Off-Topic III: The Revengening!

[Wildeybeast]

The clear implication from the government was that those public sector workers who went on strike are work shy layabouts who clearly make no contribution at all to the economy or wider society the rest of the time. It is this sort of lazy and insulting stereotyping/propaganda which I took offence at.

Whilst I have no intention of getting into a dispute about this issue with you, I would like to point out that I made no mention of pay rises, nor has the NUT campaign ever been about that. Had our pension contributions not been increased, it would have not cost the taxpayer (which includes public sectors workers) any more money and would have offset cost of living increases.

[Mr Mystery]

Maybe I am cynical, but I am not sure how striking and holding parent's to ransom is hard working.

Public sector wages have stagnated, well guess what so have private sector.

Why should public sector workers get pay rises thus costing the majority of the labour force more money in tax liability, when they themselves have not recieved pay rises?

Or is it a case that the public sector just wants to screw the private sector even more?

All wages haven't so much stagnated, as been artificially suppressed. They haven't kept up with inflation for decades - quite possibly longer than my lifetime (34 years, born May 1980).

[Wolfshade]

The pay suppression is something that no government of any flavour has dealt with.

We've spoken how the the whole labour force carries the tax burden of public sector workers before, as opposed to private sector pensions which are paid for by the employer and employee.

[daboarder]

no government has addressed this no, because the "left" governments merely hold ground or compromise, they dont make progress anymore. and then when the right governments get in they make huge leaps to the right that aren't redressed when they inevitably get booted out again

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

Benefits have kept pace with the cost of living. Wages haven't. That's why many people find themselves better off on benefits than in work. And frankly that's insane, but needs a two ended approach. Start cutting back benefits, whilst raising the minimum wage to something one can realistically live off of.

Would I like to see fewer benefits paid out? Naturally yes I would. But when someone is only claiming a single one, like Job Seekers (which pays naff all anyway, and certainly nowhere near enough for job hunting outside of your immediate vicinity) is it really worth starving them over?

ATOS in particular have been utterly shameful throughout the restructuring. And IDS has just thrown good money after bad with his bizarre insistence that Universal Credit, depsite all evidence and experience to the contrary, is going to work.

[Wolfshade]

Changing the minimum wage isn't as simple as that as it causes unintended consequeces that we have been through be I will summarise.

1) Inflation increases
2) Increased unemployment
3) Disproptionally detrimental to manufacturing.

But as a general rule of thumb I agree that those out of work should have a lower standard of living than those that do work.

It is really an emotive topic, but it is quite a small amount of money, certainly it is a fraction to what the nation pays out in pensions approximately 20p in ever £1 spent.

There is a problem with the benefit system. Each sucessive government would see that there is a niche of people that weren't be addressed by the benefit so it would be tacked on. Until it became a huge unweildy behemoth that something needed to be done to make it more streamlined and more efficient, now any restructuring would be painful and most over run. But do you risk making something simpler in the long terms for a little short term hurt or do you must not bother and continue adding things on here and there until you have a beast that is nigh-on impenetrable.

But there are good and bad things. I think it was good that people had housing benefit paid to them and they then paid that in rent, it gives them control over their finances, but instead swathes didn't spend it on rent and were surprised to be evicted.

[Mr Mystery]

And as ever, the post-war Generation who pulled the ladder up after them are making damned sure their pensions are as rosey as can be, and sod everyone else. Everything else can be plundered, privatised, cut back, done away with - unless it directly affects that generation.

Hence the lack of house building. Why, that would affect the value of their own property. You know, the one they bought for a more than reasonable price back in the 70's. The ones that have skyrocketed in value to the point where even I start earning £60,000 a year I won't be able to afford to buy a family home. Can't have any value being knocked off that now can we? Oh no.

[Wolfshade]

Being on the property ladder, I don't see the problem

But no, it is silly.

Trouble is the grey vote is most important, because they vote. Young people see things are stacked against tehm so don't vote out of apathy so the parties go and follow those most likely to vote.

The only real exception is LibDems who unfortunately, have alienated their student base.

[Mr Mystery]

Haven't they just. Such a disappointment.

Granted, being the minority stake in a coalition limits your clout somewhat, but there was no need for them to grab their ankles quite so badly. Drunk on power, and they might never recover as a party, whether or not they ditch Clegg.

And we're looking at the same situation with Labour as we did the Tories last time around - they're likely to get in, not because they have the credible alternative, but because the incumbent's are desparately unpopular.

Though having said that, I think it's worth having the Tories in for one more run - simply because they're promising a referendum on EU membership. One way or the other, such a referendum would blow UKIP out of the political water. Vote for in, they will have to STFU as the public has spoken. Vote for out? What purpose do the swivel eyed lunatics serve now? Sadly, UKIP are one of the reasons Cameron is likely out next election. They're primarily eroding the Tory voter base at a time when they need it as shored up as possible.

[Wolfshade]

It is strange, I don't think Labour can win with Milliband, or at least this Milliband, I know it is shallow but he does not look prime-ministerial. He looks like Wallace.

David Milliband looks and sounds much more statesmanly.

Then you have Ed Balls whose predictions on the worsening economy are just wrong so he has no credibility with that.

it is a difficult one, throuhgout histoy any part that has implemented a raft of cuts, gone through recessions and generally do unpopular things are massively unpopular and yet we do not see it in the polls.

I think UKIP are the biggest threat to the British economy. Yes, I would like to see the highest law of the land being in the UK and for the UK to chose which laws to adopt or not and not haev them imposed. But I do not want to leave teh economic market. Europe is our biggest trade partner and the UK manuacturing has big enough issues with expesnive labour before worrying about the effect of import taxes would be.

But this is part of the truth that UKIP are hopefully trying to make people unaware of and cite the 8.7 billion bulgarians who want to come in and steal our women, sorry job.

Fear and ignprance are their allies and unfortunately, they evoke a strong emotional reaction and so they get people whipped up and ready to vote for the idoicy.

Having said all that, I am in favour of UKIPs plan to make the circle line circluar again...

- - - Updated - - -

The other issue are the "I vote this way because I always do". I know an old man very well, he is an avid labour man through and through, he is a member and was in the unions back in the day. He is also reasonably intelligent. He has moved through his career from being a tradtional labour voter to being a tradtional tory voter, yet he has not switched red for blue. Despite him being actively opposed to some Labour policies and hating Milliband, he will still drive down and vote for the labour guy.

And this is what we are stuck with generations of people who believe we are in a 1950s Britian, where Labour are left, Tories are right and the LibDems are a demonstration vote. In reality, Labour and Conservative are much closer to the centre and each other than the "traditional core vote" would like to observe.