And another one....

First.Aspect

I can't be arsed to dredge through the whole thread to find out if I'm saying something again..

...but I'm annoyed at the unions. I'm not annoyed that they are striking, not contesting the right to do so. No, what annoys me is the use of popoganda to bring people out on strike.

My partner is in a union. She's not interested, didn't vote to strike and doesn't much care. Its just not worth years of headache to cross a picket line. But she got "information" from the unions.

Its cobblers. Utterly misleading talk about collossal pension surplusses that "they don't want you to know about", comparing what is being paid in now and what is being paid out now, with no mention that it has to cover what will need to be paid out in 20 years.

I fundamentally object to a strike ballot called on the basis of bare faced lies, I really do. Overpaid union leaderships distorting the facts to induce thousands of low earners to lose a day's pay by telling them something palpably incorrect that they'll never challenge. They are just as manipulative and disgusting as they accuse politicans of being and they do absolutely no credit to the basic principles of the union movement.

rjsterry

First Aspect wrote:

I can't be arsed to dredge through the whole thread to find out if I'm saying something again..

...but I'm annoyed at the unions. I'm not annoyed that they are striking, not contesting the right to do so. No, what annoys me is the use of popoganda to bring people out on strike.

My partner is in a union. She's not interested, didn't vote to strike and doesn't much care. Its just not worth years of headache to cross a picket line. But she got "information" from the unions.

Its cobblers. Utterly misleading talk about collossal pension surplusses that "they don't want you to know about", comparing what is being paid in now and what is being paid out now, with no mention that it has to cover what will need to be paid out in 20 years.

I fundamentally object to a strike ballot called on the basis of bare faced lies, I really do. Overpaid union leaderships distorting the facts to induce thousands of low earners to lose a day's pay by telling them something palpably incorrect that they'll never challenge. They are just as manipulative and disgusting as they accuse politicans of being and they do absolutely no credit to the basic principles of the union movement.

You mean this?
http://www.unison.org.uk/pensions/myths.asp

Particularly love the comparison of the average director of a FTSE100 company with the average public servant. and the deliberate confusion of a 3% increase in contributions with 3% of pay.

W1: I wouldn't click on the link. It'll only upset you.

daviesee

Okay.

Just to stir it a little.

Did the public employees support the private sector when they were fighting the same battle years ago?

I don't remember anyone supporting my pension being raided.

rick_chasey

Small group of maybe 60-70 already marching west down Queen Victoria Street at around 8:15 this morning.

Police didn't seem very happy about it, but it wasn't kicking off or anything.

Anyone else notice the enormous amount of moustaches on the police on the way in?

SimonAH

Ride in this morning was absolutely lovely. Barely a car on the road.

Also a colleague 'phoned me earlier this morning. He's been in Canada on business for the last week and came back through Heathrow today. He said it was wonderful - went through customs and immigration in record time, they were all manned and by courteous smiling staff instead of the usual surly little hitlers.

This morning my recycling was collected as usual (private company). The bins weren't, but so what. I'd take them to the tip myself if we didn't create so little refuse that our black wheelie bin wouldn't fill in a month.

My daughter is in school as usual. She has an excellent and charismatic Head Mistress and a dedicated teaching staff. The dinnerladies are on strike, meh, we pack lunches.

There's a few people milling around outside the Careers Wales offices around the corner. I'll give them a cheery hello as I pass later.

I think the PubSec will be surprised at how small a defecation I and many people give about their industrial action.

Actually the PriSec will get a boost (well, at least retail will) I predict the busiest Christmas Shopping day on the high streets in history.

notsoblue

SimonAH wrote:

Ride in this morning was absolutely lovely. Barely a car on the road.

Also a colleague 'phoned me earlier this morning. He's been in Canada on business for the last week and came back through Heathrow today. He said it was wonderful - went through customs and immigration in record time, they were all manned and by courteous smiling staff instead of the usual surly little hitlers.

This morning my recycling was collected as usual (private company). The bins weren't, but so what. I'd take them to the tip myself if we didn't create so little refuse that our black wheelie bin wouldn't fill in a month.

My daughter is in school as usual. She has an excellent and charismatic Head Mistress and a dedicated teaching staff. The dinnerladies are on strike, meh, we pack lunches.

