TUC protests

[llcoolphil]

A mistake yes. Times have also moved on and the party is much different now. That will soon be two leaderships ago.

Edited September 13, 2010 by llcoolphil

[llcoolphil]

There's been a programme on Radio 4 last couple of days about Alexi Sayle's life growing up at union conferences - have a listen pogo to trades unions pre thatcher, you'll love it. It'll be on that BBC listen again thing

[eFestivals]

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

That's definitely complete bollox.

The country has spunked over £1 TRILLION on supporting the banks in the last few years, as can be seen in the govt books. There's less than 30M households. I suggest you restart maths at year one.

And much as I hate saying it, PFI is not a debt, merely a liability. No person looks on their monthly rent as a debt to the value of their total rental contract.

And as you demonstrate, we had a public debt before all of this started, and the tories helped create it (it's a myth that Thatcher or anyone else reduced public debt!!). It's a debt that can be afforded, and doesn't need idealogically-driven cuts to destroy normal people's lives to deal with it.

Edited September 14, 2010 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I think it extends beyond die-in-the-wool tories now though. One of the legacies of the last governments was an extension of the state that many didn't see direct benefit from (a reduction in hospital waiting lists for eg is only visible if you're waiting to go in hospital. Waiting 3 years to get registered with an NHS dentist on the other hand affected just as many)or were opposed to - things like ID cards and speed cameras spring to mind. Consequently, ideas about 'rolling back the state' have a much woder appeal.

There's some small (in the scheme of things) things that need addressing, sure. And there's *some* expenditure that needs cutting back.

But is it just *some* spending that's being cut back, or is there are full-on idealogical assault on the role of govt going on?

It's very definitely the 2nd, and of all people I'm surprised you're falling for it. You're starting to look a bit pogo-ish matey, so tied into the govt that you're unable to see what they're REALLY* doing and justly criticise it.

Whilst I wouldn't disagree with this, how much of that opinion is particularly well informed?

those who recognise what's to come are far better informed than those who back the cuts without knowing what's to be cut (which is all of us at this point!!!).

And those who recognise what's to come are far better informed than the huge number who think we're already having those cuts!

Am I right in thinking you work for an arm of govt? How are you going to feel when you're having to defend the things which will have made you unemployed - and which will be a statement that you've been a waste to the country at a far greater rate than any benefit claimant for the years you've done that job?

Or are you one of those numpties who thinks that they'll cut everywhere else aside from the 'vital' service you cover?

...which if I'd read all your post instead of responding when I saw that line Id see we effectively agree!

AND SO THERE IS A CHOICE!! The cuts are NOT as necessary as they're being presented as.

[lost]

That's definitely complete bollox.

The country has spunked over £1 TRILLION on supporting the banks in the last few years, as can be seen in the govt books. There's less than 30M households. I suggest you restart maths at year one.

[Pogues Mcgogues]

How many of the current leadership contenders voted in favour of the war? How many were involved - directly or indirectly - with the government of the day.

Edited September 14, 2010 by TheJobbyJabber

[llcoolphil]

There's some small (in the scheme of things) things that need addressing, sure. And there's *some* expenditure that needs cutting back.

But is it just *some* spending that's being cut back, or is there are full-on idealogical assault on the role of govt going on?

It's very definitely the 2nd, and of all people I'm surprised you're falling for it. You're starting to look a bit pogo-ish matey, so tied into the govt that you're unable to see what they're REALLY* doing and justly criticise it.

[Pogues Mcgogues]

What does 'radical overhaul' mean?

[llcoolphil]

I'm in the party, doesn't mean I support the war. Plenty of senior figures in Labour protested against it, plenty went for it on the information presented to them, don't be a fool and think that every Labour associate is blood thirsty.

[eFestivals]

I cant justly criticise it until we know what it is and YOU are buying into the idea that we could continue to live in a capitalist society and do things differently under a different government - that's the bollox bit, it's just fiddling round the edges

You propose minor change when what is needed is radical overhaul.

If we're going to continue down much the same path as we have been (and that's the tory plan), then it's perfectly possible to do that without anything like the drastic cuts that are being proposed. Cuts are needed, but they don't need to be anything like the level they're going to be at.

Cuts at the level we're going to get are ideologically driven, finance is f**k all to do with it. Labour have given them the propaganda space, and my god are they taking advantage of it.

