Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Roger, it is likely that many people are going on strike because they already can't pay those things I mentioned.
I read the other day on the news that hotspots in Britain have been identified where repossession is going to rocket: and these places all correspond to high unemployment areas.
The report states that house repossessions could top 43,000 a year, and that many people will be on the street (without a roof over the head).
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
If those numbers only apply to public service employees, I'd be very surprised, Alexander.
Surely it is the people unemployed who can't afford their mortgages etc. not those with a job. Mortgages are not more expensive nowadays, the bank-rate has stayed the same for quite some time now.
As you highlighted in your post Alexander, these hotspots are high unemployment areas, so people without jobs - striking is more likely to lead to more unemployment, so these families will have less money with no one at work.
The unions should be talking about job protection, not how to lose them. The current way of calculating pensions (final salary) in the public sector, is unaffordable - and in most cases, unfair on all of us - we all pay for it afterall through our taxes.
Roger
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
Striking gets you nowhere.
...unless you are Michael Gove. In which case it makes you a millionaire MP who is happy to lecture us on morality, whilst fiddling his expenses and securing himself a pension worth over 5 times as much as the people protesting.
Personally I don't think striking is the answer, negotiation is essential as some reforms are necessary. Everyone should be prepared to help on all sides to help our economy. However I do not agree with the contempt this government demonstrates for those that will be the victims; generally hard working people who have planned and saved for their retirement within a system that was presented to them. It's not as if tese public sector workers have been exploitative in their actions (as Mr Gove was with his expenses), they just want what they where promised.
Mr Gove said he had made 'mistakes' in his expense claims and is paying them back. I think we all agree the state need to eradicate incompetence at all levels, get rid of the dead wood. So if we need to make cuts, let's start with him.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
As I said before a work to rule is better and works,I am also told and this might or might not be true,that the teachers will still get their pay for the day they walk out.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
I agree Vic, work to rule is the best way to air views.
Strikes cost money and causes inconvenience to so many, usually to those not directly involved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 700- Registered: 11 Jun 2010
- Posts: 2,868
I agree too, strikes cause upheaval, heartaches and unforeseen problems.
Keep working, and protest if you like while doing so.
---------------------------------------------------
Lincolnshire Born and Bred
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
brilliant post from darren, sums the situation up perfectly.
hypocricy at its best.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Howard - more like he has matured.
We can all be excused our youthful foolishness provided we grow up out of them.
Sadly it seems a significant proportion of Trade Union members have not grown up.
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
While we are listing all the 'deficiencies' of the public sector can we highlight: the journeys that social workers make in the own cars even though they are no longer classed as 'essential' car users and so don't get paid for; the hours of work carried out at weekends and evenings above their contracted hours that teachers do that they do not get paid for; the nurses who remain on duty to ensure their patients receive continuity of care that they do not get paid for and the pay freeze and pay cuts that most have accepted in recognition of the tough economic climate?
Barry's posting (and he is the true voice of the Tories as he refuses to dress his language up) reveals the level of political spite that exists when he wishes the labour voters would get well and truly hammered by the present government's actions. It is this which leads people to take strike action as they feel their voices are being ignored by their 'representatives' and they are merely pawns in a political game which has seen the gap between rich and poor at its greatest.
Don't let the smoke screen of political posturing blind you to the fact that this is a party (it is a Tory party too - forget the Lib-Dems) that is intent on 'squeezing until the pips squeak' to maximise the benefits for its benefactors who plundered at their will when times were good but are now bleating about the years of Labour profligacy.
MArk, there are many decent people doing those necessary jobs, and it is true that the NHS in particular relies on the goodwill of the people in post to go the extra mile. But let's be honest as well as valuing the good ones: if we didn't want to do some good we wouldn't be in those jobs, so a little extra mile work is probably not surprising, and of course it needs to be recognised and valued. But there are also, increasingly given the appalling changes in training over recent years (and that isn't party political), dreadful practitioners who, because they will do the extras, are tolerated. It is partly what leads to the awful Baby P type cases. So, yes, let's value those people who do those difficult and unwanted jobs but don't lets be blinded to the realities as well.
