# Red Ed



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 25, 2013)

Stirring thinks up a bit
At least we may be able to differentiate between the political parties next time we vote.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 25, 2013)

I think he will be very good at spending other peoples money.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 25, 2013)

By the slogan and the backdrop imagary the Labour Praty and Red Ed certainly seem to be going big for BT.  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19815044

Though as the blue in the flag is a bit peelie-wally against a big and bold red St Georges cross maybe they are anticipating a fading link of blue with red.  And as for the slogan 'One Nation'.  Which one? I am sure some Nats will be asking - ah they mean one nation for the rich and the poor do they - nothing to do with a United Nations of Scotland, England, NI and Wales then - or maybe...  Hmmm


----------



## Sweep (Sep 25, 2013)

True colours (red) coming out. IMHO the politics of desperation. He needs to keep his job long enough to fight the next election and then he has to win the next election or either way, he is out of a job. Only a few weeks ago, they were talking about kicking him out because no-one had heard from Labour over the summer. All he can do is go for headline grabbing flaky policies. All we can hope for is that the electorate doesn't fall for it.


----------



## USER1999 (Sep 26, 2013)

Nice of him to wipe nearly a billion quid off the value of Centrica.


----------



## Snelly (Sep 26, 2013)

I think he will be gone in the summer which is a shame as he is basically unelectable.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 26, 2013)

murphthemog said:



			Nice of him to wipe nearly a billion quid off the value of Centrica.
		
Click to expand...

That is only because the pundits must think Labour has a chance of winning the election.
Good marker.

I thought it quite a clever tactic. 
Gas prices have increased by 37% in five years, they seem out of control in a recession. 
The power companies must now gamble on a Tory/UKIP win or increase their prices considerably before the election.


----------



## AmandaJR (Sep 26, 2013)

Snelly said:



			I think he will be gone in the summer which is a shame as he is basically unelectable.
		
Click to expand...

:thup:


----------



## PieMan (Sep 26, 2013)

Anyone who stabs a family member in the back to get a job is not worth the time of day if you ask me.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 26, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			That is only because the pundits must think Labour has a chance of winning the election.
Good marker.

I thought it quite a clever tactic. 
Gas prices have increased by 37% in five years, they seem out of control in a recession. 
The power companies must now gamble on a Tory/UKIP win or increase their prices considerably before the election.
		
Click to expand...

Alternatively we could all contact our energy suppliers now and freeze our prices until 2017. Not entirely sure what EM is playing at with this one......


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 26, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			Alternatively we could all contact our energy suppliers now and freeze our prices until 2017. Not entirely sure what EM is playing at with this one......
		
Click to expand...

And how much extra will you need to pay for it then?


Start Fracking Now!!


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 26, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			And how much extra will you need to pay for it then?


Start Fracking Now!!
		
Click to expand...


We need to get our heads out of the sand and build some new nuclear power stations!


----------



## Ethan (Sep 26, 2013)

Red Ed? If only.

Labour and the Tories are now almost indistinguishable, apart from a few old union boys on one and a few rabid UKIP types in the other. Most of them are professional politicians with a law or PPS degree, time as a special adviser or lobbyist and then parachuted into a safe seat. Almost all of them have no ideological basis, and will follow whatever path which takes them up the greasy pole until they can leave politics to a fat directorship which they have fed previously. 

On the energy prices question, of course the market is rigged. So too are markets elsewhere, but the Labour lot know now that they have to row back from the market frenzy of Blair and Brown. Peter Mandleson's criticism of Ed is exactly what he wanted. 

Labour don't give a toss about the working classes. This is naked political pandering. Likewise Clegg's school meals idea. Expect a lot more of it before the next election.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 26, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			Alternatively we could all contact our energy suppliers now and freeze our prices until 2017. Not entirely sure what EM is playing at with this one......
		
Click to expand...

And so we have the sight and sound of ther major power suppliers up in arms and threatening us with power cuts and refusing to build power stations and increase capacity - yes they are threatening the country with power cuts and power starvation and so embarking on a path of blackmailing us with the intent of *determining * - not simply influencing - government policy.  I say we call the bluff of these companies.  How very dare they.  Who do they think they are - the irreplacable and to be treated with kid gloves as they are so crucial to the future of the country - the Bankers?


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 26, 2013)

Ethan said:



			Red Ed? If only.

Labour and the Tories are now almost indistinguishable, apart from a few old union boys on one and a few rabid UKIP types in the other. Most of them are professional politicians with a law or PPS degree, time as a special adviser or lobbyist and then parachuted into a safe seat. Almost all of them have no ideological basis, and will follow whatever path which takes them up the greasy pole until they can leave politics to a fat directorship which they have fed previously. 

On the energy prices question, of course the market is rigged. So too are markets elsewhere, but the Labour lot know now that they have to row back from the market frenzy of Blair and Brown. Peter Mandleson's criticism of Ed is exactly what he wanted. 

Labour don't give a toss about the working classes. This is naked political pandering. Likewise Clegg's school meals idea. Expect a lot more of it before the next election.
		
Click to expand...

Is there such a thing as a working class anymore?  I would suggest not! and as such the labour party have no roots.  This makes them use these popularist sound bites that hopefully will appeal to someone out there.


----------



## Sweep (Sep 27, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			And so we have the sight and sound of ther major power suppliers up in arms and threatening us with power cuts and refusing to build power stations and increase capacity - yes they are threatening the country with power cuts and power starvation and so embarking on a path of blackmailing us with the intent of *determining * - not simply influencing - government policy.  I say we call the bluff of these companies.  How very dare they.  Who do they think they are - the irreplacable and to be treated with kid gloves as they are so crucial to the future of the country - the Bankers?
		
Click to expand...

The thing is Hogan, it is not the power companies that are making this government policy. This is EM saying this would be his policy. That if they were elected, they would legislate - that means make it illegal - for the power companies to raise their prices for 20 months, whatever happens. So what happens if the wholesale price actually does go through the roof? What if the company you work for was told that there was even a risk they wouldn't be allowed to make a profit for 20 months? They would stop trading. Go where they can trade succesfully. Go where they can invest in their infrastructure -as the government is insisting they do. In extreme cases, no power companies = no power. Less power available at a price the company can sell with a margin = less power supplied = power cuts. And what happens after the 20 months? The market is reset, he says. So, everybody's prices just miraculously drop? Or do the power companies hike their prices again to make up for any shortfall over the previous 20 months?
I am as hopping mad about power prices as the next man, but this is headline grabbing and unworkable and is actually a bit of an insult to the intelligence of the electorate.


----------



## MegaSteve (Sep 27, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			We need to get our heads out of the sand and build some new nuclear power stations!
		
Click to expand...

 :thup:


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 27, 2013)

Sweep said:



			The thing is Hogan, it is not the power companies that are making this government policy. This is EM saying this would be his policy. That if they were elected, they would legislate - that means make it illegal - for the power companies to raise their prices for 20 months, whatever happens. So what happens if the wholesale price actually does go through the roof? What if the company you work for was told that there was even a risk they wouldn't be allowed to make a profit for 20 months? They would stop trading. Go where they can trade succesfully. Go where they can invest in their infrastructure -as the government is insisting they do. In extreme cases, no power companies = no power. Less power available at a price the company can sell with a margin = less power supplied = power cuts. And what happens after the 20 months? The market is reset, he says. So, everybody's prices just miraculously drop? Or do the power companies hike their prices again to make up for any shortfall over the previous 20 months?
I am as hopping mad about power prices as the next man, but this is headline grabbing and unworkable and is actually a bit of an insult to the intelligence of the electorate.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not commenting on the rights or wrongs of the policy - just noting that the reaction of the power companies amounts to blackmailing the country.  Along the lines of 'if you vote for that lot and they do what they say they'll do, then expect power cuts and we're not building more power stations'.  *That's blackmail. * The power companies should have an absolute legal responsibility to build power stations to maintain and increase capacity as necessary and an ABSOLUTE responsibility to ensure there are no power cuts.  

They are the power companies for THIS country - I don't care whether they make money or not - they are providing a public service and they should be FORCED to maintain that service come what may.  They took on the business risk when they bought into power provision - and have made money out of it - now they can start making a loss - *that's business.*


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Sep 27, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			They took on the business risk when they bought into power provision - and have made money out of it - now they can start making a loss - *that's business.*

Click to expand...

