Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
BBC News agenda; Politics
Topic Started: Dec 24 2014, 11:08 AM (1,460 Views)
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Now like most on this board I am biased. I admit it, but to be fair we are all biased by our personal circumstances, our upbringing and our experiences in life, but I do try to be objective.
I am convinced that the BBC , news programmes in particular, has an agenda , a left wing government supporting one. I point the finger , and leave you to decide for yourselves if the coincidences you see are just fair reporting or there is something unfair taking place.
We know that the labour party is having difficulties with their opposition of government policies on the economy, so they have directed their opposition agendas towards the health service and government cuts.
To me the BBC is doing the same, and in the last few days there have been reports by them on ambulance waiting times, hospital waiting times, cuts in council spending, with a cut in street lighting emphasised ,and this morning they had a cameraman at a reporter at a feeding stationto supply food to the "starving" who looked to me .well fed , and the numbers shown very limited indeed. It looked like a set up.
Naturally with their multi cultural agenda , there were black faces to the fore. They do like to focus in their stories on the one black police officer, or the black or female soldier where ever they can. It seems as if the camera man has instructions to get at least one black person in their footage to be cut into the reporting. If a child in a classroom has a head scarf on they get particular attention. They also manage to get a Labour party spokesperson to appear in the early morning to comment on the story they highlight, which seems to indicate that they are in collusion with the Labour party.
I forecast that for the next few months they will concentrate on those things that will advantage the Labour party and will disadvantage the current government, with an emphasis on the NHS, which itself is so successful in the main , but will always have deficiencies and failures. peaks and troughs, until the last few weeks before the general election, when they will take an even handed approach to avoid criticism.

Look and watch for yourself make your judgements in an objective manner , and then tell me it is not as I see it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Dec 29 2014, 07:40 PM
Affa
Dec 29 2014, 06:50 PM
My original mention of 'there are plenty of jobs that can be done' made the reference to 'who's to pay'.
All it needs to answer is a proper understanding of what Capitalism means. It contains the phrase 'fair exchange'. A point that is lacking. Wealth is not widely distributed, so there are fewer and fewer in a position to 'pay' for work to be done. A wage revival alters everything.
I'd pay to have my house repainted every year if I had more money. An example of how a low wage economy destroys jobs. People on low wages don't have disposable income, the Treasury doesn't get its rewards, and jobs don't get done.

If anyone is stupid enough to vote for that shower of British hating shite again then THEY deserve what they get because the taxpayer is sick to the back teeth of carrying dead wood and being led by those that claim they represent the working man whilst all the time they are undermining his living standards by letting all and sundry in to undercut wage levels and claim tax benefits and then send their money back home.

Labour in office?.......god help us if they ever get hold of the purse strings again. !nono! !nono! !nono!
Quote:
 
Perhaps you would care to explain why we have a low wage economy and who exactly caused it and admitted that they got it wrong long after the damage had been done to natives of this country already tied into mortgages, direct debits etc, who was it that was willing to pay people to sit at home getting obese and even voting for them by postal voting so that the poor souls would not miss their daytime TV programmes.
?? ?? Who was it that threw millions of skilled and semi skilled people out of work, most of them never to work in their trades again. People who were destined to join the growing numbers of low paid in society? While at the same time the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

One thing is certain people WERE stupid and callous enough to elect and re elect that load of callous political sh!te.

17 years of that nonsense and you want to have a go at Labour??

Immigration, can you tell me how any UK government could have stopped it? If you cannot then you need to climb down off your high horse.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Marconi
Dec 29 2014, 06:55 PM
We have been through this on here lots of times. And normally the poster is shot down in flames when the big question ''Who is going to pay to do these jobs'' is replied. Quite often because profit is always the bottom line.

So I'll stick my head above the parapet and say, with the UK being the 6th richest country, that the big, fat flatulent nanny should pay for these jobs. Pay a wage and that money will go back into the shops and the economy.



Are you going to borrow money to pay the wages of these additional State Workers and pass this on to the next generations? If so they I am agin on moral grounds.
By all means expand taxation in order to give Politicians a free hand in Local Gov. to spend on hobby projects, but don't complain when you see real job creation decline. Who would take a job with an SME for £10.00 per hour with all the inherent employment risks and performance expectations when the Local Gov. would pay the same plus perks for a State "none job"?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 4 2015, 04:22 PM
Who would take a job with an SME for £10.00 per hour
£10 an hour? People would get killed in the rush if jobs were offered at that rate locally, it is at least £3 an hour more than usual for the area.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 4 2015, 04:47 PM
RJD
Jan 4 2015, 04:22 PM
Who would take a job with an SME for £10.00 per hour
£10 an hour? People would get killed in the rush if jobs were offered at that rate locally, it is at least £3 an hour more than usual for the area.
Academic question Mr Smurf, I thought you would have realised that. The point is why would anyone risk the private sector when the featherbed of the public sector offers a similar or better rate of wages. The claim in South Wales was that it failed to grow the private sector because they could not compete with public sector wages.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 5 2015, 09:07 AM
the featherbed of the public sector offers a similar or better rate of wages.


