Will the cruel Tory welfare reforms save any money?

First topic message reminder :

My personal opinion is that the current spate of tory reforms to the benefit system are cruel, regressive, and worst of all won't save money (the alleged intention).



In a supposedly modern civilised country one would think housing would be considered a human right.......rather than simply an investment / a chance to make a fast buck.

I note there is talk of a yacht for the biggest benefit claimee of them all. I note over £10billion has been spent on the olympics. I note £32billion is being spent on a high speed rail link (london-birmingham) - this will shave, a no doubt absolutely vita,l 32mins off the journey (essential??!!!) and be used by a miniscule % of the UK population.

How about investing this money in affordable social housing instead? Or do government no longer care to invest in those they view as peasants and serfs?

The tories efforts to turn the nation against those unfortunate enough to find themselves unemployed via vile smears, and an insidious propaganda campaign, are reminiscent of Nazi germany's propaganda campaign against the jews.

Iain Duncan Smith is a disgusting human being and has blood on his hands.

Instead of kicking the weakest targets that can't defend themselves....maybe the Bullingdon bullies should try picking on somebody their own size.....like the bankers, or benefit leeching corporations like Tescos.

They currently resemble a 20st thug stamping on a little girls head.

Welfare is essential and if we are to remain a civilised country we owe it to ourselves to provide for those less fortunate; unless we want to see people starving and homeless turning into savages.

The biggest burden on the UK in recent times has not been the unemployed.....welfare is not a burden - it is an essential expense in a civilised nation.

The biggest burden, and the cause of much unemployment, has been the rich greedy bankers who have cost this country, and us taxpayers, untold £billions in order to benefit a few. They have placed the real burden on the UK.

Nobody has any reason to be "hoodwinked" when the evidence of Tory Values is clearly recorded. There is an ubroken link between the 1980s policy of dismantling centres that provided a focus for opposition - factories,mines, shipyards and large Councils - and the emasculation of government employees now.

The Tory aim is not "less government", but fewer opportunities for dissent.

Mel wrote:asrtrad1

It's all bloody disgusting and those who have been hoodwinked cant see it and those who are, or think they are for the time being "all right Jack" just dont care.
They are the ones who will squeal like pigs when and if it comes to them.. Then it will be too late and it's getting late already I fear.

Here I agree with you completely Mel, what Im looking forward too is when the TRUTH about the cap on benefit is finally out because I do not believe I.D.S or his figures the problem will come when people find themselves homeless but lets hope Mel that will be the straw that breaks the camels back and the UK will tell this ass hole of a Gov't exactly where to go.

bobby wrote:If only Clegg would jump ship.

The sea would spit the dirty bastard straight back out.

I have been hoping that Clegg would jump ship for a long time bobby, the sea might not like the taste but I hope it would hang on to him even though it would feel a bit queasy.

Stox 16 wrote:

blueturando wrote:Like I said before, it seems many of you are just out of touch with the public feeling here

MSN POLL

Have your say
Should the amount a family receives in benefits a year be capped at £26,000?

81 % Yes - 6,218 votes
19 % No - 1,439 votes

Total Responses: 7,657
Not scientifically valid. Results are updated every minute.

I am sure you poll is quite right Bluey. so being in the minority is nothing new to myself. However, even there are people who like me believe that I.D.S Figures do not quite add up. got a feeling that this will not work out as such a big saving that he believes it will be. saw a guy on the BBC cut his figures to bits. what's more used his own data to beat him with. all very interesting. we will soon see how this works out in the real world. will we not?

I Know that you are right Stox I am expecting all HELL to break loose when the TRUTH is out,

stox. As a matter of interest The resurgency plans for post war London was based on a report by Patrick Abercrombie, and called the Abercrombie Plan. This was to be the total modernisation of London. London suffered the same fate as Ancient Rome in that it started out as a small riverside settlement and without any plans simply grew where space allowed. We as the Romans ended up with a cluttered city with absolutely no order as to what was built and where. The Abercrombie plan was supposed to rectify that. Millions of Squids where spent on the planning of the much needed improvements, yet as today it was done on the cheap. Of all the much needed regeneration plans, Churchill Gardens, the Estate I lived in from 1952 till 1966 and my Mother lived in till 1986 was the only part of the plan completed. I believe there was the occasional building or two built, but nothing substantial like Churchill Gardens.