That's business SILH? Really? I'm not sure I know of any business that makes a good profit for a years, and then goes, right, time to make a loss, just to even things up.

Business exists to *make a profit. *Why else would a business exist? What sort of loss should it make anyway, are we going to legislate that as well? If you tell any successful business that for the next 2 financial years, they MUST make a loss, then I would consider it more than reasonable for them to shut up shop. They act for the shareholders of the company. That's what happens when things are un-nationalised (is that a word?!).

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 27, 2013)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			That's business SILH? Really? I'm not sure I know of any business that makes a good profit for a years, and then goes, right, time to make a loss, just to even things up.

Business exists to *make a profit. *Why else would a business exist? What sort of loss should it make anyway, are we going to legislate that as well? If you tell any successful business that for the next 2 financial years, they MUST make a loss, then I would consider it more than reasonable for them to shut up shop. They act for the shareholders of the company. That's what happens when things are un-nationalised (is that a word?!).

Just my 2 cents.
		
Click to expand...

Yes - but these are no ordinary businesses providing a service or product to the market.  These aren't businesses that provide to a market that can realistically choose to buy or not.  These are businesses that provides a public service - businesses that have a captive market - a market that did not previously exist and that was *created *by the ideology of a political party.  

The power companies bought into 'selling' to a captive market.  A market that *cannot * turn it's back on the suppliers and walk away as they could in any normal market if they didn't like the product or the cost of it.   

And yet the power companies talk as if they *are * living in a market economy.  They only exist becuase of a political ideology - they bought into that - so they cannot abandon the market because of a change in the political climate that created their business.  When they entered the UK power supply business they *knew *that their business lived in a political market and not a normal market - and they chose to accept that risk.  But now the politcal environment changes - as they knew it could - tough - they rtook the risk.  

They cannot just walk away from the market - and they *cannot * be allowed to blackmail this country - because by their threats that is *precisely *what they are doing.  If in years to come there are power cuts due to supply issues then the bosses of the power companies should be charged with putting the safety and wellbeing of the country at risk - and that is called treason.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Sep 27, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			We need to get our heads out of the sand and build some new nuclear power stations!
		
Click to expand...

No question Nuclear power stations are the most efficient way (just now) of producing electricity, but I'm concerned about long term solutions and the cost of cleaning up and replacing them...the  of N/E England being an example.The radiation cleanup, storage of rods etc makes me uneasy.

That doesn't offer an altenative solution for today, but we have to be long term in our thinking.

And Milliband is an erse


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 27, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			No question Nuclear power stations are the most efficient way (just now) of producing electricity, but I'm concerned about long term solutions and the cost of cleaning up and replacing them...the  of N/E England being an example.The radiation cleanup, storage of rods etc makes me uneasy.

That doesn't offer an altenative solution for today, but we have to be long term in our thinking.

And Milliband is an erse
		
Click to expand...

I agree nuclear power has to be the current way ahead - there is a lot of scaremongering whatiffery and whatabootery about nuclear but we need to get real about risk - well actually in my opinion we (the public) in general don't understand risk and probability.  There is probably more risk that in the next 100yrs the South of England will get swamped by a tsunami created by a collapsing volcano in the Canary Islands (cut out the cheering ) than there being a nuclear power disaster in that part of the world.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Sep 27, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I agree nuclear power has to be the current way ahead - there is a lot of scaremongering whatiffery and whatabootery about nuclear but we need to get real about risk - well actually in my opinion we (the public) in general don't understand risk and probability.  *There is probably more risk that in the next 100yrs the South of England will get swamped by a tsunami created by a collapsing volcano in the Canary Islands* (cut out the cheering ) than there being a nuclear power disaster in that part of the world.
		
Click to expand...

Watched a doc about this some time ago.From recollection, it's a cliff on the island of Hierro that faces west...if it collapses in the manner they suggested, it's the east coast of America that's royally goosed...the distance and momentum of the wave combined would mean the entire side of America would be wiped out.

Anyway, I'd be pumping in massive funding to tidal/wave instead of nuclear...it might not be economical yet, but short term pain for long term gain n'all that.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 27, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			Watched a doc about this some time ago.From recollection, it's a cliff on the island of Hierro that faces west...if it collapses in the manner they suggested, it's the east coast of America that's royally goosed...the distance and momentum of the wave combined would mean the entire side of America would be wiped out.

Anyway, I'd be pumping in massive funding to tidal/wave instead of nuclear...it might not be economical yet, but short term pain for long term gain n'all that.
		
Click to expand...

Wqas priogramme on it earlier this week - major natural disasters in the waiting - this being one.  Tokyo, California flattened by earthquakes etc - and we f***y about and fret over building power stations or NIMBY or conservation/breeding place for nice ducks concerns over wave/tidal power.

Anyway - doesn't change for me the power companies being a bunch of chancers and I hope we call their bluff.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 27, 2013)

Well we nationalised the banks [last remaining principle of Karl Marx] so we might as well nationalise the power companies.

Perhaps Ed needs a bit of help with his strategy for winning votes.
I shall start with....Abolish copper coins


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 27, 2013)

The 'Severn Barrage' seemed a good way to produce vast amounts of cheap electricity.  The initial costs would be high but there would be no decommissioning problems.   I think one of the objections was that many of the mud flats used by migrating birds would vanish.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 28, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			The 'Severn Barrage' seemed a good way to produce vast amounts of cheap electricity.  The initial costs would be high but there would be no decommissioning problems.   I think one of the objections was that many of the mud flats used by migrating birds would vanish.
		
Click to expand...

This is the problem.  It's all very well having a good conservationist head when we have a choice - but with power?  The choices are limited.  Without additional power generation capacity, and if the anti-nuclear lobby have their way or power companies refuse to build any nuclear power stations, and the anti-fracking NIMBYism blocks on that front, and the anti Wind Farm 'blight on landscape' lobby continues to try and block - well we are rather struggling are we not.  Looked at across the piece it's all rather absurd.  Whatever is decided upon requires imo a proper RISK analysis and impact assessment - need I say proper again.  And I am afraid thaty as far as risk is concerned NIMBYism is bottom of the pile for me follwed by 'blight' on landscape (debatable blight in the case of wind farms).


----------



## Sweep (Sep 28, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I'm not commenting on the rights or wrongs of the policy - just noting that the reaction of the power companies amounts to blackmailing the country.  Along the lines of 'if you vote for that lot and they do what they say they'll do, then expect power cuts and we're not building more power stations'.  *That's blackmail. * The power companies should have an absolute legal responsibility to build power stations to maintain and increase capacity as necessary and an ABSOLUTE responsibility to ensure there are no power cuts.  

They are the power companies for THIS country - I don't care whether they make money or not - they are providing a public service and they should be FORCED to maintain that service come what may.  They took on the business risk when they bought into power provision - and have made money out of it - now they can start making a loss - *that's business.*

Click to expand...

I really don't think you understand the meaning of the word business. And in the meantime, who is going to pay the wages of the people who work for a business that makes no money? Where is the money going to come from to pay them? Do you care if they make money now? If you can't make a profit, you don't supply. *That's business.* If they can't make money they can't invest. Making that clear is not *blackmail.* And what? We are FORCING companies to maintain a service at a loss now? How does that work? Are we going to turn them into slaves? Supplying stuff at a loss only works with nationalisation. And guess who picks up the losses then?


----------



## Sweep (Sep 28, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Yes - but these are no ordinary businesses providing a service or product to the market.  These aren't businesses that provide to a market that can realistically choose to buy or not.  These are businesses that provides a public service - businesses that have a captive market - a market that did not previously exist and that was *created *by the ideology of a political party.  

The power companies bought into 'selling' to a captive market.  A market that *cannot * turn it's back on the suppliers and walk away as they could in any normal market if they didn't like the product or the cost of it.   

And yet the power companies talk as if they *are * living in a market economy.  They only exist becuase of a political ideology - they bought into that - so they cannot abandon the market because of a change in the political climate that created their business.  When they entered the UK power supply business they *knew *that their business lived in a political market and not a normal market - and they chose to accept that risk.  But now the politcal environment changes - as they knew it could - tough - they rtook the risk.  

