Those daft unions again...

[sjn2004]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11276452

Do these people actually think money grows on tree's? None of these people have a proper job yet they think they are best placed to comment on how the economy should be run. They also waffle about "bank bonuses" which have nothing to do with the deficit, its Labour's overborrowing and overspending that are the cause but you don't need to think hard to realize why they don't mention that.

[deevlash]

union idiot said:

The public will not accept large-scale spending cuts

except they voted for a party which ran on exactly that promise. I despise these thundering communist morons.

[MX7]

The public will not accept large-scale spending cuts? I think they will.

"Asked if public spending cuts were necessary to help long-term economic recovery, 84 per cent of French people, 71 per cent of Spaniards, 69 per cent of Britons, 67 per cent of Germans and 61 per cent of Italians answered Yes."

They seem to be incredibly out of touch.

[sjn2004]

Maybe he should practice what he preaches, another "typical" champagne socialist.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1302316/Bo...

[deevlash]

What the public wont accept is ever growing ridiculously inflated public sector safety nets, pensions and salaries when the private sextor is being ravaged.

[Dunk76]

Is the Taxpayer still funding the Unions through that Labour development fund?

Time to pull the plug

[DJC]

Elroy Blue said:

deevlash said:

What the public wont accept is ever growing ridiculously inflated public sector safety nets, pensions and salaries when the private sextor is being ravaged.

Here we go again..the bankers are saints and it's all the fault of those nasty dustmen and their pensions!

(Along with the short memories of the 90's and through 2000+ when the private sector got large pay rises and big bonuses. Didn't see you throwing your teddies out demanding parity then).

The ONLY people responsible for the mess are Brown, Blair and the other criminally incompetent cronies. Start pointing the finger in the right place.

Er the key difference though is that the wage increases earnt in the private sector are funded by profits, not just tax receipts.

The private sector runs on a cut throat line, the public sector doesnt, its a very simple thing that is long since past debate. Now, we all know the bankers are not saints, the industry lost a lot of money for a lot of people due to incompetence, but...and it is a vital but...it has since made back up a lot of money. As with the repayment of all debt though, certain priorities in the repaying of dish have occured. They have largely finished paying the govt, ie. us in terms of tax handouts, back and indeed should be returning us some profit soon. They have largely paid their own debts back and started generating profits again which we all urgently need them to do as most of us have pensions heavily vested in them. Lastly and something they havent pursued so quickly has been the lending of new money back into the economy. They have used the uncertainty of the lack of the new liquidity rules as a useful smokescreen for not shoving more money out and building their own ratios back up. As the new rules are now established, I suspect we should see more lending back out to the economy.

We cannot accuse the banks on one hand and profit from them on the other, we must understand a balance has been needed in rebuilding them and that in the long run we should profit as a country as a whole from their profitable running.

The public sector needs to relearn an old lesson that they are not part of the true economy, but that they are an overhead. A neccessary overhead and in certain aspects a vital one, the running of any successful company always has vital overheads. They should be managed however and not allowed to escalate and accumulate which is what they did under Labour. Even then that is managable so long as revenues keep pace, however, when said revenues dip then the overheads needs to be slashed aswell.

[JMGS4]

Time to bring in a law making the unions and their leaders personally responsible for ALL damages to third parties i.e. you and me when our flights are cancelled, bins not emptied or post not delivered. It would take around 3 minutes for all Unions to be bankrupted and thus be rendered helpless.

[Engineer1]

Listening to Radio 4 yesterday people are happy for cuts provided the cuts are in none essential services, the people interviewed then argued that virtually every service was essential.

[petemurphy]

sjn2004 said:

Maybe he should practice what he preaches, another "typical" champagne socialist.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1302316/Bo...

he's called for civil disobediance can he not be arrested for that. they seriously need to get rid of him before the olympics if they want that to go smoothly.

for those that didnt follow the link bob crow had a pay package of 145k+

communism at its best

[ewenm]

Engineer1 said:

Listening to Radio 4 yesterday people are happy for cuts provided the cuts are in none essential services, the people interviewed then argued that virtually every service was essential.

One thing that has come out of all this "cuts analysis" is that everyone agrees they are needed but no one wants any cuts that directly affect them. Unsurprising.

I was amused by the old dear who said she got no benefits - until it was pointed out she got a free bus pass, a free TV licence, winter fuel allowance...

[chris watton]

Engineer1 said:

Listening to Radio 4 yesterday people are happy for cuts provided the cuts are in none essential services, the people interviewed then argued that virtually every service was essential.

Watching the Politics Show on BBC yesterday, they even found people who stated the public sector wasn't big enough, and it's the only way to rebuild the economy! How would that work when no wealth/profit is generated, but taken?
One of these 'essential services' in Macclesfield' was a centre that apparently explains and helps single mothers on how to get housing and the benefits they're 'entitled' to – with a single mother saying “without this service, I don't know what I'd do...” Quite!

