmed of to the hedge funds, cayman Islands etc... Seriously who would vote for this crap!" I am in a well paid job due to privatisation of a previous government contract... | |||
"I haven't read all the posts on the previous thread but I have read enough. So many people on here are claiming Conservative are making people homeless... What about my friend, who is single mother of a young child, who works full time, and was able to buy her own home - to secure a future for her family, using a government run scheme. What about my sister who managed to step up on the property ladder and get a better rate mortgage? What about all the serving soldiers lives that were saved by pulling out of Afghan? Because Labour probably would have kept that dragging on. What about all the innocent Afghan civilians that still have their lives? What about all the people who are genuinely disabled, being able to keep their benefits due to new tests ing out the fakers. What about the people that have gained well paying jobs from the privatisation and contractual employment for certain organisations? Those are just a few of the reasons I am happy for things to continue on the up, as they have for the last 5 years...
(m) adding on
A specific Mr G. Brown in 2001 in a written memorandum to a leading banks in Britain informed that they did not have to keep the minimum Capital Requirements stipulated by Basle II. These stipulations were and are very clever and in one sentence "Stop banks going bust".
Then we had a crash Mr Brown blamed every one and every body, however the majority of the failed banks and building societies in Britain were failing because they, under Labour, had been encourage to lend out on mortgages 100-120% on the value.
Simple maths...and an old saying "what goes up, comes down".
If the government had not had to spend £200 billion in shoring up the building societies and banks the country would be less in a mess...
So think of that one...There would be more money to create jobs, build needed houses, more police on the streets and less National Debt.
And by the way I do not vote in Britain and vote for The Social Democrats in Switzerland but they have (as Swiss Labour) have more common sense in their little fingers then the whole bunch in Britain and don't moan but attempt to give ideas and solutions .
Close but my personal opinion is the entire modern capitalism problem started with the 73 oil crises, the term used as the sick man of Europe is overly used by people, but in reality the energy crises moved the world on to globalisation, where most of Europe and America the old industrialised giants couldn't compete with the emerging economies, Japan stole all the UKs motorcycle market by making bikes cheaper and better, the same happened in the US, only Germany managed to transfer their economy into an exporter of goods that could compete through quality, even that has not kept them immune and today there forced to either manipulate their currency or move manufacturing abroad.
This caused the neo-cons of Thatcher and Regan to deregulate the financial industry in 82 in attempt to make a living off commerce (nothing knew even Lenin wrote in his book the higher state of capitalism that eventually all capitalist economies would be forced down this line).
So they deregulated the banks and in turn the banks inflated asset bubble after bubble, over the years we've seen the economy go into the booms and busts that come with asset inflation!.
The banks have started pushing there own agenda by the late 90s, the politicians dance to their tunes, after the tech bubble burst in 98-99 it almost brought the banks down then because of the debt leverages removal, this bubble was why brown then did at their request sell our gold and remove further still any fractional reserve(they could at that time make their own limits), all this was done in good faith with the banks and the economists that it was genuinely a good way to go, nearly all the g8 were complaisant in this!.
The entire western world is upto their necks in debt and their is no simple solution to it except to keep inflating the debt, which is exactly why all the g8 are doing it.(this is a policy I could go along happily with if we had spent that debt on really good infrastructure changes that would have provided some wealth in the end, but actually all we did is spend this debt on consumerism which caused the problem of the emerging economies even more (I mean where would China have got to if we hadn't bought all their cheap tat)
Where does it all end, well my guess is when people go bust it usually takes a few years and then it crashes very quickly.
Or the power of the G8 will wipe out the debt and we will have a new world currency.
Real wealthy only comes through two mechanisms, productivity and natural resources everything else including banking is a temporary manufactured nonsense!"In real terms the G8 are not reducing the debt at all Japan has no "outside" debt as the debt owed by Japan is to their own pension funds/insurance companies/banks/and OAP's Japan has outstanding debts of 200 plus so Greece is a child compared to Japan. Canada has reduced their outstanding via the sale of the countries assets such as gold/copper/energy (oil-gas) and has reduced their debt by a ratio of 9x Germany has flattened their need to borrow and in 2016 will have a balanced books. But here at what costs it was pointed out that Germany "escaped" the down fall or Europe by Exporting. This Exporting has lost in 2014/15 423'000 jobs driving the out of work up in massive steps the middle class has been "punished" with sneak taxes (petrol tax is 92% on price at the pump), heating oil has a tax of 85% to the liter..Great ? Then Italy is the again Japan as 85% of the debt Italy owes is to its' own people part of my family are Italians / Germans Swiss and French and of the whole lot the Italians are the ones happy to continue as they are at the moment with the BIG one change - get out of the Euro and back to the Lira. The trick of Italy has always been devalue the Lira reduce the debt. France is France and has been bankrupt so many times no one cares anymore.. Then the remaining two USA and UK...the USA has negated their infrastructure since the 1930's - The Hoover Dam is a construction of 1931 by Mr Roosevelt who launched a big investment program to get the US out of the "shit"... Since the 1950's nothing has been done and dams, canals, roads, highways all have been left to rot... So the US has to make debt to enable the new build of everything and as the main world currency is the Dollar the US government can do it...they just print more Dollars and if you ain't happy with that the answer is "tough" Now the UK... We have been living over our means since 1997 the sale of the Gold reserves has nothing to do with "pressure" from banks British or foreign but the then government needed cash to fund the election promises... Just a quicky for all The company which arranged the sale of the Gold had a non ex director, who at the time was Chancellor Guess who ...