Agreed OW. The thing is many who are "alright Jack" are either too young to remember the past "Tory values", or either doing ok, wealthy, or just not bothered to seek the recorded past evidence, or are just not interested until they are personally badly affected by the cruel government measures.

As far a "dissent" is concerned towards the so called government, no amount dissent however strongly and justly applied will move them from their stubborm stance to have their way no matter what..

Mel wrote:Agreed OW. The thing is many who are "alright Jack" are either too young to remember the past "Tory values", or either doing ok, wealthy, or just not bothered to seek the recorded past evidence, or are just not interested until they are personally badly affected by the cruel government measures.

As far a "dissent" is concerned towards the so called government, no amount dissent however strongly and justly applied will move them from their stubborm stance to have their way no matter what..

Mel you do not think that any kind of decent will move the Gov't out of office, do you not think a general strike would make any difference ?

Yes Red, a lengthy GS would have a great effect IMO, as the outcome would affect many of the Tory loving wealthy and Camercon wouldn't want that now would he?
Problem is, it wont happen mainly because those who are just about ok and have a job of some kind are not going to back their fellow beings in case they lose out in some way. In any case the Unions have not the power they used to have, the Witch saw to that.

I fear we are saddled with these barstewards until the majority wake up and by then all evil policies with have been implemented and made irriversible and it will be far too late in the day in any case and the barstewards know it, just as the Witch did all those years ago.

Mel wrote:Yes Red, a lengthy GS would have a great effect IMO, as the outcome would affect many of the Tory loving wealthy and Camercon wouldn't want that now would he?
Problem is, it wont happen mainly because those who are just about ok and have a job of some kind are not going to back their fellow beings in case they lose out in some way. In any case the Unions have not the power they used to have, the Witch saw to that.

I fear we are saddled with these barstewards until the majority wake up and by then all evil policies with have been implemented and made irriversible and it will be far too late in the day in any case and the barstewards know it, just as the Witch did all those years ago.

Thanks for getting back so quickly Mel as someone who lived through Thatchers "Reign of Terror" that is why the Tories are detested here in Scotland, and I know from experience when the TRUTH of the cuts come out in there entirety I hope the whole of the UK will see for themselves the CRUEL and NASTY PARTY is alive and kicking and the DRIVEL there MPs have been spouting is only LIES LIES and more LIES, so I am hoping this will wake up the entire UK and compel them into action to put this Gov't back in its BOX.

Yes Red, a lengthy GS would have a great effect IMO

I think I have just woken from a dream and it's 1979....Cast your mind back Red and Mel...It didn't work then and it won't work now because a majority of the people do not support you. You lot are in a tiny minority now, so you can keep dreaming leftie militancy for as long as you like, the rest of us don't much care for it.

I am begining to wonder what party you will support in the next election, because as I see it Labour do not support you views either

blueturando wrote
"...It didn't work then and it won't work now because a majority of the people do not support you."

Exactly when is the "then" you are refering to. If you are refering to the strikes in the 70's and 80's, they where not General strikes, so what general strikes is it you mean, you know nothing of what a General Strike can achieve, as you have never experienced one, because if we had one, the Government would surely crumble, only the Country would also feel the down side of it as well. So it could be argued that the people not choosing (yet) to have a General Strike, shows them to be more responsible than all you pox arsed Tory's. as for the rest of the crap you have written, its probably the biggest load of bollocks I have read in ages.
I must go now and take my dog for a walk and I will engage in conversation with him, as I know it will be more intelligent than that stuff on your last post.

woof, woof, woof, woof. If you only knew what he has just called you?