I don't call job insecurity being feather bedded.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 5 2015, 09:18 AM
RJD
Jan 5 2015, 09:07 AM
the featherbed of the public sector offers a similar or better rate of wages.


I don't call job insecurity being feather bedded.
Best you take a look at what others around the World have to contend with. Featherbedding is a subjective word and compared with the insecurity in the private sector such can be used for public sector jobs and aptly portray the meaning. The World is a harsh place and I am afraid it will get much harsher in the west during the next few decades and there is not a lot that Governments can do to reduce the competition for jobs, so best we make ourselves more competitive.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 5 2015, 11:43 AM
Best you take a look at what others around the World have to contend with.




That is not even relevant, no public sector job is secure currently. There have been massive job losses, starting with "Grip Reaper" Brown and carried on with enthusiasm by the Tories who wish to limit public sector redundancy pay outs to £95000.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30662833

3 January 2015 Last updated at 12:35 Conservatives vow to cap public sector redundancy pay-offs.

The Conservatives have vowed to cap public sector redundancy pay-offs if the party wins May's general election.

The party's election manifesto would pledge to introduce legislation to limit payments to £95,000, Treasury minister Priti Patel said.

Taxpayers should not have to fund "huge payouts when well-paid people get made redundant", she said.

Labour said the Tories had already "wasted" more than £1bn on NHS payouts as part of a "reckless reorganisation".

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Buccaneer
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
C-too
Jan 1 2015, 03:16 PM
Who was it that threw millions of skilled and semi skilled people out of work, most of them never to work in their trades again. People who were destined to join the growing numbers of low paid in society? While at the same time the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

One thing is certain people WERE stupid and callous enough to elect and re elect that load of callous political sh!te.

17 years of that nonsense and you want to have a go at Labour??

Immigration, can you tell me how any UK government could have stopped it? If you cannot then you need to climb down off your high horse.

A combination of militant trades unions and cowardly and complacent management were responsible for the death of the 'metal bashing' industries, Mrs T was merely the one with the guts to turn off the public subsidy of these loss making entities.

Our problem as a nation was and is, that we lack the coherent planning of other countries like Germany, to create other industries in place of the dead ones, and to spend money on the essential R & D to keep up or lead the competition. For this, I blame ALL our political parties, for failing to facilitate the conditions where this might happen.

Other EU countries appear to have more control over their immigration than we do, so how do they manage this within EU rules I wonder ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Dec 29 2014, 07:38 PM
ranger121
Dec 29 2014, 07:16 PM
Marconi
Dec 29 2014, 06:55 PM
We have been through this on here lots of times. And normally the poster is shot down in flames when the big question ''Who is going to pay to do these jobs'' is replied. Quite often because profit is always the bottom line.

So I'll stick my head above the parapet and say, with the UK being the 6th richest country, that the big, fat flatulent nanny should pay for these jobs. Pay a wage and that money will go back into the shops and the economy.



Ah, but then the big bloated state is accused of over-manning, inefficiency and having too many people on the taxpayer's payroll.
Has anybody bothered to compare the size of the UK State to other major economies?

Privatising government departments, services, operations etc does not count as reducing the size of the State as some choose to believe.
AS all here will know the NHS is a low cost health service in comparison to most wealthy nations.
Do a similar comparison of all the departments and with the exception of the defence budget (and possibly Welfare) the UK (under Labour) doesn't spend more proportion of GDP than the rest.
The whole argument is political, driven by dogma, not facts.

Excellent, can you show me where you got these figures from because i have been trying to find some comparative figures for quite some time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 5 2015, 09:07 AM
papasmurf
Jan 4 2015, 04:47 PM
RJD
Jan 4 2015, 04:22 PM
Who would take a job with an SME for £10.00 per hour
£10 an hour? People would get killed in the rush if jobs were offered at that rate locally, it is at least £3 an hour more than usual for the area.
Academic question Mr Smurf, I thought you would have realised that. The point is why would anyone risk the private sector when the featherbed of the public sector offers a similar or better rate of wages. The claim in South Wales was that it failed to grow the private sector because they could not compete with public sector wages.





This is the same argument that was given in opposing the introduction of the MW.

It was wrong then, it is wrong now.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Jan 5 2015, 01:23 PM
Affa
Dec 29 2014, 07:38 PM
ranger121
Dec 29 2014, 07:16 PM
Marconi
Dec 29 2014, 06:55 PM
We have been through this on here lots of times. And normally the poster is shot down in flames when the big question ''Who is going to pay to do these jobs'' is replied. Quite often because profit is always the bottom line.

So I'll stick my head above the parapet and say, with the UK being the 6th richest country, that the big, fat flatulent nanny should pay for these jobs. Pay a wage and that money will go back into the shops and the economy.



Ah, but then the big bloated state is accused of over-manning, inefficiency and having too many people on the taxpayer's payroll.
Has anybody bothered to compare the size of the UK State to other major economies?

Privatising government departments, services, operations etc does not count as reducing the size of the State as some choose to believe.
AS all here will know the NHS is a low cost health service in comparison to most wealthy nations.
Do a similar comparison of all the departments and with the exception of the defence budget (and possibly Welfare) the UK (under Labour) doesn't spend more proportion of GDP than the rest.
The whole argument is political, driven by dogma, not facts.