But the main issue is simple you can not spend £2 if you only have £1...
So all political parties lie, when they say that they are going to create jobs and housing when they know that there is no "Income" for the government...
The only society form which survives without debt are the Amish...but watch it..their language is old Swiss German and they were booted out of Switzerland because of their extreme views to sex, dancing and laughter... (sex only to have children, no dancing, no laughing)... | |||
" 2008 may have just been a warning. It quite possibly was, but so what? There is absolutely NOTHING that you, I or sexy-bum can do about it. Reading books and convincing yourself that world will be going into financial meltdown again... soon. Is pretty pointless without the entire planet getting on board and that is not going to happen. We (and to a degree our Masters ) are mere minions in the greater scheme of things and so my view is that if (big IF) something is going to happen like a financial meltdown, global warming catastrophe, tsunami - or whatever. There is nothing I can do other than get as much out of life as I can whilst I can.
I have told sexy- bum before. He reminds me of a religious guy that used to stand outside Old Trafford preaching about the end of the world when I was about 14. He is probably still there now!
I would rather keep my mind active with positive thoughts about keeping myself and family happy and comfortable. There is no point in polluting your mind with negativity and a conviction that the world is going to end because of global warming and/or a financial meltdown whichever comes first. "You mean just hope you're dead before it happens? Well I guess I'm guilty of that one to but, the longer the system lasts, the worse the final crash will be. God help either my children, grand children or Great Great Gre.... ...ate Grand children. | |||
" 2008 may have just been a warning. It quite possibly was, but so what? There is absolutely NOTHING that you, I or sexy-bum can do about it. Reading books and convincing yourself that world will be going into financial meltdown again... soon. Is pretty pointless without the entire planet getting on board and that is not going to happen. We (and to a degree our Masters ) are mere minions in the greater scheme of things and so my view is that if (big IF) something is going to happen like a financial meltdown, global warming catastrophe, tsunami - or whatever. There is nothing I can do other than get as much out of life as I can whilst I can.
I have told sexy- bum before. He reminds me of a religious guy that used to stand outside Old Trafford preaching about the end of the world when I was about 14. He is probably still there now!
I would rather keep my mind active with positive thoughts about keeping myself and family happy and comfortable. There is no point in polluting your mind with negativity and a conviction that the world is going to end because of global warming and/or a financial meltdown whichever comes first. ". Look let's get things straight, I do what I do because it makes me happy,I like protesting fracking rigs, I like environmentalisim, I like being environmentally friendly,I like reading about things from energy to money to fracking to bee die off... I do it because I like doing it.... It's that whole pursuit of happiness thing. You ask questions about politics and economics I answer them as honest as I can from what I've read and how I understand it!! There's no intrinsic doom in it, it's not doom mongering to go to the doctor if you have a lump on your bollocks or your breast, you go to an expert and you take his/her advice you can seek a second opinion if you like or a third but to keep seeking opinions until you find one that matches what you want to hear is stupidity. What I wrote isn't fantasy I didn't dream those facts up, they were historical events that I put theory to, some of its mine some of its other people's that I've read, nobody knows exactly why Thatcher and Regan deregulated finance in 82 except Thatcher and Regan and a few very privileged advisors, what I give is a theory that ties into economic facts. What you never do is dispute my facts, you just offer this grand dismissing wave of a person unwilling to listen to any other prognosis of the situation because it's not what you want to hear!! It's exactly why we have the politicians we've got now just giving out the bullshit that folk like hearing. You love the word unsustainable when being used to describe the nhs but you hate it when I tell you that are current use of oil is unsustainable as well, because that story doesn't fit in with your lifestyle or what you want to hear! Somebody once said prepare for the worst and hope for the best. I prefer assumption is the mother of all fuck ups | |||
| |||
" 2008 may have just been a warning. It quite possibly was, but so what? There is absolutely NOTHING that you, I or sexy-bum can do about it. Reading books and convincing yourself that world will be going into financial meltdown again... soon. Is pretty pointless without the entire planet getting on board and that is not going to happen. We (and to a degree our Masters ) are mere minions in the greater scheme of things and so my view is that if (big IF) something is going to happen like a financial meltdown, global warming catastrophe, tsunami - or whatever. There is nothing I can do other than get as much out of life as I can whilst I can.
I have told sexy- bum before. He reminds me of a religious guy that used to stand outside Old Trafford preaching about the end of the world when I was about 14. He is probably still there now!
I would rather keep my mind active with positive thoughts about keeping myself and family happy and comfortable. There is no point in polluting your mind with negativity and a conviction that the world is going to end because of global warming and/or a financial meltdown whichever comes first.
