"Tory scum, here we come"

First topic message reminder :

I was at the DEMO in Manchester 29th September, my thread title was the chant from around 80,000 people, 40,000 inside the park and 40,000 OUTSIDE. We were kettled so we could not get into the park. IMHO the police were on instructions from the Tory gov't so people would not see 'THE TIDE TURNNG' against this VILE NASTY gov't.   People came from Aberdeen to Somerset and everywhere else in between and we were WELCOMED by the people who live in Manchester and some even joined in the march. There were BANNERS flying high from every Union within the UK; one which really caught my eye was from the N.U.S. from HALLAM SHEFFIELD, Cleggy's seat. (Just in case some on here may not know what NUS stands for it's 'National Union of Students'.)  It's been three & a half years and they have not forgot what the Prostitute party did to them with their signed photo pledge.
 
I myself want to thank the Unite Union here in Glasgow, Jack, Angela, Jackie, Sandra and everyone else on the coach from John Smith House to Manchester, this was my first DEMO and there are plenty more to come. I hear there is one in October and I will be there by hook or by crook because it gave me hope that at last the people in the UK 'HAVE AWAKENED FROM THEIR SLEEP'. There are some posters on here who have thought "would they wake in time?" My answer is a very loud "YES they have". They may have stopped us from getting into the park but we did not miss the Tories outside their conference. They heard us and we made sure with loud hailers, Brass Bands. whistles, rattles and of course our VOICES. They heard us FINE and no doubt Cameron will be worried today, but that is no one else's fault but ours. We were quiet for too long, so I am wondering if there will be more TOILET PAPER used today at their conference??:yeahthat:

I think you have mis-read what Rachael Reeves was saying gw, tough on the ones that cheat the system and definitely not believe in trying to get a job but I can assure you that the people that need will get a HAND UP not HAND OUT.:yeahthat:

ghost whistler. Have you looked at the details of what Rachel Reeves was saying? I must admit I was alarmed by the headlines, but she’s not suggesting that under 25s should get no help at all, as the Tories are intending.
 
Benefit cheats are a much much smaller drain on the Treasury than tax evaders, but it doesn’t mean they should be ignored. Labour has promised a job creation programme, and don’t you agree that if a person is fit and well and if a job is made available paying at least the minimum wage but preferably the living wage, that person should either accept the job or some retraining?
 
I doubt if many people could have envisaged the appalling things which the Tories would do when they formed this so-called ‘coalition’ with the Lib Dems. 500,000 people relying on foodbanks, and according to ‘Channel 4 News’, some are returning items because they can’t afford to cook them. The NHS is being carved up for Tory donors, while the government’s own statistics show that 10,600 sick and disabled people died within six weeks of losing their benefits after being assessed as “fit to work” by ATOS and the DWP.
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/atos-told-incontinent-woman-to-wear-nappy-firm-condemned-by-mps-for-pressuring-sick-and-disabled-into-returning-to-work-8456447.html
 
That in itself is worth a vote for the only party which can replace this evil government. So is this:-
 
"Ed Miliband promises to rein in the legal loan sharks, cap the cost of credit, halt the spread of payday lenders and force them to fund the credit unions." 
 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/payday-loans-labours-13million-credit-2460698#
 
There are Tory MPs, supported by Shirley Williams, openly talking about charging us at least £10 every time we want to see our GP. That’s worth a vote for Labour, unless you trust the Tories with the NHS.
 
As someone who detests animal cruelty, I’d vote Labour just to ensure the survival of the Hunting Act, which the Tories are already trying to water down.
 
Before you sit at home on polling day and risk the possibility of another five years of Cameron and his psychopaths, have a read of this blog:-
 
http://kittysjones.wordpress.com/page/8/

oftenwrong wrote:

Dan Fante wrote: .... Clegg got what was agreed upon, even if he didn't get the result he wanted. You've inferred he was promised PR, which he subsequently didn't get, therefore he was naive. The facts do not back this up. If you disagree, I'd be interested in hearing why.