There's a few people milling around outside the Careers Wales offices around the corner. I'll give them a cheery hello as I pass later.

I think the PubSec will be surprised at how small a defecation I and many people give about their industrial action.

Actually the PriSec will get a boost (well, at least retail will) I predict the busiest Christmas Shopping day on the high streets in history.

Do you think theres a need for a Public Sector at all?

rjsterry

notsoblue wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

Ride in this morning was absolutely lovely. Barely a car on the road.

Also a colleague 'phoned me earlier this morning. He's been in Canada on business for the last week and came back through Heathrow today. He said it was wonderful - went through customs and immigration in record time, they were all manned and by courteous smiling staff instead of the usual surly little hitlers.

This morning my recycling was collected as usual (private company). The bins weren't, but so what. I'd take them to the tip myself if we didn't create so little refuse that our black wheelie bin wouldn't fill in a month.

My daughter is in school as usual. She has an excellent and charismatic Head Mistress and a dedicated teaching staff. The dinnerladies are on strike, meh, we pack lunches.

There's a few people milling around outside the Careers Wales offices around the corner. I'll give them a cheery hello as I pass later.

I think the PubSec will be surprised at how small a defecation I and many people give about their industrial action.

Actually the PriSec will get a boost (well, at least retail will) I predict the busiest Christmas Shopping day on the high streets in history.

Do you think theres a need for a Public Sector at all?

Are you Humphrys in disguise?

SimonAH

Of course I do.

I just find today revealing is all.

Don't get me wrong, in may ways I am very much a liberal. I believe in social responsibility and undertake significant volunteer work. But if, let's say, Careers Wales ceased to operate then (apart from the people who work there) who the feck would notice?

notsoblue

rjsterry wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

I think the PubSec will be surprised at how small a defecation I and many people give about their industrial action.

Do you think theres a need for a Public Sector at all?

Are you Humphrys in disguise?

Ha! I'm genuinely intrigued as to what people think about this. I rarely meet people who have this opinion of the public sector.

notsoblue

SimonAH wrote:

Of course I do.

I just find today revealing is all.

Don't get me wrong, in may ways I am very much a liberal. I believe in social responsibility and undertake significant volunteer work. But if, let's say, Careers Wales ceased to operate then (apart from the people who work there) who the feck would notice?

Well, I don't know much about Career Wales, but from a quick Google they appear to provide career advice to people in an area of the country where unemployment is higher than the average. Sounds a bit like Connexions, which actually does do a lot of good work with young people who would otherwise be effectively on their own and may be at risk of drifting into crime or benefit dependency. Again, I'm not sure what Career Wales does but I'd imagine that they'd do work in areas like Merthyr Tydfil to help people to get off benefits and into work.

Anyway, as you've said, many people probably wouldn't notice if certain public sector organisations get privatised. Which is why companies like Serco are slowly taking over the whole country and being paid with tax revenue to do so.

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

Well, I don't know much about Career Wales, but from a quick Google they appear to provide career advice to people in an area of the country where unemployment is higher than the average. Sounds a bit like Connexions, which actually did do a lot of good work with young people o.

Corrected. Pretty sure they got shut down in the first round of cuts.

sketchley

<Stir it up a little>

Why should I in the private sector pay double (four times including employer contributions) compared to an equivalent earner in the public sector, to get half the pension when I retire. Why is that fair?

I might consider that fair if the other person was in the private sector and had simply agreed a better deal, good on them it's their money and well done for investing it wisely, and if the shareholders of the company are happy to pay the employer contribution then why not, if I was a shareholder I may have something to say about if I thought it unfair, and if I was a significant shareholder I might be able to do something about it. But, in the case of public sector pensions it is my tax revenue that is used to pay for public section pensions, either through direct pension payout or through employer contribution. So I'm getting a double whammy of having to pay more to get the same pension while paying through tax for public sector worker pension; that cannot be fair.

To counter the unison link above (I too like the comparison between an average public sector pension and FTSE 100 director, how is that a comparison?). Anyway read this http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/why ... sions/7090

</Stir it up a little>

SimonAH

Good find Sketchley;

Tonight I asked Mary Bousted, General Secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, what she thought of FactCheck’s figures. She said Ministers were trying to create a “race to the bottom” and that instead, private sector pensioners should enjoy the same retirement income as their public sector colleagues.