Oops I must have hit a nerve...I guess the truth hurts. This is one of the reasons you would like to see nationalised industries, because you believe your precious unions could hold to country to ransom. Fortunately for us most are not nationlised anymore, so your bark will always be bigger than your bite....Hard luck old chap

blueturando wrote:Oops I must have hit a nerve...I guess the truth hurts. This is one of the reasons you would like to see nationalised industries, because you believe your precious unions could hold to country to ransom. Fortunately for us most are not nationlised anymore, so your bark will always be bigger than your bite....Hard luck old chap

If I may interrupt. I guess bluey, you would have people forced to work for nothing ?

Nobody works for nothing...not then and not now

blueturando wrote:Nobody works for nothing...not then and not now

True! Most work to just about scrape by.

True! Most work to just about scrape by

Yes youre probably right there and that includes many voters from all partys

witchfinder wrote:It seems to me that there is ( as per usual ) a clear divide in property prices between greater London and the rest of the country, in years gone by there was always different rules for London for obvious reasons.

At one time the wages councils had different rates for living in London to account for the higher cost of living, property prices and rents, perhaps the obvious thing to have done would be to have had a different welfare cap for London.

Or is it a case of back to the early 1980s "on yer bike"

Stox - are you an insomniac ( by Stox 16 Today at 3:55 am )

ha ha ha no Witchy. my company trades in Japan and the far east. its all down to time zones.. so when the far east is a wake we have to be as well. you just cannot talk to people if there in bed or we are in bed. so we work 24 hours per day with night and day shifts. but with Japan and the far east being a very big market for my company I work the night shift while my son works the day shift. but its never a good idea to leave it to the other team. so there you are.

bobby wrote:stox. As a matter of interest The resurgency plans for post war London was based on a report by Patrick Abercrombie, and called the Abercrombie Plan. This was to be the total modernisation of London. London suffered the same fate as Ancient Rome in that it started out as a small riverside settlement and without any plans simply grew where space allowed. We as the Romans ended up with a cluttered city with absolutely no order as to what was built and where. The Abercrombie plan was supposed to rectify that. Millions of Squids where spent on the planning of the much needed improvements, yet as today it was done on the cheap. Of all the much needed regeneration plans, Churchill Gardens, the Estate I lived in from 1952 till 1966 and my Mother lived in till 1986 was the only part of the plan completed. I believe there was the occasional building or two built, but nothing substantial like Churchill Gardens.

Thanks bobby
do you know I never knew about the Abercrombie plan. I will look this up and have a good read of it, as it sound most interesting.
Cheers for that Bobby. nice one.

blue.

With some respect please read my post thoroughly, as I said quite clearly that a General Stike is not a possibility. However the reason for that is not the poor reason you have given. Unfortunately those who at present still are fotunate enough to have jobs feel no need to strike. It is the Thatcher doctrine that still remains here in the UK, dog eat dog, nothing matters except money and profit to those who are "i'm alright Jack" brigade........

Tory ideology is just those two things, money, money ,money and as much profit to be made at any cost. That cost is born always by the workforce and the poor.
Nationalisation in most cases is helpful to the people, because it is provided by the people for the people, which means their are no fat cats creaming off the profits, whilst sitting on their fat arses along with the non productive geedy shareholders. Both of which in many cases stuff their ill gotten gains in offshore accounts.
These are the so called people the Tories look after and you seem to be a supporter of these parasites too .Tell me i'm wrong if you can blue.........

May I say Mel, you have spoken out superbly.  I cannot wait for Bluey's response, if she/he has one.

Before anyone accuses me of breach of copyright, I have received written permission from the author of the following piece to post it here in its entirety:-

An open letter to Iain Duncan Smith
(Submitted by Jill Segger on 30 January 2012 - 3:11pm)

Dear Iain

You once described yourself as “the quiet man”. It didn't quite work for you at the time, which is a pity, because quietness implies a capacity for reflection, listening and, in the words of our Quaker 'Advices and Queries', for finding space to “consider it possible you may be mistaken”. These are not qualities which are much in evidence among our noisier politicians.

You have recently been loud in your insistence that capping benefits at £26,000 will not push families further into poverty and that “They're not suffering. The point about this is that what makes you suffer is the state that plunges you into dependency."