Excellent, can you show me where you got these figures from because i have been trying to find some comparative figures for quite some time.


Not sure how much information you want.
Here is a link where Health Care spending (GDP) can be compared.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS

Defence Spending here

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=132

I can also provide details of comparison for TOTAL current Government Spending (and tax burdens) for 2014. The value of that is of course skewed because the UK is still in the grip of Austerity and Deficit ....... and why borrowing continues to be too high.

Some historical data on the subject from the Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/oct/16/government-spending-countries-gdp


note for RJD - this Government has not reduced borrowing (in your preferred Absolute terms) by any significant proportion and has increased the DEBT being made for future generations.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 5 2015, 07:44 PM
ACH1967
Jan 5 2015, 01:23 PM
Affa
Dec 29 2014, 07:38 PM
ranger121
Dec 29 2014, 07:16 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Has anybody bothered to compare the size of the UK State to other major economies?

Privatising government departments, services, operations etc does not count as reducing the size of the State as some choose to believe.
AS all here will know the NHS is a low cost health service in comparison to most wealthy nations.
Do a similar comparison of all the departments and with the exception of the defence budget (and possibly Welfare) the UK (under Labour) doesn't spend more proportion of GDP than the rest.
The whole argument is political, driven by dogma, not facts.

Excellent, can you show me where you got these figures from because i have been trying to find some comparative figures for quite some time.


Not sure how much information you want.
Here is a link where Health Care spending (GDP) can be compared.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS

Defence Spending here

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=132

I can also provide details of comparison for TOTAL current Government Spending (and tax burdens) for 2014. The value of that is of course skewed because the UK is still in the grip of Austerity and Deficit ....... and why borrowing continues to be too high.

Some historical data on the subject from the Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/oct/16/government-spending-countries-gdp


note for RJD - this Government has not reduced borrowing (in your preferred Absolute terms) by any significant proportion and has increased the DEBT being made for future generations.
Cheers I will check it out
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
The Buccaneer
Jan 5 2015, 12:16 PM
C-too
Jan 1 2015, 03:16 PM
Who was it that threw millions of skilled and semi skilled people out of work, most of them never to work in their trades again. People who were destined to join the growing numbers of low paid in society? While at the same time the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

One thing is certain people WERE stupid and callous enough to elect and re elect that load of callous political sh!te.

17 years of that nonsense and you want to have a go at Labour??

Immigration, can you tell me how any UK government could have stopped it? If you cannot then you need to climb down off your high horse.



Our problem as a nation was and is, that we lack the coherent planning of other countries like Germany, to create other industries in place of the dead ones, and to spend money on the essential R & D to keep up or lead the competition. For this, I blame ALL our political parties, for failing to facilitate the conditions where this might happen.

Other EU countries appear to have more control over their immigration than we do, so how do they manage this within EU rules I wonder ?
Quote:
 
A combination of militant trades unions and cowardly and complacent management were responsible for the death of the 'metal bashing' industries, Mrs T was merely the one with the guts to turn off the public subsidy of these loss making entities.
Militant trade unions were a product of the failure of the so called Captains of Industry, poor management, bad working conditions and low wages adding to the problem.
The world recession of the 1970s exacerbated by the oil crisis of 1973 was again exacerbated by the exporting of steel production to third world countries that had begun before the recession and resulted in too much steel production.
Unfortunately much of the metal bashing was exported to low cost countries while the UK turned to a Deregulated, Financial Services, Free Market economy that created many social economic difficulties at the lower end of the economic pyramid.

It is fair to say that the non-union activity of wild cat strikes should have been made illegal and was made illegal by Mrs T. and I have no arguments against the requirements placed upon the unions by her.

Yes you are correct, our problem is the lack of coherent planning like Germany (who incidentally have worker representation at board level).
According to a recent TV documentary, commented on this board. In the 1950s and early 1960s the Germans were building car plants for producing German cars in many different countries around the world. While in the UK in 1964, Labour inherited the second largest trading deficit ever recorded.

The Thatcher experiment is now over and all parties agree on more apprenticeships and rebuilding a tier of higher paid skilled labour. IMO that should have started in the late 1980s, only Thatcher's extremism stopped that happening.
Edited by C-too, Jan 6 2015, 10:22 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Dec 24 2014, 11:08 AM
Now like most on this board I am biased. I admit it, but to be fair we are all biased by our personal circumstances, our upbringing and our experiences in life, but I do try to be objective.
I am convinced that the BBC , news programmes in particular, has an agenda , a left wing government supporting one. I point the finger , and leave you to decide for yourselves if the coincidences you see are just fair reporting or there is something unfair taking place.
We know that the labour party is having difficulties with their opposition of government policies on the economy, so they have directed their opposition agendas towards the health service and government cuts.
To me the BBC is doing the same, and in the last few days there have been reports by them on ambulance waiting times, hospital waiting times, cuts in council spending, with a cut in street lighting emphasised ,and this morning they had a cameraman at a reporter at a feeding stationto supply food to the "starving" who looked to me .well fed , and the numbers shown very limited indeed. It looked like a set up.
Naturally with their multi cultural agenda , there were black faces to the fore. They do like to focus in their stories on the one black police officer, or the black or female soldier where ever they can. It seems as if the camera man has instructions to get at least one black person in their footage to be cut into the reporting. If a child in a classroom has a head scarf on they get particular attention. They also manage to get a Labour party spokesperson to appear in the early morning to comment on the story they highlight, which seems to indicate that they are in collusion with the Labour party.
I forecast that for the next few months they will concentrate on those things that will advantage the Labour party and will disadvantage the current government, with an emphasis on the NHS, which itself is so successful in the main , but will always have deficiencies and failures. peaks and troughs, until the last few weeks before the general election, when they will take an even handed approach to avoid criticism.

