TUC protests

[benc]

I dont understand the point of these protests, do the unions think the public sector is exempt from the cuts

It's a shame the public sector has to pay the price of the credit crunch and not the bankers, however we just need to get on with it and deal with the situation as it is.

we would be having this diescussion regardless of what goverment would be in power now

Edited September 13, 2010 by benc

[llcoolphil]

These are other things that weren't addressed, but nice to see you're twisting my arguments around Mr Campbell.

Obviously those at the top's income have to be looked at. This can be done with a High Pay Commision, something which is being talked about by the Labour leadership candidates.

You have the lowest workers on a better wage, and the highest workers on a lesser wage. It makes things more fairer. This doesn't go against a company making profit. Are you against a comapny making profit?

Are you suggesting you don't think someone should earn a higher wage than anyone else?

[llcoolphil]

Also, I'm sure Tesco's pay more than £6. Is it not £6.50? Which is more than smaller supermarkets.

[llcoolphil]

It's a shame the public sector has to pay the price of the credit crunch and not the bankers, however we just need to get on with it and deal with the situation as it is.

[benc]

If I came and robbed your house and took everything you owned, emptied your bank account etc - would you say 'well, Phil has my stuff now, Id better just get on with it and deal with this situation as it is' - or do you think that not only should I be giving you your stuff back, there should be a penalty involved too?

[eFestivals]

This is being looked at with the view that we're already suffering the ConDems cuts. We ain't seen nothing yet!!

Once they start to hit, the views of these things will change hugely.

[llcoolphil]

Point taken.

On that note, as shareholders of these banks are we expecting a full return from our investment? I dont know a great deal on the subject, but everytime i read Robert Peston's blog he seems to suggest that the shareholders are getting a return. So does that mean we will get our money back?

Edited September 13, 2010 by llcoolphil

[Pogues Mcgogues]

I haven't twisted your argument, Im pointing out that whilst you keep telling us that you are serious about socialism (though I note that 'serious' has become 'Im mostly socialist', which is a bit like saying 'Im a bit pregnant'), all your arguments are about perpetuating the capitalist state. You've bought the line that capitalism is the natural order and the only way to organise society. And dont give me your 3rd way bollox - it's just another form of capitalism. But back to the simple questions you haven't yet answered - Who defines a living wage and how would YOU define a living wage?

[Pogues Mcgogues]

This is being looked at with the view that we're already suffering the ConDems cuts. We ain't seen nothing yet!!

Once they start to hit, the views of these things will change hugely.

[eFestivals]

Exactly which is why we need to be organised from the get go and I would hope that your fellow workers will have your support on the street come the days of protest if you are available.

I disagree.

Because most people are thinking we've already had the cuts we're going to have because things are bad already, those people look at what the TUC are calling for as unrealistic and almost laughable. And perhaps even a criminal conspiracy against a democratically elected govt.

That's not warming them to unionism, and because they'll have taken that view already they'll be less likely to view things in a proper light at the time when things have progressed so that they're able to see things in a proper light. The view they'll take now will become entrenched.

It would have been better if the TUC had waited until after the cuts are announced and been followed by enough "x,000 jobs to go" and "your vital services to be cut" (one will hit home cos every service is vital to someone) stories for them to get a proper grasp of how much of an impact to both jobs and services the cuts are going to have. They'd have got many millions more on their side if they'd have waited for 2 months.

======

I had to laugh at the on-screen scroller on Sky News at lunchtime. It said "govt calls for genuine working partnership with unions over cuts" (or something very similar).

Oh yeah, that'll be a genuine partnership.

Edited September 13, 2010 by eFestivals

[llcoolphil]

I disagree.

Because most people are thinking we've already had the cuts we're going to have because things are bad already, those people look at what the TUC are calling for as unrealistic and almost laughable. And perhaps even a criminal conspiracy against a democratically elected govt.

That's not warming them to unionism, and because they'll have taken that view already they'll be less likely to view things in a proper light at the time when things have progressed so that they're able to see things in a proper light. The view they'll take now will become entrenched.

It would have been better if the TUC had waited until after the cuts are announced and been followed by enough "x,000 jobs to go" and "your vital services to be cut" (one will hit home cos every service is vital to someone) stories for them to get a proper grasp of how much of an impact to both jobs and services the cuts are going to have. They'd have got many millions more on their side if they'd have waited for 2 months.

[eFestivals]

But whilst the opposition (in a broad sense) simply says 'there is a choice' about these cuts without highlighting what the choice is in real terms, it just looks like the opposition sniping at the government for sniping sake.

I don't disagree with that part at all.

Im not sure they could get millions more onto their side at all - I think there is a majority that is actually quite comfortable with the messages they are hearing from the government about a smaller, less interfering public sector.

I very much doubt it's the majority.

There's certainly a large majority (but a long way from being 50%) that take that view, but then again they always did do. These types are died-in-the-wool tories.

There's another sizeable lump of people - these probably are the majority - who recognise that something needs to be done, tho disagree on the amount that needs cutting and who disagree on what should be targeted for cuts - and fear the cuts could impact on them or theirs.