They cannot just walk away from the market - and they *cannot * be allowed to blackmail this country - because by their threats that is *precisely *what they are doing.  If in years to come there are power cuts due to supply issues then the bosses of the power companies should be charged with putting the safety and wellbeing of the country at risk - and that is called treason.
		
Click to expand...

It is not a captive market as there is competition. It is the fact that the competitiveness of the market is failing that is causing the problem. They all put their prices up together. Like a cartel without contact. The government has a watchdog to manage this and this is not doing its job. That is the way to handle this. If the watchdog grew some teeth we and the power companies would be operating in a market economy. As private businesses, they are perfectly entitled to walk away. They are legally obliged to operate in the best interests of their shareholders. They are not blackmailing anyone. As for trying the power company bosses for treason??? Surely you are not serious? You can still hang people for treason. Great idea. Let's hang the boss of British Gas!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 30, 2013)

Sweep said:



			It is not a captive market as there is competition. It is the fact that the competitiveness of the market is failing that is causing the problem. They all put their prices up together. Like a cartel without contact. The government has a watchdog to manage this and this is not doing its job. That is the way to handle this. If the watchdog grew some teeth we and the power companies would be operating in a market economy. As private businesses, they are perfectly entitled to walk away. They are legally obliged to operate in the best interests of their shareholders. They are not blackmailing anyone. As for trying the power company bosses for treason??? Surely you are not serious? You can still hang people for treason. Great idea. Let's hang the boss of British Gas!
		
Click to expand...

No I'm not really serious - you are quite right.  

But I don't care that they are private businesses or not - what they supply is not any old consumer choice product or service - and so they cannot be treated liek any other business allowed to walk away from the country and let the lights go out according to the commercial 'whim' and imperitives of a business.

It is completely unacceptable that we can have the boss of Centrica effectively *threatening *the country with power cuts if we vote in Labour in and Labour then stick to a manifesto pledge on capping power charges.  I am not debating the policy or power of watchdogs etc - I am questioning whether or not private businesses should ever be in a position to pull or threaten to pull the plug for purely commercial reasons without parliament and the public having recourse to legal redress.  One definition of treason includes

'... to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavour'

...which is what Scargill was being 'accused' off by Thatcher with the miners strike.  So it's OK for business when it wasn't for the Unions to blackmail the country.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 30, 2013)

Centrica guy is totally peeved as he has just lost his trillion$$$$$ bonus in one swoop so he blackmails the UK.
Free Market at it's finest......he is as much a gangster as Scargill.


----------



## Sweep (Sep 30, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			No I'm not really serious - you are quite right.  

But I don't care that they are private businesses or not - what they supply is not any old consumer choice product or service - and so they cannot be treated liek any other business allowed to walk away from the country and let the lights go out according to the commercial 'whim' and imperitives of a business.

It is completely unacceptable that we can have the boss of Centrica effectively *threatening *the country with power cuts if we vote in Labour in and Labour then stick to a manifesto pledge on capping power charges.  I am not debating the policy or power of watchdogs etc - I am questioning whether or not private businesses should ever be in a position to pull or threaten to pull the plug for purely commercial reasons without parliament and the public having recourse to legal redress.  One definition of treason includes

'... to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavour'

...which is what Scargill was being 'accused' off by Thatcher with the miners strike.  So it's OK for business when it wasn't for the Unions to blackmail the country.
		
Click to expand...

But you could argue that Red Ed is blackmailing the power companies and it does show how he is still living in the days of Scargill. Fortunately, you cannot force people to work for nothing nor force companies to supply at a loss. The power companies are not saying if you vote Labour we will cut your power. They are saying this policy could lead to power cuts because we may have to supply at a loss. Big difference. You cannot seperate the two issues here, as one is creating the other. You cannot criticise the power companies without looking at the policy they are reacting to. Both your posts on this and mine clearly demonstrate how this policy is unworkable. It is the politics of desperation. We will make you richer without worrying where the money comes from. It is why we got into this mess in the first place. Even the Lib Dems are at it now and it works. The electorate falls for it every time, just look at the opinion polls.


----------



## Mungoscorner (Sep 30, 2013)

My gas and electricity suppliers have been screwing me for years.
When was the last time energy prices dropped in line with wholesale price's ?
Why do they ask me to pay more than i need to each month, and try to justify by saying " you'll use more in the coming months, and it'll stop you being in arrears " i've never been in arrears, i'm always in credit, and it is virtually impossible to get this money back from them !
Thatcher and her goons, selling us the idea that nationalising the utilities would create competition, which would in turn lower price's and improve the service !!!!
Almost as laughable as the water companies.
We suffer price increase's year on year, and they try to justify there huge profits by suggesting they will reinvest these profits to improve the standard of service. Oh yeah, thats why i rang them about about a hydrant that had been spewing water for nearly 6 weeks, and here we are another 4 weeks down the line and its still leaking !!!!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 30, 2013)

Sweep said:



			But you could argue that Red Ed is blackmailing the power companies and it does show how he is still living in the days of Scargill. Fortunately, you cannot force people to work for nothing nor force companies to supply at a loss. The power companies are not saying if you vote Labour we will cut your power. They are saying this policy could lead to power cuts because we may have to supply at a loss. Big difference. You cannot seperate the two issues here, as one is creating the other. You cannot criticise the power companies without looking at the policy they are reacting to. Both your posts on this and mine clearly demonstrate how this policy is unworkable. It is the politics of desperation. We will make you richer without worrying where the money comes from. It is why we got into this mess in the first place. Even the Lib Dems are at it now and it works. The electorate falls for it every time, just look at the opinion polls.
		
Click to expand...

OK - so what you are saying that it is reasonable for likes of Centrica to pull the plug on their power supply to us if doing so means that they don't incur losses.  Really?  That's OK?  Like Centrica complaining that we've stopped playing the game their way so they are taking their ball home.  

Whatever they or the markets or anyone says - the power companies are essentially public services.  They signed up to a deal that gave them 'competitive' access to a captive market - a market that cannot walk away from what they are offering but a market that they, the suppliers, can essentially walk away from.  And we are told they may do this if - for a year and a half or so - they have to supply power to us at a loss.  So they make a loss - in real business companies can make losses some years and profits others.  Oh wouldn't it be great if you ran a business that was always guaranteed profitable - and even although the margins might be small - the profit can be significant.  Make a loss? Not the game we signed up to whinge Centrica.  Well tough.  Real businesses have robustness that enables them to survive temporary periods of loss making.  Those that don't - fail.  There will always be someone else willing to step in a fill that supply hole.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 30, 2013)

Mungoscorner said:



			My gas and electricity suppliers have been screwing me for years.
When was the last time energy prices dropped in line with wholesale price's ?
Why do they ask me to pay more than i need to each month, and try to justify by saying " you'll use more in the coming months, and it'll stop you being in arrears " i've never been in arrears, i'm always in credit, and it is virtually impossible to get this money back from them !
Thatcher and her goons, selling us the idea that nationalising the utilities would create competition, which would in turn lower price's and improve the service !!!!
Almost as laughable as the water companies.
We suffer price increase's year on year, and they try to justify there huge profits by suggesting they will reinvest these profits to improve the standard of service. Oh yeah, thats why i rang them about about a hydrant that had been spewing water for nearly 6 weeks, and here we are another 4 weeks down the line and its still leaking !!!!
		
Click to expand...

So I guess it's OK for you to 'Screw' your Employer for years.  If they made a loss you think it would be OK for them to cut your wages.  I guess you probably want an increase in Salary every year and feel a bit hard done by if you don't, irrespective of profitability.   Well, thats the case unless you work in the Public sector where profitability and value for money are alien concepts.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 30, 2013)

I got stopped by a shopping mall 'supersalesman' the other day.
'Excuse me sir but who supplies your power'

I said that my gas was with the electricty board and my electric was with the gas board. [I lied]

He just laughed and walked away.

I see the Eton Mess are going to hold down petrol tax increases [not prices] for a couple of years....hmmm I wonder where the bright sparks got that idea from.


----------



## mikee247 (Sep 30, 2013)

There's something not quite right with him... he has absolutely no presence or vaguely looks like he knows what he's doing.... he cant speak correctly nor can he hold an audience or think for himself. Can anyone honestly see this guy leading us in the future as major power and telling the yanks to wind their necks in??  I dont think so....