Slice the salami as fine as you like, DF, the Lib-Dems' prime motivation in 2010 was to obtain PR.  Perhaps the strength of that desire clouded their judgment about the reality of Tory intentions.  My personal opinion is that they were naive in their expectations at the time of entering into their pact.  They were disabused soon enough and brutally enough.

You've digressed from what you were initially saying, which is what I took issue with. Just to reiterate, there's absolutely no suggestion the Tories promised them PR which is what you seemed to be inferring. You now seem to be backing away from that.
Moving on, I disagree that their prime motivation in 2010 was to obtain PR. I think their prime motivation was to get into government (if we're talking about Clegg et al) as opposed to the wider party membership. The evidence for this is that they entered into a pact with the Tories without any promise of PR, rather the more watered-down option of a AW referendum. Where I do agree is that they showed naivety about how they would be treated within that partnership. In the early days especially, just about every unpopular policy seemed to be presented by one of the Libs, for example. It's difficult to see what they've gotten out of the arrangement apart from a few cabinet posts in the short-term.

Ivan wrote:ghost whistler. Have you looked at the details of what Rachel Reeves was saying? I must admit I was alarmed by the headlines, but she’s not suggesting that under 25s should get no help at all, as the Tories are intending.
 
Benefit cheats are a much much smaller drain on the Treasury than tax evaders, but it doesn’t mean they should be ignored. Labour has promised a job creation programme, and don’t you agree that if a person is fit and well and if a job is made available paying at least the minimum wage but preferably the living wage, that person should either accept the job or some retraining?
 
I doubt if many people could have envisaged the appalling things which the Tories would do when they formed this so-called ‘coalition’ with the Lib Dems. 500,000 people relying on foodbanks, and according to ‘Channel 4 News’, some are returning items because they can’t afford to cook them. The NHS is being carved up for Tory donors, while the government’s own statistics show that 10,600 sick and disabled people died within six weeks of losing their benefits after being assessed as “fit to work” by ATOS and the DWP.
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/atos-told-incontinent-woman-to-wear-nappy-firm-condemned-by-mps-for-pressuring-sick-and-disabled-into-returning-to-work-8456447.html
 
That in itself is worth a vote for the only party which can replace this evil government. So is this:-
 
"Ed Miliband promises to rein in the legal loan sharks, cap the cost of credit, halt the spread of payday lenders and force them to fund the credit unions." 
 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/payday-loans-labours-13million-credit-2460698#
 
There are Tory MPs, supported by Shirley Williams, openly talking about charging us at least £10 every time we want to see our GP. That’s worth a vote for Labour, unless you trust the Tories with the NHS.
 
As someone who detests animal cruelty, I’d vote Labour just to ensure the survival of the Hunting Act, which the Tories are already trying to water down.
 
Before you sit at home on polling day and risk the possibility of another five years of Cameron and his psychopaths, have a read of this blog:-
 
http://kittysjones.wordpress.com/page/8/

IVAN Your post says it all, have you ever thought of standing for Parliament? With someone like you in there, the people of the UK would be very lucky indeed, at least they would know that they had someone on their side fighting all the way for them. :yeahthat: 

Have you looked at the details of what Rachel Reeves was saying? I must admit I was alarmed by the headlines, but she’s not suggesting that under 25s should get no help at all, as the Tories are intending.
 

And that's the best this hopeless opposition can muster: they are not promising utter annihilation of the welfare state and the complete disenfranchisement of people under 25. My god, that's hopeless.

Even after the Mail's hatchet job on Ralph Miliband she and her party still want to court its readership, who likely do agree with Dacre's disgusting position, if not his methods. That tells me one thing: they aren't interested in me, and they dont' care about me. I get nothing from Labour. They are a spent force. Their only virtue is that they are not the tories, and not the libdems.

Benefit cheats are a much much smaller drain on the Treasury than tax evaders, but it doesn’t mean they should be ignored.