In less austere times, that might be worth debating. As it is, though, with the country struggling to pay off the deficit and householders fighting to make ends meet, it’s somewhat fanciful.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Sketchley wrote:

Why is that fair?

"Fair". A word that has been hijacked and now is a synonym for "legitimately expropriate from people richer than me".

The Union monkey on the Today Programme this morning had some class rhetoric. Apparently the Govt intends to solve the country's problems by targeting women and children. Fairness demands that the rich pay their share. And we have to clamp down on "tax avoidance" (and other unspecified legal activities no doubt).

If you put these dickheads on the spot, "fairness" comes to this: it is unfair that you should have a disposable income that is greater than mine. What we each do is immaterial. How hard we work relatively is immaterial. You can't have more than me.

Put the lot of 'em on a one way rocket to the Sun, that's what I say.

bigmat

Greg66 wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Why is that fair?

"Fair". A word that has been hijacked and now is a synonym for "legitimately expropriate from people richer than me".

The Union monkey on the Today Programme this morning had some class rhetoric. Apparently the Govt intends to solve the country's problems by targeting women and children. Fairness demands that the rich pay their share. And we have to clamp down on "tax avoidance" (and other unspecified legal activities no doubt).

If you put these dickheads on the spot, "fairness" comes to this: it is unfair that you should have a disposable income that is greater than mine. What we each do is immaterial. How hard we work relatively is immaterial. You can't have more than me.

Put the lot of 'em on a one way rocket to the Sun, that's what I say.

That bit in bold, you agree with that right?

Anyway, I was bombing through Catford this morning, thinking I was on for a Strava KOM on the Bromley Road to Lewisham High Street segment. Suddenly traffic came to a stop and I found myself having to slowly pick my way through a load of numpty protesters marching along the road. Missed the KOM by 20 seconds. How is that fair? :evil: These people need to get their priorities in order.

il_principe

rjsterry wrote:

By far the biggest wastes have occurred where the government has subcontracted big chunks of public services/provision out to the private sector. The overspend on the Typhoon fighter alone (around £4 billion) is roughly double the estimated total welfare fraud cost. It's debatable whether it is the government's fault for not contracting these things out properly, or the private sector's fault for milking the contracts for all they are worth, but if you want to get upset about government waste (and we all should), welfare benefits are way down the list. What's hypocritical about that?

Mmmm. Why do you think the private sector milks the public in these situations? Because the public sector have a reputation. They are easily milked. My uncle worked as a contractor on the ill fated NHS network project. Honestly the wastage was unreal and they were paying 100's of contractors like him shed loads of money, often when they were unable to do any work - because senior managers kept moving on, or moving the goalposts. That whole project was a colossal failure and wasted billions. He hated it, but was hardly going to move on and I don't blame him.

rjsterry

SimonAH wrote:

Good find Sketchley;

Tonight I asked Mary Bousted, General Secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, what she thought of FactCheck’s figures. She said Ministers were trying to create a “race to the bottom” and that instead, private sector pensioners should enjoy the same retirement income as their public sector colleagues.

In less austere times, that might be worth debating. As it is, though, with the country struggling to pay off the deficit and householders fighting to make ends meet, it’s somewhat fanciful.

Quite. I'd love a defined benefits pension, but the chance of that is nil to quote the FactCheck blog. I don't expect the public sector to greet a reduction in their overall remuneration package with open arms, but I've yet to be convinced that the offer on the table is half as bad as it's being made out to be.

greg66_tri_v2.0

BigMat wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Why is that fair?

"Fair". A word that has been hijacked and now is a synonym for "legitimately expropriate from people richer than me".

The Union monkey on the Today Programme this morning had some class rhetoric. Apparently the Govt intends to solve the country's problems by targeting women and children. Fairness demands that the rich pay their share. And we have to clamp down on "tax avoidance" (and other unspecified legal activities no doubt).

If you put these dickheads on the spot, "fairness" comes to this: it is unfair that you should have a disposable income that is greater than mine. What we each do is immaterial. How hard we work relatively is immaterial. You can't have more than me.

