Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

TUC protests


Guest Pogues Mcgogues

Recommended Posts

I dont understand the point of these protests, do the unions think the public sector is exempt from the cuts :huh:

It's a shame the public sector has to pay the price of the credit crunch and not the bankers, however we just need to get on with it and deal with the situation as it is.

we would be having this diescussion regardless of what goverment would be in power now

Edited by benc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

These are other things that weren't addressed, but nice to see you're twisting my arguments around Mr Campbell.

Obviously those at the top's income have to be looked at. This can be done with a High Pay Commision, something which is being talked about by the Labour leadership candidates.

You have the lowest workers on a better wage, and the highest workers on a lesser wage. It makes things more fairer. This doesn't go against a company making profit. Are you against a comapny making profit?

Are you suggesting you don't think someone should earn a higher wage than anyone else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I came and robbed your house and took everything you owned, emptied your bank account etc - would you say 'well, Phil has my stuff now, Id better just get on with it and deal with this situation as it is' - or do you think that not only should I be giving you your stuff back, there should be a penalty involved too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point taken.

On that note, as shareholders of these banks are we expecting a full return from our investment? I dont know a great deal on the subject, but everytime i read Robert Peston's blog he seems to suggest that the shareholders are getting a return. So does that mean we will get our money back?

Edited by llcoolphil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't twisted your argument, Im pointing out that whilst you keep telling us that you are serious about socialism (though I note that 'serious' has become 'Im mostly socialist', which is a bit like saying 'Im a bit pregnant'), all your arguments are about perpetuating the capitalist state. You've bought the line that capitalism is the natural order and the only way to organise society. And dont give me your 3rd way bollox - it's just another form of capitalism. But back to the simple questions you haven't yet answered - Who defines a living wage and how would YOU define a living wage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Exactly which is why we need to be organised from the get go and I would hope that your fellow workers will have your support on the street come the days of protest if you are available.

I disagree.

Because most people are thinking we've already had the cuts we're going to have because things are bad already, those people look at what the TUC are calling for as unrealistic and almost laughable. And perhaps even a criminal conspiracy against a democratically elected govt.

That's not warming them to unionism, and because they'll have taken that view already they'll be less likely to view things in a proper light at the time when things have progressed so that they're able to see things in a proper light. The view they'll take now will become entrenched.

It would have been better if the TUC had waited until after the cuts are announced and been followed by enough "x,000 jobs to go" and "your vital services to be cut" (one will hit home cos every service is vital to someone) stories for them to get a proper grasp of how much of an impact to both jobs and services the cuts are going to have. They'd have got many millions more on their side if they'd have waited for 2 months.

======

I had to laugh at the on-screen scroller on Sky News at lunchtime. It said "govt calls for genuine working partnership with unions over cuts" (or something very similar).

Oh yeah, that'll be a genuine partnership. :lol::lol::lol:

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree.

Because most people are thinking we've already had the cuts we're going to have because things are bad already, those people look at what the TUC are calling for as unrealistic and almost laughable. And perhaps even a criminal conspiracy against a democratically elected govt.

That's not warming them to unionism, and because they'll have taken that view already they'll be less likely to view things in a proper light at the time when things have progressed so that they're able to see things in a proper light. The view they'll take now will become entrenched.

It would have been better if the TUC had waited until after the cuts are announced and been followed by enough "x,000 jobs to go" and "your vital services to be cut" (one will hit home cos every service is vital to someone) stories for them to get a proper grasp of how much of an impact to both jobs and services the cuts are going to have. They'd have got many millions more on their side if they'd have waited for 2 months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

But whilst the opposition (in a broad sense) simply says 'there is a choice' about these cuts without highlighting what the choice is in real terms, it just looks like the opposition sniping at the government for sniping sake.

I don't disagree with that part at all.

Im not sure they could get millions more onto their side at all - I think there is a majority that is actually quite comfortable with the messages they are hearing from the government about a smaller, less interfering public sector.