Honestly? Who cares about benefit cheats. How many of them are really a problem. How many of them are really drainging the system, not just a few quid here and there. It's ridiculous to pursue people that are just trying to survive, climbing over them to get at the hardcore. What a waste of money. The problem isn't benefits, it's capitalism and it's our economic system. We have the resources and if the best we can do is complain about a tiny tiny percentage of people - who exist in every ssystem - then we have failed. Unfortunately Reeves cares nothing about anything else: just being hard on scroungers. It's smoke and mirrors just to get the middle england daily mail reading vote.

Labour has promised a job creation programme, and don’t you agree that if a person is fit and well and if a job is made available paying at least the minimum wage but preferably the living wage, that person should either accept the job or some retraining?

 
Without knowing the details of this programme I can only speculate, but I suspect this is just going to be workfare by another name. They cannot create jobs. Demand creates jobs.

I don't agree that peopel should be forced into work at all. That is fascism and slavery. We are human beings, living breathing creative beings and we should get help to support ourselves. Not just forced to spend 35 hours a week looking on crummy jobsearch websites and being forced to compete in a shabby labour market for soul destroying meaningless poorly paid crap. These jobs won't lead anywhere either.

I doubt if many people could have envisaged the appalling things which the Tories would do when they formed this so-called ‘coalition’ with the Lib Dems. 500,000 people relying on foodbanks, and according to ‘Channel 4 News’, some are returning items because they can’t afford to cook them. The NHS is being carved up for Tory donors, while the government’s own statistics show that 10,600 sick and disabled people died within six weeks of losing their benefits after being assessed as “fit to work” by ATOS and the DWP.

 

I agree; the Tory government (let's not pretend it's a coalition) is disgusting. These people are alien to us: they do not share our values and do not care. Nor will they ever. But are things realy going to improve, as they should, under Labour, or is it just cold comfort?

The political system has failed. The TUC has failed. What is needed is grassroots activism of a most serious and far reaching kind. There needs to be nationwide civil disobedience.

There are Tory MPs, supported by Shirley Williams, openly talking about charging us at least £10 every time we want to see our GP. That’s worth a vote for Labour, unless you trust the Tories with the NHS.

 

And the sad thing is there are a lot of GP's who'd probably agree. IME GP's have no clue as to what is going on within even the NHS. They certainly have no interest in the effect of benefit cuts and welfare reform or the effect of the tory onslaught at all. We are alone.

As someone who detests animal cruelty, I’d vote Labour just to ensure the survival of the Hunting Act, which the Tories are already trying to water down.

 

I agree. Hunting is detestable.

Before you sit at home on polling day and risk the possibility of another five years of Cameron and his psychopaths, have a read of this blog:-
 
http://kittysjones.wordpress.com/page/8/

I don't want another 5 years of Cameron, but I don't want Labour chasing the same ideas and that is what they are doing. I couldn't be more disappointed in Reeves. Liam Byrne was bad enough; the architect of the Labour sell out of the workfare victims, now she's toeing the same line. We seem to lose whomever gets in and that's what needs to change.

I don't want another 5 years of Cameron, but I don't want Labour chasing the same ideas and that is what they are doing. I couldn't be more disappointed in Reeves. Liam Byrne was bad enough; the architect of the Labour sell out of the workfare victims, now she's toeing the same line. We seem to lose whomever gets in and that's what needs to change.

ghost whistler

Posts: 27
Join date: 2013-06-16

GW I see the point your making in the last part of your post if you do not want to see the Labour party going down the same road as the Tories have taken, do something about it if you wish to vote Labour in the 2015 general election "GET INVOLVED" you do not have to join the party but they would welcome you, that way you would be able to see EXACTLY what they intend to do and even have your own input that is what Ed Miliband wants from you. So have a think about it then contact your local Labour party if you do not know where your nearest one is I am sure Ivan will beable to let you know, just so you know I am a very proud member of the Labour party.