[Soovy]

petemurphy said:

sjn2004 said:

Maybe he should practice what he preaches, another "typical" champagne socialist.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1302316/Bo...

he's called for civil disobediance can he not be arrested for that. they seriously need to get rid of him before the olympics if they want that to go smoothly.

for those that didnt follow the link bob crow had a pay package of 145k+

communc ntism at its best

EFA

Edited by Soovy on Monday 13th September 09:49

[Elroy Blue]

DJC said:

Elroy Blue said:

deevlash said:

What the public wont accept is ever growing ridiculously inflated public sector safety nets, pensions and salaries when the private sextor is being ravaged.

Here we go again..the bankers are saints and it's all the fault of those nasty dustmen and their pensions!

(Along with the short memories of the 90's and through 2000+ when the private sector got large pay rises and big bonuses. Didn't see you throwing your teddies out demanding parity then).

The ONLY people responsible for the mess are Brown, Blair and the other criminally incompetent cronies. Start pointing the finger in the right place.

Er the key difference though is that the wage increases earnt in the private sector are funded by profits, not just tax receipts.

The private sector runs on a cut throat line, the public sector doesnt, its a very simple thing that is long since past debate. Now, we all know the bankers are not saints, the industry lost a lot of money for a lot of people due to incompetence, but...and it is a vital but...it has since made back up a lot of money. As with the repayment of all debt though, certain priorities in the repaying of dish have occured. They have largely finished paying the govt, ie. us in terms of tax handouts, back and indeed should be returning us some profit soon. They have largely paid their own debts back and started generating profits again which we all urgently need them to do as most of us have pensions heavily vested in them. Lastly and something they havent pursued so quickly has been the lending of new money back into the economy. They have used the uncertainty of the lack of the new liquidity rules as a useful smokescreen for not shoving more money out and building their own ratios back up. As the new rules are now established, I suspect we should see more lending back out to the economy.

We cannot accuse the banks on one hand and profit from them on the other, we must understand a balance has been needed in rebuilding them and that in the long run we should profit as a country as a whole from their profitable running.

The public sector needs to relearn an old lesson that they are not part of the true economy, but that they are an overhead. A neccessary overhead and in certain aspects a vital one, the running of any successful company always has vital overheads. They should be managed however and not allowed to escalate and accumulate which is what they did under Labour. Even then that is managable so long as revenues keep pace, however, when said revenues dip then the overheads needs to be slashed aswell.

And that is just about the most sensible post I've read on the matter. (I actually deleted my post as soon as I made it, because I didn't want to turn the thread into yet another 'them and us' p@ssing competition...not quite fast enough though! )

And yes..the unions are living in a different world. (I imagine the likes of Bob Crow are relishing the prospect of stirring up his militant army)

[paddyhasneeds]

I suppose it's easy to seem biased against BBC News, but once again I'm left scratching my head slightly by the amount of airtime this is being given.

It would be nice if an equal amount was devoted every night to "Why our economy is fked and who's really to blame for it".

[Corsair7]

MX7 said:

The public will not accept large-scale spending cuts? I think they will.

"Asked if public spending cuts were necessary to help long-term economic recovery, 84 per cent of French people, 71 per cent of Spaniards, 69 per cent of Britons, 67 per cent of Germans and 61 per cent of Italians answered Yes."

They seem to be incredibly out of touch.

Ask the same question after the cuts have been implemented, when they've lost their jobs or their house value has been decimated. See if they support them then.

[7thCircleAcolyte]

Corsair7 said:

MX7 said:

The public will not accept large-scale spending cuts? I think they will.

"Asked if public spending cuts were necessary to help long-term economic recovery, 84 per cent of French people, 71 per cent of Spaniards, 69 per cent of Britons, 67 per cent of Germans and 61 per cent of Italians answered Yes."

They seem to be incredibly out of touch.

Ask the same question after the cuts have been implemented, when they've lost their jobs or their house value has been decimated. See if they support them then.

It matters not. "There is no money" remember?

We can wish for, want, even demand no cuts, but come they must because we simply can't afford to pay the public sector anything like their current terms in anything like their current numbers. We never could.

[tamore]

Corsair7 said:

MX7 said:

The public will not accept large-scale spending cuts? I think they will.

"Asked if public spending cuts were necessary to help long-term economic recovery, 84 per cent of French people, 71 per cent of Spaniards, 69 per cent of Britons, 67 per cent of Germans and 61 per cent of Italians answered Yes."

They seem to be incredibly out of touch.

Ask the same question after the cuts have been implemented, when they've lost their jobs or their house value has been decimated. See if they support them then.

hang on...... how is paring back a ridiculously bloated public sector going to directly cause a fall in house prices?

[MX7]

Corsair7 said:

MX7 said:

The public will not accept large-scale spending cuts? I think they will.

"Asked if public spending cuts were necessary to help long-term economic recovery, 84 per cent of French people, 71 per cent of Spaniards, 69 per cent of Britons, 67 per cent of Germans and 61 per cent of Italians answered Yes."

They seem to be incredibly out of touch.

Ask the same question after the cuts have been implemented, when they've lost their jobs or their house value has been decimated. See if they support them then.

So unless we carry on spending, we'll all be living on the street?!! My point is that people are far more astute and pragmatic than the likes of Crow and Barber.

[Puggit]

Very kind of the public sector idiots to offer to go on strike and help reduce the deficit as they won't get paid while on strike