Look and watch for yourself make your judgements in an objective manner , and then tell me it is not as I see it.
Labour will tax middle-class homeowners in England to fund NHS in Scotland
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/labour-will-tax-middle-class-homeowners-in-england-to-fund-nhs-in-scotland/ar-BBhyHd

The Labour party have started campaigning on the NHS as their major platform to gain the next election This morning on BBC news the same agenda was being followed by the BBC, with th shadow Health minister available at short notice to give his point of view. The BBC are biased, and will continue the trend up to the last four weeks before the next GE, when they will revert to a neutral policy.

Here we have the Labour Party in Scotland buying votes at the expense of the English. Another foot in mouth moment that will be raised again and again.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jaguar
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Jan 6 2015, 10:28 AM
Labour will tax middle-class homeowners in England to fund NHS in Scotland
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/labour-will-tax-middle-class-homeowners-in-england-to-fund-nhs-in-scotland/ar-BBhyHd

The Labour party have started campaigning on the NHS as their major platform to gain the next election This morning on BBC news the same agenda was being followed by the BBC, with th shadow Health minister available at short notice to give his point of view. The BBC are biased, and will continue the trend up to the last four weeks before the next GE, when they will revert to a neutral policy.

Here we have the Labour Party in Scotland buying votes at the expense of the English. Another foot in mouth moment that will be raised again and again.
[/quote]Speaking in Edinburgh, Mr Murphy said: "We will get the money for 1,000 extra nurses not by increasing taxes and the pressure on the working class, but by introducing a new tax – a mansion tax on houses worth over £2 million most of which is in London and the South East.
It does smack of being a blatant electoral bribe, particularly when the polls have Labour looking like they might lose shed loads of seats to the SNP.
I often wonder can Labour sink any lower?

Silly question, of course they will.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jan 6 2015, 10:21 AM
The Buccaneer
Jan 5 2015, 12:16 PM
C-too
Jan 1 2015, 03:16 PM
Who was it that threw millions of skilled and semi skilled people out of work, most of them never to work in their trades again. People who were destined to join the growing numbers of low paid in society? While at the same time the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

One thing is certain people WERE stupid and callous enough to elect and re elect that load of callous political sh!te.

17 years of that nonsense and you want to have a go at Labour??

Immigration, can you tell me how any UK government could have stopped it? If you cannot then you need to climb down off your high horse.



Our problem as a nation was and is, that we lack the coherent planning of other countries like Germany, to create other industries in place of the dead ones, and to spend money on the essential R & D to keep up or lead the competition. For this, I blame ALL our political parties, for failing to facilitate the conditions where this might happen.

Other EU countries appear to have more control over their immigration than we do, so how do they manage this within EU rules I wonder ?
Quote:
 
A combination of militant trades unions and cowardly and complacent management were responsible for the death of the 'metal bashing' industries, Mrs T was merely the one with the guts to turn off the public subsidy of these loss making entities.
Militant trade unions were a product of the failure of the so called Captains of Industry, poor management, bad working conditions and low wages adding to the problem.
The world recession of the 1970s exacerbated by the oil crisis of 1973 was again exacerbated by the exporting of steel production to third world countries that had begun before the recession and resulted in too much steel production.
Unfortunately much of the metal bashing was exported to low cost countries while the UK turned to a Deregulated, Financial Services, Free Market economy that created many social economic difficulties at the lower end of the economic pyramid.

It is fair to say that the non-union activity of wild cat strikes should have been made illegal and was made illegal by Mrs T. and I have no arguments against the requirements placed upon the unions by her.

Yes you are correct, our problem is the lack of coherent planning like Germany (who incidentally have worker representation at board level).
According to a recent TV documentary, commented on this board. In the 1950s and early 1960s the Germans were building car plants for producing German cars in many different countries around the world. While in the UK in 1964, Labour inherited the second largest trading deficit ever recorded.