Redflag wrote:I think you have mis-read what Rachael Reeves was saying gw, tough on the ones that cheat the system and definitely not believe in trying to get a job but I can assure you that the people that need will get a HAND UP not HAND OUT.:yeahthat:

But it's just sensationalist rubbish. How much money is wasted pursuing and punishing those few hardcore fraudsters? There's no talk of punishing real fraudsters: tax fraud, legal or otherwise, is 7 times the cost of unemployment. Yet all Reeves can do is parrot the right wing neoliberal claptrap.

Labour were responsible for the hated WCA, they brought in ATOS. They started all this - and they introduced the regime whereby, if a claimant is found to have a 'doubt' as to their efforts to find work, they would be presumed guilty and lose their money first pending an appeal (with no guarantee of success or that it will be heard fairly).

To PR or not to PR? That was the question. The Lib Dems plainly thought they were in joint agreement, by the statements put out in the name of both partners in the 2010 Coalition:

".... The parties will bring forward a Referendum Bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the Alternative Vote in the event of a positive result in the referendum, as well as for the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies. Both parties will whip their Parliamentary Parties in both Houses to support a simple majority referendum on the Alternative Vote, without prejudice to the positions parties will take during such a referendum."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1277879/UK-Election-2010-The-Lib-Dem-Conservative-coalition-agreement-full.html#ixzz2hy1qir6k

oftenwrong wrote:To PR or not to PR?  That was the question.  The Lib Dems plainly thought they were in joint agreement, by the statements put out in the name of both partners in the 2010 Coalition:

".... The parties will bring forward a Referendum Bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the Alternative Vote in the event of a positive result in the referendum, as well as for the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies. Both parties will whip their Parliamentary Parties in both Houses to support a simple majority referendum on the Alternative Vote, without prejudice to the positions parties will take during such a referendum."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1277879/UK-Election-2010-The-Lib-Dem-Conservative-coalition-agreement-full.html#ixzz2hy1qir6k

Alternative Vote is not the same as PR. You seem to be living up to your name whilst inadvertently making my point for me

If you like the salami always to be sliced very thin indeed, that's probably true. I sometimes have to catch myself from perpetuating pedantry, which most people find either risible or boring.

oftenwrong wrote:If you like the salami always to be sliced very thin indeed, that's probably true.

As I understand it, Alternative Vote (as proposed for the 2011 referendum) would still return MPs based on single member districts, which in that respect is like the First Past the Post system. This runs contrary to the idea behind proportional representation and it's why the distinction between the two is important.

Listening to Radio 4 this morning   I was somewhat interested in the report out today which was suggesting that pensioners should bear more of the burden   having been sheltered from the difficulties of the last few years. Particularly as this was intended to help the under 25s.

I found this wonderfully incomprehensible. Retire early to make room for under 25s?... nope, its too late for that, we are already retired. It turned out that there was some suggestion of abandoning the winter fuel allowance and free TV licenses (How much would that actually save? Sufficient to make a difference?) or to make them taxable (Would that not save even less?). How would that help the under 25s?

Perhaps we should make University and post graduate PhD study compulsory until you are 25.   There are always lots of things for everyone to study.   Comparative Knitting... The effect of toe nail clippings on the local environment... Does low fat milk make cornflakes more soggy?... That would solve the unemployment figures and at £9k a year or so it would mean the ability to take extra tax later on and pretend it isn't tax at all.   It would fit with the 'everyone gets a prize' social model that is very popular. We all get to be called 'Doc'. How nice  

Then I though 'No,  maybe this is really about jobs and employment'. They are going to get everyone under 25 to care for a pensioner. It's a job. There is a problem over care - not enough time spent on each pensioner. It would be an alternative to picking up litter for your JSA.  

BTW it is well known that scum rises to the top so what actually do people expect to find in the Houses of Parliament?

Whether or not the Mail's allegations of Ed Miliband's Dad hating Britain are absurd, it's evident that the current Tories certainly do.

oftenwrong wrote:Whether or not the Mail's allegations of Ed Miliband's Dad hating Britain are absurd, it's evident that the current Tories certainly do.

