And another one....

greg66_tri_v2.0

You have clearly overdosed on Kool Aid.

It's either that, or you are genuinely deranged and have trouble distinguishing reality from fantasy.

rjsterry

A very similar post on the other strike thread. So... all workers are lefties? Is that it? Who am I supposed to be uniting with if I have a job, but it's not manual labour?

First.Aspect

rjsterry wrote:

A very similar post on the other strike thread. So... all workers are lefties? Is that it? Who am I supposed to be uniting with if I have a job, but it's not manual labour?

Other teachers, nurses and any other particularly worthy vocations (it has to be a vocation).

W1

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

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.

Yes comrade, the panic was evident yesterday as ten people waved illiterate plackards with slogans plucked from fantasy land and provided stark evidence of just how much of the public sector is redundant.

I'm not sure I saw that much unity even amongt the public sector workers.

rick_chasey

Embankment was pretty chilled.

Worked out well. The chat kept my day from being super dull, and less traffic on the roads.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Clarkson's innovative solution.

Excellent, Smithers

SimonAH

Clarkson is an arse, but anyone with half a brain knows that what exits his mouth is almost only always for effect rather than a considered stance. You could fill a book with similar Clarksonisms. However this made me snort my tea;

"Among them was author Tony Parsons, who wrote: "Jeremy Clarkson has misjudged the moment. Criticising striking public sector workers today is like sieg-heiling at Last Night of the Proms.""

Now THIS is a bloody stupid statment to eclipse even Clarkson's mouth fart.

notsoblue

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

Right wing are panicking, as widely expected.

I really don't think this is the case, Maxwell. The conservatives can't really do any wrong at the moment. The state of the economy means that the changes they would want to make to the public sector anyway can be done under the guise of austerity.

rick_chasey

It'll be a different story come election I'd suggest.

Though, as I've said earlier, or perhaps on another thread, the centre left needs to come up with a credible alternative argument (since there obviously is one) and properly articulate it.

notsoblue

SimonAH wrote:

Clarkson is an ars*, but anyone with half a brain knows that what exits his mouth is almost only always for effect rather than a considered stance. You could fill a book with similar Clarksonisms. However this made me snort my tea;

"Among them was author Tony Parsons, who wrote: "Jeremy Clarkson has misjudged the moment. Criticising striking public sector workers today is like sieg-heiling at Last Night of the Proms.""

Now THIS is a bloody stupid statment to eclipse even Clarkson's mouth fart.

Clarkson is a well studied parody of himself. He's made a great living from that caricature. Tony Parsons simile is spot on imo. It was The One Show....TV for heavily sedated stay at home mums, and he's talking about dragging people outside and shooting them in front of their family. Hilarious but pretty as the guy said, misjudged :P

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

It'll be a different story come election I'd suggest.

Do you think? Everyone seems to be accepting this "We're all in it together" sentiment. Given most of the public responses to the strikes they seem to boil down to people stating that we as a nation can't afford nice things and that we all need to grin and bare it. There seems to be far more resentment aimed at those who have any perceived advantage (public sector pensions, tax credits) no matter how small rather than at those who can more easily afford to shoulder some of the responsibility for recovery. People are more interested in a race to the bottom rather than any type of progressive reform.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Though, as I've said earlier, or perhaps on another thread, the centre left needs to come up with a credible alternative argument (since there obviously is one) and properly articulate it.

Labour are an appalling opposition at the moment. I wouldn't vote for them at the moment for any other reason than they're not the tories, and this isn't reason enough.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

It'll be a different story come election I'd suggest.

It's a shame that people have short memories and will forget to blame Labour for being at the helm when these problems were accruing.

Still, at least Miliband is unelectable.

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It'll be a different story come election I'd suggest.

Do you think? Everyone seems to be accepting this "We're all in it together" sentiment. Given most of the public responses to the strikes they seem to boil down to people stating that we as a nation can't afford nice things and that we all need to grin and bare it. There seems to be far more resentment aimed at those who have any perceived advantage (public sector pensions, tax credits) no matter how small rather than at those who can more easily afford to shoulder some of the responsibility for recovery. People are more interested in a race to the bottom rather than any type of progressive reform.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Though, as I've said earlier, or perhaps on another thread, the centre left needs to come up with a credible alternative argument (since there obviously is one) and properly articulate it.