You mean just hope you're dead before it happens? Well I guess I'm guilty of that one to but, the longer the system lasts, the worse the final crash will be. God help either my children, grand children or Great Great Gre.... ...ate Grand children."The Romans were as omnipotous as some of us seem to be. They too thought the world might end some day soon. Two thousand years later... | |||
" If there is no increase in productivity , surely this means that prices just go up. It would have to be closely regulated. It all revolves around the CEO's taking a hit in dividends rather than subsidising wages through increasing costs. . In this case , you are proposing a substantial cut in pensioners income . Most pension funds rely on dividend income to pay investors who are normally large pension funds . People will not invest in companies unless there is a return on their funds . Not a clue what you mean here. How does a CEO's personal income affect anything other than a CEO's personal income? They make the figure up themselves.. A dividend is what is paid by a limited company to its shareholders. Share holders obviously wouldn't lose out, that would be commercial suicide. I really don't see how people think fairer pay throughout any organisation's structure is a bad thing. A higher minimum wage would go a long way. Many of the problems we have now are the result of neo-liberal economics policy adopted by Thatcher. Why are you talking about dividends then? I don't think a fairer pay structure is a bad thing. I think you're assuming that it's all about big companies with highly paid CEOs, the point I'm making is the over 50% of people in this company are employed by small and medium size businesses who don't have a fat cat CEO to absorb that kind of immediate increase in costs. " Im not assuming anything. Small businesses have less employee's, so cost is not huge immediately. Honestly the argument against raising the minimum wage is exactly the same as the one for introducing it in the first place, and is entirely fallacious. You assume i think all of the worlds problems are caused by CEO's. I don't. They need to be reeled in though, especially within the finance sector. | |||
" If there is no increase in productivity , surely this means that prices just go up. It would have to be closely regulated. It all revolves around the CEO's taking a hit in dividends rather than subsidising wages through increasing costs. . In this case , you are proposing a substantial cut in pensioners income . Most pension funds rely on dividend income to pay investors who are normally large pension funds . People will not invest in companies unless there is a return on their funds . Not a clue what you mean here. How does a CEO's personal income affect anything other than a CEO's personal income? They make the figure up themselves.. A dividend is what is paid by a limited company to its shareholders. Share holders obviously wouldn't lose out, that would be commercial suicide. I really don't see how people think fairer pay throughout any organisation's structure is a bad thing. A higher minimum wage would go a long way. Many of the problems we have now are the result of neo-liberal economics policy adopted by Thatcher. So do you think that people should be paid more than they are actually worth to the organisation? How would that work?" Read all my last posts, then tell me how it wouldn't work. | |||
" 2008 may have just been a warning. It quite possibly was, but so what? There is absolutely NOTHING that you, I or sexy-bum can do about it. Reading books and convincing yourself that world will be going into financial meltdown again... soon. Is pretty pointless without the entire planet getting on board and that is not going to happen. We (and to a degree our Masters ) are mere minions in the greater scheme of things and so my view is that if (big IF) something is going to happen like a financial meltdown, global warming catastrophe, tsunami - or whatever. There is nothing I can do other than get as much out of life as I can whilst I can.
I have told sexy- bum before. He reminds me of a religious guy that used to stand outside Old Trafford preaching about the end of the world when I was about 14. He is probably still there now!
I would rather keep my mind active with positive thoughts about keeping myself and family happy and comfortable. There is no point in polluting your mind with negativity and a conviction that the world is going to end because of global warming and/or a financial meltdown whichever comes first. "We can do something, but not when people like you would rather stick your fingers in your ears and look the other way. Not only that but you put down people who actually do want a better world for all. As I suspected though selfish reasons, but shortsighted. | |||
" If there is no increase in productivity , surely this means that prices just go up. It would have to be closely regulated. It all revolves around the CEO's taking a hit in dividends rather than subsidising wages through increasing costs. . In this case , you are proposing a substantial cut in pensioners income . Most pension funds rely on dividend income to pay investors who are normally large pension funds . People will not invest in companies unless there is a return on their funds . Not a clue what you mean here. How does a CEO's personal income affect anything other than a CEO's personal income? They make the figure up themselves.. A dividend is what is paid by a limited company to its shareholders. Share holders obviously wouldn't lose out, that would be commercial suicide. I really don't see how people think fairer pay throughout any organisation's structure is a bad thing. A higher minimum wage would go a long way. Many of the problems we have now are the result of neo-liberal economics policy adopted by Thatcher. Why are you talking about dividends then? I don't think a fairer pay structure is a bad thing. I think you're assuming that it's all about big companies with highly paid CEOs, the point I'm making is the over 50% of people in this company are employed by small and medium size businesses who don't have a fat cat CEO to absorb that kind of immediate increase in costs. Im not assuming anything. Small businesses have less employee's, so cost is not huge immediately. Honestly the argument against raising the minimum wage is exactly the same as the one for introducing it in the first place, and is entirely fallacious. You assume i think all of the worlds problems are caused by CEO's. I don't. They need to be reeled in though, especially within the finance sector. " . How is reducing the pay of the CEO going to help. Their cost overall is generally an insignificant part of the overall payroll cost . Small businesses may may less cost but they also have less profits and as such their is less headroom in which to increase costs . | |||