Agreed. In a way it was a good thing though because, to my mind, Miliband came out of it looking like someone who was prepared to stand up for what they believe in and the Mail made themselves look very shoddy (even to many of the people who normally lap their shit up). I'm not sure if you are aware of this but Paul Dacre of the Mail is the last person that should be casting aspersions on anyone's father:
http://tompride.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/while-ralph-miliband-was-fighting-in-normandy-paul-dacres-father-was-avoiding-the-front-line/

I have it on good authority that foul-mouthed Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre is very proud of his father. On becoming editor of the Mail he even revived his father’s column Ephraim Hardcastle as a tribute to him.

Which makes the bizarre attack on Ed Milband’s father by the Mail even stranger.

In 1944 when the 22-year old Ralph Miliband was bravely risking his life storming German positions protecting the Normandy beaches, Paul Dacre’s 19-year-old father Peter Dacre working in London as a show business reporter for newspapers such as the Daily Express.(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1425528/Peter-Dacre.html)

Quite how a fit 19-year-old managed to avoid call-up to the front line at that time God only knows.

Perhaps show business reporters – like coal miners – were considered just as essential to the war effort as fighting soldiers?

Whatever the reason – you’d think Mr Dacre would want to avoid comparisons between the two men. Wouldn’t you?

Sometimes, a really deep-seated bitterness just has to express itself.

I guess Peter Dacre loved his country so much, that he used all his connections to stay at home during war time.

oftenwrong wrote:Sometimes, a really deep-seated bitterness just has to express itself.

Indeed, usually in the pages of the Daily Mail as well...

Still what can one expect from a rag that was founded by a nazi supporter

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/01/zac-goldsmith-nazi-daily-mail_n_4023045.html

...and of course the heil's "talents" don't stop there....

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/daily-mail-olympic-plastic-brits.html

oftenwrong wrote:Whether or not the Mail's allegations of Ed Miliband's Dad hating Britain are absurd, it's evident that the current Tories certainly do.

Ed Miliband's father was worth ten of him and a million dacres. What the tories mean by 'Britain' is 'my money and power', and what they hate is the people who live here.

As I've said elsewhere, no one hates Britain more than the Daily Mail. The readers (going off the articles in the printed format anyway) seem to have a pathological need for hate figures. What is even more weird is that they come from a demographic that should have more reasons than a lot of people to be happy, i.e. comfortably off, middle class homeowners etc. The sick little puppies.

Dan Fante wrote:As I've said elsewhere, no one hates Britain more than the Daily Mail. The readers (going off the articles in the printed format anyway) seem to have a pathological need for hate figures. What is even more weird is that they come from a demographic that should have more reasons than a lot of people to be happy, i.e. comfortably off, middle class homeowners etc. The sick little puppies.

They presumably lack adequate sex lives, education and any pleasure in life except spiting others. We had a next-door neighbour who read the filth: everyone is glad he's dead.

ghost whistler wrote:-
Labour were responsible for the hated WCA, they brought in ATOS. They started all this

 
Some ‘facts’ are often just misleading soundbites that don’t start to tell the whole story, which is the way that trash papers like ‘The Sun’ and ‘The Daily Mail’ usually operate. A favourite Tory ‘fact’ is that Harold Wilson shut more coal mines in the 1960s than Thatcher did in the 1980s. It’s true, but there were more pits in the 1960s, when unprofitable ones were shut, when unemployment was low, when wages were higher in factories and the pits just couldn’t get the staff. Thatcher shut viable pits for political reasons. But of course the Tories ignore all that because it spoils a good story.
 
Yes, Labour did introduce the Work Capability Assessment in 2008 and give a contract to ATOS. However, they didn’t “start all this”, the All Work Test was introduced by the Tories in 1995 when Invalidity Benefit was replaced with Incapacity Benefit. Before that, eligibility for benefit had largely been determined by the claimant’s GP.
 
The cruelty which is being imposed on claimants now, and the current version of the Work Capability Assessment (which the government claims it is “continuing to review and improve”, presumably by making appeals against adjudications much more difficult), is the brainchild of that psychopath Iain Duncan Smith, not Labour.
 