At least his brother had some credibility and had been mixing it quite well with heads of states etc in the past..... I cant see this chump of a brother even getting a lunch meeting with the head of bongo bongo land!  Now hes made arguably the worst political decision in recent history in a vain attempt to get middle and lower class votes! Anyone with half a brain can see its a short term shocker! Its actually quite insulting to all the UK public to think we cant see through this crap.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 30, 2013)

Douglas Alexander would have been the best choice but they would never have stood for another Scot!


----------



## Mungoscorner (Sep 30, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			So I guess it's OK for you to 'Screw' your Employer for years.  If they made a loss you think it would be OK for them to cut your wages.  I guess you probably want an increase in Salary every year and feel a bit hard done by if you don't, irrespective of profitability.   Well, thats the case unless you work in the Public sector where profitability and value for money are alien concepts.
		
Click to expand...

I do work in the "public sector" and haven't had a pay increase for 9 years.
I've also had a massive change to my pension, work longer, pay more, get less.
But you probably already know all this, seeing as your an authority on EVERY subject.
:blah:


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 30, 2013)

Mungoscorner said:



			I do work in the "public sector" and haven't had a pay increase for 9 years.
I've also had a massive change to my pension, work longer, pay more, get less.
But you probably already know all this, seeing as your an authority on EVERY subject.
:blah:
		
Click to expand...

Ah!!  That accounts for it then.   Probably never had a real job and will still get a pension better than the majority of people.  Thanks for the credit by the way.  Your generosity knows no beginning.


----------



## Mungoscorner (Oct 1, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Ah!!  That accounts for it then.   *Probably never had a real job* and will still get a pension better than the majority of people.  Thanks for the credit by the way.  Your generosity knows no beginning.
		
Click to expand...

:rofl:

Being insulted by a faceless, nameless. keyboard warrior, now that is insulting.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 1, 2013)

mikee247 said:



			Now hes made arguably the worst political decision in recent history in a vain attempt to get middle and lower class votes! Anyone with half a brain can see its a short term shocker! Its actually quite insulting to all the UK public to think we cant see through this crap.
		
Click to expand...

That'll be Georgie boy bringing forward his Help to Buy scheme then

So folks who haven't the spare cash to save for a deposit get a loan from the government - a *loan* do not forget.  And so potential house buyers with currently no spare cash for a deposit buy a house using the government loan for the deposit - and will almost certainly have a mortgage at a very low interest rate pretty much up to their limit of affordability.  And then in a few years time interest rates go up - and their payments increase.   But they have little spare cash as salaries/wages will not have increased very much over the few years we are talking about.  So things are tough.  And then they have to start repaying the loan - and of course they can't.  And the government has a nice load of bad debt on their books - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac anyone?  Bizarre.

Or weren't you referring to that paricularly terrible coalition government policy - there are others!


----------



## Sweep (Oct 1, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I see the Eton Mess are going to hold down petrol tax increases [not prices] for a couple of years....hmmm I wonder where the bright sparks got that idea from.
		
Click to expand...

Hmmm, not Labour. I don't remember them freezing duty increases on fuel


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 1, 2013)

Mungoscorner said:



			I do work in the "public sector" and haven't had a pay increase for 9 years.
I've also had a massive change to my pension, work longer, pay more, get less.
But you probably already know all this, seeing as your an authority on EVERY subject.
:blah:
		
Click to expand...




Mungoscorner said:



			:rofl:

Being insulted by a faceless, nameless. keyboard warrior, now that is insulting.
		
Click to expand...

I think you started the insults.


----------



## Ethan (Oct 1, 2013)

mikee247 said:



			Now hes made arguably the worst political decision in recent history in a vain attempt to get middle and lower class votes! Anyone with half a brain can see its a short term shocker! Its actually quite insulting to all the UK public to think we cant see through this crap.
		
Click to expand...

In the scheme of things, this is a nothing announcement. If he had announced that he was going to nationalise the utility companies, that would be something. 20 months of no price rises? Pah!. There will be loopholes, get outs and other ways around it. 

The worst political decision in recent times was one of several clearing the way for irreversible privatisation of the NHS and removing the responsibility of the SoS Health for the whole service. There is no way back from those.


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 1, 2013)

Ethan said:



			In the scheme of things, this is a nothing announcement. If he had announced that he was going to nationalise the utility companies, that would be something. 20 months of no price rises? Pah!. There will be loopholes, get outs and other ways around it. 

The worst political decision in recent times was one of several clearing the way for irreversible privatisation of the NHS and removing the responsibility of the SoS Health for the whole service. There is no way back from those.
		
Click to expand...

So what's so bad about privatisation of parts of the NHS?


----------



## Blue in Munich (Oct 1, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			So what's so bad about privatisation of parts of the NHS?
		
Click to expand...

Because the most profitable parts will get cherry-picked and the less attractive parts ignored, so that the sections of the public who need it get a worse service, whilst those now making a huge profit from it trot off to their BUPA hospitals?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Oct 1, 2013)

I hope they run the BUPA hospitals better than the BUPA elderly care home that Edinburgh Council are threatening to close down.


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 1, 2013)

Blue in Munich said:



			Because the most profitable parts will get cherry-picked and the less attractive parts ignored, so that the sections of the public who need it get a worse service, whilst those now making a huge profit from it trot off to their BUPA hospitals? 

Click to expand...

OK, heres a different view:   The parts that are poorly run at huge losses will be operated by people that give better value for money and a better service to the customer.   As a matter of fact many services have been opted out to BUPA hospitals for years and was started by the Labour Government, the people that received treatment this way get a much better experience at no more cost.   And thats what matters, not protectionism!


----------



## Cherry13 (Oct 1, 2013)

Quite an interesting read this thread, I've got my doubts the above will/can happen. 

I think there' a few key points that people are missing however, firstly, the suppliers don't make that much money from the supply to Joe Bloggs, (ave about Â£8-Â£15 per annum) which granted if you spread out over 6mill customers, it starts to add up however if you compare that to companies of the same size say Tesco then its miniscule. Anyway, say they make Â£60mil, a lot of money, however to get that Â£60mil they've got to put in upwards of a billion.... it aint a great return, and if something goes wrong, then that can easily disappear. (Japan/Germany).  

Also as a side note, at any given time a retail supplier is probably owed around Â£400 million from customers.... that's an astronomical figure which im sure they would like to re-coup.  (I personally think this is one of the biggest issues, and all customers should be on Prepayment) 

They make most of the money through the generation business, what really needs to happen is that the two are separated, therefore Company A cant buy its own supply from its own Generation business at an inflated cost... do you really notice that the generation business made x billions?? not really.  

Lastly, as for Centrica 'turning off the lights' they couldn't really do that, the network/national grid is still publicly owned and have plenty in reserve, even if Centrica stopped all production tomorrow you probably wouldn't notice, and one of the other suppliers would be more than happy to step in and make the billions mentioned above. 

A friend gave a great analogy the other day, he basically said it would be like 'Man Utd cancelling all of there matches because of the pasty tax on half time sausage rolls'.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 2, 2013)

Milibands dad according to the Daily Mail - _The Man Who Hated Britain._  Fair comment to 'expose' the background of 'Red Ed' or gutter tripe from a vile and pernicious newspaper...?


----------



## Hacker Khan (Oct 2, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Milibands dad according to the Daily Mail - _The Man Who Hated Britain._  Fair comment to 'expose' the background of 'Red Ed' or gutter tripe from a vile and pernicious newspaper...?
		
Click to expand...

Mmmm,let me think, the Daily Mail. My favourite read....  I'll go for answer B Bob.