We're falling for it at every level. Not only are we allowing the govt to cut back on the things that get argued over as to their value to society (say: home carers) - and which aren't particularly ripe for private sector exploitation - we're also handing them the keys to the safe via which they can help themselves.

There's to be no cut in "overseas aid", but that's got f**k all to do with aiding other countries. That aid money never leaves the UK (it's the goods produced with that money that does); it's a prop for private businesses, via which taxpayers money is funnelled straight into private pockets, and which keeps itself hidden as being that under the cover of being nice to those less fortunate than ourselves.*

There's to be no cut in NHS funds, but the whole of the NHS is to be overhauled - but somehow they forgot to mention this in their manifesto, yet it's BY FAR the biggest policy this govt has.

And what will that "overhaul" do? It will put the running of the NHS - but more importantly its money - into the hands of private companies. Meanwhile, the finances will stay the same but the services WILL have to be cut (wait for it ... the excuse will be "the deficit problems made it inevitable"), to cover the £10Bn and more each year that will be leeched out of the NHS to pay private company dividends, and for companies that have taken on no risk via NHS guarantees (just as with soooo many previous privatisations).

Yeah, it's all about the deficit, and nothing about ideology.

* a further look at "aid" also brings out the CDC, currently under fire after very recent small exposures about expenses in the Hate Mail, but which Private Eye has been exposing much more about for several years. What's going on within (the actual) CDC is only a small part of it; of far greater concern is the investment arm - sold off for less than £1M (about £375k I think it was), yet which delivered profits over £10M in its first year (and more every since), which the "investors" (who never actually paid a penny!!!) took as profit, and via which denied people the aid they desperately need.... and this was caring sharing Labour's doing, who aren't in the pocket of big business and corruption and aren't closet tories, oh no.

[Pogues Mcgogues]

You said because labour had a different leadership it was different to the party that went to war. Im pointing out that 3 of them suppported it, Milliband E would have done but was away and Abbot opposed. How can it be completely different?

[eFestivals]

The TU's obviously feel that they had a better deal under Labour. They could have disaffiliated if they didn't. The workers disagree with you again.

Except of course for the unions that did disaffiliate themselves from Labour - including some of the biggest unions!

And the ones that stayed mostly had Labour plants at the top.

The workers spoke when they were allowed to by Labour!! And they didn't speak words similar to Labour!

Ed Milliband (along with his brother Steve, who's a bit of a joker ) has grasped this, while Balls and Dave Millipede haven't.

Edited September 14, 2010 by eFestivals

[sifi]

The TU's obviously feel that they had a better deal under Labour. They could have disaffiliated if they didn't. The workers disagree with you again.

[Pogues Mcgogues]

Not enough. However I'm backing Ed Miliband because he knows how far to go.

[eFestivals]

Not enough. However I'm backing Ed Miliband because he knows how far to go.

Then you have a problem.

Ed is seen as a "nice guy", and so just perfect for Labour at this time.

However, come the next general election, I strongly suspect that the situation for the country will be dire, and he won't be seen as having enough gravitas to deal with things as they are at that time, and so will probably lose. To Dave Moron.

A better bet for power will be Dave Millipede. It's just that we'd have yet another c**t in power.

[Pogues Mcgogues]

Then you have a problem.

Ed is seen as a "nice guy", and so just perfect for Labour at this time.

However, come the next general election, I strongly suspect that the situation for the country will be dire, and he won't be seen as having enough gravitas to deal with things as they are at that time, and so will probably lose. To Dave Moron.

A better bet for power will be Dave Millipede. It's just that we'd have yet another c**t in power.

[eFestivals]

How bad would it be if the head of a political party was unveilled as someone who helped people become victims of torture?

Not bad at all. The people of this country are too stupid to join up the dots.

Just as most people think about the draconian legislation that Labour have brought in "if you have nothing to fear you have nothing to lose", they think much the same about torture - that it's only "them" that will get tortured, and because those numpties can't see them or theirs being a part of "them", it's not a bad thing to do.

Edited September 14, 2010 by eFestivals

[Pogues Mcgogues]

Not bad at all. The people of this country are too stupid to join up the dots.

Just as most people think about the draconian legislation that Labour have brought in "if you have nothing to fear you have nothing to lose", they think much the same about torture - that it's only "them" that will get tortured, and because those numpties can't see them or theirs being a part of "them", it's not a bad thing to do.

[llcoolphil]

If we're going to continue down much the same path as we have been (and that's the tory plan), then it's perfectly possible to do that without anything like the drastic cuts that are being proposed. Cuts are needed, but they don't need to be anything like the level they're going to be at.

Cuts at the level we're going to get are ideologically driven, finance is f**k all to do with it. Labour have given them the propaganda space, and my god are they taking advantage of it.

[sifi]

That's an awful thing to say about ordinary people.

[Pogues Mcgogues]

I think it's a little harsh, agreed. The way that people are brainwashed through subtle and sometimes less subtle forms of propaganda spewed out by certain sections of the media and establshment can persuade and manipulate clever people. That coupled with apathy and self-interest ensures a division between us and them. Whoever us and them indeed are.

[llcoolphil]

Because coalition partners can start to disagree (already a few Lib's have voiced this). Because the number of seats to swat at a next election could see it seriously hammered. There are numerous reasons but these are probably the biggest.

[eFestivals]

That's an awful thing to say about ordinary people.

What's far more awful is the absolute proof that ordinary are people are exactly as I've said.

Can you dispute what I said? Or are you going to admit that the evidence shows beyond all doubt that a majority of people in this country think that way?

[Pogues Mcgogues]

What's far more awful is the absolute proof that ordinary are people are exactly as I've said.

Can you dispute what I said? Or are you going to admit that the evidence shows beyond all doubt that a majority of people in this country think that way?

[eFestivals]

Labour and the coalition are less than two percentage points away from each other on the cuts they deem immediately necessary. Are you suggesting that the coalition and labour are driven by the same ideology?

you either need a lesson in basic number skills, or you need to be reading better and paying more attention.

The cuts AND tax rises proposed by Labour planned to have reduced the deficit by 50% by the end of the parliament.

The mostly cuts cos there's fewer tax rises proposed by the ConDems plans to reduce the deficit by 3/4 by the end of the parliament.

Across the board even cuts for the tory plan need a cut of 12%. Which means that the Labour cuts would need a cut of 8%. That 4% difference is not the 2 percent you speak of.

But even putting that aside all things are not equal - because the tories plan to tackle the deficit by greater cutting and few tax increases - tax increases that would place a heavier burden on the richest than the poorest who can least afford it.

And then there's the fact that Labour didn't (publicly, anyway) plan to put the whole amount of current NHS spends into private hands, to be stolen from us. Labour would have cut the NHS, which needs cutting no less than other things.

And then there's the fact that Labour didn't (publicly, anyway) plan to continue to give private industry billions of £££s to keep their mates sweet, under the guise of aid - which is money that is also being stolen from us by underhand means, and something else that also needs cutting.

How many profitable businesses put shareholder reward before staff pay because the working tax credit scheme will make up shortfalls in pay packets? This idea that doling out government money to private enterprise is limited to the coalition is nonsense.

I don't disagree .... tho don't forget that when Brown tried to shift some of the burden back to private businesses via the abolition of the 10% tax rate there was uproar!!

It always has been, this is nothing new since May.

except the guarantee of that money not being reduced - that IS new since May!

Im not sure that there isn't an actual majority that believes the NHS needs an overhaul in terms of the srvices it offers. It is a huge minority I'll guess if it isn't

The overhaul isn't anything about changing the services offered, it's only about who controls the funds which pay for the services. How has this passed you by?

As for the rest, that's my bleeding point - the NHS finance levels needs addressing no less than schools, council services, quangos and all the rest. Yet the finance levels are to stay the same, so that the tories can kick the f**k out of everything else when there's no need to kick the f**k out of everything else. Keeping the govt spending on the NHS at the current levels is how they're justifying kicking the f**k out of everything else; but note that while the finances are guaranteed, the services are not - they can't be, because of the £10Bn plus that will be leeched out of the budgets each and every year to pay private dividends.

Either back that figure up gtfo!

plug your feckin' brain back in or be a laughing stock forever!!!!

What happened the last time that the NHS put a lot of services into the hands of private companies? The cost of those services went up hugely while the quality of those services fell hugely.

Why are you suddenly thinking that capitalists have given up capitalism?

Of course it is something to do with ideology - but unless you can show me which government we could have elected to have had a different ideology, then the fact remains all the parties are driven by the same motives.

Only one party has the ideology of the state being a bad thing. FFS!!!!

I guess you shall forever now be known as Pogo2. You're doing f**k all different, defending the undefendable just cos it's coming from those you voted for. Somewhere in your brain you know this.

Edited September 14, 2010 by eFestivals