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CEsQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parliament.uk%2Fbriefing-papers%2FPOST-PN-413.pdf&ei=kP1gUoCKJISc0QXchoHwDg&usg=AFQjCNH_rKgWXtVkMhNhkcwL9KFOsgR4hA&bvm=bv.54176721,d.d2k
 
https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/simplifying-the-welfare-system-and-making-sure-work-pays

I agree, IDS is an incompetent bully who shouldn't be allowed near matches never mind public office. If he dropped dead tomorrow, I'd cheer believe me.

The point I'm making is that to expect Labour to save us from this utter nightmare is, IMO, unrealistic. Any changes they make will be at best cosmetic. They are wedded to the same idology, even if they aren't as rabid as the tories. Who brought the appalling David Freud into government in the first place? Who gave him the task of overseeing welfare reform? Who sat back as IDS screwed £130mn from those wrongly sanctioned and ruined by this government? Labour's tenure over the DWP may not have been the hell that IDS is overseeing, but it is very far from any kind of ideal i'd like to see and to expect - particularly from the likes of the appalling Liam Byrne and now, dismally, Rachel Reeves - the change we desperately need is, IMO, naive.

Even people like Michael Meacher leave me concerned: ten years ago he was happily screwing over the rental sector while professing socialist ideals to the contrary. Now he's cosying up to the likes of Sue Marsh. I can only hope he's changed for the better and not the venal politician exposed, rightly, by Mark Thomas.

The tories may have introduced a test before 97, just as they created Jobsekers Allowance. But Labour didn't repeal or improve or change any of this. Instead they created a system whereby people facing sanctions were presumed guilty first and had their money stopped on a doubt (the technical term). That was not the case before hand (though i'm sure the tories similarly wouldn't repeal such a thing, and haven't). Before your money was not stopped until your case was properly heard. Now it's immediately stopped.

And the WCA was created by Labour. Certainly it has been made worse, particularly for mental health (believe me I know all too well), by IDS.

GW I could do the deed then go home and sleep with a clear conscience in regard to IDS, but I hear there will be a very long queue in front of me vying for that job.

Ivan wrote:... Some ‘facts’ are often just misleading soundbites that don’t start to tell the whole story, which is the way that trash papers like ‘The Sun’ and ‘The Daily Mail’ usually operate. A favourite Tory ‘fact’ is that Harold Wilson shut more coal mines in the 1960s than Thatcher did in the 1980s. It’s true, but there were more pits in the 1960s, when unprofitable ones were shut, when unemployment was low, when wages were higher in factories and the pits just couldn’t get the staff. Thatcher shut viable pits for political reasons. ...

All governments do things for political reasons. It is why they are there. Workington was a solid labour electorate. Ravenscraig was a Scottish marginal. So which steel plant do you close as a Labour government making a decision just prior to the '79 election. It was a double whammy for Workington because, in spite of what the then Labour Gov't said, Ravenscraig could not make the high quality steel that Workington made and was used entirely by to make rail track. So Ravenscraig did not get the contract it went to Norway. It was a double whammy because the Conservatives then sold the rail making facility to the French who took the order book and closed the facility. Hardly surprising as it was expensive to import steel all the way from Norway when it was previously made 1 mile away. Workington was a viable steel facility sacrificed on the altar of electoral expediency.

It is very easy to be sanctimonious about one party or the other. There is hardly a playing card of a gap between them when it comes to gulling the electorate.

All horribly true, Bellatori, but apart from learning the lessons of history, where's the profit in raking over past misfortune?

Our pressing problem is the spiralling cost of energy, to which nobody so far is offering a practical solution. Gideon thinks it might be a good idea to get the Chinese and French to build a nuclear reactor to replace Hinkley Point at double the present wholesale cost of electricity.

Meanwhile, we're adding candles to our weekly shopping list.

If Osborne lets the chinese in OW we will also have to start burning coal or logs to keep us warm.