" If there is no increase in productivity , surely this means that prices just go up. It would have to be closely regulated. It all revolves around the CEO's taking a hit in dividends rather than subsidising wages through increasing costs. . In this case , you are proposing a substantial cut in pensioners income . Most pension funds rely on dividend income to pay investors who are normally large pension funds . People will not invest in companies unless there is a return on their funds . Not a clue what you mean here. How does a CEO's personal income affect anything other than a CEO's personal income? They make the figure up themselves.. A dividend is what is paid by a limited company to its shareholders. Share holders obviously wouldn't lose out, that would be commercial suicide. I really don't see how people think fairer pay throughout any organisation's structure is a bad thing. A higher minimum wage would go a long way. Many of the problems we have now are the result of neo-liberal economics policy adopted by Thatcher. Why are you talking about dividends then? I don't think a fairer pay structure is a bad thing. I think you're assuming that it's all about big companies with highly paid CEOs, the point I'm making is the over 50% of people in this company are employed by small and medium size businesses who don't have a fat cat CEO to absorb that kind of immediate increase in costs. Im not assuming anything. Small businesses have less employee's, so cost is not huge immediately. Honestly the argument against raising the minimum wage is exactly the same as the one for introducing it in the first place, and is entirely fallacious. You assume i think all of the worlds problems are caused by CEO's. I don't. They need to be reeled in though, especially within the finance sector. . How is reducing the pay of the CEO going to help. Their cost overall is generally an insignificant part of the overall payroll cost . Small businesses may may less cost but they also have less profits and as such their is less headroom in which to increase costs ." I can't tell wether you are being purposely obtuse or not? The average CEO of a FTSE100 company is paid around 150 times more than the average employee. Thats average not minimum. Since 2000 top boss salaries have risen by 6 times more than the average workers. Clearly we need some policy to curtail this trend. A minimum wage increase is a good place to start. | |||
| |||
"I have an idea for helping to reduce the national deficit. Why don't we add VAT on to football transfer fees? " Would just ruin the premier league though. Only way it would work is if every country in world adopted the same policy. In that case great idea, but can't see an easy way of implementing it. | |||
 It's quite appropriate for a swinging site though, as i'm seems we all like to mass-debate.... | |||
" If there is no increase in productivity , surely this means that prices just go up. It would have to be closely regulated. It all revolves around the CEO's taking a hit in dividends rather than subsidising wages through increasing costs. . In this case , you are proposing a substantial cut in pensioners income . Most pension funds rely on dividend income to pay investors who are normally large pension funds . People will not invest in companies unless there is a return on their funds . Not a clue what you mean here. How does a CEO's personal income affect anything other than a CEO's personal income? They make the figure up themselves.. A dividend is what is paid by a limited company to its shareholders. Share holders obviously wouldn't lose out, that would be commercial suicide. I really don't see how people think fairer pay throughout any organisation's structure is a bad thing. A higher minimum wage would go a long way. Many of the problems we have now are the result of neo-liberal economics policy adopted by Thatcher. Why are you talking about dividends then? I don't think a fairer pay structure is a bad thing. I think you're assuming that it's all about big companies with highly paid CEOs, the point I'm making is the over 50% of people in this company are employed by small and medium size businesses who don't have a fat cat CEO to absorb that kind of immediate increase in costs. Im not assuming anything. Small businesses have less employee's, so cost is not huge immediately. Honestly the argument against raising the minimum wage is exactly the same as the one for introducing it in the first place, and is entirely fallacious. You assume i think all of the worlds problems are caused by CEO's. I don't. They need to be reeled in though, especially within the finance sector. . How is reducing the pay of the CEO going to help. Their cost overall is generally an insignificant part of the overall payroll cost . Small businesses may may less cost but they also have less profits and as such their is less headroom in which to increase costs . I can't tell wether you are being purposely obtuse or not? The average CEO of a FTSE100 company is paid around 150 times more than the average employee. Thats average not minimum. Since 2000 top boss salaries have risen by 6 times more than the average workers. Clearly we need some policy to curtail this trend. A minimum wage increase is a good place to start. " How many people in this country do you think are employed by FTSE100 companies? | |||
| |||