Labour are an appalling opposition at the moment. I wouldn't vote for them at the moment for any other reason than they're not the tories, and this isn't reason enough.

I'm called captain bear at work, so I'll continue playing to it.

I can only see the UK economy really hurting. Many more job cuts, drops in household income etc. That tends to bubble up to the surface come election.

I also can't see the Eurozone going as badly as some are predicting, there's too much to lose, so that blame game will just not work.

That combo will hurt at the polls.

The tories only scraped through with a coalition last time round, when labour had reined over the worst crash for 80 years. It wouldn't take all that much for them to lose, and I can't see them picking up any votes with the way the economy is going.

SimonAH

I REALLY detest this stupid "Race to the bottom" phrase that some PR spin twonk has come up with to deflect the argument away from where it has to sit.

What it is saying is fundamentally "Cutting the (unsuportable) PubSec pensions position is not fair, what we should be doing is finding ways to raise PrivSec pensions to the same level".

This is a very appealing argument to those of little brain.

greg66_tri_v2.0

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It'll be a different story come election I'd suggest.

It's a shame that people have short memories and will forget to blame Labour for being at the helm when these problems were accruing.

Still, at least Miliband is unelectable.

I thought Miliband's crack about the ski holiday cost (which he fcuked up pretty badly anyway) at PMQs yesterday was ridiculously lame, even by his unambitious standards. This class war line he tries to propagate is pathetic. And so short sighted. Does he really think that the Mail or the Express won't be all over the cost of his next family holiday after that?

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It'll be a different story come election I'd suggest.

It's a shame that people have short memories and will forget to blame Labour for being at the helm when these problems were accruing.

That's a boring argument that can be used on any party.

You could say it's a shame voters forgot about black Wednesday.

New (shadow) cabinet, new(ish) slate.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

The tories only scraped through with a coalition last time round, when labour had reined over the worst crash for 80 years. It wouldn't take all that much for them to lose, and I can't see them picking up any votes with the way the economy is going.

Wooahhhh! Easy Neddy. You need to get off the Kool Aid that Maxwell is glugging before you suffer long term or permanent damage.

Have you forgotten the clever-clever note left at the Treasury: "Sorry, we've spent all the money. There's none left"?

On the broader point, I think I said before the last election that I can see the country heading for a few years of right/left swapping. much like the 70s. There's a general dissatisfaction with the state of things, allied to neither main party having a clear upper hand or vision that grabs the imagination. After a few cycles of left/right swing the stage becomes set for an ambitious newcomer with a clear and radical agenda to grab the country by the scruff of the neck. However, there are many ways that can turn out, not all of them good.

One thing you can be sure of is that the Govt is doling out the pain as early as it can in this Parliament with the hope that it will be able to throw out some sweeties pre-election time. The real measure of how far in the sh!t we are will be if there are no sweeties to throw.

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The tories only scraped through with a coalition last time round, when labour had reined over the worst crash for 80 years. It wouldn't take all that much for them to lose, and I can't see them picking up any votes with the way the economy is going.

Wooahhhh! Easy Neddy. You need to get off the Kool Aid that Maxwell is glugging before you suffer long term or permanent damage.

Have you forgotten the clever-clever note left at the Treasury: "Sorry, we've spent all the money. There's none left"?

On the broader point, I think I said before the last election that I can see the country heading for a few years of right/left swapping. much like the 70s. There's a general dissatisfaction with the state of things, allied to neither main party having a clear upper hand or vision that grabs the imagination. After a few cycles of left/right swing the stage becomes set for an ambitious newcomer with a clear and radical agenda to grab the country by the scruff of the neck. However, there are many ways that can turn out, not all of them good.

One thing you can be sure of is that the Govt is doling out the pain as early as it can in this Parliament with the hope that it will be able to throw out some sweeties pre-election time. The real measure of how far in the sh!t we are will be if there are no sweeties to throw.

Eh? What's wrong with " labour had reined over the worst crash for 80 years." ? I'd say that's both accurate and the salient point. Had the Tories been in power when that kicked off they'd have taken a bit hit at the polls too.

Re sweeties - the autumn budget review looked rather like they'd run out of sweeties already. Borrowing more than planned, growth lower than planned, inflation much higher than planned. Interest rates are as low as they can go, and every round of QE becomes less effective than the last. The gov't is running out of ammunition, economically anyway.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It'll be a different story come election I'd suggest.

