Why do so many people take ANY excuse to have a go at railway staff and Bob?

[table38]

Perhaps but I'm yet to see a Tory policy that will help the poor

Here are a few to be going on with then

• Restore the earnings link for the basic state pension from April 2011, with a 'triple guarantee' that pensions are raised by the higher of earnings, prices or 2.5 per cent.
• Protect key benefits for older people
• Maintain the goal of ending child poverty in the UK by 2020
• Support the provision of free nursery care for pre-school children
• Providing new funds for social enterprises and charities through a Big Society Bank which harnesses unclaimed assets from dormant accounts and money from high street banks
• Opened a new £30 million fund to help modernise organisations that supply critical support to front-line charities, voluntary groups and social enterprises.
• Helping neighbourhood groups in areas of deprivation through a £80 million Community First fund, which will encourage social action through new and existing neighbourhood groups
• Piloting innovative new social impact bonds which will allow everyone to invest in programmes that provide intensive help for families blighted by anti-social behaviour, crime, addiction and poor education

Which suggests the voting system is flawed. Nonetheless, what's good enough for the government is good enough for unions

I think the problem is that a strike vote is a simple yes or no vote, whereas a general election vote has multiple options. If you go back before 1900 before the Labour party existed and elections were basically a two horse race between Conservative and Liberal, it appears that majority outcomes were more common.

 

[Old Timer]

.....The main point for me is that the Conservative government refused even to pay for the pumping out if mines that were still viable, mines that could even today be providing coal to keep our lights on, and helping to pay off our southern banking ( tally ho chaps – I’m all right jack) inspired deficit, which means that it will be almost impossible to reopen these mines. One wonders why.

Scargill was an idiot - but he was right - Thatcher and her lot DID want to destroy an entire industry, if not an entire way of life. Why? You have to wonder.......................................

As always your facts are wrong. :roll: :roll: :roll::roll:

Scargill REFUSED to allow the mines to pumped thus sentencing them to death because once flooded they could not be pumped out again. In the event anyone was willing to pay the enormous costs of that, there would have been the need to completely replace the pit equipment.

I suggest you do a little research before you post, although I know its not your style.

With regards to the closure of the mining, steel and shipbuilding industries you have already been told once at length why this was due to world economics and not the actions of Mrs Thatcher. Most people are able to learn from reading, you clearly do not.

As a comparison you may wish to do some research into the number of mines quietly closed by Labour post 1997 and the number of miners made redundant - we dont here much noise from you about that do we - but then of course that wasd done under a Labour Government so that alright then isn't it ?

Finally have you ever heard of pneumoconiosis - I suggest you look it up and then reconsider your determination that men should have been sent to work in the mines thereby suffering from a variety of occupational illnesses and accidents in addition to getting pneumoconiosis.

Admittedly a lot of British Industry was in decline. HOWEVER that ghastly woman and her party destroyed whole communities and lives with there policies, Now I am not saying Labour are perfect but they have always been more for the people and the Tories always come across as more for themselves, The Unions went too far in the 70s/80s along with that plank Scargill (who almost did as much damage to the coal industry as Thatcher and The Tories. But as already mentioned we have some of the most restrictive Union laws in the EU and it would be so hypocritical of any government to bring in the 50% rule, Whether the Tories like it or not, they are Vilified by a hell of a lot of people, Cameron was so confident he would win the Election with a CLEAR Majority, that didn't happen by a country mile, people were fed up with Labour but so many people would never Trust the Tories and the ConDem Coalition is destroying any Credibility the Lib Dems have had.

Your answer is what then ?

Another 13 years of the destruction of our Country, our involvement in illegal wars, absolute corruption Labour style, the retention of tax havens so that rich Labour supporters can pay zero tax, the theft of working mens pensions by the likes of Lord Paul who destroyed the British Steel pension . Need I go on ?

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Here are a few to be going on with then

• Restore the earnings link for the basic state pension from April 2011, with a 'triple guarantee' that pensions are raised by the higher of earnings, prices or 2.5 per cent.
• Protect key benefits for older people
• Maintain the goal of ending child poverty in the UK by 2020
• Support the provision of free nursery care for pre-school children
• Providing new funds for social enterprises and charities through a Big Society Bank which harnesses unclaimed assets from dormant accounts and money from high street banks
• Opened a new £30 million fund to help modernise organisations that supply critical support to front-line charities, voluntary groups and social enterprises.
• Helping neighbourhood groups in areas of deprivation through a £80 million Community First fund, which will encourage social action through new and existing neighbourhood groups
• Piloting innovative new social impact bonds which will allow everyone to invest in programmes that provide intensive help for families blighted by anti-social behaviour, crime, addiction and poor education

I think the problem is that a strike vote is a simple yes or no vote, whereas a general election vote has multiple options. If you go back before 1900 before the Labour party existed and elections were basically a two horse race between Conservative and Liberal, it appears that majority outcomes were more common.

A General Election is very simple..you vote for who you believe in (or the best of a bad bunch) simples!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As always your facts are wrong. :roll: :roll: :roll::roll:

Scargill REFUSED to allow the mines to pumped thus sentencing them to death because once flooded they could not be pumped out again. In the event anyone was willing to pay the enormous costs of that, there would have been the need to completely replace the pit equipment.

I suggest you do a little research before you post, although I know its not your style.

With regards to the closure of the mining, steel and shipbuilding industries you have already been told once at length why this was due to world economics and not the actions of Mrs Thatcher. Most people are able to learn from reading, you clearly do not.

As a comparison you may wish to do some research into the number of mines quietly closed by Labour post 1997 and the number of miners made redundant - we dont here much noise from you about that do we - but then of course that wasd done under a Labour Government so that alright then isn't it ?

Finally have you ever heard of pneumoconiosis - I suggest you look it up and then reconsider your determination that men should have been sent to work in the mines thereby suffering from a variety of occupational illnesses and accidents in addition to getting pneumoconiosis.




Your answer is what then ?

Another 13 years of the destruction of our Country, our involvement in illegal wars, absolute corruption Labour style, the retention of tax havens so that rich Labour supporters can pay zero tax, the theft of working mens pensions by the likes of Lord Paul who destroyed the British Steel pension . Need I go on ?

Considering since 97 the years have been good for me (I'm in a good job, mortgage yadda yadda) I know who will get my vote, anyone but the Tories (Except the BNP)

 

[table38]

A General Election is very simple..you vote for who you believe in (or the best of a bad bunch) simples!

True, or you opt out and don't vote at all. Turnouts reached a historic low in 2001 (59%) when presumably people couldn't bear to vote for Blair but also couldn't bear to vote for the Tories either.

I'd be against compulsory voting - even if you could vote for "None of the Above" or just spoil (or soil ) your ballot paper, but it would be interesting. Maybe I should form a "Jedi" party and win the disaffected vote.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

True, or you opt out and don't vote at all. Turnouts reached a historic low in 2001 (59%) when presumably people couldn't bear to vote for Blair but also couldn't bear to vote for the Tories either.

I'd be against compulsory voting - even if you could vote for "None of the Above" or just spoil (or soil ) your ballot paper, but it would be interesting. Maybe I should form a "Jedi" party and win the disaffected vote.

Well doesn't that make a mockery of 50% voting for Unions, Totally Hypocritical. Elections prove a hell of a lot of people can't be Arsed and just go through the majority, its another Tory Weapon and its certainly not one that any government can have, whats next 60%, 70% etc.etc.?

 

[Old Timer]

The level of hypocrisy showed in the 50% rule is sickening. Unions might need 50% but 30-40% is good enough for the Tories to get into government (albeit a bit more after their gerrymandering) ....

Another Turkey to the Turkey Shoot - what a surprise.

Tell me all about this gerrymandering then ?

Would it be the restoration of the situation pre-1997 following which LABOUR revised the Constituency Boundaries such that they would alsways be in a winning position ? The impact was that the Conservatives would need around a 7% swing just to get back to equalisation with the situation pre-1997.

And obviously your view of democracy is that the minority can rule the majority then. Strange how this is not at odds with your other suggestions.

It is a fact that the Conservative Party were voted for by a proportionally larger percentage of the population than Labour were when they came to power in 1997.

...I specify the Tories because it's their policy to strangle the poor with utility hikes and job destruction while prevent young people getting on the housing ladder. These policies have long been known in the West Midlands and other urban areas.

That comment pretty much sums up your ability to bring anything sensible to this topic. You are obviously NOT aware that energyu hikes were introduced by Labour and were continuing Labour Policy had they won.

But of course being Labour that's OK then isn't it ?

...One private sector company is not what privatisation is about. .

Again a demonstration of your complete lack of awareness about how business and economic actually work. I imagine you do not know the total number of public operations and companies that were privatised under Labour ? Thought not as it doesn't fit in with your own narrow view of life. Labour have actually been the largest Privatiser of all. Think about that next time you go past a hospital, a school, a Government office, etc, etc.

....A world leader in mobile technology? Don't make me laugh! Compare London to Seoul and I'll listen.

A validation to support that remark please ?

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Another Turkey to the Turkey Shoot - what a surprise.

Tell me all about this gerrymandering then ?

Would it be the restoration of the situation pre-1997 following which LABOUR revised the Constituency Boundaries such that they would alsways be in a winning position ? The impact was that the Conservatives would need around a 7% swing just to get back to equalisation with the situation pre-1997.

And obviously your view of democracy is that the minority can rule the majority then. Strange how this is not at odds with your other suggestions.

It is a fact that the Conservative Party were voted for by a proportionally larger percentage of the population than Labour were when they came to power in 1997.




That comment pretty much sums up your ability to bring anything sensible to this topic. You are obviously NOT aware that energyu hikes were introduced by Labour and were continuing Labour Policy had they won.

But of course being Labour that's OK then isn't it ?

Again a demonstration of your complete lack of awareness about how business and economic actually work. I imagine you do not know the total number of public operations and companies that were privatised under Labour ? Thought not as it doesn't fit in with your own narrow view of life. Labour have actually been the largest Privatiser of all. Think about that next time you go past a hospital, a school, a Government office, etc, etc.

A validation to support that remark please ?

BTW keep me out of this pathetic slanging match and keep it to the PM's, I respect both of your opinions throughout the forum but this is worse than a Tennis match!

 

[WestCoast]

Corporation Tax, NI Contributions and VAT are all paid in the UK. It is irrelevant to the UK whether or not profit after taxation goes abroad or not. This is simple basic common sense, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of economics, thus completely undermining your "point".

True. Foreign firms in the UK, in my opinion, shouldn't be opposed. They do provide vital employment and economic investment.

 

[Old Timer]

A General Election is very simple..you vote for who you believe in (or the best of a bad bunch) simples!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Considering since 97 the years have been good for me (I'm in a good job, mortgage yadda yadda) I know who will get my vote, anyone but the Tories (Except the BNP)

Had a look at your pension recently ?

Your comment completely fails to recognise that for about 10 years Labour were living off the growth brought about by the previous Conservative Government. The only "growth" led by Labour was a growth in borrowing and indebtedness, they made people like you feel really rich - and how many of you are now in hock up to your eyeballs in debt.

A study of the various Labour Governments in power will show the Countries economy is always weaker afterwards.

Still you will have a lifetime to reflect on those views of your when you are paying a large amount of tax to provide the pensions for the Civil Service and public sector, whilst your own pension will be costing more and falling. As a result of Brown and Bliar destroying our defined benefits system in order to pump even more money into illegal wars we no longer lead the world in pensions but are as bad as any third world country.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Had a look at your pension recently ?

Your comment completely fails to recognise that for about 10 years Labour were living off the growth brought about by the previous Conservative Government. The only "growth" led by Labour was a growth in borrowing and indebtedness, they made people like you feel really rich - and how many of you are now in hock up to your eyeballs in debt.

A study of the various Labour Governments in power will show the Countries economy is always weaker afterwards.

Still you will have a lifetime to reflect on those views of your when you are paying a large amount of tax to provide the pensions for the Civil Service and public sector, whilst your own pension will be costing more and falling. As a result of Brown and Bliar destroying our defined benefits system in order to pump even more money into illegal wars we no longer lead the world in pensions but are as bad as any third world country.

A Forum is about opinions and my opinion is the Labour years have been good to me, I'm sure every person in Politics can pick apart every Decade from Every Government, but as a Bog standard worker who does his best by his family and works damn hard I was happy with the last 15 years, I pay plenty of Tax thankyou but I would rather pay that top some one in employment for there future thean a lowlife druggie sponging off benefits any day oh BTE I supported the war in Iraq regardless of your opinion, lets leave it there before I lose respect fpr many months of your postings, I'm here to talk about the Railway, If we want to talk politics continuosly I give you many forums to use.

 

[table38]

Well doesn't that make a mockery of 50% voting for Unions, Totally Hypocritical. Elections prove a hell of a lot of people can't be Arsed and just go through the majority, its another Tory Weapon and its certainly not one that any government can have, whats next 60%, 70% etc.etc.?

I suppose it all depends on the intentions of the people who don't vote; which we can never know. I agree that you can't assume that those who don't vote were voting against.

And of those, I suppose there are a few who didn't have the opportunity to vote (although I think that's a small minority).

Sadly you will notice how public optinion is being manipulated. Suddenly there are a lot of stories about overpaid train drivers, bad teachers, uncaring nurses, civil servents paid more than the Prime Minister, gold plated public sector pensions, and now this "50%" argument.

The government don't really care if there is a strike or not, neither do the employers. It's the general members of the public who are going to be inconvenienced, and if the government manage to win the PR battle, the strike will either have no effect whatsoever, or possibly even make things worse for the public sector.

 

[Old Timer]

DarloRich, you are presenting yourself as a victim. Stuff happens to you and it seems there's nothing you can do about it - not your fault. The world changes, you don't, you just whinge that 'things are not what they were'. Of course they are not! The only certainty is change - nothing stays the same for long.

There's a letter in today's Guardian you should read objecting to a whingy piece in the paper decrying the decline of heavy industry in the North East. This letter points to such industrial success stories as Nissan at Washington where more than £400,000,000 is being invested in the new electric Nissan Leaf and its battery plant. He also mentions Zytronic, Glaxo-SmithKline, Caterpillar, Union Electric Steel, P&G, Millar UK, Hart Biologicals, JDR Cables, and more. He even mentions two sucessful builders of specialist ships; A&P at Hebburn, and Alnmaritec at Blyth. All these are world-leading companies in the North East.

Now, tell me we don't make anything anymore! And don't be a victim! You have power over your destiny (you're a human being fer chrissake!) and should not rely on others to put it all on a plate in front of you!

Dear Captain, I should give up, as the people you are addressing have been down this road before, they have been given detailed explanations of events at the time, but they pint blank refuse to accept anything other than their own rose tinted views of how things are. Comically pretty much everyone on here who "hates Thatcher" were not even born when she was in power. There are very few on here who remember life in the 70s but their views are irrelevant against the uninformed and adolescent views held by many, which are based on myth and an inability or unwillingness to accept the facts as they are.

Indeed one protagonist who was not around in her time and shouts loudest refuses to spend any time doing even a simple thing like reading up on what the people who were in power then have said subsequently, and understanding why things were done as they were. Instead he is happy to sit in his own isolationist parallel world where everything Tory is wrong.

Honestly, you could not make it up.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I suppose it all depends on the intentions of the people who don't vote; which we can never know. I agree that you can't assume that those who don't vote were voting against.

And of those, I suppose there are a few who didn't have the opportunity to vote (although I think that's a small minority).

Sadly you will notice how public optinion is being manipulated. Suddenly there are a lot of stories about overpaid train drivers, bad teachers, uncaring nurses, civil servents paid more than the Prime Minister, gold plated public sector pensions, and now this "50%" argument.

The government don't really care if there is a strike or not, neither do the employers. It's the general members of the public who are going to be inconvenienced, and if the government manage to win the PR battle, the strike will either have no effect whatsoever, or possibly even make things worse for the public sector.

This is one thing that may backfire on the Tories Royally, however people soon forget and I seriously doubt if all these strikes will do any good, The Tories will stay in government even if the whole country turned aginst them until they had no choice, but the long term damage this term of theirs will do may be the kiss of death to them (not that I would mind lol) but sadly without a viable opposition any government will be just as bad
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Dear Captain, I should give up, as the people you are addressing have been down this road before, they have been given detailed explanations of events at the time, but they pint blank refuse to accept anything other than their own rose tinted views of how things are. Comically pretty much everyone on here who "hates Thatcher" were not even born when she was in power. There are very few on here who remember life in the 70s but their views are irrelevant against the uninformed and adolescent views held by many, which are based on myth and an inability or unwillingness to accept the facts as they are.

Indeed one protagonist who was not around in her time and shouts loudest refuses to spend any time doing even a simple thing like reading up on what the people who were in power then have said subsequently, and understanding why things were done as they were. Instead he is happy to sit in his own isolationist parallel world where everything Tory is wrong.

Honestly, you could not make it up.

I grew up in the 70s and 80s and I saw with my own eyes the damage it done (lets leave it at that before I end up getting banned for losing my temper)

 

[Old Timer]

A Forum is about opinions and my opinion is the Labour years have been good to me, I'm sure every person in Politics can pick apart every Decade from Every Government, but as a Bog standard worker who does his best by his family and works damn hard I was happy with the last 15 years, I pay plenty of Tax thankyou but I would rather pay that top some one in employment for there future thean a lowlife druggie sponging off benefits any day oh BTE I supported the war in Iraq regardless of your opinion, lets leave it there before I lose respect fpr many months of your postings, I'm here to talk about the Railway, If we want to talk politics continuosly I give you many forums to use.

I would, prefer not to talk Politics at all but I do object when myths and not facts are perpetuated - not from you I hasten to add.

With respect to yourself I spent years working on the Railways under Labour and it was always a time of cut, cut, cut. The 80s were a good time for the Railways with a hell of a lot of money invested in new rolling stock, stations, electrification, and resignalling. I object to anyone who stands up to decry the 80s when they were not even born let alone had to work during the 70s.

I remember being told we had to make cuts in costs when there were no more cuts to be made. We had shut intermediate boxes, stopped recruitment, had men working enormous hours, yet each year back came Labour with further cuts to the Railway budget.

The only reason the Midland electrification went ahead was because it would have been too costly to stop, although the budget was cut even more to allow for that to happen.

I suggest as you say we leave it there as we obviously have completely polarised views, mine coming from having lived and worked under Labour.

 

[DarloRich]

As always your facts are wrong. :roll: :roll: :roll::roll:

Scargill REFUSED to allow the mines to pumped thus sentencing them to death because once flooded they could not be pumped out again. In the event anyone was willing to pay the enormous costs of that, there would have been the need to completely replace the pit equipment.

I suggest you do a little research before you post, although I know its not your style.

With regards to the closure of the mining, steel and shipbuilding industries you have already been told once at length why this was due to world economics and not the actions of Mrs Thatcher. Most people are able to learn from reading, you clearly do not.

As a comparison you may wish to do some research into the number of mines quietly closed by Labour post 1997 and the number of miners made redundant - we dont here much noise from you about that do we - but then of course that wasd done under a Labour Government so that alright then isn't it ?

Finally have you ever heard of pneumoconiosis - I suggest you look it up and then reconsider your determination that men should have been sent to work in the mines thereby suffering from a variety of occupational illnesses and accidents in addition to getting pneumoconiosis.

thanks for your post - sorry we disagree fundamentally.

As someone who has spent a considerable period of a former life fighting for compensation for people who have been affected by pneumoconiosis, asbestosis and mesothelioma (and seeing a relative die of that illness) and other industrial diseases i have SOME experience of the effects of what a life of hard manual labour will do to someone if they are inadequately protected by their employers.

other than that i am going to withdraw from this thread - we disagree and I don’t want to resort to saying something I may regret.

 

[table38]

This is one thing that may backfire on the Tories Royally, however people soon forget and I seriously doubt if all these strikes will do any good, The Tories will stay in government even if the whole country turned aginst them until they had no choice, but the long term damage this term of theirs will do may be the kiss of death to them (not that I would mind lol) but sadly without a viable opposition any government will be just as bad

Things do seem to go in cycles. The Tories won in 79 after Labour's "winter of discontent". New Labour was a success because it was so centre ground it allowed disaffected Tories to give Blair a chance (indeed it has been suggested that Blair only chose left-wing politics because of the opportunity of getting to be an MP at the time and could just have easily ended up as a Tory MP). Things didn't work out, and Brown was the last straw for a lot of voters who either went back to the Tories or were seduced by the "I agree with Nick" policies.

Things have changed again, and it would appear that the Lib Dems should be annihilated in the next general election (in fact, it has been suggested that if Cameron called a general election now, he'd get back in with an overall majority and be able to ditch the Lib Dems. Personally I don't think that would be a good thing as hopefully the Lib Dems have a moderating effect on the serious right-wingers in the Conservative party).

But as you say, people soon forget and a week is a long time in politics.

Regardless of your political views, one question that is always worth asking is "who would you want to be in charge if there were a crisis". Not just a global one, or a war, but say you've been involved in a bad accident. Who would you rather turned up to help? In the late 90s I'd put Blair way ahead of Major, Hague, Duncan Smith or Howard as a natural leader.

Of course, Blair moving on made the choice between Brown and Cameron a lot easier. Currently, I'd prefer Cameron to Milliband, but maybe Milliband needs to establish himself more.

 

[CosherB]

If I was the victim of a bad accident and the first person to roll up was Tony Blair I'd give up all hope. His primary motivation would not be to help me, but to see how he could engineer the situation so he looked really good. That might include his making my injuries worse so if I live it will look like he did a great job in saving me 'from the brink of death'.

I'm not being cynical or anti-Labour here. I really believe he is completely amoral. The TV program 'The Hunt for Tony Blair' was a good laugh but caught that aspect of the man very well.

And yes, he could just as easily have chosen the Tory party to further his own ends - but the timing was such that Labour was the one he hopped aboard to take him to the fortune he now enjoys (much of it blood money, in my opinion).

Brown was just hopelessly incompetant and should never have had the job of PM (he will go down in history as the worst ever). But Blair was evil.

 

[90019]

yay, britain is a leader in 250 mph supercarrs. Well, frankly, I say big deal.

If you want to use vehicles as an example.

Buses;

• Alexander Dennis in Falkirk and Guildford
• Wrightbus in Ballymena
• Optare in Leeds
• Plaxton in Scarborough and Sheffield.

Vans and trucks;

• GMM Luton Vehicles in Luton
• Dennis Eagle in Warwick
• Leyland Trucks (producing DAFs) in Leyland

Cars, both large and small manufacturers;

• Aerial in Crewkerne
• Aston Martin in Gaydon
• Bentley in Crewe
• Bristol in Filton
• Caterham in Dartford
• Ginetta in Leeds
• Honda in Swindon
• Jaguar Land Rover in Castle Bromwich, Halewood and Solihull
• The London Taxi Company (Previously LTI) in Coventry
• Lotus at Hethel
• McLaren in Woking
• Mini in Oxford
• MG back at Longbridge
• Morgan in Malvern
• Nissan in Sunderland
• Noble in Barwell
• Rolls-Royce at Goodwood
• Toyota in Burnaston
• Vauxhall at Ellesmere Port

.
The motor industry in the UK is really dead, right?

 

[ainsworth74]

The motor industry in the UK is really dead, right?

As a Dodo mate! Didn't you know that we don't make anything at all whatsoever in this country any more? Get with the program!

 

[O L Leigh]

Does this thread qualify in any way for an award for the greatest topic drift in history...? Could we not hive off at least the last half into the General Discussion area under a suitable title, perhaps...? I'd like to suggest "Political Axes Ground Here".

O L Leigh

 

[pemma]

The reasons for a public hate of Bob Crow is a combination of:
1. Crow demanding more money for union members.
2. Fares increasing when passengers are struggling to afford them.
3. The public not understanding how finances within the rail industry work.

Crow demands a 5% pay rise for the members, fares see a 5% rise. The public see the fare rise as funding the union member's pay rises. The public are annoyed because they need the train to get to work when many haven't even had a 0.5% pay rise themselves.

 

[table38]

Here's an idea, why don't we just continue to let theads develop naturally like they always have done on here?

If anyone doesn't like it, they are free to raise it with the mods (or claim a full refund and go and start their own forum...)

Just to annoy no-one in particular, here's a nice article about Mrs.T

Why the Left should love Margaret Thatcher

Toodle Pip