"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:

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

Bellatori wrote:-
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.

 
I haven’t said anything of the sort, so kindly stop putting words into my mouth. By saying that it was “bleedin’ obvious” that all governments do things for political reasons, I was agreeing with you. What I actually said was “not all governments throw....people out of work for political reasons”. Is that so hard for you to understand?
 
 

Simply writing "The miners beat the Tories in 1972 and 1974" suggests that you are happy to see groups at war within society.

 
What a stupid remark! I was simply stating the facts. We always have conflict when the Tories are in power – riots in 1981, 1984, 1990 and 2011 for a start. Of course I’m not “happy to see groups at war within society”, but the Tories are. They promote it as part of their ‘divide and rule’ strategy. They encourage us to turn on our neighbours if their curtains are drawn and they happen to be unemployed, so that we get distracted while they get on with their evil business of asset-stripping the entire state for the benefit of their friends and party donors.
 

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.

 
You’re the one making a pathetic attempt to rewrite history! Thatcher, not Scargill, planned the massive number of pit closures which provoked the strike. Scargill’s tactics were poor - starting a strike in the spring when the seasonal demand for coal was falling, and not calling a national ballot. But Thatcher had all the arms of the state at her disposal and used them with the brutality of a typical fascist, most memorably in the Battle of Orgreave, when 8,000 truncheon-wielding riot police, many of them on horseback, stormed a picket line, leading to about 700 injuries. You call that “subtle”, do you?

I recall somewhere claiming that as far back as the 70's there were plans to stockpile coal - essentially part of a plan to break the unions.

It's a shame that since then the unions have largely been neutered. Where is the action to back up the rhetoric from someone like Serwotka as the PCS staff include those that are doing IDS' dirty work?

Ivan wrote: ...

How fascinating that you write "The miners beat the Tories in 1972 and 1974" and then seem to let that slip out of your mind when it came to a third 'fight'. That's what I mean about revisionist history. You seem to be able to ignore it where it suits even though you stated the original disputes yourself. We still remember the three day week. This was not a one off - History rarely is. "Is that so hard for you to understand?"  

Margaret Thatcher (who did her best to put my family out on the street), like any sensible person, prepared for a confrontation she knew was coming. Scargill did not. He thought that the miners would roll over the government as they had before. That was his real motivation to destroy a 'hated Tory government'. His stupidity cost the miners everything. Why was there no national ballot? He admitted later on that he thought it might not back him. Clearly, as the strike showed, the Nottingham mineworkers were not with him. What IS simply my opinion is that, without the miners strike we would actually have less union legislation; we would not have wasted north sea oil revenue on 'a price worth paying' for massive unemployment and, I suspect, a lot less of Margaret Thatcher. There is no doubt that the 'Tory Press' as a lot of posters like to call it, elevated Scargill from moronic idiot to the status of Devil Incarnate BUT rather than admit defeat he tore the NUM down around him.

I did smile at you posts. They reminded me of sitting in the coffee lounge at Uni reading the socialist worker. I have learned since then that there are often two sides to most arguments which is the point that I have been trying to make. The labour party that you are clearly so very attached to was in power for how many years was it? Thirteen? How much of the union law did they repeal?

While you are asking yourself why we have no coal industry, you might also ask yourself what happened to British Leyland.


When you mentioned Orgreve I note you did not mention the agent provocateurs that the police had placed in the crowds. This now seems to be accepted as fact. But then if you hold the whole country to ransom can you reasonably expect the establishment not to play dirty?

To put it in your terms of a fight then maybe MT had read Sun Tzu whereas Scargill clearly had not.

""Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win." - Sun-Tzu

ghost whistler wrote:I recall somewhere claiming that as far back as the 70's there were plans to stockpile coal - essentially part of a plan to break the unions.

It's a shame that since then the unions have largely been neutered. Where is the action to back up the rhetoric from someone like Serwotka as the PCS staff include those that are doing IDS' dirty work?

AS I asked in my last post, why did the Labour government with its huge majority not redress the balance by repealing some of the (anti) union legislation. Cynical old me would suggest it was because they liked the money that came in but wanted to keep the unions on a short leash. No 'tea at #10' as in the Wilson era.

Bellatori wrote:

ghost whistler wrote:I recall somewhere claiming that as far back as the 70's there were plans to stockpile coal - essentially part of a plan to break the unions.

It's a shame that since then the unions have largely been neutered. Where is the action to back up the rhetoric from someone like Serwotka as the PCS staff include those that are doing IDS' dirty work?

AS I asked in my last post, why did the Labour government with its huge majority not redress the balance by repealing some of the (anti) union legislation. Cynical old me would suggest it was because they liked the money that came in but wanted to keep the unions on a short leash. No 'tea at #10' as in the Wilson era.

Indeed. This is exactly the sort of thing that makes me cynical about a future labour government. They also know that many people will probably vote for them because of the current govenrment and are perhaps coasting.

The Tories, for ideological reasons, always initiate a class war. It is they who always begin attacking general workers and the most poor and vulnerable in society.

sickchip wrote:The Tories, for ideological reasons, always initiate a class war. It is they who always begin attacking general workers and the most poor and vulnerable in society.

This is not really terribly helpful. From a different perspective one could just as easily argue that the Unions, of which I have been a lifelong member and supporter, 'always' initiate a class war. The question still remains... Why did the labour government NOT repeal the somewhat draconian union laws? It is easy to see why the Tories would not, frankly they would allow firms to ban unions in the workplace if they could (one small saving grace for the Human Rights Act) but Labour have been only notable for their abject silence on the issue.

Bellatori wrote: This is not really terribly helpful. From a different perspective one could just as easily argue that the Unions, of which I have been a lifelong member and supporter, 'always' initiate a class war. The question still remains... Why did the labour government NOT repeal the somewhat draconian union laws? It is easy to see why the Tories would not, frankly they would allow firms to ban unions in the workplace if they could (one small saving grace for the Human Rights Act) but Labour have been only notable for their abject silence on the issue.

 
You are simply wrong here.
 
Unions didn't, and don't. initiate class wars at all. They merely seek, or did seek, to improve the lot, get a fair deal, and defend the rights of working people. If we'd never had unions where would we be now? Would working class people have been able to buy homes, better themselves, etc? The Tory party have introduced policies/legislation into law that deliberately disempowers the unions - that, let's not forget, are there for ordinary people. The unions, and general workforce, should really refuse to recognise such laws and legislation.
 
The Tory party, however, aggressively strip away workers rights, aggressively scapegoat anybody on benefits for the country's ills, aggressively punish the young via benefit cuts and forcing them into working for dole money, aggressively encourage private schools - thus furthering inequality and division in society, aggressively seek to get rid of social housing - or at least raise the costs to private landlord levels, aggressively tell disabled and clearly ill people they are fit to work and remove benefits/help they get, aggressively remove legal aid and negate ordinary peoples access to defend/argue their case in court, aggressively seek to make it easier for employers to sack workers or dismiss them without any (already vastly reduced) redundancy payment, etc, etc, etc. Everything the Tory party does is about oppressing the voice, and rights, of ordinary Joes and Jills.

sickchip wrote: Unions didn't, and don't. initiate class wars at all. They merely seek, or did seek, to improve the lot, get a fair deal, and defend the rights of working people. If we'd never had unions where would we be now? Would working class people have been able to buy homes, better themselves, etc? The Tory party have introduced policies/legislation into law that deliberately disempowers the unions - that, let's not forget, are there for ordinary people.

 
Let us not forget sickchip what the Unions gave us the normal working people of the UK "A LABOUR PARTY" because that is where we came from if it had not been for three very brave agricultural workers we would not have the Labour party who suffered at the hands of the Tories and the Landed gentry of the UK, to which this Tory gov''t is determined to take us back in time to along with the Big Business Tory Lords who have benefitted by Millions of pounds since 2010.:yeahthat:

Let us not forget sickchip what the Unions gave us the normal working people of the UK "A LABOUR PARTY" because that is where we came from if it had not been for three very brave agricultural workers we would not have the Labour party who suffered at the hands of the Tories and the Landed gentry of the UK, to which this Tory gov''t is determined to take us back in time to along with the Big Business Tory Lords who have benefitted by Millions of pounds since 2010.yeahthat

Spot on, Redflag.

sickchip wrote:... You are simply wrong here.

 Really?!  
 

sickchip wrote: ...Unions didn't, and don't. initiate class wars at all. They merely seek, or did seek, to improve the lot, get a fair deal, and defend the rights of working people...

Have you ever been to an executive meeting of a union? My experience is that the ideologues who often end up running these unions are just as committed to 'the class struggle' as their opposite numbers in the Tory party. Scargill was a classic but not the only one.

sickchip wrote:If we'd never had unions where would we be now? Would working class people have been able to buy homes?...

Does the expression 'Right to Buy' ring any bells? Now where did that start... mmmm... let me see... "Right to Buy was introduced in the Housing Act 1980, as one of the first major reforms introduced by the Thatcher government."

sickchip wrote:The Tory party have introduced policies/legislation into law that deliberately disempowers the unions - that, let's not forget, are there for ordinary people.

Which was my point exactly. But then you do not address the subsequent point... in 13 years what did the Labour government to ameliorate these laws? Oooh... Ooooh  ... me... me...   I know... that would be ... errr ... NOTHING.

sickchip wrote:The unions, and general workforce, should really refuse to recognise such laws and legislation.

Let us for the moment ignore the inanity of the statement and the total anarchy that would ensue if we simply decide to pick and chose which laws we will and won't obey and return to the question above... and the Labour party did...???
 

sickchip wrote:The Tory party,...

I would not disagree in the main. What I find slightly ironic is this naive belief that Labour will be better. I suppose psychologically if you think it is better then it will appear to be better even if the reality is otherwise.

Redflag wrote: Let us not forget sickchip what the Unions gave us the normal working people of the UK "A LABOUR PARTY" because that is where we came from...

Absolutely we should not. It seems a shame though that the Labour Party has. It seems to have had a permanent amnesia since May 2nd 1997.

Bellatori,

Believe me - if you read through any of my past posts you will see that I have been as cynical and critical of the (New) Labour party as anyone here. I'm sure other posters will verify that.

The unions, and general workforce, should really refuse to recognise such laws and legislation.
Let us for the moment ignore the inanity of the statement and the total anarchy that would ensue if we simply decide to pick and chose which laws we will and won't obey

If present day rules on Unions and what actions they can take had applied to those who originally formed and participated in Union activity......what then? We'd still be working for a pittance in sweatshops and doffing our cap to the master. If they passed a law that forbade Joe Public posting political opinions on forums such as this........would you respect, and obey, it?

sickchip wrote:Bellatori,

Believe me - if you read through any of my past posts you will see that I have been as cynical and critical of the (New) Labour party as anyone here. I'm sure other posters will verify that.

I am happy to believe you. I do have a certain reluctance to break the law. I was photographing the Vietnam Protests in Red Lion square when I was 13 years old. I photographed the Poll Tax Riots in the 80s. The former changed nothing and even to this day Vietnam Vets can find a lot of prejudice in the USA. The latter did change things but I still wonder whether it was the right way to do so. The riots that lead to the death of PC Blakelock; were they justified as an attempt to change things?

The problem with Civil Disobedience is that it is a first step and with each subsequent step you get closer to the anarchy we saw for 4 days in London.

To get back to my original point which no one has answered... why did the Labour Party do nothing for 13 years? Why the collective amnesia about their roots? Maybe the Unions need a 'new' Labour Party. One that does remember who they are and where they came from.

Bellatori wrote:-
if you hold the whole country to ransom

 
How can a supposedly educated man use that tired, lazy, well-worn cliché? If anyone ever held this country to ransom, and in a devastating way, it wasn’t miners but bankers, as they know that no sane government can ever afford to let banks fail.
 

I have learned since then that there are often two sides to most arguments which is the point that I have been trying to make.

 
Back to the “bleedin’ obvious”; there’s always another side. I’m sure Hitler had a case for murdering six million Jews, but it doesn’t make it valid. However, Thatcher did like to argue that “there is no alternative” to the Friedmanite policies being pursued by her and her friends Reagan and Pinochet.
 

Thatcher prepared for a confrontation she knew was coming.

 
She knew it was coming because she provoked it. Let me spell it out again - it was her government, not Scargill and the NUM, which provoked the confrontation by proposing massive pit closures.
 

can you reasonably expect the establishment not to play dirty?

 
Thatcher, as the leader of a party which professed to believe in the freedom of the individual, did a lot more than “play dirty”. According to ‘The Enemy Within: Thatcher’s Secret War against the Miners’ by Seumas Milne, Thatcher pressed the secret services to intensify surveillance of the NUM (and Scargill in particular) with infiltration and phone-bugging of the homes - and even the fish-and-chip shops - frequented by the union leadership. In some areas the free movement of people was curtailed. All an abuse of power; the miners were not a threat to the security of the state, they were exercising their right in a so-called democracy to withdraw their labour. So much for Thatcher’s concept of ‘freedom’.
 

What IS simply my opinion is that, without the miners strike we would actually have less union legislation; we would not have wasted north sea oil revenue on 'a price worth paying' for massive unemployment

 
An opinion with which I disagree profoundly. The Tories have always tried to curtail union rights, and even now they’re planning, if they win the next election, to make it easier to sack people; that’s got nothing to do with a strike nearly thirty years ago.
 
“Massive unemployment” had arrived by 1983, so I don’t see how you can blame a strike in 1984-5 for that. How much money did Thatcher waste on that strike? There were 3,000 extra police a day for a start.
 

why did the Labour Party do nothing for 13 years?

 
It didn’t “do nothing”, that’s just another unsubstantiated statement from you. For someone who thought that the union block vote, abolished in 1993, was still in force, I guess that’s not surprising.
 
In addition to restoring the right of GCHQ workers to belong to a trade union, Labour was responsible for the minimum wage in 1998. The Tories opposed it, saying it would cause a recession, which it didn’t. Ever since, they’ve been trying to undermine it and many of them are openly saying that they want it scrapped. Labour is now talking about imposing the living wage in the public sector and cajoling private companies to do likewise. I’d call that in itself a lot more than “a playing card of a gap” between the two parties.
 
You might also like to check out these measures to see if they concur with your idea of “doing nothing”:-
- 1998 Working Time Regulations
- 1998 Human Rights Act
- 1999 Employment Relations Act
- 1999 Disability Rights Commission Act
- 2002 Employment Relations Act (EA)
- 2004 Employment Relations Act
- 2004 Information and Consultation Regulations
- 2004 Warwick Agreement (trade unions and labour)
- 2008 Employment Act (EA)
 
The details can be found here:-
http://www.ier.org.uk/resources/chronology-labour-law-1979-2008
 
Even so, Labour didn’t do as much for the unions as I’d have liked to have seen. When unions were stronger and workers had more rights, this country was far more equal:-
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t709p120-does-inequality-matter#46195
 
However, despite tensions which occasionally occur between the unions and Labour, the unions would rather have Labour in power and some of them continue to give money to the party. As to the unions having a new party, we already have the TUSC, but it doesn’t make any impact when it contests elections, so what is the point? All it’s likely to do is splinter off a tiny share of the Labour vote and maybe in the process help a few Tories to get elected.
 

"Right to Buy was introduced in the Housing Act 1980, as one of the first major reforms introduced by the Thatcher government."

 
You think that was a good thing, do you? I don’t. A discount for people who had been provided with council homes, but not for those who bought their first houses in the private sector – I thought you believed in fairness? It was an electoral bribe by Thatcher which also disposed of much of the public housing stock which had been built up since the end of the First World War, paid for by the taxes of earlier generations. What has been the result? A dire shortage of homes, resulting in exorbitant rents in the private sector. And what a coincidence that the son of Thatcher’s housing minister Ian Gow now owns at least 40 ex-council properties!
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t750-has-the-right-to-buy-and-lack-of-rent-controls-caused-most-of-the-uks-housing-problems
 
I’m bowing out of this discussion; I simply haven’t got time for any more of it, as I have to help run this forum. You can see that some of the issues raised here are already being discussed on established threads. This one was intended as a follow-up to a demonstration on 29 September, with an eye on the next eighteen months or so, rather than a trawl through history (for which we have a separate board). Please try to stay on topic as far as possible.

The priority now is to work for the replacement of this administration. An opportunity arises in May 2015, and in the run-up to that date there is no time for the gnashing of teeth or the rending of garments.

My advice would be to get behind the only grouping likely to achieve a change, The Labour Party, if you have any sense of self-preservation whatever. Or accept the consequences.

Ivan wrote:

Bellatori wrote:-
if you hold the whole country to ransom

 
How can a supposedly educated man use that tired, lazy, well-worn cliché? If anyone ever held this country to ransom, and in a devastating way, it wasn’t miners but bankers, as they know that no sane government can ever afford to let banks fail.

I see you have let the blinkers come down again. It WAS you who mentioned the first two times the miners had 'defeated' the government wasn't it... "How can a supposedly educated man" forget what he wrote so quickly. Nor do I recall the bankers being involved in the miners strike either. More revisionist history on your part?

Ivan wrote:Back to the “bleedin’ obvious”; there’s always another side. I’m sure Hitler had a case for murdering six million Jews, but it doesn’t make it valid.

May I congratulate you on mastering Godwin's_law.
 

Ivan wrote:

Thatcher prepared for a confrontation she knew was coming.

 
She knew it was coming because she provoked it. Let me spell it out again - it was her government, not Scargill and the NUM, which provoked the confrontation by proposing massive pit closures.

She knew it was coming because they had done it twice before!!!!!!! Once again you seem to ignore your own words....  

Ivan wrote:I’m bowing out of this discussion;

The discussion ended when you invoked Godwin's Law  

How many families were represented by (a)the NUM and (b) he tory party? The tory party, representing the bankers, is frequently holding the country to ransom, as well you know

oftenwrong wrote:The priority now is to work for the replacement of this administration.  An opportunity arises in May 2015, and in the run-up to that date there is no time for the gnashing of teeth or the rending of garments. My advice would be to get behind the only grouping likely to achieve a change, The Labour Party, if you have any sense of self-preservation whatever.  Or accept the consequences.

I ask myself what would be the situation if we ended up with the same parliamentary distribution at the next election as at the last. Would the Liberals get into bed with the Tories again. IMHO they have had their fingers burned and would have learned their lesson. Could I support a Lib-Lab coalition? Run by Ed Miliband? Actually probably yes. Will it happen? Almost certainly no. I think Labour will get a majority and do as every other government does, that is completely forget the electorate who voted them in. The conservatives will implode as they lost votes to UKIP and I can envisage the Liberals ending up with their lowest number of seats since the sixties when they were down to 4 (? I think).

If we are short of the old readies in the exchequer then we should get some of the big companies to pay up. One suggestion I have is to make the point of sale (and therefore the point of tax) the place where the customer is. No more big office in London but pretending all the sales were made in Luxembourg or the Bahamas...

Whatever happens, there is one thing I know for sure. I won't be a beneficiary no matter who forms the next government.

My advice would be to get behind the only grouping likely to achieve a change, The Labour Party, if you have any sense of self-preservation whatever. Or accept the consequences.

That gets no argument from me.

Whatever happens, there is one thing I know for sure. I won't be a beneficiary no matter who forms the next government.


Not sure why the next government has to benefit you personally - I'll be happy if they stop killing vulnerable people and start investing in the future of all the people in England - that may well result in me being a bit worse off, but if it guarantees more equality of opportunity for the majority and a healthier economy, I won't complain

boatlady wrote:...Not sure why the next government has to benefit you personally ...

My point is that I am not one of the favoured groups viz... business or Union. In fact, as a pensioner, I get the feeling that I am a sitting duck waiting to be plucked...  

Bellatori wrote:

boatlady wrote:...Not sure why the next government has to benefit you personally ...

My point is that I am not one of the favoured groups viz... business or Union. In fact, as a pensioner, I get the feeling that I am a sitting duck waiting to be plucked...  

I could understand your trepedation Bellatori if the Tories get back in, because if they do it will be the OAP that will face part of the £10 Billion they want to take out of the Welfare budget.:yeahthat: 

Redflag wrote: I could understand your trepedation Bellatori if the Tories get back in, because if they do it will be the OAP that will face part of the £10 Billion they want to take out of the Welfare budget.:yeahthat: 

With all due respect to yourself (and I am not being funny here) I do find your faith in the next Labour government, I was going to say touching but I think misplaced to be a better description...
 
[EDIT] I am in a rush this morning so have only just remembered the saying I was looking for... "Triumph of hope over expectation..."

As that well-known comedian, Billy Connolly, once said, "If at first you don't succeed - pull your foreskin over your heed." Or as some would have it: If at first you don't succeed - give up!

Bellatori wrote: My point is that I am not one of the favoured groups viz... business or Union. In fact, as a pensioner, I get the feeling that I am a sitting duck waiting to be plucked...  

I don't think it's quite as clear cut as fitting into a group/clique, at least for Labour anyway, Conservatives are more likely to deal in absolutes not Labour.  If, I have read and understood the context of your post correctly Bellatori, they're are many who have benefited under Labour, during Blair's time Women were assisted in returning to work, Men where finally given 2 weeks maternity leave.  Universities opened up to allow all who had the required entry level requirements to continue on to further eduction and taking the luxury of further eduction out of the hands of just the wealthy.   Pensioners were given the fuel allowance payment annually of £200.00 and the introduction of the Pension credit supplement was also introduced.   Labour also increased the cold weather payment for children under 5, those in receipt of DLA and Pensioners from £8.50 under Conservatives too £25.00 p/w (when temperatures were low enough)  I know that due to the change in direction that Blair took, he was not to everyone's taste, however from a personal standpoint had the University option not been made available I would never have had the opportunity to go.   There is also the introduction to Minimum wage that was done under Blair, this again covers too wide section of the General Population to be viewed merely as another group/clique.  
 

Bellatori wrote: I ask myself what would be the situation if we ended up with the same parliamentary distribution at the next election as at the last. Would the Liberals get into bed with the Tories again. IMHO they have had their fingers burned and would have learned their lesson.

I have to disagree here, I think due to the damage that has been done to their reputation during this coalition, and it would be an easy guess that when the next G.E rolls round in 2015 they will be pretty much no where in the running, I think due to this, if the option was presented they would most definitely enter into another term with them.  Clegg would do anything to remain in power and he has proven this time and again. I don't think there is anything he would not consider if it meant he would have another term.

"Whatever happens, there is one thing I know for sure. I won't be a beneficiary no matter who forms the next government."

If you allow the Tories back in Bell, especially by continually saying you mistrust Labour and thinking that neither party will make you a "beneficiary", then think again, because next time around you may well become a severe loser let alone a beneficiary, if you inadvertantly put these Tory tyrants back into power.

Bellatori wrote:

boatlady wrote:...Not sure why the next government has to benefit you personally ...

My point is that I am not one of the favoured groups viz... business or Union. In fact, as a pensioner, I get the feeling that I am a sitting duck waiting to be plucked...  

You believe the Labour Party benefits the Unions? You must be reading the Mail!

Mel wrote:"Whatever happens, there is one thing I know for sure. I won't be a beneficiary no matter who forms the next government."

If you allow the Tories back in Bell, especially by continually saying you mistrust Labour and thinking that neither party will make you a "beneficiary", then think again, because next time around you may well become a severe loser let alone a beneficiary, if you inadvertantly put these Tory tyrants back into power.

If the Tories get back into power in 2015 Mel it will be down to bellatori & HIS ILK voting them in, and then all Hell will break lose because there will be no one to stop them but the first ones to scream blue murder will be the ones that voted them into power IDIOTS :yeahthat: 

Tbf Bellatori has stated that he's only voted Tory once (Ted Heath) and has voted Lib Dem at other times and (I think) stated he can't see himself voted for any of them next time round.

Deadly Nightshade wrote: Universities opened up to allow all who had the required entry level requirements to continue on to further eduction and taking the luxury of further eduction out of the hands of just the wealthy.

Universities have been open to all for a long time. You got the grades then you could go...

I went to Uni first in 1969. At the time you received a means tested grant. In addition to paying the fees the LEA grant was in that year the princely sum of £360. On the first day of the first term I received a grant check for about £60 and my parents contributed the means tested other £60 (plus clothing, soap and all the other odd things a student never buys  ). At the end of three years I had a degree and more importantly for a fairly working class boy - NO DEBT.  

The same was true for everyone who went to Uni at that time and later. With this I include both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown who also got subbed through Uni and came out without debt. The system that worked for them apparently was not good enough so they basically screwed the next generation by introducing tuition fees.   They took the benefits and pulled the ladder up behind them is how I remember it being described.  

This is transparently unfair because it was mischievously related as equivalent to the US system. This comparison was (and is) entirely bogus. Most large US companies, when they take on a graduate also take on the debt. This is not the case here. Now that the LibDems have betrayed the students a young couple can have debts of £54k+ simply from going to Uni. Only today I listened to the BBC pointing out that the majority of couples in their 30s could not afford to save up and buy a house... how much worse those in their twenties?

I am disgusted with Labour for going down this route; disgusted with the LibDems for capitulating so easily over a manifesto promise. However I am not disgusted at the Tories. To be disgusted with them I would have had to be surprised. Hands up those who were surprised the Tories ripped off the students? Nope... much as I thought.

Dan Fante wrote:Tbf Bellatori has stated that he's only voted Tory once (Ted Heath) and has voted Lib Dem at other times and (I think) stated he can't see himself voted for any of them next time round.

If I had known then what I know now about Ted Heath I would have not so much toasted his victory but toasted him using a pitchfork and an open fire. I could be wrong about him, but I do wonder...

"stated he can't see himself voted for any of them next time round. ."

Well that's the problem Dan.  He's a little like yourself in as much that he is unlikely to vote next time.

Surely for heavens sake, hasn't this lot of barstuards been so cruel to so many that that you would vote for the party that is most likely to keep the Tories out of office? Or is it that you and Bell think that the Labour Party could be even worse? If that is what you really think then there is no hope for the rest of us.

I agree that Labour have been far from perfect in the past. They can only please most of the people most of the time and please the minority never. Perhaps because that minority are either well off or have a good paying job, are healthy, not young and unemployed ,or staff who work in our hospitals and generally in public employment.

We must surely think of those poor sods and vote to keep the cancer Tories out.

To be honest Mel, I may well vote next time and if I do so it'll be Labour. My issue is more with an electoral system whereby my vote is worth so little in a general election. It's such a safe seat for Labour where I live that they'll win regardless. I know people say "if everyone thought like that..." and this is true of course but it does little for voter apathy. I think over half the seats in the country are safe seats. If you live in a marginal constituency you have a far greater say in who gets to be in government. I think this is fundamentally unfair and undemocratic.

"I think this is fundamentally unfair and undemocratic. ."

I couldn't agree more Dan my friend.

I will definitely be voting Labour next time - the country needs a change, and although I haven't always agreed with Labour's policies in the past I don't think, in my lifetime, I've seen the level of hardship and despair alongside conspicuous consumption by the few that I'm seeing now, and I definitely never saw anything like this under a Labour government.

I'm aware daily of the battle lines being drawn up for a class war which will, if not stopped, result in many deaths and large scale civil unrest.

Under this government, I am ashamed of my country and I am afraid of the future.

Like you, Bell, I had a University education, paid for by tax payers' money; because of this, I was able to move away from my working class roots, get a job with a decent pension, and can now look forward to a comparatively comfortable old age. I worked hard to achieve what I have achieved, but without the support of ther Welfare State, my achievements would have been so much less.

Because of free school milk and free school meals, I grew up strong and healthy. Because of a National Health Service, free at the point of delivery, I have always had good health care. Because of various local government departments I live safely in a healthy environment with access to parks and gardens, with refuse collected, street lights, Police presence in the neighbourhood, street lights - all that good stuff. I want all that to continue in the future, because in my view that's what makes a decent society.

I've had a some very generous benefits from the Welfare State in my time - if providing a decent future for the generation now growing means I can't have so much in the future - so be it.

:yeahthat: 

Dan Fante wrote:To be honest Mel, I may well vote next time and if I do so it'll be Labour. My issue is more with an electoral system whereby my vote is worth so little in a general election. It's such a safe seat for Labour where I live that they'll win regardless. I know people say "if everyone thought like that..." and this is true of course but it does little for voter apathy. I think over half the seats in the country are safe seats. If you live in a marginal constituency you have a far greater say in who gets to be in government. I think this is fundamentally unfair and undemocratic.

Dan Fante, what you say resonates with me at the last G.E in 2010. During the run up to the last G.E I was fairly sure I was not going to vote Labour, specifically because I was fairly sure that England would not vote to put a Scot in at No.10 so I opted for Liberal Democrats instead. My thinking was voting for Labour with Brown at the helm would be a waste so checked box number 2 instead. We know how this story ends, 3 years on and the UK has been royally screwed by the coalition. My point and I do have 1 is no matter what you may be considering, don't waste your vote, 1 more for Labour can only mean they get a better majority and keeps the option of yet another fuster cluck of a repeat coalition situation from repeating.

It doesn't work like that though. I voted Lib Dem at the last general election and Labour got in where I live with a huge majority (12,000 / something like 30% of the votes polled, i.e. the majority was about 30% of the votes counted). How would voting Labour make a difference or increase their majority? I've already said I'll probably vote for them but that doesn't alter the fact my vote in a GE is comparatively worthless.

Mel wrote:"stated he can't see himself voted for any of them next time round. ."

Well that's the problem Dan.  He's a little like yourself in as much that he is unlikely to vote next time.

Surely for heavens sake, hasn't this lot of barstuards been so cruel to so many that that you would vote for the party that is most likely to keep the Tories out of office? Or is it that you and Bell think that the Labour Party could be even worse? If that is what you really think then there is no hope for the rest of us.

I agree that Labour have been far from perfect in the past. They can only please most of the people most of the time and please the minority never. Perhaps because that minority are either well off or have a good paying job, are healthy, not young and unemployed ,or staff who work in our hospitals and generally in public employment.

We must surely think of those poor sods and vote to keep the cancer Tories out.

Fundamentally I am not in disagreement but, as with Dan, Labour will get in whatever I vote which makes it a bit of an exercise in futility. As Dan says it does seem somewhat undemocratic. The next election is Labours to lose. UKIP will see that the Tories do badly in marginals and the Liberals who often compete with Labour will, IMHO, go into meltdown they have betrayed so many promises. Core supporters such as myself and my wife are unlikely to vote Liberal again. I doubt we are the only two who feel betrayed and let down by Clegg.

However, I would like a Labour minority government. parties with large majorities start getting 'ideas'. This is usually a prescription for disaster.

Bellatori wrote:-
I would like a Labour minority government. parties with large majorities start getting 'ideas'. This is usually a prescription for disaster.

 
If it hadn't been for the Liberal Democrats failing to learn from history and allowing themselves to be duped by the Tories again, we would have had a minority Tory government in 2010. The Tories didn't have a large majority, yet they've had enough 'ideas' - nasty, vicious, extreme right-wing ones, bordering on fascism at times.
 
I agree that our voting system is undemocratic, but the Liberal Democrats entered a coalition without a guarantee of proportional representation, something which Chris Huhne told me personally in 2007 would be 'a red line' in any negotiations.  
 
Our general elections are decided in these constituencies:-
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/gainloss.html

Ivan wrote:If it hadn't been for the Liberal Democrats...

Says it all really  

I enjoyed playing with the predictor... My version has the liberals at <20 and Labour an overall majority of 70+. It doesn't think UKIP will win a seat. That would amuse me somewhat. I cannot stand farrage. He reminds me of a Spitting Image puppet