Better to burn a Tory.

If such ideas take hold, they will undoubtedly privatise the process, bobby.

ghost whistler wrote:-
the WCA was created by Labour

 

I wrote:-
Labour did introduce the Work Capability Assessment in 2008

 
So we agree? But according to the idiom, “the devil is in the detail”, which I thought I'd covered already.
 

ghost whistler wrote:-
They aren't as rabid as the Tories…..Labour's tenure over the DWP may not have been the hell that IDS is overseeing…..Certainly it has been made worse by IDS.

 
I suspect that lots of people vote for what they see as 'the least worst alternative'. Why can’t you? I doubt if the Labour Party is ever going to deliver the socialist utopia that I’d like to see, but I’m hopeful that we might at least return to ‘the spirit of 1945’, reconstructing the nation after it has been ravaged by its enemies, in the case the Tories.

The tories certainly made the WCA worse, but it was flawed to begin with. Labour are operating from the same pro-workhouse ethic as the tories. That's the problem. Get the sick out and sweeping up the streets for no pay; in this I simply cannot see Labour being different. I hope I'm wrong.
 
It's arguable whether or not they returned to that spirit in 97 after the last Tory nightmare. Now, in just 3 years, they have done more damage than Thatcher, followed by Major, could ever have dreamed possible. If it's even possible to reverse this damage why isn't Miliband coming out and saying so. It's taken him about a year to denounce the Bedroom Tax for heaven's sake! What about the rest of welfare reform? What about the NHS? What about renationalising the post after this appalling fire sale? Not a peep!
 
Sure I can vote Labour, and will precisely because the choice is so bad, but I'm not under any illusiong the change will be enough to shift us away from the hell we are in.

ghost whistler wrote:...What about renationalising the post after this appalling fire sale? ...

Maybe he is waiting. All the big businesses that think they are going to make a killing running the post are paying £4+ for each share. Ed waits until the small people have sold all their shares to the bigguns and then renationalises at the original price.   Works for me and sort of redistributes the wealth  

Nah... never happen. MPs work their ticket and then wait for big business to offer them a sinecure when they retire. Why help those lower down the ladder when it jeopardises ones gravy train.

Bellatori wrote:-
All governments do things for political reasons.

 
Forgive me for saying that's a case of “stating the bleedin’ obvious”. For example, the privatised East Coast railway line didn’t make any money, but in public ownership it's returned a £208 million profit to the government. Now the Tories want to privatise it again, because to do so suits their political dogma that all things are better in private hands.
 
Not all governments throw thousands, even tens of thousands, of people out of work for political reasons, but Tory ones do. The miners beat the Tories in 1972 and 1974 and Thatcher took revenge on them, closing viable pits. Public sector workers have been sacked in the last three and a half years because the Tories have an ideological hatred of all things public.  

It is very easy to be sanctimonious about one party or the other. There is hardly a playing card of a gap between them

 
It’s very easy to be mentally lazy and just say “they’re all the same”, but they’re not, even if the differences aren’t as great as some of us would like.

Ivan wrote:

...the privatised East Coast railway line didn’t make any money, but in public ownership it's returned a £208 million profit to the government.

I don't know where you got the figure of 208 million from but it is incorrect according to the rail subsidy figures available on the government website. The latest (2012/2013) figure is 190.5 million. This compares very favourably with the likes of London Midland (-57.3), Southeastern (-82.3) and Northern Rail (-151.7) but looks positively miserly when compared with South West Trains (314.7).  EC is third out of fifteen, extremely good but not outstanding. (Caveat: First ScotRail and Mersey rail are not included in the data.)

The direct subsidy or return to or from the Train Operating Company is not the whole of the picture, though. There is also the Network Grant paid to Network Rail. Each TOC is allocated a portion of the grant as an indirect subsidy. East Coat's allocation amounts to 206.1 million giving a net cost of 15.6 million (fourth overall)

Franchise.............Net subsidy
First Capital Connect..............-68.0
South West Trains.................-42.8
Southern..............................-15.9
East Coast.............................15.6
.
.
.
CrossCountry.......................329.8
Southeastern.......................341.8
Northern Rail........................536.0 (largest subsidy)

Publicly owned franchises can do well in terms of reducing the subsidies but there is no guarantee.

It should be borne in mind that DOR (Directly Operated Railways) inherited East Coast after National Express East Coast failed.

There are degrees of everything, greed included.

bobby wrote:Better to burn a Tory.

Can not do that Bobby did you not know Tories REALLY SMELL when you burn them, better off with a loan of a GUILLOTINE from Mr Hollande I am certain he will have one hanging around in one of the museum in France.:yeahthat: 

ghost whistler wrote: ....
 
Sure I can vote Labour, and will precisely because the choice is so bad, but I'm not under any illusiong the change will be enough to shift us away from the hell we are in.

Oh, Dear! What a dismal picture you paint, gw.  If all else fails you will vote for the least worst.  

If your opinion is that the present democratic election system fails us, what would you put in its place?  Why should anyone accept a consultation every five years as true Democracy?

You don't think it's dismal?
 
The present democratic system has failed us completely. Who elected this coalition? How are the able to put through policies no one voted for? Whatever happened to no top down reform of the NHS?
 
We need something better. Perhaps PR would be a start. Getting the lobbyists out of power and removing all the money making schemes the MPS have that seem to corrupt them even more. No flipping homes: they can live in a hotel next to parliament. Build a bloody Travel Lodge next door or something! No duck ponds, moats or helipads. No Betsygate.

Ivan wrote:

Bellatori wrote:-
All governments do things for political reasons.

 

Forgive me for saying that's a case of “stating the bleedin’ obvious”.

Is it really? You only seem to think that the Tories do things for political reasons whereas the Labour party are simply all sweetness and light and do things because they just love everybody. Your reply smacked of a certain naivety.

Simply writing "The miners beat the Tories in 1972 and 1974" suggests that you are happy to see groups at war within society. Scargill was just as responsible for the destruction of the coal industry as Maggie. He picked the fight and found that he faced someone who was equally intransigent and nasty but also considerably cleverer and more subtle.

Ivan wrote:It’s very easy to be mentally lazy and just say “they’re all the same”, but they’re not...

It is equally easy to be be blinkered and short sighted and try and write revisionist history.

Both Tories and Labour 'look out for' their 'mates'. What you seem to be saying is that the Tories are better at it. Doesn't bode well for the future if Labour get in then does it?

If we could start all over again, we wouldn't start from here.

Norm Deplume. I’m impressed by your thorough research into rail subsidies and for reminding us that statistics often don’t present “the whole picture”. You will appreciate that my passing reference to the East Coast rail profit was merely intended to illustrate the Tory dogma that everything must be privatised, even when it’s profitable in the public sector.
 
My figure of £208 million came from a geezer who follows me on Twitter. On investigation, he appears to have got his information from the wretched ‘Daily Mail’:-
 
“Campaigners have highlighted figures announced which showed that East Coast paid £208 million in premium and dividend payments to the Treasury in the last financial year.”
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2465925/Return-class-train-travel-Bidders-state-run-East-Coast-line-offer-extra-tier-service-dubbed-Ryanair-rails.html
 
This extract from an article by Gwyn Topham and Ian Griffiths claims that just over £200 million a year is being returned to the government by East Coast these days:-
 
“In the past three years, DOR's east-coast operation has returned more than £600 million to the government. This is more in real terms, DOR points out, than any other previous franchisee. If the issue of state versus private comes down to how much it costs to subsidise the nation's railways, the case for public ownership of the east coast is surprisingly strong……..A significant turnaround has been executed at no cost to the government, which had received financial premiums of £416 million by 2012, a figure East Coast says will total £640 million when the latest accounts are filed (April 2013). The business is in better shape, makes unprecedented returns for the state and remains in the black.”
 
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/apr/14/east-coast-mainline-bids-branson