The Thatcher experiment is now over and all parties agree on more apprenticeships and rebuilding a tier of higher paid skilled labour. IMO that should have started in the late 1980s, only Thatcher's extremism stopped that happening.
What rubbish. After rebuilding the economy the UK was producing more added value through manufacturing in 1990 than in 1980. It was only under NL that we saw the rapid decline. Check the facts.
Claiming that Staff Associations and Union Representatives in German companies are/were the magic unique solution is a load of old codswallop and demonstrates an ignorance of the reality in those days. I repeat in the early 1970s a single female German Technician built for us a complete machine; electrics, mechanics and hydraulics and put this through acceptance tests. A similar machine built at the same time for the same project, in the UK, required three different Tradesmen who did not cooperate with each other and a qualified Engineer to commission, and it was a heap of crap delivered late. Yes I punished them with the "time is of the essence" penalty clause which took away their potential profit. The Germans rubbed their hands as the Brits gifted them opportunity after opportunity. By the way Germany was also struggling to rebuild it's economy.
As for German Staff Associations by the late 1980s German Labour Court Magistrates had had a belly full of their game playing and had sided with Employers. I know I went to three different Courts, as the Employer, in three different cities and won every case. Management can, as it does today, work well with reasonable Union Representatives who put jobs before Politics. Trouble with the post WW2 lot, well the bosses of the big Unions anyway, was that their political agenda was paramount and they would have preferred to see private industry fail. Read every Trade Union Conference notes from 1950 onwards until 1979 and the underlying message is always the same "they wanted no truck with a capitalist economy".

All this BS about friendly helpful compliant Trade Union Bosses is make believe, an attempt to rewrite history and white-wash over the truth. As for Mrs T who believes that we could have continued with the chaos of industrial relations that even brought Sunny Jim and his Union Boss friendly Gov. to it's knees? Who believes these Union Bosses would have supped tea with Mrs T and agreed an economic strategy which was in the UK's long term interests when the only sensible outcome was a massive reduction in their potential to abuse power? The truth is that Thatcher was more a Saint with gonads than the Demon that these wannabe Communists would have us believe.




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Jan 6 2015, 11:20 AM
Tytoalba
Jan 6 2015, 10:28 AM
Labour will tax middle-class homeowners in England to fund NHS in Scotland
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/labour-will-tax-middle-class-homeowners-in-england-to-fund-nhs-in-scotland/ar-BBhyHd

The Labour party have started campaigning on the NHS as their major platform to gain the next election This morning on BBC news the same agenda was being followed by the BBC, with th shadow Health minister available at short notice to give his point of view. The BBC are biased, and will continue the trend up to the last four weeks before the next GE, when they will revert to a neutral policy.

Here we have the Labour Party in Scotland buying votes at the expense of the English. Another foot in mouth moment that will be raised again and again.
Speaking in Edinburgh, Mr Murphy said: "We will get the money for 1,000 extra nurses not by increasing taxes and the pressure on the working class, but by introducing a new tax – a mansion tax on houses worth over £2 million most of which is in London and the South East.
It does smack of being a blatant electoral bribe, particularly when the polls have Labour looking like they might lose shed loads of seats to the SNP.
I often wonder can Labour sink any lower?

Silly question, of course they will.
[/quote]Can't open your website.

Given the history of the NHS under the Tories, it is obviously one of their weaknesses and one of the strengths of Labour. O f course it will be used for political purposes, in the same way it would be used if the shoe was on the other foot.

As for politicians stooping so low? How about lying about sorting out the deficit in five years?

IMO, realistically most politicians are capable of sinking as low as they feel they need to.

It is rather silly and immature to point the finger at one party only.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 6 2015, 12:37 PM
C-too
Jan 6 2015, 10:21 AM
The Buccaneer
Jan 5 2015, 12:16 PM
C-too
Jan 1 2015, 03:16 PM
Who was it that threw millions of skilled and semi skilled people out of work, most of them never to work in their trades again. People who were destined to join the growing numbers of low paid in society? While at the same time the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

One thing is certain people WERE stupid and callous enough to elect and re elect that load of callous political sh!te.

17 years of that nonsense and you want to have a go at Labour??

Immigration, can you tell me how any UK government could have stopped it? If you cannot then you need to climb down off your high horse.



Our problem as a nation was and is, that we lack the coherent planning of other countries like Germany, to create other industries in place of the dead ones, and to spend money on the essential R & D to keep up or lead the competition. For this, I blame ALL our political parties, for failing to facilitate the conditions where this might happen.

Other EU countries appear to have more control over their immigration than we do, so how do they manage this within EU rules I wonder ?
Quote:
 
A combination of militant trades unions and cowardly and complacent management were responsible for the death of the 'metal bashing' industries, Mrs T was merely the one with the guts to turn off the public subsidy of these loss making entities.
Militant trade unions were a product of the failure of the so called Captains of Industry, poor management, bad working conditions and low wages adding to the problem.
The world recession of the 1970s exacerbated by the oil crisis of 1973 was again exacerbated by the exporting of steel production to third world countries that had begun before the recession and resulted in too much steel production.
Unfortunately much of the metal bashing was exported to low cost countries while the UK turned to a Deregulated, Financial Services, Free Market economy that created many social economic difficulties at the lower end of the economic pyramid.

It is fair to say that the non-union activity of wild cat strikes should have been made illegal and was made illegal by Mrs T. and I have no arguments against the requirements placed upon the unions by her.

Yes you are correct, our problem is the lack of coherent planning like Germany (who incidentally have worker representation at board level).
According to a recent TV documentary, commented on this board. In the 1950s and early 1960s the Germans were building car plants for producing German cars in many different countries around the world. While in the UK in 1964, Labour inherited the second largest trading deficit ever recorded.