It's a shame that people have short memories and will forget to blame Labour for being at the helm when these problems were accruing.

That's a boring argument that can be used on any party.

You could say it's a shame voters forgot about black Wednesday.

New (shadow) cabinet, new(ish) slate.

New(ish) slate? Not when you've got Balls out there lambasting everything that's being done to sort out his lot's mess.

If Labour want to be re-elected (god forbid) they need to readily accept their serious cock-ups and, rather than twisting and turning against everything that is being done, either show some support or come up with better ideas. Instead they simply make useless, ill-considered, knee-jerk media sound-bite responses that even their own supporters can see through.

W1

Greg66 wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It'll be a different story come election I'd suggest.

It's a shame that people have short memories and will forget to blame Labour for being at the helm when these problems were accruing.

Still, at least Miliband is unelectable.

I thought Miliband's crack about the ski holiday cost (which he fcuked up pretty badly anyway) at PMQs yesterday was ridiculously lame, even by his unambitious standards. This class war line he tries to propagate is pathetic. And so short sighted. Does he really think that the Mail or the Express won't be all over the cost of his next family holiday after that?

Not to mention, as usual, completely hypocritical from someone with his background.

W1

SimonAH wrote:

I REALLY detest this stupid "Race to the bottom" phrase that some PR spin twonk has come up with to deflect the argument away from where it has to sit.

What it is saying is fundamentally "Cutting the (unsuportable) PubSec pensions position is not fair, what we should be doing is finding ways to raise PrivSec pensions to the same level".

This is a very appealing argument to those of little brain.

What some consider "a race to the bottom" others would consider "fair".

Unless a race to the top is better? Because of course that's completely affordable. It's like those clowns with their silly signs saying "Fair pensions for all" (there's that bloody word again), not realising that they already have grossly "unfair" pensions and if we're all to get those then we'd need to sack most the public sector.....

Cretiny was rife yesterday, but at least they made themselves clearly identifiable.

SimonAH

That being my point

rjsterry

Greg66 wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It'll be a different story come election I'd suggest.

It's a shame that people have short memories and will forget to blame Labour for being at the helm when these problems were accruing.

Still, at least Miliband is unelectable.

I thought Miliband's crack about the ski holiday cost (which he fcuked up pretty badly anyway) at PMQs yesterday was ridiculously lame, even by his unambitious standards. This class war line he tries to propagate is pathetic. And so short sighted. Does he really think that the Mail or the Express won't be all over the cost of his next family holiday after that?

I didn't quite catch it, but was he suggesting that Osborne spent about £400 on a family Swiss skiing holiday? Do tell me where I can find such a thing.

W1

rjsterry wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It'll be a different story come election I'd suggest.

It's a shame that people have short memories and will forget to blame Labour for being at the helm when these problems were accruing.

Still, at least Miliband is unelectable.

I thought Miliband's crack about the ski holiday cost (which he fcuked up pretty badly anyway) at PMQs yesterday was ridiculously lame, even by his unambitious standards. This class war line he tries to propagate is pathetic. And so short sighted. Does he really think that the Mail or the Express won't be all over the cost of his next family holiday after that?

I didn't quite catch it, but was he suggesting that Osborne spent about £400 on a family Swiss skiing holiday? Do tell me where I can find such a thing.

He cocked it up - he tried to say that Osbourne spent more on a ski holiday thana dinner lady earns in a year. Instead he said "week". What a tw@

notsoblue

SimonAH wrote:

I REALLY detest this stupid "Race to the bottom" phrase that some PR spin twonk has come up with to deflect the argument away from where it has to sit.

What it is saying is fundamentally "Cutting the (unsuportable) PubSec pensions position is not fair, what we should be doing is finding ways to raise PrivSec pensions to the same level".

This is a very appealing argument to those of little brain.

Well this is a pretty subjective view as far as I can see. Pensions of public sector calibre are unsupportable because of the way our economy and government works. It is more palatable to cut into public sector pensions because they are seen as "unfair" than it is to for example look at corporate tax avoidance or war budgets. Its like saying that low train fares are unsupportable. They are now because of circumstance and entrenched business practice, but it doesn't have to be that way, and there are models elsewhere that show that it can be done. The inertia resisting change isn't insurmountable.

The alternative is accepting that life fundamentally has to be imbalanced and that the only way you can be successful is at the cost of others.

The "Race to the bottom" phrase suggests that it is much easier to resent a benefit someone else is getting than it is to raise your own circumstances.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

What some consider "a race to the bottom" others would consider "fair".

Unless a race to the top is better? Because of course that's completely affordable. It's like those clowns with their silly signs saying "Fair pensions for all" (there's that bloody word again), not realising that they already have grossly "unfair" pensions and if we're all to get those then we'd need to sack most the public sector.....

Cretiny was rife yesterday, but at least they made themselves clearly identifiable.

Er, so only your definition of "fair" is allowed?

SimonAH

I suspect that a touch of sarcasm was implied here old bean, it was after all "fair" not fair.

And I do agree that the massive over-use of this word at the moment does make the speakers sound remarkably like whining children.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

What some consider "a race to the bottom" others would consider "fair".

Unless a race to the top is better? Because of course that's completely affordable. It's like those clowns with their silly signs saying "Fair pensions for all" (there's that bloody word again), not realising that they already have grossly "unfair" pensions and if we're all to get those then we'd need to sack most the public sector.....

Cretiny was rife yesterday, but at least they made themselves clearly identifiable.

Er, so only your definition of "fair" is allowed?

Er, what?

"Fair" implies reasonable; the same; equal. So let's pay the same tax, get the same pensions, take the same from the state as eachother - that would be "fair". Even "fairer" - do that on a £ basis and not a % basis. However that already doesn't happen - yet what appears to be most grossly "unfair", is that those already paying more, taking less, and hugely disproportionately subsidising others, are the ones being targetted to pay even more, with those who pay or contrubute nothing getting comparitively "more" than the people paying in. It's hard to equate that with the concept of "fair" unless you are a raving commie, which I accept some of you are. Good for you, it must be great to take the "social concious" line whilst knowing you'll never have to actually back up your rhetoric, and if you did that would of course be "unfair".

There will no doubt be blithering responses about "ability to pay", the "rich" not paying their "share" blah, blah blah. Yawn. That's little more than envy politics - the ultimate conclusion of which is that everyone must be the same. Earn the same, have the same, take the same, do the same, look the same. And that is clearly balls.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

The "Race to the bottom" phrase suggests that it is much easier to resent a benefit someone else is getting than it is to raise your own circumstances.

Please find me a private pension that equates to a public sector one. I don't think such a thing exists, but would be delighted to be proved wrong.

It's all well and good suggesting that people "raise their own circumstances" (a sentiment that in fact I agree with, in principle), but it's hard to accept that when the truth is that it is impossible.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

What some consider "a race to the bottom" others would consider "fair".

Unless a race to the top is better? Because of course that's completely affordable. It's like those clowns with their silly signs saying "Fair pensions for all" (there's that bloody word again), not realising that they already have grossly "unfair" pensions and if we're all to get those then we'd need to sack most the public sector.....

Cretiny was rife yesterday, but at least they made themselves clearly identifiable.

Er, so only your definition of "fair" is allowed?

Er, what?

"Fair" implies reasonable; the same; equal. So let's pay the same tax, get the same pensions, take the same from the state as eachother - that would be "fair". Even "fairer" - do that on a £ basis and not a % basis. However that already doesn't happen - yet what appears to be most grossly "unfair", is that those already paying more, taking less, and hugely disproportionately subsidising others, are the ones being targetted to pay even more, with those who pay or contrubute nothing getting comparitively "more" than the people paying in. It's hard to equate that with the concept of "fair" unless you are a raving commie, which I accept some of you are. Good for you, it must be great to take the "social concious" line whilst knowing you'll never have to actually back up your rhetoric, and if you did that would have course be "unfair".

There will no doubt be blithering responses about "ability to pay", the "rich" not paying their "share" blah, blah blah. Yawn. That's little more than envy politics - the ultimate conclusion of which is that everyone must be the same. Earn the same, have the same, take the same, do the same, look the same. And that is clearly balls.

Ok, so you're saying that public sector workers don't deserve the pensions they were promised when they signed their employment contracts because in retrospect, they were "unfair"? The impression I get is that you don't think that the public sector should really exist at all, and that anything they get is too much because by definition it comes from the government. Is that accurate?