Not so. I am saying that a low percentage turn out in a general election cannot be used to justify a very low percentage turnout in a ballot to strike which has a negative effect on so many other people, particularly when the reason for the strike is pure self interest for around 25% of that workforce.

Yes the bailed out banks should be classed as state owned until they are sold so they should be subject to tighter control. There is some regulation including some new stuff but we have to be careful about regulation that puts us at a dissadvantage to the rest of the world.

I mean that it is the private sector that creates profits with private investment which is then taxed. This is in the income side of the account while the state sector costs are in the outgoings side of the account.

All banks were bailed out, they would have all gone. Not just the ones in dire need, but the relatively strong ones, who if we had come to the financial armaggedon which was possible, would have been irreperably harmed. WHilst only limited banks actually recieved money, all of them were bailed out.

And what I am pointing out to you is that we Are all stakeholders in our business. Not just the shareholders. If you want a true free market where these companies have no responsibility to the wider society then fine, but the government help offered to these companies also needs removing. That means the government not allowing big companies to avoid tax in any way shape or form, it means a tax levy which doesn’t encourage business but takes the maximum amount out possible, it means no help for companies, no subsidies, no investments in infrastructure which helps business, no tax breaks, no trade missions, no entreprise zones, if the people arent stakeholders in business then business doesnt benefit the people and the business deserves no benefit from the people.

Not so. They are part of the biggest single sector for paying taxes - more than the North Sea Oil and Gas. That is why the Government is scared that HSBC and Barclays could move their bases abroad.

The public sector feeds, clothes, keeps health and keeps secure the people which allows the private sector to thrive. Without society (codified as 'the state) the private sector would consist of bartering over a freshly killed ox or some berries we had picked from a bush.

Not on their individual earnings they arent. Whilst HSBC, Barclays et al may pay a high (in absolute terms) amount of corporation tax, their workers dont pay a massive (in absolute terms) amount of income tax.

Think of how many people work in the NHS and then compare it to the amount of people who are directors at big banks, they would need to be paying an amazing level of tax to be paying more money than everybody who works in the NHS.

An MP is elected to represent all his constituents no matter what party they voted for. You have a right to go to your MP's surgery and ask help for any grievance or injustice etc. He/She has a duty to try and help and in most cases they will do so based on the case you present rather than the fact that you are a Raving Moster Looney Party member.

I have always believed that we should consider the personal qualities of the propective MP as well as their political colour. (as in Blue, Red and Yellow.... for G1 benefit)

Barclays, HSBC Standard Charter etc were not bailed out.

All countries offer incentives for business because they need them to create wealth without which we could not afford a public sector at all. The fact is unless you have put your money in as a shareholder with the risks that come with that, as a member of the public you have no right to determine how that company is run

I am not knocking the public sector. I worked in it years ago. Of course we want an excellent public sector but we can only afford what we can afford to pay for. That income comes from the private sector.

The tax generated by total employment in the FS sector where banks are the biggest employer was 24.5 billion in 2010 I would call this quite massive.

Taxes, maybe. Income tax, hmmm. And anyway I wasn't talking about the tens of thousands of staff, which you're disengenuously switching the argument to, but about the many executives who I absolutely know offshore everything and have no UK income tax liabilities.

The government are scared that they'll be moving abroad, or possibly just pandering to the conveniently pitched but practically impossible idea that they'll be moving abroad, because:

1) The trickle-down effect of high-net worth individuals (and that includes Russian and Arab money as well as the City bonus-boys) spending money (and, to the government, VAT and stamp duty) on houses, goods and services is about the only thing keeping London in particular from catastrophe.

2) The loss of thousands more private sector jobs will make them look even more stupid for saying that, to compensate for the loss of public sector jobs, the private sector will motor job-creation in the teeth of recession.

3) Because political parties need funding, and favours need to be repaid.

Same with a union rep.

We are not talking about OVER GENEROUS PENSIONS HERE,its the dinner ladies ,its the hospital cleaners ,etc who will still get a less than generous pension even if things stay as they are.Why should the people who have not caused this crisis be made to pay for it?How the trad union movement carries out its businness is nothing to do with anyone outside the movement,and I still maintain this tory led coalition does not have a mandate to enforce Tory policies,and certainly not on the share of vote they got.I am only a painter and my pension is certainly not over generous .The private sector I worked in was not so much creating wealth but taking it from their employees,that is why I went to the public works dept for fairer more civilised employment.It seems nothing much has changed since Tressel wrote his great novel The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists.