|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 11, 2023 19:45:36 GMT
You are aware of the job that NL faced in 1997 i.e. sorting out the economy, high unemployment, a run down NHS, a run down state education system and so on. Yet you have the shitty mindedness to post your post above. Shame on you. Don't make me laugh. Oh you just did. Here is a test for you. Can you name anything New Labour got wrong or failed to do but should have done? Again you have no answer to the facts I posted, as ever you look for an escape route ^^ All you manage to do is to damage your own credibility. Yet you want people to follow your discredited line of politics. Now that's a laugh LOL. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 11, 2023 19:57:15 GMT
My point was that New Labour had one hell of a job to sort out the mess the Tories left behind. Not just the housing problem. 1997: Inherited from the Tories. Unemployment still higher than when Thatcher came to office in 1979. (4 million at one stage.) High unemployment means high state aid for the unemployed. (Inherited cost from the Tories.) 3 Million children living in relative poverty. (Inherited cost from the Tories.) Most of State education in the mire due to Thatcher's Grant Maintained separatist education system. (Inherited costs from the Tories.) Too many teachers taking early retirement because of the mess of the education system. (Inherited costs from the Tories) Encouraging teachers back into education and upping the training of new teachers. (Inherited cost from the Tories.) Ditto in training doctors, Nurses etc. for the NHS. (More inherited costs from the Tories.) NHS excessively run down. As you well know. (More inherited costs from the Tories) That's some of the direct costs inherited. What was left by the Tories was a very expensive list of bills and a need to rekindle some essence of normality in the UK. Now why was it necessary for me to explain that to you? So all you are saying is that Labour had different spending priorities which meant that they considered social housing was less important. If you want to prioritise education over housing then fine - thats a political choice. Maybe it seems like that to you, or perhaps you are just playing the idiot. NL built almost as many of those houses as the Tories DESPITE HAVING TO RESCUE THE COUNTRY FROM THE SELF-IMPOSED TORY ECONOMIC MESS, AT THE SAME TIME. They didn't have any real options, all the damage they inherited had a knock on affect especially on low paid families, all had to be addressed. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 11, 2023 20:14:52 GMT
Ok I agree but if they give in to one lot who be next to jump on the bandwagon? This country is bloody skint thanks to covid etc. And who will it be who picks up the tab? The good old tax payers as per usual so we will all be paying more for a service that is not fit for purpose now. ot exactly the bargain of the century is it? Covid was unfortunate but this problem was long in the making when Covid appeared. The government kept kicking the can down the road and now they've come to a dead end.
My feelings on this are based on personal experience: Prior to retirement, I hadn't had a pay rise in 10 years. My bills kept going up though.
"Ok" you say: "If you don't like it, then leave". So I did - just as many are doing from the NHS right now.
And many in the NHS are coming back as agency staff, earning two or three times their previous rate. And you're paying for that.
In the same way that I'm drawing a pension and have been re-employed by the civil service because they need my skills. Ironically, I now earn substantially more than I did before, for doing less work. And you're paying for that, too.
If only I'd had my 2 or 3% per year, I'd still be quite happily in post (and of course you're paying to train my successor, too).
So in both cases the short term savings are working out more expensive in the long run. And with a great deal of industrial unrest to boot.
A case of "Penny wise, pound foolish" I'm afraid.
Yet again I agree, but no government of any persuastion have helped the cause. Very many of those with skills can work and earn much more for an agency and that is possible for any trade. As you know I used to work in aviation and the same applies there. But that is fine if you have these skills but very many do not thanks to direct results of the government of the day. Thatcher was the one who caused the skill shortage when she did away with day release for apprentices and pulled the incentives from companies who were training these apprentices in a vast umber of skills. Then the usual greed factor crept in and companies were only too pleased to have a ready supply of skilled labour who were employed for far less than our own workforce, but that in itself had the rub of the fact that rather than this foriegn labour were sending their earnings home to their families and not recurculating the money in the UK economy. Then of course we still have the large percentage of our workforce who because of various reasons including finanacial do not have these skills but are still the mainstay and lifeblood of our servce industries and manufacturing etc who are still the ones who are the lowest paid but essential to our workforce. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jan 11, 2023 20:59:10 GMT
Covid was unfortunate but this problem was long in the making when Covid appeared. The government kept kicking the can down the road and now they've come to a dead end.
My feelings on this are based on personal experience: Prior to retirement, I hadn't had a pay rise in 10 years. My bills kept going up though.
"Ok" you say: "If you don't like it, then leave". So I did - just as many are doing from the NHS right now.
And many in the NHS are coming back as agency staff, earning two or three times their previous rate. And you're paying for that.
In the same way that I'm drawing a pension and have been re-employed by the civil service because they need my skills. Ironically, I now earn substantially more than I did before, for doing less work. And you're paying for that, too.
If only I'd had my 2 or 3% per year, I'd still be quite happily in post (and of course you're paying to train my successor, too).
So in both cases the short term savings are working out more expensive in the long run. And with a great deal of industrial unrest to boot.
A case of "Penny wise, pound foolish" I'm afraid.
Yet again I agree, but no government of any persuastion have helped the cause. Very many of those with skills can work and earn much more for an agency and that is possible for any trade. As you know I used to work in aviation and the same applies there. But that is fine if you have these skills but very many do not thanks to direct results of the government of the day. Thatcher was the one who caused the skill shortage when she did away with day release for apprentices and pulled the incentives from companies who were training these apprentices in a vast umber of skills. Then the usual greed factor crept in and companies were only too pleased to have a ready supply of skilled labour who were employed for far less than our own workforce, but that in itself had the rub of the fact that rather than this foriegn labour were sending their earnings home to their families and not recurculating the money in the UK economy. Then of course we still have the large percentage of our workforce who because of various reasons including finanacial do not have these skills but are still the mainstay and lifeblood of our servce industries and manufacturing etc who are still the ones who are the lowest paid but essential to our workforce. With respect that's whataboutery. Talking about what someone else gets paid is irrelevant, what is relevant is that the government has reneged on their pay agreements for years on end and NHS workers, as just one example, have not received the pay rises that they reasonably expected. And not just since Covid, but for a whole decade.
Oddly however, the government decided that they would respect their own independent pay review body. Hypocrisy, much?
So no, the pay demands are reasonable. Even a 19% pay rise doesn't add up to the 2 or 3% per annum that these workers should have received over the last 10 years.
And if you think different, then you'll have to pay even more for the same people when they leave and come back on agency rates. And of course you'll have to train new staff as well (who won't have the experience of those that have left).
But personally I'd rather value & retain the well-trained and experienced staff that we already have. It will be far cheaper in the long run.
Which is why I support the strikers.
And so should you.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 11, 2023 21:05:48 GMT
Yet again I agree, but no government of any persuastion have helped the cause. Very many of those with skills can work and earn much more for an agency and that is possible for any trade. As you know I used to work in aviation and the same applies there. But that is fine if you have these skills but very many do not thanks to direct results of the government of the day. Thatcher was the one who caused the skill shortage when she did away with day release for apprentices and pulled the incentives from companies who were training these apprentices in a vast umber of skills. Then the usual greed factor crept in and companies were only too pleased to have a ready supply of skilled labour who were employed for far less than our own workforce, but that in itself had the rub of the fact that rather than this foriegn labour were sending their earnings home to their families and not recurculating the money in the UK economy. Then of course we still have the large percentage of our workforce who because of various reasons including finanacial do not have these skills but are still the mainstay and lifeblood of our servce industries and manufacturing etc who are still the ones who are the lowest paid but essential to our workforce. With respect that's whataboutery. Talking about what someone else gets paid is irrelevant, what is relevant is that the government has reneged on their pay agreements for years on end and NHS workers, as just one example, have not received the pay rises that they reasonably expected. And not just since Covid, but for a whole decade.
Oddly however, the government decided that they would respect their own independent pay review body. Hypocrisy, much?
So no, the pay demands are reasonable. Even a 19% pay rise doesn't add up to the 2 or 3% per annum that these workers should have received over the last 10 years.
And if you think different, then you'll have to pay even more for the same people when they leave and come back on agency rates. And of course you'll have to train new staff as well (who won't have the experience of those that have left).
But personally I'd rather value & retain the well-trained and experienced staff that we already have. It will be far cheaper in the long run.
Which is why I support the strikers.
And so should you.
