Women Hit Hardest of all by Osborne

Women Hit Hardest of all by Osborne

25 posts
7 March 2014
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
tonycsm
Careful, you appear to be suffering from what is known as selective amnesia! Now let's see if we can address this issue to help you get back some of your lost memory. 1957 - 8.4 million working days lost through industrial action. Average annual number of working days lost during 50's and 60's - 3.6 million 1979 - the pinacle of union madness.... The Winter of Discontent....29.5 million working days lost through strike action. This figure was higher than the working days lost during the whole of the miner's strike which was 27.1 million! Earlier we had the three day week with power cuts due to the action of the NUM....During the 1970's, working days lost through strike action averaged over 12 million per year.  I could go on but that is enough for now for you to perhaps regain a little of your lost memory!
These strikes were not in the nationalised industries - your argument is just hot air. List the strikes in the industries that were privatised that you claimed have reduced since privatisation. Huffing, puffing and lies typical of the right wing press and you. So your argument boils down to 'Thatcher sold off the Energy, Water and Telecoms industries for a pittance as a reaction to the NUM and the strikers at British Leyland, Ford, Local Councils , the Fire brigade, London Underground & British Rail (note that British Rail was sold off by Major not Thatcher)' does it ? Or 'as a reaction to widespread strikes in 1957 the Conservative government responded by giving away nationalised industries, 30 years later' And just to put your other stats in context, Thatcher increased the number of people out of work from 1 million in 1979 (Labour isn't working) to around 4 Million, so by the mid eighties (200 x 3 Million =) 600 Million extra work days were being lost per year due to her government's policies.
Posted 9 March 2014
Edited by stolenfaces 9 March 2014
tonycsm
Photographer
tonycsm
stolenfaces

These strikes were not in the nationalised industries - your argument is just hot air. List the strikes in the industries that were privatised that you claimed have reduced since privatisation. Huffing, puffing and lies typical of the right wing press and you. So your argument boils down to 'Thatcher sold off the Energy, Water and Telecoms industries for a pittance as a reaction to the NUM and the strikers at British Leyland, Ford, Local Councils , the Fire brigade, London Underground & British Rail (note that British Rail was sold off by Major not Thatcher)' does it ? Or 'as a reaction to widespread strikes in 1957 the Conservative government responded by giving away nationalised industries, 30 years later' And just to put your other stats in context, Thatcher increased the number of people out of work from 1 million in 1979 (Labour isn't working) to around 4 Million, so by the mid eighties (200 x 3 Million =) 600 Million extra work days were being lost per year due to her government's policies.


Are you saying that the unions weren't militant and active in the industries sold off or closed during the Thatcher period?

ALL the nationalised industries were grossly overmanned and inefficient - run by unions which were unwilling to allow management to modernise and cut staff to realistic levels to make them prifitable and it was costing the taxpayer huge sums just to keep these industrial dinosaurs running. 

If they could have been modernised and run efficiently and unions hadn't been so militant, then they would probably be still in public ownership today!

Before Thatcher came along, it wasn't the elected government of the day that was running the country, it was the left wing union bosses!

You might like to look up the name Jack Jones...the trades union supremo.. judged as a result of a gallup pole in 1974 to be the most powerful person in Britain..above the Prime Minister....
Who it now appears is alleged by M15 to have been passing secret government plans to the Russians during his time in office! Nice people those trades union bosses!

Of course you won't remember those things due to your selective amnesia!
Posted 9 March 2014
jivago
Photographer
jivago
tonycsm

Are you saying that the unions weren't militant and active in the industries sold off or closed during the Thatcher period?

ALL the nationalised industries were grossly overmanned and inefficient - run by unions which were unwilling to allow management to modernise and cut staff to realistic levels to make them prifitable and it was costing the taxpayer huge sums just to keep these industrial dinosaurs running. 

If they could have been modernised and run efficiently and unions hadn't been so militant, then they would probably be still in public ownership today!

Before Thatcher came along, it wasn't the elected government of the day that was running the country, it was the left wing union bosses!

You might like to look up the name Jack Jones...the trades union supremo.. judged as a result of a gallup pole in 1974 to be the most powerful person in Britain..above the Prime Minister....
Who it now appears is alleged by M15 to have been passing secret government plans to the Russians during his time in office! Nice people those trades union bosses!

Of course you won't remember those things due to your selective amnesia!


IF any of that was true?? - It is all you ever refer to - Move on for God's sake!

This is 2014! -  And this thread is about  the pernicious effect of this Conservative Government, inimical to the interests of Women - Savvy Grandad?

Posted 10 March 2014
Andy_B
Photographer
Andy_B
jivago

IF any of that was true?? - It is all you ever refer to - Move on for God's sake!

This is 2014! -  And this thread is about  the pernicious effect of this Conservative Government, inimical to the interests of Women - Savvy Grandad?



Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - George Santayana

We've experimented with socialism before and it didn't work. Let's not make that same mistake again.
Posted 10 March 2014
thelook
Photographer
thelook
Based on the Tony and Gordon era, I can not disagree with this statement:
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

Posted 10 March 2014
tonycsm
Photographer
tonycsm
jivago



This is 2014! -  And this thread is about  the pernicious effect of this Conservative Government, inimical to the interests of Women - Savvy Grandad?



NO...this is yet another one of your usual cynical hit and run inflamatory posts,.spouting propaganda put out by a disgraced political party which virtually bankrupted the country through introducing unsustainable policies when last in power, in your pathetic attempt to stir up political unrest, hatred and vilification of another socio-economic group, in support of your half-baked, socialist ideology.

The truth is that there are far too many greedy hands dipping into the borrowed money pot, leaving very little for the genuine needy of this country who are being failed because too many self-interested groups want the state to subsidise their chosen lifestyles.

The optrions are quite simple:- pay more in taxes to fund current social policies or cut back on those which don't actually support the genuine needy or continue borrowing and build up a debt mountain for generations to come.

If you don't want cuts then taxation needs to rise but one thing is certain, borrowing is not the solution.



Posted 10 March 2014
jivago
Photographer
jivago
tonycsm

NO...this is yet another one of your usual cynical hit and run inflamatory posts,.spouting propaganda put out by a disgraced political party which virtually bankrupted the country through introducing unsustainable policies when last in power, in your pathetic attempt to stir up political unrest, hatred and vilification of another socio-economic group, in support of your half-baked, socialist ideology.

The truth is that there are far too many greedy hands dipping into the borrowed money pot, leaving very little for the genuine needy of this country who are being failed because too many self-interested groups want the state to subsidise their chosen lifestyles.

The optrions are quite simple:- pay more in taxes to fund current social policies or cut back on those which don't actually support the genuine needy or continue borrowing and build up a debt mountain for generations to come.

If you don't want cuts then taxation needs to rise but one thing is certain, borrowing is not the solution.





It was published in the Independent newspaper actually. 

It is vital that the cost of the cuts is clearly pointed out. We WERE once "all in this together" (Osborne) apparently sad and in "one big society" (Cameron) blushNow Osborne has gone with the expedient of creating a new houise price bubble (what happended to the "march of the makers" Mwaaahahaaa! surprise), these notions seem to have become a little embarrassing sad.

Tony - Do you deny that  the Earth is round and that women have been disproportionately affected by Cameron's cuts?
Posted 10 March 2014
tonycsm
Photographer
tonycsm
jivago

It was published in the Independent newspaper actually. 

?


Sorry but you always seize upon any headline, whether true or not, as long as it serves your ideology purpose but this is not new news,  it's old hat propaganda put out by the Labour Party at least a year ago in an attempt to garner support from potential female voters to boost their support.by producing highly tenuous links to the effect that women are supposedly being victimised by this government's cuts. 

The reality is that EVERYONE is going to have te get used to receiving less in state handouts or cuts in services etc if we are ever going to address the plight of the truly genuine needy in this country - there is only so much to go around and the country will have to learn to live within it's means but, it seems that only the left wingers are unable to unstand this concept!