The Thatcher experiment is now over and all parties agree on more apprenticeships and rebuilding a tier of higher paid skilled labour. IMO that should have started in the late 1980s, only Thatcher's extremism stopped that happening.
What rubbish. After rebuilding the economy the UK was producing more added value through manufacturing in 1990 than in 1980. It was only under NL that we saw the rapid decline. Check the facts.
Claiming that Staff Associations and Union Representatives in German companies are/were the magic unique solution is a load of old codswallop and demonstrates an ignorance of the reality in those days. I repeat in the early 1970s a single female German Technician built for us a complete machine; electrics, mechanics and hydraulics and put this through acceptance tests. A similar machine built at the same time for the same project, in the UK, required three different Tradesmen who did not cooperate with each other and a qualified Engineer to commission, and it was a heap of crap delivered late. Yes I punished them with the "time is of the essence" penalty clause which took away their potential profit. The Germans rubbed their hands as the Brits gifted them opportunity after opportunity. By the way Germany was also struggling to rebuild it's economy.
As for German Staff Associations by the late 1980s German Labour Court Magistrates had had a belly full of their game playing and had sided with Employers. I know I went to three different Courts, as the Employer, in three different cities and won every case. Management can, as it does today, work well with reasonable Union Representatives who put jobs before Politics. Trouble with the post WW2 lot, well the bosses of the big Unions anyway, was that their political agenda was paramount and they would have preferred to see private industry fail. Read every Trade Union Conference notes from 1950 onwards until 1979 and the underlying message is always the same "they wanted no truck with a capitalist economy".

All this BS about friendly helpful compliant Trade Union Bosses is make believe, an attempt to rewrite history and white-wash over the truth. As for Mrs T who believes that we could have continued with the chaos of industrial relations that even brought Sunny Jim and his Union Boss friendly Gov. to it's knees? Who believes these Union Bosses would have supped tea with Mrs T and agreed an economic strategy which was in the UK's long term interests when the only sensible outcome was a massive reduction in their potential to abuse power? The truth is that Thatcher was more a Saint with gonads than the Demon that these wannabe Communists would have us believe.




More of your stunted opinions.

I made no such claims about Staff Associations and Union reps in Germany. So the "codswallop" is all your, as usual.

Your female example in Germany only proves my point about the different mind-set and attitudes that were the product of the mind-set and attitudes that were built up over time.

The rebuilding of the German economy was obviously achieved largely through cooperation not through coercion. Their pension arrangements and their health services perhaps indicate this.
The British system which appears to be, get as much as you can from the workforce while giving them as little as possible, clearly does not/did not work.

The only way the unions had any power/support was because of the awful path working people had trod in this country. Some genuine honest one country thinking from those with the real wealth and power would have led people down a different path. It's blatantly obvious that low paid people with families to feed and mortgages/rents to pay do not want to go on strike.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jan 6 2015, 01:15 PM
RJD
Jan 6 2015, 12:37 PM
C-too
Jan 6 2015, 10:21 AM
The Buccaneer
Jan 5 2015, 12:16 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Quote:
 
A combination of militant trades unions and cowardly and complacent management were responsible for the death of the 'metal bashing' industries, Mrs T was merely the one with the guts to turn off the public subsidy of these loss making entities.
Militant trade unions were a product of the failure of the so called Captains of Industry, poor management, bad working conditions and low wages adding to the problem.
The world recession of the 1970s exacerbated by the oil crisis of 1973 was again exacerbated by the exporting of steel production to third world countries that had begun before the recession and resulted in too much steel production.
Unfortunately much of the metal bashing was exported to low cost countries while the UK turned to a Deregulated, Financial Services, Free Market economy that created many social economic difficulties at the lower end of the economic pyramid.

It is fair to say that the non-union activity of wild cat strikes should have been made illegal and was made illegal by Mrs T. and I have no arguments against the requirements placed upon the unions by her.

Yes you are correct, our problem is the lack of coherent planning like Germany (who incidentally have worker representation at board level).
According to a recent TV documentary, commented on this board. In the 1950s and early 1960s the Germans were building car plants for producing German cars in many different countries around the world. While in the UK in 1964, Labour inherited the second largest trading deficit ever recorded.

The Thatcher experiment is now over and all parties agree on more apprenticeships and rebuilding a tier of higher paid skilled labour. IMO that should have started in the late 1980s, only Thatcher's extremism stopped that happening.
What rubbish. After rebuilding the economy the UK was producing more added value through manufacturing in 1990 than in 1980. It was only under NL that we saw the rapid decline. Check the facts.
Claiming that Staff Associations and Union Representatives in German companies are/were the magic unique solution is a load of old codswallop and demonstrates an ignorance of the reality in those days. I repeat in the early 1970s a single female German Technician built for us a complete machine; electrics, mechanics and hydraulics and put this through acceptance tests. A similar machine built at the same time for the same project, in the UK, required three different Tradesmen who did not cooperate with each other and a qualified Engineer to commission, and it was a heap of crap delivered late. Yes I punished them with the "time is of the essence" penalty clause which took away their potential profit. The Germans rubbed their hands as the Brits gifted them opportunity after opportunity. By the way Germany was also struggling to rebuild it's economy.
As for German Staff Associations by the late 1980s German Labour Court Magistrates had had a belly full of their game playing and had sided with Employers. I know I went to three different Courts, as the Employer, in three different cities and won every case. Management can, as it does today, work well with reasonable Union Representatives who put jobs before Politics. Trouble with the post WW2 lot, well the bosses of the big Unions anyway, was that their political agenda was paramount and they would have preferred to see private industry fail. Read every Trade Union Conference notes from 1950 onwards until 1979 and the underlying message is always the same "they wanted no truck with a capitalist economy".