" If there is no increase in productivity , surely this means that prices just go up. It would have to be closely regulated. It all revolves around the CEO's taking a hit in dividends rather than subsidising wages through increasing costs. . In this case , you are proposing a substantial cut in pensioners income . Most pension funds rely on dividend income to pay investors who are normally large pension funds . People will not invest in companies unless there is a return on their funds . Not a clue what you mean here. How does a CEO's personal income affect anything other than a CEO's personal income? They make the figure up themselves.. A dividend is what is paid by a limited company to its shareholders. Share holders obviously wouldn't lose out, that would be commercial suicide. I really don't see how people think fairer pay throughout any organisation's structure is a bad thing. A higher minimum wage would go a long way. Many of the problems we have now are the result of neo-liberal economics policy adopted by Thatcher. Why are you talking about dividends then? I don't think a fairer pay structure is a bad thing. I think you're assuming that it's all about big companies with highly paid CEOs, the point I'm making is the over 50% of people in this company are employed by small and medium size businesses who don't have a fat cat CEO to absorb that kind of immediate increase in costs. Im not assuming anything. Small businesses have less employee's, so cost is not huge immediately. Honestly the argument against raising the minimum wage is exactly the same as the one for introducing it in the first place, and is entirely fallacious. You assume i think all of the worlds problems are caused by CEO's. I don't. They need to be reeled in though, especially within the finance sector. . How is reducing the pay of the CEO going to help. Their cost overall is generally an insignificant part of the overall payroll cost . Small businesses may may less cost but they also have less profits and as such their is less headroom in which to increase costs . I can't tell wether you are being purposely obtuse or not? The average CEO of a FTSE100 company is paid around 150 times more than the average employee. Thats average not minimum. Since 2000 top boss salaries have risen by 6 times more than the average workers. Clearly we need some policy to curtail this trend. A minimum wage increase is a good place to start. " . If we are talking about the salary of a CEO , it is immaterial in the overall scheme of things . Shareholders will be interested in how the company performs , not what the salary of the CEO is . These are men / women who have dedicated their lives to the company or industry that they are in. As regards companies in which I invest my interest is in the share price and dividend income . The salary of the CEO is of little interest .In any event , the salary must be approved by share holders at the AGM | |||
" If there is no increase in productivity , surely this means that prices just go up. It would have to be closely regulated. It all revolves around the CEO's taking a hit in dividends rather than subsidising wages through increasing costs. . In this case , you are proposing a substantial cut in pensioners income . Most pension funds rely on dividend income to pay investors who are normally large pension funds . People will not invest in companies unless there is a return on their funds . Not a clue what you mean here. How does a CEO's personal income affect anything other than a CEO's personal income? They make the figure up themselves.. A dividend is what is paid by a limited company to its shareholders. Share holders obviously wouldn't lose out, that would be commercial suicide. I really don't see how people think fairer pay throughout any organisation's structure is a bad thing. A higher minimum wage would go a long way. Many of the problems we have now are the result of neo-liberal economics policy adopted by Thatcher. Why are you talking about dividends then? I don't think a fairer pay structure is a bad thing. I think you're assuming that it's all about big companies with highly paid CEOs, the point I'm making is the over 50% of people in this company are employed by small and medium size businesses who don't have a fat cat CEO to absorb that kind of immediate increase in costs. Im not assuming anything. Small businesses have less employee's, so cost is not huge immediately. Honestly the argument against raising the minimum wage is exactly the same as the one for introducing it in the first place, and is entirely fallacious. You assume i think all of the worlds problems are caused by CEO's. I don't. They need to be reeled in though, especially within the finance sector. . How is reducing the pay of the CEO going to help. Their cost overall is generally an insignificant part of the overall payroll cost . Small businesses may may less cost but they also have less profits and as such their is less headroom in which to increase costs . I can't tell wether you are being purposely obtuse or not? The average CEO of a FTSE100 company is paid around 150 times more than the average employee. Thats average not minimum. Since 2000 top boss salaries have risen by 6 times more than the average workers. Clearly we need some policy to curtail this trend. A minimum wage increase is a good place to start. . If we are talking about the salary of a CEO , it is immaterial in the overall scheme of things . Shareholders will be interested in how the company performs , not what the salary of the CEO is . These are men / women who have dedicated their lives to the company or industry that they are in. As regards companies in which I invest my interest is in the share price and dividend income . The salary of the CEO is of little interest .In any event , the salary must be approved by share holders at the AGM" . Investers aren't bothered in pay packets just returns, it's why complete oddbods with shit ideas sometimes get taken up on dragons den yet others seen to fail, the dragons aren't interested in what they look like, talk like, business plans..... That's for the public. How much do I put in, what's the risk and how much do I get out! CEO,s pay is NOT set by shareholders?. In fact most long term studies show there's no correlation between executive goodies and better performance in fact they usually find the opposite and the ones with the most perks under perform | |||
" 2008 may have just been a warning. It quite possibly was, but so what? There is absolutely NOTHING that you, I or sexy-bum can do about it. Reading books and convincing yourself that world will be going into financial meltdown again... soon. Is pretty pointless without the entire planet getting on board and that is not going to happen. We (and to a degree our Masters ) are mere minions in the greater scheme of things and so my view is that if (big IF) something is going to happen like a financial meltdown, global warming catastrophe, tsunami - or whatever. There is nothing I can do other than get as much out of life as I can whilst I can.
I have told sexy- bum before. He reminds me of a religious guy that used to stand outside Old Trafford preaching about the end of the world when I was about 14. He is probably still there now!
I would rather keep my mind active with positive thoughts about keeping myself and family happy and comfortable. There is no point in polluting your mind with negativity and a conviction that the world is going to end because of global warming and/or a financial meltdown whichever comes first.