Now I am quite prepared to calmly sit and debate with you exactly how you would approach the solution of reducing this country's dependence on state borrowing to fund these policies without making cuts... are you up for it? 

 

Posted 10 March 2014
Edited by tonycsm 10 March 2014
jivago
Photographer
jivago
tonycsm

Sorry but you always seize upon any headline, whether true or not, as long as it serves your ideology purpose but this is not new news,  it's old hat propaganda put out by the Labour Party at least a year ago in an attempt to garner support from potential female voters to boost their support.by producing highly tenuous links to the effect that women are supposedly being victimised by this government's cuts. 

The reality is that EVERYONE is going to have te get used to receiving less in state handouts or cuts in services etc if we are ever going to address the plight of the truly genuine needy in this country - there is only so much to go around and the country will have to learn to live within it's means but, it seems that only the left wingers are unable to unstand this concept!

Now I am quite prepared to calmly sit and debate with you exactly how you would approach the solution of reducing this country's dependence on state borrowing to fund these policies without making cuts... are you up for it? 

 



Well Tony, a considerbale body of research has shown that those societies that are happiest & most at home with themselves, are the most equitable ones. (See Scandanavian model) What I hoped to see was any cutting being shouldered far more equitably - And according to means. What we got was clearly the poorest shouldering the burden - And that too often included women - Who are actually the focus of this thread BTW!

At the very same time, another considerable body of research also confirmed what we also got ,was tax breaks for the privileged and for the big corporations.

..Whilst being told that "we are all in it togther" (cough!)

Now that does not seem fair to me and nor does it sit very well with the age old principal of fair progressive taxation.

A fairer spread of the load related to ability to carry the burden would certainly have helped, and most probably the advice of two Nodel Prize winning economists i.e to make cuts at a far more measured rate - Then maybe Osborne would not have needed to re-create another house price bubble to inflate demand - We all know where this is heading! - And do not try to deny its existance or you will be well embarrassed by what will follow in this thread. frown
Goodnight

Posted 10 March 2014
tonycsm
Photographer
tonycsm
jivago

Well Tony, a considerbale body of research has shown that those societies that are happiest & most at home with themselves, are the most equitable ones. (See Scandanavian model) What I hoped to see was any cutting being shouldered far more equitably - And according to means. What we got was clearly the poorest shouldering the burden - And that too often included women - Who are actually the focus of this thread BTW!

At the very same time, another considerable body of research also confirmed what we also got ,was tax breaks for the privileged and for the big corporations.

..Whilst being told that "we are all in it togther" (cough!)

Now that does not seem fair to me and nor does it sit very well with the age old principal of fair progressive taxation.

A fairer spread of the load related to ability to carry the burden would certainly have helped, and most probably the advice of two Nodel Prize winning economists i.e to make cuts at a far more measured rate - Then maybe Osborne would not have needed to re-create another house price bubble to inflate demand - We all know where this is heading! - And do not try to deny its existance or you will be well embarrassed by what will follow in this thread. frown
Goodnight



You mention the Scandinavian model and one country that immediately springs to mind and is always quoted, paricularly by the SNP in their YES campaigning, is Norway.
Supposedly one of the most content and theoretically richest countries in the world with their massive oil fund and no state debt.

However, on closer inspection, they also pay far higher taxes than in the UK in order to fund their social policies and their cost of living is higher than ours even when the higher wages of Norway are taken into account!
They do not exceed 4% spending from oil revenues with the rest of the oil revenues going into the nestegg so, everything and all social policy funding is funded through taxation while their social benefits are not nearly as generous as those of the UK so can you honestly see the people of Britain paying large tax increases, receiving less from the state in handouts, paying more for their food etc and still feeling contented as do the people of Norway?

The people of the UK on the other hand have got used to benefits/tax credits being given to them hand over fist to fund their chosen lifestyles, they don't want any cuts but they still expect to pay a pittance in taxation to cover the costs, hence the massive government borrowing to fund these unsustainable policies - you only have to look at the outrage at even modest cuts... can you imagine the rioting that would take place if they introduced a Scandinavian model of government and funding policy to the UK?