Unless the cuts take us into a double dip recession, I think opposition will be, at best, muted

A large proportion of those people (the ones I'd say are the majority) think that now is as bad as things are going to get. It looks like you do too ... but I'll tell you why I reckon that's wrong.

Very many businesses have or are riding out the bad times by cutting back where they can and scraping by, seeing better times around the corner. While business has picked up again for some the pick-up has been greater than any associated increase in staff, because they've been carrying staff they couldn't fully put to work or staff they couldn't really afford to keep on but have because they felt it could be ridden out in a shortish time.

So while the private sector economy might be expanding it's not really creating any new employment because of the slack to pick back up and won't be until it feels more certain about the future. And it's not going to be certain about anything until it knows what the impact of the cuts will be and has seen some of the effects. And of course the effects will be lower spends by govt into the private sector along with more unemployed spending less with the private sector.

So double-dip here we come. They'll be plenty with a different attitude to the one they have now once they seen and felt what they've wished for.

[lost]

the beeb did a pretty good program on the deficit on radio 4 recently, where they broke down the debt per household, most of the problems seem to be due to the existing government debt, pension liabilities and then spending at the same level after tax reciepts and the economy has shrunk. It seems we already had big problems storing up which were being masked by the tax recipts being generated by the bloated financial and housing sectors.

They put the debt which needs to be paid at 90k per household and this broke down as follows:

£30,000 - Existing National Debt

£5,000 - PFI

only a few hundred pounds - Banks Bailout

£30,000 - Public Sector Pensions

£65,000 - Current Total

£25,000 - Borrowing in the next 4 years due to deficit

£90,000 - FULL TOTAL

Edited September 13, 2010 by lost

[llcoolphil]

I very much doubt it's the majority.

[5co77ie]

And this coalition idea of private jobs to replace public sector ones is pie in the sky in the short and even medium term. Unemployment is going to rocket and with the new rules coming in on banks capital and liquidity levels, we have a double whammy of taking 100s of 1000s of jobs out of the economy and credit being squeezed again on those that manage to keep trading. I cant see anything but double dip recession...

[llcoolphil]

only a few hundred pounds - Banks Bailout

[lost]

Is that figure just money given directly to banks? And of so, shouldn't the money pumped in through quantative easing not be included in that? Though in the overall sum, I don't suppose it matters where the figures actually go

[llcoolphil]

quantative easing is creating money out of thin air (debasing the currency to prevent deflation) its not borrowing by the government, the central bank prints the money and buys government debt either because nobody else wants to buy it or to force down bond yields, then apparently when the economy recovers, the deficit has been cut and government debt looks more attractive to investors the bank will sell the bonds back into the market and "destory" the money it recieves for them as not to create inflation (increase in the amount of money chasing a finite amount of goods)

[lost]

But there has to be a cost involved even if only indirectly surely? And the public sector pension liabilities - is that figure immediate liability or long term liability? Because it strikes me that could be a political rather than economic argument and a way of hitting the public sector by making the liabilities seem much worse?

[Pogues Mcgogues]

I disagree.

Because most people are thinking we've already had the cuts we're going to have because things are bad already, those people look at what the TUC are calling for as unrealistic and almost laughable. And perhaps even a criminal conspiracy against a democratically elected govt.

That's not warming them to unionism, and because they'll have taken that view already they'll be less likely to view things in a proper light at the time when things have progressed so that they're able to see things in a proper light. The view they'll take now will become entrenched.

It would have been better if the TUC had waited until after the cuts are announced and been followed by enough "x,000 jobs to go" and "your vital services to be cut" (one will hit home cos every service is vital to someone) stories for them to get a proper grasp of how much of an impact to both jobs and services the cuts are going to have. They'd have got many millions more on their side if they'd have waited for 2 months.

======

I had to laugh at the on-screen scroller on Sky News at lunchtime. It said "govt calls for genuine working partnership with unions over cuts" (or something very similar).

Oh yeah, that'll be a genuine partnership.

Edited September 13, 2010 by TheJobbyJabber

[llcoolphil]

I think sending the message out just now, having a protest over a strike, and making sure the public know what the unionised workers think can be beneficial.

[llcoolphil]

I remember a million people marching through London to let the government know that a huge part of the population didn't want to go to war in Iraq. It seems the precedent of ignoring protests by the public has already been set. Your lot didn't listen why should this lot?

Edited September 13, 2010 by llcoolphil

[llcoolphil]

And yeah TU's don't have any chance working alongside anyone in govt. Both members of the coalition are anti-TU.

[Pogues Mcgogues]

I remember a million people marching through London to let the government know that a huge part of the population didn't want to go to war in Iraq. It seems the precedent of ignoring protests by the public has already been set. Your lot didn't listen why should this lot?

Edited September 13, 2010 by TheJobbyJabber

[Pogues Mcgogues]

Some might say that 13 years failing to rpeal Thatcher's anti-union legislation puts labour in the same boat. Just like PR, bet they wished they'd done it differently now