A quiet moment to consider some of the facts? In many areas of London, the cost of accommodation for larger families is at least £400 a week. That's £20,800 a year (paid directly to the landlord), leaving these families with £5,200 to feed and clothe themselves and to meet all their other costs. It shouldn't be too hard to see the potential for suffering here. Your solution - that they should rehouse to less expensive accommodation in cheaper areas - takes no account of some facts you might want to think about were your own family to be thrust into this situation.

Children will be moved from their schools – yes, that also happens to people who are more fortunately placed – but they usually have some choice as to the best time to relocate in relation to the school year and the proximity of important exams. A good level of disposable income also enables the choice of a desirable catchment area. Those who are forced out of their homes by hardship are powerless to exercise these choices.

People who are already under the strain of severe financial difficulty will be removed from their circle of friends and relations. This uprooting of families from their support systems will inevitably lead to an increase in instances of mental and physical ill-health. And even if you take no account of the human distress, remember that both educational failure and illness have to be paid for.

Sometimes being quiet is to collude with rank injustice. It is to your credit that you have not overtly bought into the nastier end of populist comment on the lines of “they shouldn't have kids they can't afford” (indeed, that could be a dodgy area for a practising Catholic to venture upon), but neither have you chosen to acknowledge that misfortune can befall anyone. A responsibly conceived and previously sustainable family may be plunged into need by redundancy or chronic illness.

And then there is the implicit assumption that all families receiving housing benefit are both unemployed and 'workshy'. In fact, only one in eight are unemployed. So there are questions to be asked as to why you have chosen silence on the matter of low pay and rapacious landlords. This is a combination which plays a malign role in perpetuating welfare dependency and is not addressed by your proposals for a 'Universal Credit' benefit.

Where benefit recipients are out of work, how is their situation to be helped by forcing them to move to cheaper areas? One of the reasons for lower housing costs is high unemployment. So a reduction in housing benefit, particularly in London, will have the effect of pushing people into the areas of highest unemployment. How will this help them to escape welfare dependency?

When Beveridge wrote his blueprint for our welfare system, it could reasonably be seen as a temporary 'safety net.' There was much less unemployment and affordable social housing was plentiful. Seventy years on, that is far from being the case and it is unjust to use the conditions from so long ago to inform today's rhetoric and decision-making.

EM Forster wrote that “Money pads the edge of things”. Decisions made by well padded politicians, however well-meaning, can be way off the mark. I believe you are genuinely concerned about deprivation and that you have done more to inform yourself about its causes and effects than most of your colleagues.

But what you have said and left unsaid in relation to the benefit cap, indicates that you nonetheless observe the situation through the lenses of comfort and status. You are described as a millionaire and it is reasonable to assume that an ex-army officer, former party leader and now cabinet minister, will not suffer from want of means nor from the lack of confidence and capacity which may arise from deprivation.

Causing fear and distress to the most vulnerable and colluding with the stirring up of hostility towards them is cruel and wrong. You claim that they are "not being punished" but it is hard to justify that interpretation. Benefit claimants - a wide and disparate group - are a soft target and they should not be made to suffer still further for the failures of politicians and the excesses of bankers.

It is my hope that the 'quiet man' might take a little time out to distance himself from received opinion and 'scrounger' rhetoric and to do some joined up thinking on the long term personal, social and economic effects of the policies on which he speaks.

Yours in peace,

Jill Segger

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/16186

------

© Dr Jill Segger is associate director of the beliefs and values think-tank Ekklesia, which has been honoured to work with disabled and sick people on research and action related to the Welfare Reform Bill (http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/welfarereformbill), particularly the promotion of the Spartacus Report on 'Responsible Reform' (http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/responsiblereformDLA).

bobby wrote:blueturando wrote
"...It didn't work then and it won't work now because a majority of the people do not support you."

Exactly when is the "then" you are refering to. If you are refering to the strikes in the 70's and 80's, they where not General strikes, so what general strikes is it you mean, you know nothing of what a General Strike can achieve, as you have never experienced one, because if we had one, the Government would surely crumble, only the Country would also feel the down side of it as well. So it could be argued that the people not choosing (yet) to have a General Strike, shows them to be more responsible than all you pox arsed Tory's. as for the rest of the crap you have written, its probably the biggest load of bollocks I have read in ages.
I must go now and take my dog for a walk and I will engage in conversation with him, as I know it will be more intelligent than that stuff on your last post.