You mean just hope you're dead before it happens? Well I guess I'm guilty of that one to but, the longer the system lasts, the worse the final crash will be. God help either my children, grand children or Great Great Gre.... ...ate Grand children.
The Romans were as omnipotous as some of us seem to be. They too thought the world might end some day soon.
Two thousand years later...". Good point I'd completely forgotten the Romans and a very relevant point. Huge empire that lasted hundreds of years, I'm presuming that somewhere after around 500 years most Romans just thought that this is how it will always be, I mean we've been here hundreds and hundreds of years controlling more land and wealth than anyone in history with a relatively good democratic run government! All mod cons, plenty of inventions, plenty of ingenuity, plenty of productivity gains what could possibly go wrong, well nobody knows for definite but we do know they ran out of money some time just before they collapsed, they started making coins from cheaper and cheaper metals, it was the equivalent of printing money! Funnily enough the Romans stole most of their ideas from the Greeks after there'd drove them into the ground. The word credit comes from the Latin for.... Answers on a postcard | |||
" 2008 may have just been a warning. It quite possibly was, but so what? There is absolutely NOTHING that you, I or sexy-bum can do about it. Reading books and convincing yourself that world will be going into financial meltdown again... soon. Is pretty pointless without the entire planet getting on board and that is not going to happen. We (and to a degree our Masters ) are mere minions in the greater scheme of things and so my view is that if (big IF) something is going to happen like a financial meltdown, global warming catastrophe, tsunami - or whatever. There is nothing I can do other than get as much out of life as I can whilst I can.
I have told sexy- bum before. He reminds me of a religious guy that used to stand outside Old Trafford preaching about the end of the world when I was about 14. He is probably still there now!
I would rather keep my mind active with positive thoughts about keeping myself and family happy and comfortable. There is no point in polluting your mind with negativity and a conviction that the world is going to end because of global warming and/or a financial meltdown whichever comes first.
You mean just hope you're dead before it happens? Well I guess I'm guilty of that one to but, the longer the system lasts, the worse the final crash will be. God help either my children, grand children or Great Great Gre.... ...ate Grand children.
The Romans were as omnipotous as some of us seem to be. They too thought the world might end some day soon.
Two thousand years later....
Good point I'd completely forgotten the Romans and a very relevant point.
Huge empire that lasted hundreds of years, I'm presuming that somewhere after around 500 years most Romans just thought that this is how it will always be, I mean we've been here hundreds and hundreds of years controlling more land and wealth than anyone in history with a relatively good democratic run government! All mod cons, plenty of inventions, plenty of ingenuity, plenty of productivity gains what could possibly go wrong, well nobody knows for definite but we do know they ran out of money some time just before they collapsed, they started making coins from cheaper and cheaper metals, it was the equivalent of printing money!
Funnily enough the Romans stole most of their ideas from the Greeks after there'd drove them into the ground.
The word credit comes from the Latin for.... Answers on a postcard "Exactly it's 'I believe' but semantically it's closer to 'I believe in you' or even 'I trust you' | |||
" If there is no increase in productivity , surely this means that prices just go up. It would have to be closely regulated. It all revolves around the CEO's taking a hit in dividends rather than subsidising wages through increasing costs. . In this case , you are proposing a substantial cut in pensioners income . Most pension funds rely on dividend income to pay investors who are normally large pension funds . People will not invest in companies unless there is a return on their funds . Not a clue what you mean here. How does a CEO's personal income affect anything other than a CEO's personal income? They make the figure up themselves.. A dividend is what is paid by a limited company to its shareholders. Share holders obviously wouldn't lose out, that would be commercial suicide. I really don't see how people think fairer pay throughout any organisation's structure is a bad thing. A higher minimum wage would go a long way. Many of the problems we have now are the result of neo-liberal economics policy adopted by Thatcher. Why are you talking about dividends then? I don't think a fairer pay structure is a bad thing. I think you're assuming that it's all about big companies with highly paid CEOs, the point I'm making is the over 50% of people in this company are employed by small and medium size businesses who don't have a fat cat CEO to absorb that kind of immediate increase in costs. Im not assuming anything. Small businesses have less employee's, so cost is not huge immediately. Honestly the argument against raising the minimum wage is exactly the same as the one for introducing it in the first place, and is entirely fallacious. You assume i think all of the worlds problems are caused by CEO's. I don't. They need to be reeled in though, especially within the finance sector. . How is reducing the pay of the CEO going to help. Their cost overall is generally an insignificant part of the overall payroll cost . Small businesses may may less cost but they also have less profits and as such their is less headroom in which to increase costs . I can't tell wether you are being purposely obtuse or not? The average CEO of a FTSE100 company is paid around 150 times more than the average employee. Thats average not minimum. Since 2000 top boss salaries have risen by 6 times more than the average workers. Clearly we need some policy to curtail this trend. A minimum wage increase is a good place to start. How many people in this country do you think are employed by FTSE100 companies? " Your doing that thing where you argue against a single point in order to gain some kind of small victory. As I have said before I accept your assertion that most people work for small businesses. If you can provide figures to suggest that these businesses simply could not handle a wage increase of a few pounds an hour to their lowest paid staff, then you might sway my opinion on the whole. Some Businesses who fail to adapt would be casualties. 10 more will spring up to fill the gap though, such is the nature of capitalism. | |||