Put the lot of 'em on a one way rocket to the Sun, that's what I say.

That bit in bold, you agree with that right?

Anyway, I was bombing through Catford this morning, thinking I was on for a Strava KOM on the Bromley Road to Lewisham High Street segment. Suddenly traffic came to a stop and I found myself having to slowly pick my way through a load of numpty protesters marching along the road. Missed the KOM by 20 seconds. How is that fair? :evil: These people need to get their priorities in order.

It's a meaningless proposition. Who are "the rich" (always easier when you make a group faceless) and what's "their share"? If "the rich" are paying more in percentage and absolute terms than "the poor", where is the unfairness?

The link posted earlier (http://www.unison.org.uk/pensions/myths.asp) has a good throwaway:

MYTH - The proposals mean that those earning over £15,000 pay around 3% more each month - that's not very much is it?

3% of your pay is a significant chunk of income.

So we're all agreed that 3% is a significant chunk of income. Excellent. Except when it comes to income tax on "the rich", because they sit there with their pots of fifties, quaffing champagne and throwing another poor person on the fire, so that significant 3% chunk can be just taken from from them.

Wake up. This is not about fairness. It's about envy.

Sorry to hear about your KOM though. I hope we can agree that these people are, after all, scum.

jzed

Hmmm - I wonder how many people actually decided to take a lower salary (although it doesn't look like thats the case) to get a better pension in X many years. Unions talking b*ll*cks again.

Funny - I overtook a chap just before the busstop on the Millbank East segment this morning and he shouted feck off loudly as I went passed - thought he was miffed I passed him, but he was shouting at the picketers.

notsoblue

Il Principe wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

By far the biggest wastes have occurred where the government has subcontracted big chunks of public services/provision out to the private sector. The overspend on the Typhoon fighter alone (around £4 billion) is roughly double the estimated total welfare fraud cost. It's debatable whether it is the government's fault for not contracting these things out properly, or the private sector's fault for milking the contracts for all they are worth, but if you want to get upset about government waste (and we all should), welfare benefits are way down the list. What's hypocritical about that?

Mmmm. Why do you think the private sector milks the public in these situations? Because the public sector have a reputation. They are easily milked. My uncle worked as a contractor on the ill fated NHS network project. Honestly the wastage was unreal and they were paying 100's of contractors like him shed loads of money, often when they were unable to do any work - because senior managers kept moving on, or moving the goalposts. That whole project was a colossal failure and wasted billions. He hated it, but was hardly going to move on and I don't blame him.

This is soooo common in the public sector. But its a bit of a chicken and egg situation though isn't it? The government wants to reduce their responsibility for delivering public services, so outsources it to the private sector. The result of this is that there is less investment in the public sector and the managers that remain there are too close to the private sector companies they award juicy low risk contracts to. The situation just gets worse as the public sector reputation for managing a service degrades which leads to calls for further privatisation and the cycle repeats.

It seems to me that for decades now it has been the mode in this country for successive governments to slowly privatise everything and reduce investment in the public sector. I think its worth contrasting this with nationalised industries in other countries. Most buses in London are actually owned by a company called Abellio, which is a daughter company of the state owned Nederlandse Spoorwegen (Dutch Railways). (You might recognise the logo) This company also owns 50% shares in Mersey Rail and Northern Rail. So what we have here is a successful state owned foreign company taking advantage of public service provision markets in the UK and making a killing because successive UK Governments want nothing to do with actually running public services.

tl;dr - Most people in the UK would rather have terrible public services run by foreign state owned companies than to support a public sector to run them ourselves.

W1

There were literally tens of people pointlessly waving stupid placards that I saw today. Where are the tens of thousands? Presumably in Westfield, doing some extra shopping.

What a joke - still, it will make identifying those who are genuinely redundant a lot easier.

I did enjoy one placard (from a teacher, apparently) - "Hand's off our pensions" - jesus wept.

W1

walkingbootweather wrote:

W1 - have you thought of emigrating? There are lots of countries where they don't have such a burdensome welfare state. You would be a able to keep a much greater portion of your hard-earned cash and pay just for the services you want. I'd come to your leaving party and would make sure you didn't get dragged into any rounds in case you bought someone a drink and they didn't get you one back.