Bluey, I am posting the same post again, as you failed to answer the key question I asked.
Exactly when is the "then" you are refering to etc.
The answer you came up with was again up to your usual standards, and quite frankly a load of bollocks.

Bluey wrote
"Oops I must have hit a nerve...I guess the truth hurts. This is one of the reasons you would like to see nationalised industries, because you believe your precious unions could hold to country to ransom. Fortunately for us most are not nationlised anymore, so your bark will always be bigger than your bite....Hard luck old chap"

which should start with "Oops I, like the rest of my Party have dropped a clanger. Firstly you wouldn't know how to hit my nerves, you think far too much of yourself bluey.
As for nationalisation, yes I fully believe that our Utilities should be in the control of the people, and not proffit making shareholders. We have all seen the unfare rises in cost of each and every Utility sold off mostly by the phucking Tory's. As for the Unions, yes I believe in them, even though I own and run my own Businesses, I treat my employee's very fairly and they in turn treat me the same. So there is a lesson to be learnt, if the company's treated their employee's fairly, there wouldn't be a need for any trades Unions. But allas its your Tory's who continually turn the screws on the plebs, then wonder why they do as little as they can, for the pittance they earne.
By the way, does your Boss realise he/she is paying you to work as opposed to writing all your crap on these boards. I know you will come up with some excuse, for no other reason than you are a Tory, but I'm sure your boss would rather get what he/she's paying for. Or perhaps you are no better than those you continually insult, and want something for nothing.

What a pity that such a reasoned and sensible case is so wasted on any Tory mind. Appealing to their 'better nature' is futile since they have none,. and actually enjoy the inflicting of misfortune on people who cannot fend or speak up for themselves. Such is the insensitivity of the present bunch of Hooray Henries in the Cabinet that not even the most persuasive and beseeching argument would cause any embarrassment ito them. They are a vile and nauseating shower and only time will see them suffer the ignominy they will so richly deserve...

bluey. Just one more point. You infer that strikes do not work. Then pray tell me, what happened to the Callaghan Government, and led to years of Fascism.

blueturando wrote:

Yes Red, a lengthy GS would have a great effect IMO

I think I have just woken from a dream and it's 1979....Cast your mind back Red and Mel...It didn't work then and it won't work now because a majority of the people do not support you. You lot are in a tiny minority now, so you can keep dreaming leftie militancy for as long as you like, the rest of us don't much care for it.

I am begining to wonder what party you will support in the next election, because as I see it Labour do not support you views either

Your quite right Blue this is not 1979, people are not as easily duped as in 1979 even me I stupidly thought a woman might understand peoples problems I must as been as thick as two short planks to believe she had any FEELINGS at all.

We may be in a tiny minority or you could have your figures wrong but that will not last for much longer and I don't know about yourself or any body else's voting preferences I WILL BE VOTING LABOUR does that answer your question blue.

Mel wrote:blue.

With some respect please read my post thoroughly, as I said quite clearly that a General Stike is not a possibility. However the reason for that is not the poor reason you have given. Unfortunately those who at present still are fotunate enough to have jobs feel no need to strike. It is the Thatcher doctrine that still remains here in the UK, dog eat dog, nothing matters except money and profit to those who are "i'm alright Jack" brigade........

Tory ideology is just those two things, money, money ,money and as much profit to be made at any cost. That cost is born always by the workforce and the poor.
Nationalisation in most cases is helpful to the people, because it is provided by the people for the people, which means their are no fat cats creaming off the profits, whilst sitting on their fat arses along with the non productive geedy shareholders. Both of which in many cases stuff their ill gotten gains in offshore accounts.
These are the so called people the Tories look after and you seem to be a supporter of these parasites too .Tell me i'm wrong if you can blue.........