" If there is no increase in productivity , surely this means that prices just go up. It would have to be closely regulated. It all revolves around the CEO's taking a hit in dividends rather than subsidising wages through increasing costs. . In this case , you are proposing a substantial cut in pensioners income . Most pension funds rely on dividend income to pay investors who are normally large pension funds . People will not invest in companies unless there is a return on their funds . Not a clue what you mean here. How does a CEO's personal income affect anything other than a CEO's personal income? They make the figure up themselves.. A dividend is what is paid by a limited company to its shareholders. Share holders obviously wouldn't lose out, that would be commercial suicide. I really don't see how people think fairer pay throughout any organisation's structure is a bad thing. A higher minimum wage would go a long way. Many of the problems we have now are the result of neo-liberal economics policy adopted by Thatcher. Why are you talking about dividends then? I don't think a fairer pay structure is a bad thing. I think you're assuming that it's all about big companies with highly paid CEOs, the point I'm making is the over 50% of people in this company are employed by small and medium size businesses who don't have a fat cat CEO to absorb that kind of immediate increase in costs. Im not assuming anything. Small businesses have less employee's, so cost is not huge immediately. Honestly the argument against raising the minimum wage is exactly the same as the one for introducing it in the first place, and is entirely fallacious. You assume i think all of the worlds problems are caused by CEO's. I don't. They need to be reeled in though, especially within the finance sector. . How is reducing the pay of the CEO going to help. Their cost overall is generally an insignificant part of the overall payroll cost . Small businesses may may less cost but they also have less profits and as such their is less headroom in which to increase costs . I can't tell wether you are being purposely obtuse or not? The average CEO of a FTSE100 company is paid around 150 times more than the average employee. Thats average not minimum. Since 2000 top boss salaries have risen by 6 times more than the average workers. Clearly we need some policy to curtail this trend. A minimum wage increase is a good place to start. How many people in this country do you think are employed by FTSE100 companies? Your doing that thing where you argue against a single point in order to gain some kind of small victory. As I have said before I accept your assertion that most people work for small businesses. If you can provide figures to suggest that these businesses simply could not handle a wage increase of a few pounds an hour to their lowest paid staff, then you might sway my opinion on the whole. Some Businesses who fail to adapt would be casualties. 10 more will spring up to fill the gap though, such is the nature of capitalism." Increasing the fixed cost of many small businesses operating in competitive markets where they cannot increase their price would see a lot of bankruptcies. | |||
" If there is no increase in productivity , surely this means that prices just go up. It would have to be closely regulated. It all revolves around the CEO's taking a hit in dividends rather than subsidising wages through increasing costs. . In this case , you are proposing a substantial cut in pensioners income . Most pension funds rely on dividend income to pay investors who are normally large pension funds . People will not invest in companies unless there is a return on their funds . Not a clue what you mean here. How does a CEO's personal income affect anything other than a CEO's personal income? They make the figure up themselves.. A dividend is what is paid by a limited company to its shareholders. Share holders obviously wouldn't lose out, that would be commercial suicide. I really don't see how people think fairer pay throughout any organisation's structure is a bad thing. A higher minimum wage would go a long way. Many of the problems we have now are the result of neo-liberal economics policy adopted by Thatcher. Why are you talking about dividends then? I don't think a fairer pay structure is a bad thing. I think you're assuming that it's all about big companies with highly paid CEOs, the point I'm making is the over 50% of people in this company are employed by small and medium size businesses who don't have a fat cat CEO to absorb that kind of immediate increase in costs. Im not assuming anything. Small businesses have less employee's, so cost is not huge immediately. Honestly the argument against raising the minimum wage is exactly the same as the one for introducing it in the first place, and is entirely fallacious. You assume i think all of the worlds problems are caused by CEO's. I don't. They need to be reeled in though, especially within the finance sector. . How is reducing the pay of the CEO going to help. Their cost overall is generally an insignificant part of the overall payroll cost . Small businesses may may less cost but they also have less profits and as such their is less headroom in which to increase costs . I can't tell wether you are being purposely obtuse or not? The average CEO of a FTSE100 company is paid around 150 times more than the average employee. Thats average not minimum. Since 2000 top boss salaries have risen by 6 times more than the average workers. Clearly we need some policy to curtail this trend. A minimum wage increase is a good place to start. How many people in this country do you think are employed by FTSE100 companies? Your doing that thing where you argue against a single point in order to gain some kind of small victory. As I have said before I accept your assertion that most people work for small businesses. If you can provide figures to suggest that these businesses simply could not handle a wage increase of a few pounds an hour to their lowest paid staff, then you might sway my opinion on the whole. Some Businesses who fail to adapt would be casualties. 