In another recent post you highlighted the plight of the young unemployed - yes I would agree that they are fogotten group desperately struggling to survive and in need of help.

However, whenever I hear politicians of all persuasion trying garner support for their respective parties particularly around voting time, they always wheel out that good old chestnut.." The Hard Working Families" of this country and how deserving they are. Tony Blair used it to great effect and those who followed in his footsteps have used it with equal vigour. Gordon was great exponent of that sound bite.

Strangely, you never hear them mention the hardworking single people without children of this country...they rarely get a mention and yet contribute proportionately more in taxes and make the least demand on the state whilst the lion's share of handouts, tax breaks, etc etc etc etc, all go to those who have children, hardworking or not, leaving the single workers without children, largely forgotten and left to fend for themselves.

So, is there any wonder that the young single unemployed without children are relegated to the dustbin of the society?... they are not vote winners for the politicians and the "hardworking and not-so-hardworking benefit loving families" are far too self-interested in soaking the rest of the taxpayers who subsidise their lifestyle choice, so they won't want their share of the tax pot reduced so that single unemployed people can be paid sufficient to live on.

The social policy funding conundrum.

Clearly, this country has been living way beyond it's means for decades, hence the huge budget deficit and equally huge borrowing to fund social policies which are quite simply unsustainable.

Let's look at the alternatives available... 
We can't continue to go on borrowing to fund today's unsustainable policies, that is just building up a debt mountain that will only depress our economy even further and the debt will pass to our children and grandchildren to repay, so that is out!

We could put up taxes of the highest earners but the top 10% already contributes around 55% of the tax burden and even if taxes did rise for the higher earners, it still would not solve the problem.

We could of course increase taxes for everyone across the board which could actually solve the problem of social policy funding but that wouldn't go down well at all - the British have an aversion to paying realistic taxes and yet still expect the government to provide world leading services on a shoestring.

Norway as I've already stated is often quoted as an ideal economy with a good social welfare structure - it has a huge world leading oil fund built up yet they only allow 4% annually to be used for social funding, the rest of the social policies are funded through very high taxation with equally high costs of living yet their social policies are not nearly as generous as ours so I can't see that going down well with the British.

Businesses could be expected to pay higher wages but as something like 11 million UK workers are employed in small businesses, this sector is already struggling to survive due to increased costs of employing staff over the past two decades and restricted trading at present with many just keeping their heads above water so, any further cost increases could see large scale small business closures or reduced numbers of staff so, that isn't good for the workforce.
Large international companies by the same token could simply re-locate their businesses to countries where labour is cheaper if their wage bills rise too high in this country so that again, isn't good for the British workforce.

Our friend Stolenfaces actually raised a valid point in another post that the taxpayer is effectively funding businesses through working tax credits etc for it's workers....this has been going on since the 1980's so it's nothing new and I have to agree with him on this point. Many years ago I said that if the handouts were removed, the jobless total in the UK would actually rise to 7 or 8 million. The problem is that if these subsidies were removed, many businesses just couldn't survive by paying higher wages and that would simply increase unemployment so the answer isn't simple.

So what is there left? 
Cut backs on social policy handouts to certain groups with re-distribution of what is then available to give more directed support to the least supported in our society ( eg: young, single and unemployed) is one way of doing things but I somehow can't see the hard working or benefit loving families or all the other groups with their hands in the money pot agreeing to cuts in the handouts they are receive as in many cases it would mean less subsidies for their chosen lifestyles...so that's a non-starter and it doesn't address the fact that this country still can't afford the kind of social policies and in some cases the lifestyles the population of the UK has come to expect.

It's all too easy for the Neo-Marxists and left wingers to point the finger of blame at Cameron et al for all that is wrong with society and criticise and vilify any attempts at cutting handouts, or cutting back the unsustainable perks of the public sector but they never offer feasibly alternative ways of funding these social policies or face the reality that this country simply can't afford such system as we have in place and that radical changes are badly needed to cut this country's dependence upon living on borrowed money.

Now what do you suggest is the answer?
Posted 11 March 2014
Edited by tonycsm 10 March 2014
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join