Sorry mate no can do. What leverage do those who unfortunately do not have these skills have in their arsenal for bargaining over vital services? Who supports and cares about them allthough they are the lifeblood of our workforce. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2023 21:25:54 GMT
Don't make me laugh. Oh you just did. Here is a test for you. Can you name anything New Labour got wrong or failed to do but should have done? Again you have no answer to the facts I posted, as ever you look for an escape route ^^ All you manage to do is to damage your own credibility. Yet you want people to follow your discredited line of politics. Now that's a laugh LOL. I take it thats a no then, hahaha. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jan 11, 2023 21:30:12 GMT
Sorry mate no can do. What leverage do those who unfortunately do not have these skills have in their arsenal for bargaining over vital services? Who supports and cares about them allthough they are the lifeblood of our workforce. That's a separate matter and totally irrelevant to this debate. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 11, 2023 22:28:14 GMT
So all you are saying is that Labour had different spending priorities which meant that they considered social housing was less important. If you want to prioritise education over housing then fine - thats a political choice. Maybe it seems like that to you, or perhaps you are just playing the idiot. NL built almost as many of those houses as the Tories DESPITE HAVING TO RESCUE THE COUNTRY FROM THE SELF-IMPOSED TORY ECONOMIC MESS, AT THE SAME TIME. They didn't have any real options, all the damage they inherited had a knock on affect especially on low paid families, all had to be addressed. For the first 3 years New Labour followed Tory spending plans - and as you have already admitted the reason for them building less social housing than the tories was that they shifted spending priorities to education. Building less housing was a political decision - they thought there were other more important priorities. This is normal government action, there is nothing unusual about it. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 11, 2023 22:45:05 GMT
Sorry mate no can do. What leverage do those who unfortunately do not have these skills have in their arsenal for bargaining over vital services? Who supports and cares about them allthough they are the lifeblood of our workforce. That's a separate matter and totally irrelevant to this debate. It is not irrelevant. Its fine if you have a skill for hire but many more do not ad they are te real losers. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jan 12, 2023 7:12:50 GMT
Nope, it matters not how often you repeat it, the argument that there's always someone worse off is totally irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 12, 2023 9:04:00 GMT
Again you have no answer to the facts I posted, as ever you look for an escape route ^^ All you manage to do is to damage your own credibility. Yet you want people to follow your discredited line of politics. Now that's a laugh LOL. I take it thats a no then, hahaha. I've had people trying to play your nonsense game before, it really is childish. I did think you were better than that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2023 9:15:33 GMT
I take it thats a no then, hahaha. I've had people trying to play your nonsense game before, it really is childish. I did think you were better than that. Clearly you are utterly unable to acknowledge that New Labour might ever have got anything wrong or failed to do something it should have done. Surely all reasonable people are capable of acknowledging the flaws and failings of their own side if they are being honest and are not deluding themselves. You sound like someone who believed New Labour can do no wrong. You sound more like a worshipper than a supporter. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 12, 2023 9:22:36 GMT
Maybe it seems like that to you, or perhaps you are just playing the idiot. NL built almost as many of those houses as the Tories DESPITE HAVING TO RESCUE THE COUNTRY FROM THE SELF-IMPOSED TORY ECONOMIC MESS, AT THE SAME TIME. They didn't have any real options, all the damage they inherited had a knock on affect especially on low paid families, all had to be addressed. For the first 3 years New Labour followed Tory spending plans - and as you have already admitted the reason for them building less social housing than the tories was that they shifted spending priorities to education. Building less housing was a political decision - they thought there were other more important priorities. This is normal government action, there is nothing unusual about it. First three years followed the Tory spending plan might have been in terms of cash spent, but certainly didn't mean following Tory policies. By 2000 NL had already changed the economy into a NL approach. See Brown's speech to the TUC in 2000. That would be a case of educating yourself to the reality away from Tory propaganda. NL inherited a housing problem at the lower end of the market from the Tories, a problem exacerbated by their selling off of Council Houses. Just one more unpaid bill inherited from the Tories. That the Tories were able to build a few more than NL after 2010, than NL built before 2010, is a credit to NL's many many improvements made since 1997. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 12, 2023 9:27:19 GMT
I've had people trying to play your nonsense game before, it really is childish. I did think you were better than that. Clearly you are utterly unable to acknowledge that New Labour might ever have got anything wrong or failed to do something it should have done. Surely all reasonable people are capable of acknowledging the flaws and failings of their own side if they are being honest and are not deluding themselves. You sound like someone who believed New Labour can do no wrong. You sound more like a worshipper than a supporter. Clearly you were unable to answer the challenge that led to your deviated escape route. I spend time answering the far too many false accusations made against NL, including some by yourself. I don't need to feed the biased with my arguments against NL. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2023 9:43:45 GMT
Clearly you are utterly unable to acknowledge that New Labour might ever have got anything wrong or failed to do something it should have done. Surely all reasonable people are capable of acknowledging the flaws and failings of their own side if they are being honest and are not deluding themselves. You sound like someone who believed New Labour can do no wrong. You sound more like a worshipper than a supporter. Clearly you were unable to answer the challenge that led to your deviated escape route. I spend time answering the far too many false accusations made against NL, including some by yourself. I don't need to feed the biased with my arguments against NL. You are wriggling, but mostly just demonstrating that you are incapable of seeing any wrong in it at all. That's not support. That's worship. As for you asking for proof that Brexit played a big part in Labour's 2019 defeat it is blatantly obvious to anyone who was out on the doorstep talking to people. I could trawl the internet for hours finding polls and stats as evidence, but you would only ignore it if you read it at all. So I am not going to waste my time at your behest. But if you want to believe that Starmer's policy on Brexit did not contribute to the scale of defeat in 2019, knock yourself out. No matter what evidence I presented you would dismiss it like the cult follower you are so I would be wasting my time. Believe what you want. You will anyway. Other more sensible people can see Starmer's contribution to Labour's 2019 defeat all too clearly. |
|