All this BS about friendly helpful compliant Trade Union Bosses is make believe, an attempt to rewrite history and white-wash over the truth. As for Mrs T who believes that we could have continued with the chaos of industrial relations that even brought Sunny Jim and his Union Boss friendly Gov. to it's knees? Who believes these Union Bosses would have supped tea with Mrs T and agreed an economic strategy which was in the UK's long term interests when the only sensible outcome was a massive reduction in their potential to abuse power? The truth is that Thatcher was more a Saint with gonads than the Demon that these wannabe Communists would have us believe.




More of your stunted opinions.

I made no such claims about Staff Associations and Union reps in Germany. So the "codswallop" is all your, as usual.

Your female example in Germany only proves my point about the different mind-set and attitudes that were the product of the mind-set and attitudes that were built up over time.

The rebuilding of the German economy was obviously achieved largely through cooperation not through coercion. Their pension arrangements and their health services perhaps indicate this.
The British system which appears to be, get as much as you can from the workforce while giving them as little as possible, clearly does not/did not work.

The only way the unions had any power/support was because of the awful path working people had trod in this country. Some genuine honest one country thinking from those with the real wealth and power would have led people down a different path. It's blatantly obvious that low paid people with families to feed and mortgages/rents to pay do not want to go on strike.
Again you demonstrate your ignorance. most German company insurance has been part of the companies liabilities not as in the UK a separate entity. Think Robert Maxwell and understand that there have been German versions. Check on the AEG pension bale out.
You offer just left wing opinion which is not based in the reality of those times. You do not even wish to recognise that British Workers were, during the 1970s, well paid in European terms but failed to deliver on productivity promises. It is all well documented if you dare to stray from the Agenda. It is also rather stupid to claim that such people did not want to strike, the truth is that in the face of destroying their own jobs many did out of fear. Scargill did not even bother to ask them for permission to call his famously politically inspired strike. And yes I did sit in a meeting on a Friday, in Longbridge, and witness the Bullyboys call a strike at noon for no other reason than demonstrate they had the power to do so. Funny how it was that their only complaint appeared to be the introduction of machinery already in operation in German plants. Seems to me C2 you are polishing a turd. That said there were in those days a lot of crappy weak managers and weak Politicians who should have put the truth of the situation on the line, but this is difficult when your Paymaster is a Union Boss. I am sure you have an explanation why German Workers accepted less, caused less trouble, worked harder, accepted innovations in the same time period? All this bunkum of workers having their noses ground into the dust is so much Marxist drivel when the relative situation is compared and when compared with that Marxist paradise one runs out of expletives. The truth is that the trouble makers were closet Marxists who even the Labour Party could not deal with. Apologists such as yourself should be ashamed in making such ignorant claims. Again I accuse you of being mendacious and believe your ilk are the problem that is why you will never be part of any acceptable solution to Joe Public.






Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 6 2015, 01:43 PM
C-too
Jan 6 2015, 01:15 PM
RJD
Jan 6 2015, 12:37 PM
C-too
Jan 6 2015, 10:21 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
What rubbish. After rebuilding the economy the UK was producing more added value through manufacturing in 1990 than in 1980. It was only under NL that we saw the rapid decline. Check the facts.
Claiming that Staff Associations and Union Representatives in German companies are/were the magic unique solution is a load of old codswallop and demonstrates an ignorance of the reality in those days. I repeat in the early 1970s a single female German Technician built for us a complete machine; electrics, mechanics and hydraulics and put this through acceptance tests. A similar machine built at the same time for the same project, in the UK, required three different Tradesmen who did not cooperate with each other and a qualified Engineer to commission, and it was a heap of crap delivered late. Yes I punished them with the "time is of the essence" penalty clause which took away their potential profit. The Germans rubbed their hands as the Brits gifted them opportunity after opportunity. By the way Germany was also struggling to rebuild it's economy.
As for German Staff Associations by the late 1980s German Labour Court Magistrates had had a belly full of their game playing and had sided with Employers. I know I went to three different Courts, as the Employer, in three different cities and won every case. Management can, as it does today, work well with reasonable Union Representatives who put jobs before Politics. Trouble with the post WW2 lot, well the bosses of the big Unions anyway, was that their political agenda was paramount and they would have preferred to see private industry fail. Read every Trade Union Conference notes from 1950 onwards until 1979 and the underlying message is always the same "they wanted no truck with a capitalist economy".

All this BS about friendly helpful compliant Trade Union Bosses is make believe, an attempt to rewrite history and white-wash over the truth. As for Mrs T who believes that we could have continued with the chaos of industrial relations that even brought Sunny Jim and his Union Boss friendly Gov. to it's knees? Who believes these Union Bosses would have supped tea with Mrs T and agreed an economic strategy which was in the UK's long term interests when the only sensible outcome was a massive reduction in their potential to abuse power? The truth is that Thatcher was more a Saint with gonads than the Demon that these wannabe Communists would have us believe.