10 more will spring up to fill the gap though, such is the nature of capitalism." I'm really not trying to score a victory, frankly I can't be arsed. You are repeatedly referring to CEOs and pay differentials and FTSE100 companies and I entirely agree with you that pay inequalities there should be challenged. The route to do that isn't the minimum wage. But I don't believe that the majority of small businesses in this company could just 'absorb' a sudden increase in staffing costs of that magnitude. A phased approach over a few years, if the govenrment set out their timetable of how they are going to get there? Yep, possibly. Since I don't run a small or medium sized business, I'm guessing though. What I can tell you is that the staffing costs of many public sector organisations would increase greatly, many pay higher than minimum wage (lots use the living wage) to their staff already but their pay structures are such that they'd be rewired to ensure the staff further up the pay scale had their pay increased too, because Single Status and Agenda for Change mean jobs must be evaluated and paid according to the skills required of them. I'm not suggesting these things would entirely prevent an increase being possible but that they are valid reasons which have to be considered. And to keep going on about CEOs and dividends is naive. I'm focusing on one part of your argument because that's the one you keep harking back to. | |||
" If there is no increase in productivity , surely this means that prices just go up. It would have to be closely regulated. It all revolves around the CEO's taking a hit in dividends rather than subsidising wages through increasing costs. . In this case , you are proposing a substantial cut in pensioners income . Most pension funds rely on dividend income to pay investors who are normally large pension funds . People will not invest in companies unless there is a return on their funds . Not a clue what you mean here. How does a CEO's personal income affect anything other than a CEO's personal income? They make the figure up themselves.. A dividend is what is paid by a limited company to its shareholders. Share holders obviously wouldn't lose out, that would be commercial suicide. I really don't see how people think fairer pay throughout any organisation's structure is a bad thing. A higher minimum wage would go a long way. Many of the problems we have now are the result of neo-liberal economics policy adopted by Thatcher. Why are you talking about dividends then? I don't think a fairer pay structure is a bad thing. I think you're assuming that it's all about big companies with highly paid CEOs, the point I'm making is the over 50% of people in this company are employed by small and medium size businesses who don't have a fat cat CEO to absorb that kind of immediate increase in costs. Im not assuming anything. Small businesses have less employee's, so cost is not huge immediately. Honestly the argument against raising the minimum wage is exactly the same as the one for introducing it in the first place, and is entirely fallacious. You assume i think all of the worlds problems are caused by CEO's. I don't. They need to be reeled in though, especially within the finance sector. . How is reducing the pay of the CEO going to help. Their cost overall is generally an insignificant part of the overall payroll cost . Small businesses may may less cost but they also have less profits and as such their is less headroom in which to increase costs . I can't tell wether you are being purposely obtuse or not? The average CEO of a FTSE100 company is paid around 150 times more than the average employee. Thats average not minimum. Since 2000 top boss salaries have risen by 6 times more than the average workers. Clearly we need some policy to curtail this trend. A minimum wage increase is a good place to start. How many people in this country do you think are employed by FTSE100 companies? Your doing that thing where you argue against a single point in order to gain some kind of small victory. As I have said before I accept your assertion that most people work for small businesses. If you can provide figures to suggest that these businesses simply could not handle a wage increase of a few pounds an hour to their lowest paid staff, then you might sway my opinion on the whole. Some Businesses who fail to adapt would be casualties. 10 more will spring up to fill the gap though, such is the nature of capitalism. Increasing the fixed cost of many small businesses operating in competitive markets where they cannot increase their price would see a lot of bankruptcies." | |||
| |||
"Tory-led councils have written to the Observer (make of that what you will) to denounce Osbornes' planned cuts. Only 10 days ago the same councillors were begging people to vote Tory. " That's what councils do. No party said it was going to protect the local authority budget, it was all about the NHS and schools, so councils were going to be shafted (further) by whatever govenrment was formed. | |||
| |||
"Everyone protesting the new Tory government...did you all vote? I saw that clown Brand out with a loudspeaker but he has gone on record before saying he doesn't vote... If you don't vote why protest the outcome?" He also says he doesn't vote because his party of choice out of the ones available is 'none of the above', so instead he, just like countless others, devote his time and money helping people. I voted, though in my area, it's a genuine safe seat for labour. In fact, my mp's share of the vote increased quite considerably. | |||
" Clearly the definition of minimum is lost on some. It's up to businesses themselves if they pay more than the minimum. If they don't then someone on £10/hour will be no worse off. Perhaps your question should be why someone who is considered to be 'skilled' is only on £10/hour! If our economy is doing so well then spread that 'wellness' out." Spreading the "wellness" out does not work it only produces infalation which makes everyone less well off. People need to learn to be satified with what they have rather than wanting more all the time. | |||
| |||
"I know there is a big difference in where you live, influences how much you are paid doing the same job. I was speaking to some ramp agents recently, some from Manchester others from Gatwick. The Gatwick guys get about £2 an hour more than the manc one, I know it is down to the cost of living but surely one job should have the same wage all over the UK." . I fail to see why the one job should have the same pay . Circumstances can change . Any employee unhappy with their. pay can always leave an get another job some where else. | |||
"Tory-led councils have written to the Observer (make of that what you will) to denounce Osbornes' planned cuts. Only 10 days ago the same councillors were begging people to vote Tory. " So what you saying? | |||