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
Bern
I agree that there is a huge difference between the generations in the sense of working for others and working for self - we see it demonstrated so well by our politicians. But the 'realities' are still in the minority and, my experience, is that the majority do still seek to improve the lot of others without desire for recognition, just seeing it as their job. Headline grabbers are powerful political weapons but, for example, how many Baby Ps have been saved on a regular basis without a mention in the media?
It's just too easy for politicians, at a time when there is so much fear over job security, to turn people against people to further their own aims. I am interested that schools, which can now accommodate children from 0800 - 1800, have become places of child care so that when strikes are threatened the government can say that teachers are disadvantaging working mothers and therefore industry. there is precious little mention of the rights of teachers. Social engineering over the last 30 years (e.g. purchase of council homes, personal debt incurred through easy credit/house purchase/university education) has made us a nation reluctant to strike for fear of losing homes, possessions/jobs even when the circumstances are genuinely alarming and we are aware that we have yet to see the full impact of the economic policies.
The government is dividing to rule and I see this as the basis of the current agenda.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
What you often see as bad Mark I see as very positive for us individually and the future.
One example is that you see enabling people to own their own homes as 'social engineering' - I see it as freedom and choice, people being enabled and empowered by that choice.
What you see as hindering people from going on strike I see as encouraging responsibility and sensible decision making.
You seem to take on the view that governments should be involving itself deeply in our lives while I prefer governments to keep out of our lives. You seem to think that people should look to government for help and support while I think that people should look to themselves and to each other instead. I see governments as essentially a necessary evil that are inherently incompetent and inefficient and for that reason should be minimalised. By contrast you seem to want government to extend it reach and take a massive and increasing role.
Your view of government results in high taxation, high borrowing and high government spending. That means less economic growth and an ever bigger proportion of the economy be taken by the public sector. The impact of this is lower economic growth - international comparisions on a like to like basis demonstrate the bad impact such policies have on growth.
My view of government would mean less taxation, less borrowing and less government spending as a proportion of GDP. The big point is that economic growth would be enhanced so though a smaller proportion of GDP public spending in cash terms could become as high or even higher than in your view via a smaller percentage of a much larger economic 'pot'. This would be a more sustainable economic model providing much greater prosperity overall.
Clearly where such spending is directed would be a point of dispute between us, but that is a good debate to have rather than the one we are having to have now about where cuts should fall.
You and I just have different values and this is a debate that will go on forever.
Freedom of choice is relative, BarryW and limited by legislation, which is at the whim of Governments. Freedom of choice could also be represented by the right to decent low cost council accommodation.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
One does not prohibit the other Bern. Freedom of choice should always be opened up and not limited by legislation. Government to be be enabling freedom of choice not limiting it. The present government is doing that with free schools for instance and much much more.
There is certainly a lot more the government could do to open up freedom of choice than it is doing too. The government should make it a lot easier for people to look after themselves and their families and be less reliant on the State. More encouragement to save and invest, tax relief at source (at least at the basic rate) on PME premiums, life assurance premiums and income protection premiums would also help.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
When the right to buy your council house was brought in we were the first to buy in our neighbourhood and continued to live there for a further 15 years only moving when my husband was made redundant from the ferries. Our quality of life immediately went up as we had double glazing and central heating installed, no more ice on the inside of bedroom windows thank goodness.
The point of this post is that our mortgage worked out at about the same as we had been paying in rent, it is a myth that council housing is always low cost.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
you would have bought it at less than face value jan depending on how many years you had lived there.
Individuals savings on rent do not impact on the principle of affordable housing. Legislation to "open up" choice often cloaks the actual restrictions this places on individuals and families who fall outside the often cosy boundaries, and the inflated profits potential for landlords and estate agents et al.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
Yes, we did, but not that much discount as we had not lived there for that long I can remember we paid about £7,000 which seemed a small fortune to us at the time.
We owned that house for about 30 years with my daughter living there when we moved out, only selling so I could buy this one we are all in now.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Those were the days! I remember a relative buying a house in Ireland around that time for £2,500. Happy days.....
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
Yep I bought my first house 1975 in Stockport aged 20 A semi in a leafy tree line road with a big garden back n front £5750. I pay that for a years parking permit here..and not guaranteed a space.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
