Public Sector Strike

(29-11-2011 23:24 )mrwotzup Wrote:  ^^^^ But would that same rule apply to Local Elections and General Elections ?

No-one voted for a Coalition Government and when was the last time a Government had 50.1% of total votes

also nobody voted to have one party with a majority to form a government on their own. the tories could have formed a minority government but it could be hard for them to get policies through. it could be worse we could a government made up of labour (who got us into this shit) with lib dem, Alliance Party, Co-operative Party, Green Party,Plaid Cymru,Scottish Nationalist Party,Sinn Féin,Social Democratic and Labour Party,Ulster Unionist Party,United Kingdom Independence Party which would the majority being run the minority and useless and crap policies having to be put through to keep the smaller parties happy. therefore the most sensible solution was the tories and lib dems forming a coalition governemnt. there is also another solution where the tories formed a minority government and have a policy by policy agreement with lib dems which the tories have with the dup. this off topic.

there is a no cofidence vote rule where by the oppposition party has to get more than 50% vote to get an election in the current goverment has the next election is 2015.

why is it unions call for strike action the moment they dont get their own way?

i just its nice to have debate without any abusive language being thrown around unlike some threads on here.

(29-11-2011 20:22 )babelover48 Wrote:  I don't think the unions ever stopped to think about the true cost of tomorrow's strike to the economy when we're facing an unknown financial situation that we've not seen on the present scale.

you have no idea how serious the financial situation is. the truth which politicians won't tell you is that the vast majority, and i'm talking over 90% of money, doesn't exist. it's just a number displayed on a computer screen. all the money in the system is just an entry on a balance sheet. it's numbers. the whole banking/money system is a sham.

Yeah, people in well paid jobs striking when there's a recession on. Think themselves lucky they have a job, they want kicking back to work.

see the reasoning why the goverment want to do this the idea of private sectors workers having to work an extra 12 years to fund some workers to finish at 55 is very unfair sure if it was the other way round and public sector workers had towork to 67 to pay for private sector workers to finish at 55 there would be riots in the streets

say a teacher graduates at 25 and works to 55 and lives till 85 means we will be the taxpayer will be funding that teacher for 30 years to be sitting on there arses not really a good way to spend the limted amount of money the country has at the moment

(30-11-2011 19:31 )HannahsPet Wrote:  see the reasoning why the goverment want to do this the idea of private sectors workers having to work an extra 12 years to fund some workers to finish at 55 is very unfair sure if it was the other way round and public sector workers had towork to 67 to pay for private sector workers to finish at 55 there would be riots in the streets

say a teacher graduates at 25 and works to 55 and lives till 85 means we will be the taxpayer will be funding that teacher for 30 years to be sitting on there arses not really a good way to spend the limted amount of money the country has at the moment

the country has an infinite supply of money, because money is just a number with a £ in front of it. if the power to 'create' a nations money supply was taken out of the hands of private corporations, i.e the banks, and the government had the power, they could wipe out the deficit with a couple of strokes on the keyboard.

over 90% of the entire money supply of the world does not exist as physical hard cash. it's digital. it's virtual. it's not real! it's just numbers. don't believe the politicians and economists. do some research on the money scam. google fractional reserve banking, research derivatives, hedge funds, CDO's and credit default swaps.

(29-11-2011 23:16 )bigguy01 Wrote:  before gordon brown became chancillor of the exchequer in 1997 the pension fund for state pension which made profits was tax free then around 1999/2000 gordon brown put a tax on the profits hence a pension blackhole.

It really hacks me off that the party that was supposed to look after ordinary workers destroyed the pension system. There are a small number of simple causes for the collapse of the pensions.

1> They taxed it, like bigguy01 said. "Were the Government. Theres some money. Lets help ourselves."

2> Risk. Labour allowed and encouraged pension funds to move from safe boring bonnds into shares arguing that shares would give better growth. That was fine until share prices halved almost overnight and yields dropped by a similar amount, shrinking the value of some pensions 4 fold. Yup, Gordon Brown destoyed pensions.

3> Underfunding. When the share market was steaming ahead some companies warned that it could not last and they wanted to pump extra money in while things were good. Financial rules prevented this. Things turned bad, the companies were proved right and the Government wrong. Again. Which wouldnt be too bad if it werent a tale 3000 years old (the dream of 7 fat cows and 7 thin cows). Nice one Gordon.

4> Risk. Following Enron the Government made companies show pension liabilities on balance sheets as debts. Not unreasonable except that share prices can vary by 10% on a bad day, making the pension fund look like a very volatile and big risk, unlike any other business debt. To guarantee to cover a £10billion pension fund liability a company might need £12billion. At a stroke pension costs soared because of a technical rule change. Thanks Gordon.

5> People living longer. Not as big an effect as you might think. A small change in the number of mums working/not working, size of the public sector, unemployment, school leaving age, university numbers could cancel out the effect. Or double it.

6> University. Great where it gives people skills necessary to be more productive, but a generation are being taken out of productive work for 3 years to get what? Degrees in hairdressing salon management and working in a travel agency. These are cruel cons. It doesnt matter that the students pay the costs, its money taken out of the economy and people taken out of the workforce for 7.5% (3/40) of their working life.

7> Public sector growth. Create public sector jobs and often that can reduce the number of skilled qualified workers available to the private sector. Its the private sector that creates wealth, and pays for the public sector, so its a double whammy. Great ehen those jobs are worthwhile, but not when they are waste like Marketing & Communications or just increased paperwork. Labour again.

Bear in mind that public sector pensions are not subject to the whim of the stock market and Government departments are not at risk of takeover because of pension liabilities, making £10,000 of public sector pension less expensive to fund than £10,000 of private sector pension.

Most of the 7 causes listed above are avoidable technical issues. Only increased longetivity is unavoidable, is less severe than it is made out to be and can me cancelled out by raising the pension age a few years. That wont please some people, but it is absurd that some people think is it OK to retire at the same age now as in 1929 when lots of people didnt even reach retirement age. Retire at 60? Absurd. Abolish final salary pensions? Unnecessary. Raise the pension age to 70? Too far.

Jeremy Clarkson has asked for a 'Shoot the Strikers' option

What ever you views on the strike are jeremy clarkson was bang out of order saying 'execute them in from of their families'

Public sector workers are being hit to help pay for private sector greed and incompetence. Private sector raped the economy

(01-12-2011 15:41 )wodenssun Wrote:  What ever you views on the strike are jeremy clarkson was bang out of order saying 'execute them in from of their families'

Having seen the actual clip, it seemed more like he was being sarky about the BBC "impartiality & balance" when they were all being nicey-wicey. It is a bit OTT, but it doesn't mean the strikers are now automatically sent from heaven just because Jeremy Clarkson doesn't agree with them