And in unrelated news here's a picture of Lord Rothemere, one of the founders of the Daily Fail with Hitler.  Who according to Wikipedia _On 1 October 1938, Rothermere sent Hitler a telegram in support of Germany's invasion of the Sudetenland and expressing the hope that 'Adolf the Great' would become a popular figure in Britain_


----------



## Hacker Khan (Oct 2, 2013)

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/daily-mail-hates-everyone-in-britain-2013100279973


----------



## mikee247 (Oct 2, 2013)

Did any one see the Deputy Editor (complete slime ball) take the flak via Newsnight and... of all people... Alastair Campbell   giving him a right tongue lashing!! Talk about a bun fight I have never seen any thing like it. And as for the cowardly Chief Editor who sent his Deputy to take the flak why he played golf or whatever!!  
These people at the Mail are complete and utter cowboys and how they are still in business and people read this tabloid garbage is beyond me. Is this a stronger argument now for stronger Media regulation and should the Mail take the same route as the News of the Screws?? I am far from a "Red Ed"  fan but no one deserves to have their family slagged off like this.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 2, 2013)

mikee247 said:



			Did any one see the Deputy Editor (complete slime ball) take the flak via Newsnight and... of all people... Alastair Campbell   giving him a right tongue lashing!! Talk about a bun fight I have never seen any thing like it. And as for the cowardly Chief Editor who sent his Deputy to take the flak why he played golf or whatever!!  
These people at the Mail are complete and utter cowboys and how they are still in business and people read this tabloid garbage is beyond me. Is this a stronger argument now for stronger Media regulation and should the Mail take the same route as the News of the Screws?? I am far from a "Red Ed"  fan but no one deserves to have their family slagged off like this.
		
Click to expand...

I did - and golly gosh did Alastair Campbell make him squirm and vaccilate. Loved Campbell's barely contained or concealed fury with him and Paul Dacre.  The DE kept using some word that Emily Maitlis didn't really understand and at first was desperate to ask him what it meant - I didn't know either.  But as he kept using it to avoid answering directly she let it go - as it made it very obvious that he was trying to be clever in order to obfuscate


----------



## Ethan (Oct 2, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			So what's so bad about privatisation of parts of the NHS?
		
Click to expand...

Ideologically, nothing. I work in the private pharma sector.

But if you look at the value and quality the NHS has got from privatisation, it has been universally disastrous and sucked massive amounts of money out of the system, and when cherry picking of more and more happens, you will see a major loss in quality. People think it will turn into BUPA with free flowing Nespresso coffee in the waiting rooms.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Oct 2, 2013)

Ethan said:



			Ideologically, nothing. I work in the private pharma sector.

But if you look at the value and quality the NHS has got from privatisation, it has been universally disastrous and sucked massive amounts of money out of the system, and when cherry picking of more and more happens, you will see a major loss in quality. People think it will turn into BUPA with free flowing Nespresso coffee in the waiting rooms.
		
Click to expand...

So how much quality is there to lose?

Having now lost the benefit of PMI I am dependent upon the public sector and I am afraid I see all the old problems for outpatients. Sudden cancellation of appointments, multiple bookings for the same time, lack of cleanliness in both wards and public areas.

If some organisation wishes to cherry-pick those services it can only get better for the person that the NHS too often overlooks; THE PATIENT.


----------



## PieMan (Oct 2, 2013)

Ed Millibland can win the election by doing two very simple things:

1) He goes on national tv and apologises profusely for being part of the Government who got us into the mess we are currently in, and gets every single one of the current shadow cabinet who held government jobs during the last few years of the Labour government to do exactly the same thing; and

2) He public ally fires that repugnant bully Ed Balls..............and uses the body parts that shares his surname to test the new Taylormade SLDR that is bound to be released in the next few weeks!

He'd then have my vote :thup:


----------



## chrisd (Oct 2, 2013)

PieMan said:



			Ed Millibland can win the election by doing two very simple things:

1) He goes on national tv and apologises profusely for being part of the Government who got us into the mess we are currently in, and gets every single one of the current shadow cabinet who held government jobs during the last few years of the Labour government to do exactly the same thing; and

2) He public ally fires that repugnant bully Ed Balls..............and uses the body parts that shares his surname to test the new Taylormade SLDR that is bound to be released in the next few weeks!

He'd then have my vote :thup: 

Click to expand...


Agreed ........ But I still wouldn't vote for him!


----------



## NWJocko (Oct 2, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			That'll be Georgie boy bringing forward his Help to Buy scheme then

So folks who haven't the spare cash to save for a deposit get a loan from the government - a *loan* do not forget.  And so potential house buyers with currently no spare cash for a deposit buy a house using the government loan for the deposit - and will almost certainly have a mortgage at a very low interest rate pretty much up to their limit of affordability.  And then in a few years time interest rates go up - and their payments increase.   But they have little spare cash as salaries/wages will not have increased very much over the few years we are talking about.  So things are tough.  And then they have to start repaying the loan - and of course they can't.  And the government has a nice load of bad debt on their books - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac anyone?  Bizarre.

Or weren't you referring to that paricularly terrible coalition government policy - there are others!
		
Click to expand...

Help to buy, the main crux of the policy at least, isn't a loan to the buyer but a guarantee to the lender.

This allows banks to hold less capital per loan, therefore reduce the margin and make mortgages pricing more competitive/affordable.

I'm sure you'lll be equally outraged at this but at least on the right lines this time :thup:

What it may well do is create another housing bubble as they are almost betting on house prices rising so they never actually have to fork out if the borrower defaults but that is a different argument.....


----------



## DappaDonDave (Oct 2, 2013)

"Red Ed and the Blue Peter Economy"

Loved that! Well done Dave


----------



## Hacker Khan (Oct 3, 2013)

PieMan said:



			Ed Millibland can win the election by doing two very simple things:

1) He goes on national tv and apologises profusely for being part of the Government who got us into the mess we are currently in, and gets every single one of the current shadow cabinet who held government jobs during the last few years of the Labour government to do exactly the same thing; and

2) He public ally fires that repugnant bully Ed Balls..............and uses the body parts that shares his surname to test the new Taylormade SLDR that is bound to be released in the next few weeks!

He'd then have my vote :thup: 

Click to expand...

It is a bit naive to say that the Labour government got us in the current mess we are in. Yes that is what Conservative party want you to believe as they go on and on and on and on and on about it in every interview any Tory politician does.  But in reality the economic policies of the last labour government and conservative economic policy at the time was very similar.  Yes they have diverged more since the economic crash with the main differences being how you deal with the aftermath, but Brown was hardly seen as a raging socialist and at times his economic policies were more right than left wing.

The tories may well have done some things differently, but it would have only had a limited influence on what happened as the forces of major global economic meltdown were way too powerful and we would be in much the same position.

And as for repugnant bullies, then I'll see your Ed Balls and raise you a Michael Gove.  It does amuse me when there is talk of him becoming a leader as that would be a sure fire way of ensuring the tories stay in opposition for many years.

And well done to the Daily Telegraph for reprinting Millibands fathers obit yesterday as a way of trying to redress the balance and show what he really did and said. A genuinely classy thing to do from a right wing paper.  Who'd have thunk it.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Oct 3, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			gutter tripe from a vile and pernicious newspaper...?
		
Click to expand...

I found this funny.  But then again I would  

http://toys.usvsth3m.com/are-you-hated-by-the-daily-mail/


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Oct 3, 2013)

Hacker Khan said:



			It is a bit naive to say that the Labour government got us in the current mess we are in. Yes that is what Conservative party want you to believe as they go on and on and on and on and on about it in every interview any Tory politician does.  But in reality the economic policies of the last labour government and conservative economic policy at the time was very similar.  Yes they have diverged more since the economic crash with the main differences being how you deal with the aftermath, but Brown was hardly seen as a raging socialist and at times his economic policies were more right than left wing.

The tories may well have done some things differently, but it would have only had a limited influence on what happened as the forces of major global economic meltdown were way too powerful and we would be in much the same position.

And as for repugnant bullies, then I'll see your Ed Balls and raise you a Michael Gove.  It does amuse me when there is talk of him becoming a leader as that would be a sure fire way of ensuring the tories stay in opposition for many years.

And well done to the Daily Telegraph for reprinting Millibands fathers obit yesterday as a way of trying to redress the balance and show what he really did and said. A genuinely classy thing to do from a right wing paper.  Who'd have thunk it.
		
Click to expand...

So are you suggesting that the previous Labour Gov't (of which both Balls & Milliband were members) was not, in any way, responsible for the nation's economic plight.

Whether the Conservatives would have done anything different is immaterial.

The fact is that the Brown/Balls economic policy of tax & spend failed and, thus, the British electorate should be very careful before again trusting the hypocritical Ed Balls with the keys to the Treasury.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 3, 2013)

Pity the economy was on the up as a result of Labours policies when the tories came in.  Besides - listen to the tosh that Georgie talks about saving money whilst the sun shines for a rainy day = fix th roof etc.  Great words George - commendable idea even - but when are we likely to be in a position to do that George.  Not for the next 10yrs I'd guess.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 3, 2013)

Hacker Khan said:



			I found this funny.  But then again I would  

http://toys.usvsth3m.com/are-you-hated-by-the-daily-mail/

Click to expand...

Oh dear - and here was me thinking that I *must* be prime DM readship material and just bound to be loved and hence ignored - but no - despite everything I ended up HATED.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 3, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Oh dear - and here was me thinking that I *must* be prime DM readship material and just bound to be loved and hence ignored - but no - despite everything I ended up HATED.
		
Click to expand...

Ah but how many questions did you get through before they hated you?

Took 6 for me.... being a non-muslim with a job went against me!


----------



## ger147 (Oct 3, 2013)

National Debt went from 40% of GDP in 1997 to 80% of GDP in 2010.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 3, 2013)

At least we have some decent new schools and hospitals and older ones aren't falling apart quite as much as they were.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Oct 3, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			At least we have some decent new schools and hospitals and older ones aren't falling apart quite as much as they were.
		
Click to expand...

Please tell me where this paradise i so I can arrange to move there.

In the meantime I will continue to live in a country whose economy was totally mismanaged by its previous administration but may (and I stress, may) be restored to some sort of credibility by the present lot.


----------



## ger147 (Oct 3, 2013)

Most of the cash borrowed is spent on Welfare payments or Debt Interest payments.  No much left over for schools and hospitals.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Oct 3, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			Ah but how many questions did you get through before they hated you?

Took 6 for me.... being a non-muslim with a job went against me!
		
Click to expand...

Surprised you got as far as 6


----------



## bluewolf (Oct 3, 2013)

I was hated after 8. Having non-native mother tipped the balance.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Oct 3, 2013)

Being a pensioner without a job went against me........I would have thought that would have been their core readership.

Re debate.......you can see why the SNP are so popular!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 3, 2013)

MetalMickie said:



			Please tell me where this paradise i so I can arrange to move there.

In the meantime I will continue to live in a country whose economy was totally mismanaged by its previous administration but may (and I stress, may) be restored to some sort of credibility by the present lot.
		
Click to expand...

There are plenty of new and refurbished schools and hospitals out there if you have a look - doesn't mean to say that there are not many needing work done.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Oct 3, 2013)

Blimey!! It doesn't take much to be hated does it, I soon got there.


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 3, 2013)

Hacker Khan said:



			It is a bit naive to say that the Labour government got us in the current mess we are in. Yes that is what Conservative party want you to believe as they go on and on and on and on and on about it in every interview any Tory politician does.  But in reality the economic policies of the last labour government and conservative economic policy at the time was very similar.  Yes they have diverged more since the economic crash with the main differences being how you deal with the aftermath, but Brown was hardly seen as a raging socialist and at times his economic policies were more right than left wing.

The tories may well have done some things differently, but it would have only had a limited influence on what happened as the forces of major global economic meltdown were way too powerful and we would be in much the same position.

And as for repugnant bullies, then I'll see your Ed Balls and raise you a Michael Gove.  It does amuse me when there is talk of him becoming a leader as that would be a sure fire way of ensuring the tories stay in opposition for many years.

And well done to the Daily Telegraph for reprinting Millibands fathers obit yesterday as a way of trying to redress the balance and show what he really did and said. A genuinely classy thing to do from a right wing paper.  Who'd have thunk it.
		
Click to expand...

The financial mess Labour brought upon us was not about the global financial meltdown, we were not the only country to be affected by that.   They did the same as many other European countries and increased welfare payments by 60%, they created a something for nothing culture where people were encouraged to live off the state, they greatly increased the public sector into a bloated tax sucking monstrosity.   They opened the gates to unrestricted immigration without any care for the support services this massive influx of people would require, there were even more people chasing the available jobs which resulted in whole swathes of people being better off staying home.

If we ever let these people back into power the country will be dragged down to the current situation of Greece  and Cyprus where the government will be taking 40% of your savings without your permission and the welfare state will have to be slashed to the likes of a third world country.   You cant trust Labour with our future, the Current Conservatives are not a lot better but if re-elected they would have to get to grips for real with a deficit that is frightening.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Oct 3, 2013)

Worrying, I only got as far as disliked.....


----------



## Mungoscorner (Oct 3, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			The financial mess Labour brought upon us was not about the global financial meltdown, we were not the only country to be affected by that.   They did the same as many other European countries and increased welfare payments by 60%, they created a something for nothing culture where people were encouraged to live off the state, they greatly increased the public sector into a bloated tax sucking monstrosity.   They opened the gates to unrestricted immigration without any care for the support services this massive influx of people would require, there were even more people chasing the available jobs which resulted in whole swathes of people being better off staying home.

If we ever let these people back into power the country will be dragged down to the current situation of Greece  and Cyprus where the government will be taking 40% of your savings without your permission and the welfare state will have to be slashed to the likes of a third world country.   You cant trust Labour with our future, the Current Conservatives are not a lot better but if re-elected they would have to get to grips for real with a deficit that is frightening.
		
Click to expand...

Why keep it PC ?
Tell us what you really think.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Oct 3, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			There are plenty of new and refurbished schools and hospitals out there if you have a look - doesn't mean to say that there are not many needing work done.
		
Click to expand...

I don't know about plenty, certainly there are some but, unfortunately, due to the previous Government's financial ineptitude we now cannot afford to staff or operate many of those.


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 3, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			There are plenty of new and refurbished schools and hospitals out there if you have a look - doesn't mean to say that there are not many needing work done.
		
Click to expand...

Most of the new ones were from PFI and we are still paying dearly for them.


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 3, 2013)

Mungoscorner said:



			Why keep it PC ?
Tell us what you really think. 

Click to expand...

At least you know what my beliefs are.   The Socialists Elite know what theirs are but wont clarify them, they know it would be political Hari-Kari if they did.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Oct 4, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			At least you know what my beliefs are.   The Socialists Elite know what theirs are but wont clarify them, they know it would be political Hari-Kari if they did.
		
Click to expand...

It's simple, they want to turn the UK into communist Russia in the 1960s.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 4, 2013)

Hacker Khan said:



			It's simple, they want to turn the UK into communist Russia in the 1960s.
		
Click to expand...

Yes - quite right - that's what they want to do.  Of course they do - all a bunch of commies really.  Next they'll have unemployed women and youth sweeping the streets  - oops - the other lot are doing that...


----------



## Sweep (Oct 4, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Yes - quite right - that's what they want to do.  Of course they do - all a bunch of commies really.  Next they'll have unemployed women and youth sweeping the streets  - oops - the other lot are doing that...
		
Click to expand...

Hmmm, not sure anyone has been talking about women sweeping the streets? And in soviet Russia they weren't called unemployed. They were called comrades.
Still, just so we don't get criticised, best pay everyone to stay at home.


----------



## Sweep (Oct 4, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Pity the economy was on the up as a result of Labours policies when the tories came in..
		
Click to expand...

This is a joke, surely?


----------



## Sweep (Oct 4, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			At least we have some decent new schools and hospitals and older ones aren't falling apart quite as much as they were.
		
Click to expand...

So it doesn't matter that we can't afford them, then?
I always wondered how on earth Labour managed to win 3 elections. Now I know.


----------



## Sweep (Oct 4, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Milibands dad according to the Daily Mail - _The Man Who Hated Britain._  Fair comment to 'expose' the background of 'Red Ed' or gutter tripe from a vile and pernicious newspaper...?
		
Click to expand...

Neither. Most certainly unfair of the paper and contrary to some opinions on here, the Mail is not vile. This is not about Milliband's father. It's about the freedom of the press after Levison. It's about to be decided and this was the Mail's opening shot against a politician they don't agree with.


----------



## Sweep (Oct 4, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			That'll be Georgie boy bringing forward his Help to Buy scheme then

So folks who haven't the spare cash to save for a deposit get a loan from the government - a *loan* do not forget.  And so potential house buyers with currently no spare cash for a deposit buy a house using the government loan for the deposit - and will almost certainly have a mortgage at a very low interest rate pretty much up to their limit of affordability.  And then in a few years time interest rates go up - and their payments increase.   But they have little spare cash as salaries/wages will not have increased very much over the few years we are talking about.  So things are tough.  And then they have to start repaying the loan - and of course they can't.  And the government has a nice load of bad debt on their books - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac anyone?  Bizarre.

Or weren't you referring to that paricularly terrible coalition government policy - there are others!
		
Click to expand...

These loans are for those who can afford the repayments, but can't get the loan. This is neccesary because 95% mortgages are not available anymore. It is a way of freeing up the market. The interest rate issue will be there whether we offer these loans or not and some house price inflation now offers a buffer against negative equity when house prices drop again when interest rates go up.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 4, 2013)

Sweep said:



			This is a joke, surely?
		
Click to expand...

By some measures it was - as a result of what Alasdair Darling had implemented. N o matter - whetever hole we were in back then I'm not convinced that the tories have done much more than keeping digging.  We'll see.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 4, 2013)

Sweep said:



			So it doesn't matter that we can't afford them, then?
I always wondered how on earth Labour managed to win 3 elections. Now I know.
		
Click to expand...

Thatcher was known to say that there was no harm in borrowing - after all is buying a house not just massiver borrowing by the individual.  Besides - would you rather the schools and hospitals had completely fallen to bits - as they were under the tories?  God knows the state they would be in today if we hadn't spent the money over these 10 yrs.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 4, 2013)

Sweep said:



			Neither. Most certainly unfair of the paper and contrary to some opinions on here, the Mail is not vile. This is not about Milliband's father. It's about the freedom of the press after Levison. It's about to be decided and this was the Mail's opening shot against a politician they don't agree with.
		
Click to expand...

The Mail IS vile - it hates everything about modern Britain - and just loves medical scare stories with which it can stick the boot into the NHS.


----------



## bluewolf (Oct 4, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			The Mail IS vile - it hates everything about modern Britain - and just loves medical scare stories with which it can stick the boot into the NHS.
		
Click to expand...

The Mail isn't vile, nor are it's army of loyal readers. Paul Dacre however is a blight on modern journalism and should be removed from office ASAP.

Edit. I should point out that I'm not a reader of the Daily Mail...


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 4, 2013)

Sweep said:



			These loans are for those who can afford the repayments, but can't get the loan. This is neccesary because 95% mortgages are not available anymore. It is a way of freeing up the market. The interest rate issue will be there whether we offer these loans or not and some house price inflation now offers a buffer against negative equity when house prices drop again when interest rates go up.
		
Click to expand...

Its a waste of time reasoning with Socialists, they dont have answers, they can only attack the efforts of others that dont follow their doctrine.   Listening to some of the comments on here you would think it has been easy to buy a house in the past, interest rates were extremely high when I took out my mortguages, the current rates have been unrealistic and have punished the thrifty.


----------



## pheel88 (Oct 4, 2013)

Labours economic policy:
Sell gold at between $250-$296 for a short term gain and to fund even more excessive spending

9 years later regret the decision when gold is at $1,896.50

Missed out on profits of circa 9 billion. That could have built a couple of hospitals but probably wouldn't have got as many headlines.


----------



## pheel88 (Oct 4, 2013)

I am no Ed Miliband fan but can't help but feel this is only going to make them a bit more hated, seems a poor PR move to me.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24395790


----------



## Hacker Khan (Oct 4, 2013)

bluewolf said:



			The Mail isn't vile, nor are it's army of loyal readers. Paul Dacre however is a blight on modern journalism and should be removed from office ASAP.

Edit. I should point out that I'm not a reader of the Daily Mail...
		
Click to expand...

Depends what you class as vile.  In the proper context of the word then of course it is not vile. But it seems a very hateful, spiteful misogynist and indeed hypocritical piece of work that to me seems to oppose anything or anybody that does not conform to its view of the world.  But like me really


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Oct 4, 2013)

Hacker Khan said:



			Depends what you class as vile.  In the proper context of the word then of course it is not vile. But it seems a very hateful, spiteful misogynist and indeed hypocritical piece of work that to me seems to oppose anything or anybody that does not conform to its view of the world.  But like me really 

Click to expand...

Not too dissimilar to the Daily Mirror then with an equally one eyed view of society.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Oct 4, 2013)

If I had a pound for every time a Tory politician said 'hard working families' in the last 6 months I would not need to worry about paying my heating bill.

I really object to that 'expression'.

I am retired and still pay a fair bit of tax whilst many 'hard working families in the 'burbs' are being paid a small fortune in housing benefit.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Oct 4, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			If I had a pound for every time a politician said 'hard working families' in the last 6 months I would not need to worry about paying my heating bill.

I really object to that 'expression'.

I am retired and still pay a fair bit of tax whilst many 'hard working families in the 'burbs' are being paid a small fortune in housing benefit.
		
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you. Apparently all politicians seem to think this is the key to winning all our votes. Listen to Milliband and Balls' speeches at their Party Conference.
As with expenses scandal so with bland rhetoric; they are all at it.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 4, 2013)

Hacker Khan said:



			Depends what you class as vile.  In the proper context of the word then of course it is not vile. But it seems a very hateful, spiteful misogynist and indeed hypocritical piece of work that to me seems to oppose anything or anybody that does not conform to its view of the world.  But like me really 

Click to expand...

Indeed - thankyou HK


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 4, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			If I had a pound for every time a Tory politician said 'hard working families' in the last 6 months I would not need to worry about paying my heating bill.

I really object to that 'expression'.

I am retired and still pay a fair bit of tax whilst many 'hard working families in the 'burbs' are being paid a small fortune in housing benefit.
		
Click to expand...

Me too - why not just working - why the 'hard'.  

Whose business is it whether I work 'hard' or not if I get the job I am paid to do done - on time, to or under budget and to the required standard.  I might sit on my arse half the day doing sod all - but if a do a good job my employer doesn't care whether I'm hard working or not.  Should I feel discriminated against if I am not one of these sloggers beloved of the political parties?

It's just a phrase used to create an ever greater perception of difference between those in work and those not. And it's disingenuous, divisive and destructive.


----------



## bluewolf (Oct 4, 2013)

Hacker Khan said:



			Depends what you class as vile.  In the proper context of the word then of course it is not vile. But it seems a very hateful, spiteful misogynist and indeed hypocritical piece of work that to me seems to oppose anything or anybody that does not conform to its view of the world.  But like me really 

Click to expand...

What I was attempting to say (badly) is that the Newspaper itself is not vile. It has some excellent "hard working" journalists there. However, the Editorial direction the owners (DMGT) and the current Editor in Charge (Dacre) have adopted IS vile. I agree with every descriptive term you've used. 

It does however have a very large loyal readership. The vast majority of whom are not any of the terms you have used. My Father in Law is a subscriber. He is the exact opposite of your description of the Paper. He is intelligent enough to realize the Right Wing Bias and ignore it. The majority of the content is good enough to retain a loyal "readership" of over 4 million (not checked this quarters ABC figures yet but I have them in my office so will check them later.

Anyhoo, this is neither here nor there.


----------



## Ethan (Oct 4, 2013)

bluewolf said:



			What I was attempting to say (badly) is that the Newspaper itself is not vile. *It has some excellent "hard working" journalists there.* However, the Editorial direction the owners (DMGT) and the current Editor in Charge (Dacre) have adopted IS vile. I agree with every descriptive term you've used. 

It does however have a very large loyal readership. The vast majority of whom are not any of the terms you have used. My Father in Law is a subscriber. He is the exact opposite of your description of the Paper. He is intelligent enough to realize the Right Wing Bias and ignore it. The majority of the content is good enough to retain a loyal "readership" of over 4 million (not checked this quarters ABC figures yet but I have them in my office so will check them later.

Anyhoo, this is neither here nor there.
		
Click to expand...

What, like Melanie Phillips, Richard Littlejohn, Ann Leslie and Jan Moir, for example?

Odious bigots each and all.

Your FIL may be intelligent enough to see there is a RWB at the Wail, but he still contributes to the coffers and financially supports the rag.


----------



## bluewolf (Oct 4, 2013)

Ethan said:



			What, like Melanie Phillips, Richard Littlejohn, Ann Leslie and Jan Moir, for example?

Odious bigots each and all.

Your FIL may be intelligent enough to see there is a RWB at the Wail, but he still contributes to the coffers and financially supports the rag.
		
Click to expand...

Which is why I stated "some" and not "all". The devil is in the detail...

And his contribution is one of over 1.8 million contributions per day. His choice, and his right to make that choice. You have the right to choose another paper..


----------



## bluewolf (Oct 4, 2013)

Having just had a quick look at the ABC's, it;s disappointing to see that Britains 2 biggest selling papers have a Right Wing bias. The Mirror comes in third but quite far behind The Mail in 2nd place. The Guardian is really struggling now and would be gone if it wasn't backed by a Trust. Quite what that says about the Newspaper reading British Public is beyond me though..


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 4, 2013)

bluewolf said:



			Having just had a quick look at the ABC's, it;s disappointing to see that Britains 2 biggest selling papers have a Right Wing bias. The Mirror comes in third but quite far behind The Mail in 2nd place. The Guardian is really struggling now and would be gone if it wasn't backed by a Trust. Quite what that says about the Newspaper reading British Public is beyond me though..
		
Click to expand...

So who came first,   The Sun?


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Oct 4, 2013)

Ethan said:



			What, like Melanie Phillips, Richard Littlejohn, Ann Leslie and Jan Moir, for example?

Odious bigots each and all.

Your FIL may be intelligent enough to see there is a RWB at the Wail, but he still contributes to the coffers and financially supports the rag.
		
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight.If a journalist's stance does not conform to your ideal then they are "odious bigots".

That does not seem a very rational attitude. 

Whilst the views of some on your list make me more than a little uneasy to include such a respected journalist as Ann Leslie in this all embracing list is, in my view, nothing short of ludicrous and ill considered.


----------



## bluewolf (Oct 4, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			So who came first,   The Sun?
		
Click to expand...

Correct. 2.25 Million copies sold per day. Almost 10% down on last year. One of the bigger drops. Most are losing 5-8% per year. 

Newspapers are a dying art. In my 19 years in the trade, the losses have been staggering. Won't be long before another paper dies, the readership drifts away another nail is driven into the coffin of a traditional skill.

It should be stated that the percentages quoted are month to month comparisons. The actual percentage drop over the year is over 12%


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 4, 2013)

MetalMickie said:



			Fixed that for you. Apparently all politicians seem to think this is the key to winning all our votes. Listen to Milliband and Balls' speeches at their Party Conference.
As with expenses scandal so with bland rhetoric; they are all at it.
		
Click to expand...

So you have forgot how many times Gordon Brown said it!   

This may refresh your memory:

http://jackthurston.com/articles/hardworking-families/


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Oct 4, 2013)

Oh come on! Cameron uses that 'expression' about twice every paragraph.

I stopped buying newspapers when The Herald went up to Â£1. [5 years ago?]
On the odd occasion when I buy one, train journey etc, I pay 20p for a wee I.


----------



## bluewolf (Oct 4, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I stopped buying newspapers when The Herald went up to Â£1. [5 years ago?]
On the odd occasion when I buy one, train journey etc, I pay 20p for a wee I.
		
Click to expand...

On behalf of my family, and my mortgage provider, thank you very bloody much....


----------



## Ethan (Oct 4, 2013)

MetalMickie said:



			So let me get this straight.If a journalist's stance does not conform to your ideal then they are "odious bigots".

That does not seem a very rational attitude. 

Whilst the views of some on your list make me more than a little uneasy to include such a respected journalist as Ann Leslie in this all embracing list is, in my view, nothing short of ludicrous and ill considered.
		
Click to expand...

Like a typical Mail reader, you haven't got it straight at all.

If a journalist exhibits odious bigotry, then they are an odious bigot, and all 4 on that list, including the venerable old witch herself, meet the definition. 

Leslie is not universally "respected" and although she lets the veil slip less often than the rabble rousing Littlejohn, she is cut from broadly the same cloth.

I assume that you would consider a journalist who worked at The Morning Star to be a socialist until proven otherwise. Same thing (with a different flavour) applies to those who work for the far right rag with a long history of supporting the Fascists. 

Miliband-pere anti-British? Irony, thy name is Dacre.


----------



## bluewolf (Oct 4, 2013)

Ethan said:



			I assume that you would consider a journalist who worked at The Morning Star to be a socialist until proven otherwise. Same thing (with a different flavour) applies to those who work for the far right rag with a long history of supporting the Fascists.
		
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that the vast majority of journalists will work for whoever will pay their wages. Only a very small minority are fortunate enough to be able to pick and choose..


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Oct 4, 2013)

Ethan said:



			Like a typical Mail reader, you haven't got it straight at all.

If a journalist exhibits odious bigotry, then they are an odious bigot, and all 4 on that list, including the venerable old witch herself, meet the definition. 

Leslie is not universally "respected" and although she lets the veil slip less often than the rabble rousing Littlejohn, she is cut from broadly the same cloth.

I assume that you would consider a journalist who worked at The Morning Star to be a socialist until proven otherwise. Same thing (with a different flavour) applies to those who work for the far right rag with a long history of supporting the Fascists. 

Miliband-pere anti-British? Irony, thy name is Dacre.
		
Click to expand...

Pomposity thy name is Ethan, or have I not got that straight either. If I have jumped to a wrong conclusion I am clearly not alone.

Firstly I am not and never have been a Mail reader.
Secondly I would not (unlike yourself) leap to conclusions over the ideological beliefs of a journalist based upon those of their employer.
Thirdly I did not suggest that Ms Leslie was "universally" respected as it would be unlikely for this to be the case for any journo.

I am afraid that you are in danger of letting your own preconceived prejudices colour your judgement.


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 4, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			If I had a pound for every time a Tory politician said 'hard working families' in the last 6 months I would not need to worry about paying my heating bill.

I really object to that 'expression'.

I am retired and still pay a fair bit of tax whilst many 'hard working families in the 'burbs' are being paid a small fortune in housing benefit.
		
Click to expand...




SocketRocket said:



			So you have forgot how many times Gordon Brown said it!   

This may refresh your memory:

http://jackthurston.com/articles/hardworking-families/

Click to expand...

Sorry mickey, I meant to quote the above.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 5, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Oh come on! Cameron uses that 'expression' about twice every paragraph.

I stopped buying newspapers when The Herald went up to Â£1. [5 years ago?]
On the odd occasion when I buy one, train journey etc, I pay 20p for a wee I.
		
Click to expand...

I used to read The Herald on-line every day but they went to a subscription model and now they have put a limit on the number of articles I can read over a period - and it's not many.  So I have to decide whether or not I want to keep informed about Scottish matters especially the referendum over the next year.  I may not be able to vote in the referendum - but I have read The Herald since my student days and I like it - and would still like to be able to make informed comment on the debate.  Of course I do watch BBC Scotland news every evening.  We all love Jackie Bird - don't we?


----------



## Sweep (Oct 5, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I used to read The Herald on-line every day but they went to a subscription model and now they have put a limit on the number of articles I can read over a period - and it's not many.  So I have to decide whether or not I want to keep informed about Scottish matters especially the referendum over the next year.  I may not be able to vote in the referendum - but I have read The Herald since my student days and I like it - and would still like to be able to make informed comment on the debate.  Of course I do watch BBC Scotland news every evening.  We all love Jackie Bird - don't we?
		
Click to expand...

Why not read the Scottish Daily Mail?


----------



## harpo_72 (Oct 5, 2013)

Is privatising everything a good economic policy ...?


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Oct 5, 2013)

harpo_72 said:



			Is privatising everything a good economic policy ...?
		
Click to expand...

One thing is for sure nationalising industries such as coal, steel and shipbuilding wasn't a good economic policy.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 5, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I used to read The Herald on-line every day but they went to a subscription model and now they have put a limit on the number of articles I can read over a period - and it's not many.  So I have to decide whether or not I want to keep informed about Scottish matters especially the referendum over the next year.  I may not be able to vote in the referendum - but I have read The Herald since my student days and I like it - and would still like to be able to make informed comment on the debate.  Of course I do watch BBC Scotland news every evening.  We all love Jackie Bird - don't we?
		
Click to expand...

Just keep monitoring the forum, we'll keep you right!


----------