I very much doubt it's the majority.

There's certainly a large majority (but a long way from being 50%) that take that view, but then again they always did do. These types are died-in-the-wool tories.

There's another sizeable lump of people - these probably are the majority - who recognise that something needs to be done, tho disagree on the amount that needs cutting and who disagree on what should be targeted for cuts - and fear the cuts could impact on them or theirs.

Unless the cuts take us into a double dip recession, I think opposition will be, at best, muted

A large proportion of those people (the ones I'd say are the majority) think that now is as bad as things are going to get. It looks like you do too ... but I'll tell you why I reckon that's wrong.

Very many businesses have or are riding out the bad times by cutting back where they can and scraping by, seeing better times around the corner. While business has picked up again for some the pick-up has been greater than any associated increase in staff, because they've been carrying staff they couldn't fully put to work or staff they couldn't really afford to keep on but have because they felt it could be ridden out in a shortish time.

So while the private sector economy might be expanding it's not really creating any new employment because of the slack to pick back up and won't be until it feels more certain about the future. And it's not going to be certain about anything until it knows what the impact of the cuts will be and has seen some of the effects. And of course the effects will be lower spends by govt into the private sector along with more unemployed spending less with the private sector.

So double-dip here we come. They'll be plenty with a different attitude to the one they have now once they seen and felt what they've wished for. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Edited by lost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this coalition idea of private jobs to replace public sector ones is pie in the sky in the short and even medium term. Unemployment is going to rocket and with the new rules coming in on banks capital and liquidity levels, we have a double whammy of taking 100s of 1000s of jobs out of the economy and credit being squeezed again on those that manage to keep trading. I cant see anything but double dip recession...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that figure just money given directly to banks? And of so, shouldn't the money pumped in through quantative easing not be included in that? Though in the overall sum, I don't suppose it matters where the figures actually go

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quantative easing is creating money out of thin air (debasing the currency to prevent deflation) its not borrowing by the government, the central bank prints the money and buys government debt either because nobody else wants to buy it or to force down bond yields, then apparently when the economy recovers, the deficit has been cut and government debt looks more attractive to investors the bank will sell the bonds back into the market and "destory" the money it recieves for them as not to create inflation (increase in the amount of money chasing a finite amount of goods)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there has to be a cost involved even if only indirectly surely? And the public sector pension liabilities - is that figure immediate liability or long term liability? Because it strikes me that could be a political rather than economic argument and a way of hitting the public sector by making the liabilities seem much worse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree.

Because most people are thinking we've already had the cuts we're going to have because things are bad already, those people look at what the TUC are calling for as unrealistic and almost laughable. And perhaps even a criminal conspiracy against a democratically elected govt.

That's not warming them to unionism, and because they'll have taken that view already they'll be less likely to view things in a proper light at the time when things have progressed so that they're able to see things in a proper light. The view they'll take now will become entrenched.

It would have been better if the TUC had waited until after the cuts are announced and been followed by enough "x,000 jobs to go" and "your vital services to be cut" (one will hit home cos every service is vital to someone) stories for them to get a proper grasp of how much of an impact to both jobs and services the cuts are going to have. They'd have got many millions more on their side if they'd have waited for 2 months.

======

I had to laugh at the on-screen scroller on Sky News at lunchtime. It said "govt calls for genuine working partnership with unions over cuts" (or something very similar).

Oh yeah, that'll be a genuine partnership. :lol::lol::lol:

Edited by TheJobbyJabber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember a million people marching through London to let the government know that a huge part of the population didn't want to go to war in Iraq. It seems the precedent of ignoring protests by the public has already been set. Your lot didn't listen why should this lot?

Edited by llcoolphil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember a million people marching through London to let the government know that a huge part of the population didn't want to go to war in Iraq. It seems the precedent of ignoring protests by the public has already been set. Your lot didn't listen why should this lot?

Edited by TheJobbyJabber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...