Mel your DEFINATELY not wrong in any shape or form, I have been saying for a long time that they should re-name there party Fcuk you Im alright Jack party that suits them better but Mel the way I look at it people will only take so much and then they SNAP and after been fed huge doses of Tory Ideology and Dogma they will use the only thing left to them and that will be a General Strike.

This part of my post is for the attention of blue you know that Scotland is having a referendum here in Scotland to ask if we want to spilt from the UK, the reason Alec Salmond is waiting until Autumn 2014 to ask that question is because he knows by then Scotland will be sick to the back teeth of the Tory led Gov't cuts and there Ideology and Dogma and out and out NASTINESS that we will vote Yes because at least in Scotland we will not be forced into having a Tory Gov't.

All the focussing on a General Strike, in this country (UK) in the 21st Century is misplaced IMO

Back in 1979, there was no danger of union funds being sequestrated - arrested to repay any damage done to any company by a strike. (The definition of 'Legal Strike' is very narrow and vague, and as usual, the goal posts can be shifted at a brief's whim!

Back in 1979, if you called a strike there was no danger of your house and belongings being arrested and your family being out on the street (This, even if EVERYTHING isdocumented in your wife's name!)

I find it rather amazing that Tory supporters on here, do not state the legislation the Witch rolled out, rather than repeatedly stating as fact a situation which now, could never arise!

By the way, does your Boss realise he/she is paying you to work as opposed to writing all your crap on these boards. I know you will come up with some excuse, for no other reason than you are a Tory, but I'm sure your boss would rather get what he/she's paying for. Or perhaps you are no better than those you continually insult, and want something for nothing

Mel....I will come back to you later, but I am having a very busy day at work so cannot answer your points in full just yet. As for insults, well that's what I get here almost every day but it's water off a ducks back so I wouldn't stress about it if I were you. I'm sure you're tougher than that.

PS.....I am the boss and I said to myself it's ok to post when I have time during the day. Most of my posts are late at night, when I have finished my daily paperwork

Ahh!!!!! that says it all blue------"I AM THE BOSS".
Apart from that, of course "water off a ducks back" is typical of Tories, no caring or feeling for others, just self self self is the norm.

Before Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister, Britain was in decline. Prices were rising at an alarming rate, the country kept having financial crisises, it even had to go to the IMF for emergency loans to keep its economy afloat our economy was so bad, it was being run by the IMF (the only country outside of Africa and South America to ever suffer that humiliation) and held to ransom by the unions. There were strikes every other week and as soon as one strike got settled, another one broke out. The strikes led to disruptions in the delivery of goods and services, there were sometimes shortages of food in the stores. At one point, Britain was put on a three-day workweek to save energy and the lights went out. The constant strikes meant that there was no garbage pickup so people had to dump their garbage in the town square, people went without emergency surgery because the doctors and nurses were on strike and even funerals had to be postponed because the gravediggers were also out on strike.
When she left, the UK was the third strongest in the world. Anyone who says things were good before Thatcher became PM was either super-rich already, or looking at the past through rose-tinted glasses. I'm not saying Thatcher was perfect, or that everything she did was good, but it is an undeniable historical fact that she turned this country around, and for the better.
And should anyone ask, I returned from Germany last week and will be having a couple of days off.

Ivan

The open letter to "the quiet man" pha!!!! will certainly go straight into the waste paper basket. That will make two baskets in the same office.

The soccer lout supporters sometimes shout----"we shall not be moved"
The IDS (ill deed sod) sings from the same song sheet I am afraid, along with all of his kind including the cruel Lord Fraud, who is planning to put charges on the homes of those who are unemployed and receiving the (reduced) interest payment on mortgage assistance (brought in by Darling)
He intends to recoup the money from the property equity. That is of course if there is any left the way house prices are dropping.

