There's truth in this. However, Labour were quite explicit about their intentions to increase spending on health and education. Indeed, they won consecutive landslide majorities on that basis.

Maggie Thatcher did her job well with some of the posters on here. Whatever happened to us and them. Us being the mushrooms, paid sh*t and kept in the dark but truly in it together. Them being the f**kers who always hold all the cards, control News International, are usually cr*p at any sport, would be the classroom snitch and walk past an old lady being mugged.

OP you only get the benefits you do because of the union, so if you are thinking of having a nice Christmas, on the back of your striking colleagues then we'll know were to look for the next lot of concentration camp guards. Always remember, what goes around comes around.

It is a good read Juan you may not agree with it but its a good read.I would have thought a man like you would have at least heard of it.Anyway the Labour govt did not expand the public sector in which I was employed.We still carried on under the Thatcher and Major govts for 17years,it was under Blair that closed us down,Blairs new labour was just Thatcherism by another name.He closed down all the public works depts.I took V E R in 1997 and obviously for now I dont live in Britian,but I still pay taxes to Britain and intend votuing in the next election and I am a retired member of ucatt.It was a great tragedy that John Smith collapsed and died walking up that Scottish mountain..He was on the right of the party ,but unlike Blair he was a labour man

Are you usually this obnoxious, or did someone p155 in your tea this morning? You do realise how any kind of "us and them" post makes you look, regardless of who the "us and them" actually are? Is it any wonder some people find it hard to be taken seriously when they post such utter rubbish...

Wow is this guy for real - intimidation or what!!

You really have spit your dummy out - your knuckles must be red raw!!

I quoted from the ONS. If you have other facts to contribute please tell us.

The strike is about average salaries not the low paid or the high paid - so average salaries are a fair indicator. I think the fact that in the private sector there are these huge top salaries you can argue the guy on average earnings in the private sector will be even less well off. Most of the big bonuses are also paid to the top people in the private sector which again would make the private sector real average even lower still.

Also bonuses do not normally count towards pensions which is largely what this strike is about.

Like it or not the fact that I am pointing out is that average salaries are higher in the public sector than the private sector by some margin and this negates the historical reason for public sector workers from having better pension terms that the majority of the population - a point that Union still have pretended existed.

With regard to tax. Of course public sector employees pay taxes. Are you suggesting that 100% of the labour and pension costs of the public sector are covered by their income tax and vat contribution? Let alone the capital, running and overhead costs: Yes some of the total costs are recovered in taxes but nowhere near half. Where do you think the total costs come from? Perhaps you should also remember to point this out to your friends in the public sector.

You cannot equate these two things.

You do not have a single party government who can fulfill their manifesto pledges. The clue is in the name COALITION government which means they have to make compromises to what they would have each have prefered to have done had either party won on their own. This is what happens and is normal with coalitions and can be seen throughout Europe and would be par for the course if PR were to be introduced.

The fact is the two parties have agreed on difficult and unpopular decisions to try and get us out of the deficit mess they have inherited. These two parties represent almost 60% of the vote and like it or not our system allows them to make decisions as they deem fit to suit the problems they are faced with. Since the election 18 months ago the world and European economic situation has worsened to potentially cataclismic proportions. At these difficult times it is only the awkward squad who keep going on about manifesto pledges. You don't agree because you blindly follow the line of Labour who were partly to blame for the deficit caused by their overspending and overborrowing.

I am not surprised that you seem happy that 25% of the workforce can enforce a national strike for the selfishness of a small minority.

I am aware of it and I promise I will try and read it. Agree about John Smith who was an intelligent man who I respected a lot.

Is the strike lawful?

The right to withdraw labour distinguishes the free worker from that of a slave.

Do you accept the principal?

principle

...unless you're referring to some American head teacher that he should accept

My wife is a primary school teacher...and she doesn't get paid enough for the workload she has. The role is lumbered with government interference and ticking boxes bureacracy to the detriment of creative teaching.

However, she accepts that whatever the rights and wrongs of this financial mess that we're in, her insistence on entitlements that the country cannot afford will only penalise us and more importantly the future generations - her children - with higher taxes. She won't be striking.

Earlier in the thread you appeared to suggest that what the coalition is doing had the majority support of the 'popular vote' whereas here you're accepting what is being served up has no such implied mandate.

In May 2010 'the coalition' offered no manifesto, and didn't appear on any ballot paper.




Borrowing to spend is an effective technique for deficit reduction if it results in higher tax revenues and reduced expense on benefits. These improvements in the balance sheet will outweigh the extra repayments. It is particularly useful when interest rates are as low as they are at present. If the spending programmes are suitably chosen, they will help restore economic growth generally, multiplying the effect.

Gideon is now seeing the opposite effect

I don't agree because the stated aim to balance the economy by the end of this parliament is unrealistic without inflicting further damage and that burden disproportionately falling on women generally and those least able to make ends meet. I'm fairly sure my prediction for the UK economy from 12 months ago on here (one of flatlining growth) has thus far proved more accurate than that of the OECD, the IMF the BOE and the OBR. Strange that they couldn't see the storm clouds gathering over our major export market.

The Tories have alway's detested the public sector for years ,decades ,well over a century.Lets just look at the NHS the two factions who were against this getting set up were the insurance company's and of course the conservative party.This conservative led coalition are using this financial crisis to kick attack the public sector again.

Once again you are being obtuse. Please quote the law that states that the elected government has to adhere to its manifesto or cannot compromise parts of it’s Manifesto in a coalition as they think fit.

It is plain for most people (but not you) that by definition a Coalition cannot carry out individual manifestos but has to compromise to move forward. Before the last election there was much talk of a hung parliament after Clegg’s success in the TV debates. The public were well aware of the risks of this. Indeed many unenlightened folk wanted a change to PR in any case despite the problems experienced by some of our European neighbours.

The public had rejected Labour and made the Conservatives clear winners but without an overall majority. Our political system allows for a coalition and this government have a clear majority. It is to the credit of these two parties that they have made compromises and been firm on the key issues.



Yes this can work. However the IMF, CBI, money & stock markets, and the important credit rating agencies have made it clear they do not want the UK to do anything to reduce their deficit reduction plans. This risk of losing our AAA status and so increasing our borrowing costs is just too dangerous to contemplate.

I think the Government face very difficult decisions made much worse by the ongoing Euro problem and up coming EU recession. Good job we resisted the calls to join the Euro. Where were you on that one tvoc?

It has always fallen on the Tories to cut back the Labours overspending. At the last election only the Tories guaranteed not to cut the NHS budget.

We can only pay for a public sector that we can afford. Can you not see that most countries have now realised that they have been spending more than they have been earning and cannot just keep on funding the difference by borrowing. We have reached the end of this phase.

We have to start to produce more jobs in the private sector to pay for the sort of public sector we would all like. This will not be easy.

You are obviously a very well educated highly intellectual man.I am only a retired painter who left school at 15,but if the Tories keep saying "The NHS is safe in our hands"then why did they oppose it when it was being set up?and dont forget it was being created when country MUST have been in a far worse financial state than it is now,but it was done and thank god it was..because believe me woe betide britain if they ever get the system they have got in the USA.
I am totally against capitalism,but I really do think the utilities should be carried out by the public sector.By the way my first employer A.My Youngs of Chapel Allerton decoraters were a pleasure to save my time and work for 10 years there .Mr Youngs was a gentleman