You're making a big presumption, but I'll let it slide.

But be careful what you wish for - you'd (plural) need to pick up my "share" if I (or, rather, people like me) left.

W1

Greg66 wrote:

Wake up. This is not about fairness. It's about envy.

And hypocircy. Don't forget that.

notsoblue

Greg66 wrote:

MYTH - The proposals mean that those earning over £15,000 pay around 3% more each month - that's not very much is it?

3% of your pay is a significant chunk of income.

So we're all agreed that 3% is a significant chunk of income. Excellent. Except when it comes to income tax on "the rich", because they sit there with their pots of fifties, quaffing champagne and throwing another poor person on the fire, so that significant 3% chunk can be just taken from from them.

Stereotyping and generalisation helps nobody. But to be fair, the percentage of income that people earning say £24k spend on food, housing and just generally "living" is much higher than those on much higher incomes. So 3% can make a difference at lower salaries.

W1

First Aspect wrote:

I fundamentally object to a strike ballot called on the basis of bare faced lies, I really do. Overpaid union leaderships distorting the facts to induce thousands of low earners to lose a day's pay by telling them something palpably incorrect that they'll never challenge. They are just as manipulative and disgusting as they accuse politicans of being and they do absolutely no credit to the basic principles of the union movement.

Let alone being called on a minority vote - surely it's not unreasonable to require most of your members to agree with something as drastic as strike action before it happens? And if they can't be bothered to vote, doesn't that say rather a lot?

rick_chasey

So are people going to avoid embankment around Westminster? Or will it be OK now?

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

So are people going to avoid embankment around Westminster? Or will it be OK now?

As long as it's after 5:30, I think you'll be fine.

Wrath Rob

9 pages of argument just to get back to the main point of my thread, a warning to commuters to take into account a protest march when on the way home.

Is this some kind of Commuting Chat record?

rick_chasey

Business is slow in and around Christmas.

Gets earlier every year...

MaxwellBygraves

Greg66 wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Why is that fair?

"Fair". A word that has been hijacked and now is a synonym for "legitimately expropriate from people richer than me".

The Union monkey on the Today Programme this morning had some class rhetoric. Apparently the Govt intends to solve the country's problems by targeting women and children. Fairness demands that the rich pay their share. And we have to clamp down on "tax avoidance" (and other unspecified legal activities no doubt).

If you put these dickheads on the spot, "fairness" comes to this: it is unfair that you should have a disposable income that is greater than mine. What we each do is immaterial. How hard we work relatively is immaterial. You can't have more than me.

Put the lot of 'em on a one way rocket to the Sun, that's what I say.

That bit in bold, you agree with that right?

Anyway, I was bombing through Catford this morning, thinking I was on for a Strava KOM on the Bromley Road to Lewisham High Street segment. Suddenly traffic came to a stop and I found myself having to slowly pick my way through a load of numpty protesters marching along the road. Missed the KOM by 20 seconds. How is that fair? :evil: These people need to get their priorities in order.

It's a meaningless proposition. Who are "the rich" (always easier when you make a group faceless) and what's "their share"? If "the rich" are paying more in percentage and absolute terms than "the poor", where is the unfairness?

The link posted earlier (http://www.unison.org.uk/pensions/myths.asp) has a good throwaway:

MYTH - The proposals mean that those earning over £15,000 pay around 3% more each month - that's not very much is it?

3% of your pay is a significant chunk of income.

So we're all agreed that 3% is a significant chunk of income. Excellent. Except when it comes to income tax on "the rich", because they sit there with their pots of fifties, quaffing champagne and throwing another poor person on the fire, so that significant 3% chunk can be just taken from from them.

Wake up. This is not about fairness. It's about envy.

Sorry to hear about your KOM though. I hope we can agree that these people are, after all, scum.

Right wing are panicking, as widely expected. Keep the neoliberal propaganda coming Greg.

If they are 'scum' I hope the next time your house is on fire you turn down their help yeah?

Organised labour, the right wings worst nightmare!

Workers everywhere unite. Strength through unity.

ETA: David Cameron today was so angry he had to resort to calling Ed Miliband 'left-wing'. Labour voters everywhere shocked and appalled