I see on Panarama last night LORD Ashcroft has been found out at last, although no doubt Camercon will come to his aid.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has just announced that the "Welfare Reforms will NOT see a reduction for the Tax Payer in the long term!!"

atv wrote:Before Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister, Britain was in decline. Prices were rising at an alarming rate, the country kept having financial crisises, it even had to go to the IMF for emergency loans to keep its economy afloat our economy was so bad, it was being run by the IMF (the only country outside of Africa and South America to ever suffer that humiliation) and held to ransom by the unions. There were strikes every other week and as soon as one strike got settled, another one broke out. The strikes led to disruptions in the delivery of goods and services, there were sometimes shortages of food in the stores. At one point, Britain was put on a three-day workweek to save energy and the lights went out. The constant strikes meant that there was no garbage pickup so people had to dump their garbage in the town square, people went without emergency surgery because the doctors and nurses were on strike and even funerals had to be postponed because the gravediggers were also out on strike.
When she left, the UK was the third strongest in the world. Anyone who says things were good before Thatcher became PM was either super-rich already, or looking at the past through rose-tinted glasses. I'm not saying Thatcher was perfect, or that everything she did was good, but it is an undeniable historical fact that she turned this country around, and for the better.
And should anyone ask, I returned from Germany last week and will be having a couple of days off.

When Thatcher was kicked out of office by her own people, her legacy was a massive rich and poor divide with a homeless crisis, over 3 million unemployed, and millions of pensioners in poverty, and we had no industries or industrial bases, and our Utilities had been priviatised so that people could make a few bob on the backs of the poor.

And that's just for starters. Millions of British people sold their souls to this woman, and I wonder today, how many wished they hadnt ?

Guten tag atv

Yes things were bad before the Witch..... However, her doctrine and her so called strengthening of the country was short lived and brought about by mass unemployment, sale of our utilties, North sea oil and forced cheap labour. In addition she brought about our reliance upon invisible earnings, banking for example which replaced the demise of our manufacturing base that she brought to and end. We now suffer high uncontrollable utility/rail prices etc, along with the banking crisis due to her deregulation of the banking sector along with her friend Reagan whom she followed in this respect.

All her measures are irriversible and she was aware of that fact, now we suffer even more as a concequence.

And Good Day to you Mel,
glad to see you back, sorry to here about your furry companion.

As for nationalisation, yes I fully believe that our Utilities should be in the control of the people, and not proffit making shareholders.

But they wont be in the control of the people will they? They will be in control of the unions, who will be demanding more and more pay rises, resulting in the private sector demanding the same, resulting in prices rising, the cost of living increasing, and on and on and on.

I may have said this before and may be wrong, but I thought we had tried the era of strong Trade Unions, it didn't appear to work, eventually resulting in intransigent management up against intransigent Trade Unions, result a huge loss in our manufacturing base, never to be recovered.

Does anyone other than dyed in the wool lefties want to return to those dark days.

atv wrote:

As for nationalisation, yes I fully believe that our Utilities should be in the control of the people, and not proffit making shareholders.

But they wont be in the control of the people will they? They will be in control of the unions, who will be demanding more and more pay rises, resulting in the private sector demanding the same, resulting in prices rising, the cost of living increasing, and on and on and on.

I may have said this before and may be wrong, but I thought we had tried the era of strong Trade Unions, it didn't appear to work, eventually resulting in intransigent management up against intransigent Trade Unions, result a huge loss in our manufacturing base, never to be recovered.

Does anyone other than dyed in the wool lefties want to return to those dark days.

I have always taken an impartial view here.

If our Utilies remain in private companies, how can we make sure that our pensioners can have enough money to pay these bills ?, and not have to make choices between heating and eating ?

QUOTE: Before Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister, Britain was in decline

Now beginning to look terminal ......

oftenwrong wrote:QUOTE: Before Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister, Britain was in decline

Now beginning to look terminal ......

After 13 years of Labour in power, what did you expect?

Mel wrote:Ahh!!!!! that says it all blue------"I AM THE BOSS".
Apart from that, of course "water off a ducks back" is typical of Tories, no caring or feeling for others, just self self self is the norm.

Your quite right Mel, But blue could not be anything but a boss the kind that will accept the new YTS scheme for the 6-9 months then fling them back on the scrap heap and that in turn will lower the Unemployment rate until the kick out of there SCIVVY work for nowt pretend training schemes.

"Water of a Ducks Back" just shows how much they do not care about anybody but themselves which leads me too "Self first Self again if there is anything left Myself again".