More of your stunted opinions.

I made no such claims about Staff Associations and Union reps in Germany. So the "codswallop" is all your, as usual.

Your female example in Germany only proves my point about the different mind-set and attitudes that were the product of the mind-set and attitudes that were built up over time.

The rebuilding of the German economy was obviously achieved largely through cooperation not through coercion. Their pension arrangements and their health services perhaps indicate this.
The British system which appears to be, get as much as you can from the workforce while giving them as little as possible, clearly does not/did not work.

The only way the unions had any power/support was because of the awful path working people had trod in this country. Some genuine honest one country thinking from those with the real wealth and power would have led people down a different path. It's blatantly obvious that low paid people with families to feed and mortgages/rents to pay do not want to go on strike.
Again you demonstrate your ignorance. most German company insurance has been part of the companies liabilities not as in the UK a separate entity. Think Robert Maxwell and understand that there have been German versions. Check on the AEG pension bale out.
You offer just left wing opinion which is not based in the reality of those times. You do not even wish to recognise that British Workers were, during the 1970s, well paid in European terms but failed to deliver on productivity promises. It is all well documented if you dare to stray from the Agenda. It is also rather stupid to claim that such people did not want to strike, the truth is that in the face of destroying their own jobs many did out of fear. Scargill did not even bother to ask them for permission to call his famously politically inspired strike. And yes I did sit in a meeting on a Friday, in Longbridge, and witness the Bullyboys call a strike at noon for no other reason than demonstrate they had the power to do so. Funny how it was that their only complaint appeared to be the introduction of machinery already in operation in German plants. Seems to me C2 you are polishing a turd. That said there were in those days a lot of crappy weak managers and weak Politicians who should have put the truth of the situation on the line, but this is difficult when your Paymaster is a Union Boss. I am sure you have an explanation why German Workers accepted less, caused less trouble, worked harder, accepted innovations in the same time period? All this bunkum of workers having their noses ground into the dust is so much Marxist drivel when the relative situation is compared and when compared with that Marxist paradise one runs out of expletives. The truth is that the trouble makers were closet Marxists who even the Labour Party could not deal with. Apologists such as yourself should be ashamed in making such ignorant claims. Again I accuse you of being mendacious and believe your ilk are the problem that is why you will never be part of any acceptable solution to Joe Public.






Pure obfuscation.

Quoting points from the distorted position of the 1970s is about as sad as you get.
You create your own scenarios in order to knock them down. If you are going to reply to a post, then you need to direct your comments to the points made and in context to the points made in that post and not go wandering off into your own little world of self deception.

The truth is that there were many activists who only had one iota of influence or control at all, because the UK economy had perished under too much Conservative influence over too long a period.

You are too concerned with looking at the spots and blemishes while ignoring the underlying sickness that caused those spots and blemishes.

For the future we need a change of mind-set from the top to the bottom of society and that will only happen when those with the wealth and the real power in society decide it will happen. IMO the chances of that happening are zero, largely because of people like yourself.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
C2: Pure obfuscation.

Not true. To the point.

C2: Quoting points from the distorted position of the 1970s is about as sad as you get.

Why are you against facts and examples that with numerous and very easy for you to find if you only opened you closed mind?
Nothing sad about resorting to actual history when debating such, unless of course if it does not fit your agenda.

C2: You create your own scenarios in order to knock them down. If you are going to reply to a post, then you need to direct your comments to the points made and in context to the points made in that post and not go wandering off into your own little world of self deception.

Rubbish. Where are your examples, where are your arguments against. C2 you are full of lefty BS.

C2: The truth is that there were many activists who only had one iota of influence or control at all, because the UK economy had perished under too much Conservative influence over too long a period.

Sounds like a load of unsubstantiated opinion too me. Why not trawl through all of the strikes in the 1970s say and then report with some evidence.

C2: You are too concerned with looking at the spots and blemishes while ignoring the underlying sickness that caused those spots and blemishes.

Lefty twaddle again. Sorry Sonny but the Germans and the Japanese, managed to do a lot better for less reward, the lefty claim that the British Working man was ground down at the Capitalist's heel is pure Marxist BS. You spend your life searching to excuse the Inexcusable.

C2: For the future we need a change of mind-set from the top to the bottom of society and that will only happen when those with the wealth and the real power in society decide it will happen. IMO the chances of that happening are zero, largely because of people like yourself.

Again Marxist twaddle that has no bearing on reality. I/we want to see as many as possible in real jobs earning good money, but we recognise in this increasingly competitive World that certain preconditions are required. Yes it is true that capital and skills have earned more in the last four decades than those without skills, but the solution cannot be found by the UK in isolation. The long Marxist whinge is not helpful and the lack of proposals from that quarter is deafening in it's silence. It is very stupid, ignorant, not to recognise that it is in everyone's interest that the prosperity of Workers is a benefit to us all. C2 stop visiting the Red Nag and swallowing the myths as after 50 years of that drivel we have all become very tired. You sound like you are in an early 1980s time warp.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply