S K Y: General Strike Looming

[Realistbear]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100913/tuk-mass-union-strike-threat-to-be-endor-45dbed5.html

Mass Union Strike Threat To Be Endorsed

1 hour 10 mins ago

© Sky News 2010

Union leaders are set to endorse plans for the biggest show of British industrial action for two decades against the Government's proposed spending cuts.

What they are saying is no to austerity, no to job cuts and yes to continuation of the Brown dream of owt for nowt.

Edited September 13, 2010 by Realistbear

[fatsam]

I'm sure any large strikes that could seriously effect day to day operations of the uk will get overturned through the courts on a technicality.

[leicestersq]

On the face of it, the unions are so dumb that you figure that they couldnt outwit a three year old.

But it is all smoke and mirrors I tell ya, the unions know what they are doing.

The government on the other hand, talk about reducing the deficit, but I dont see much deficit busting. Ploughing ahead with pensions increases and new carriers, they arent ever going to do the job.

So Mr Union is pretending to oppose the Tory Lib cuts that arent going to happen, and force the government to overspend. That in turn will send tremors through the bond markets, and when interest rates rise, it is game over. The government will have to balance the books and we will get the real cuts that we needed all along. Pensions benefits will have to take the brunt of any cuts, cos after all, that is dead money. Spend money to get people to do things.

[57percent]

Has anyone ever noticed when the public sector strike? or anyone striking?

I guess if you had kids at school you'd have to make other arrangements.

[bricor mortis]

I listened to Brendan Barber talking yesterday, the thrust of what he said, which he argued fairly well was that the poor will be the ones getting very disproprtionately clobbered.

I find this beleivable.

I still support trimming welfare budgets. But i do beleive the lower earners are going to get whipped, and the champagne classes get to moan and groan about how hard they've got it whilst enjoying unprecedented affluence.

They will all be bitching in the Daily Mail and Telegraph and on here about how the govt hasnt put the boot into the poorest enough.

With millionaires running the country you have a government out of touch with the realities of life for most people..

[tomandlu]

What they are saying is no to austerity, no to job cuts and yes to continuation of the Brown dream of owt for nowt.

To a certain extent, I'm on their side. The cost of sorting out the mess is falling primarily on those who can least afford to pay, then on the middle-classes, and finally on the rich afaict. The financial crisis and globalisation (and the latter and the rising costs of the welfare state are linked IMHO) has hurt everyone except those at the top of the heap, and that is just wrong.

I can't help but ask myself whether the rich and powerful of this world really know what they're up to, or are they just so greedy that they can't see that, if they carry on like this, they may find their heads mounted on spikes rather suddenly.

[57percent]

I listened to Brendan Barber talking yesterday, the thrust of what he said, which he argued fairly well was that the poor will be the ones getting very disproprtionately clobbered.

I find this beleivable.

I still support trimming welfare budgets. But i do beleive the lower earners are going to get whipped, and the champagne classes get to moan and groan about how hard they've got it whilst enjoying unprecedented affluence.

They will all be bitching in the Daily Mail and Telegraph and on here about how the govt hasnt put the boot into the poorest enough.

With millionaires running the country you have a government out of touch with the realities of life for most people..

There's some truth to that. The low end of the public sector will take a kicking. It's not their fault, but most of these jobs shouldn't have existed in the first place. We didn't need them and couldn't afford them. I can only hope the govt also go after the higher paid management and the very highly paid external consultants (who never add anything).

They need to also clamp down on rich tax evasion/avoidance. Goes on a lot and they can't cut low paid jobs while ignoring it.

[non frog]

.....

With millionaires running the country you have a government out of touch with the realities of life for most people..

I'm not sure Toff and Toffer would let such lower orders into their little club. Pah! Millionaires indeed. One's gardener is in that category don't you know.

[blankster]

The unions might have trouble getting people out on strike over small changes to working conditions or over a pay rise, but when people feel they're fighting for their livelihoods, they'll come out.

Like I've posted elsewhere, widespread unrest over the cuts could bring down the government. The very ]soft underbelly of the coalition is grass-roots Lib Dem supporters. If they turn against the coalition (some already are), Clegg will have to pull the plug, the minority Tory government will fall, there will be a general election and Labour (under David Milliband) will probably win.

[Bloo Loo]

Much as I dont like Tony Blair, while having a bath yesterday, R4 had an article on the book.

In it, he says somewhere that he came to realise that unless you here the voices squealing about your reforms, they arent having the desired effect.

He admits they had a policy of more money tempered by reform...more money fine...reform...aborted due to the squealing of the ones about the be reformed.

We are hearing the squealing.

[R K]

There's always taxes instead, which we'll get to eventually.

i.e. those that benefitted should pay.

Tory land barons, banksters, property developers, and all the associated rentier class 'industries' - lawyers, top end public 'servants' and so on.

Let them pay £70bn more in taxes. Or even just something in taxes for lots of them. The problem is that the top 1% and above have stolen too much. It's pay back time.

We are hearing the squealing.

From Tony and his million/billionaire buddies? I don't hear any squealing, just their attack dogs on the rampage.

Edited September 13, 2010 by Frank Sidebottom

[SarahBell]

Has anyone ever noticed when the public sector strike? or anyone striking?

I guess if you had kids at school you'd have to make other arrangements.

Schools and bins.

And the dead.

But if schools do as much online as ours do then they can teach without them being in school almost anyway.

[John The Pessimist]

I listened to Brendan Barber talking yesterday, the thrust of what he said, which he argued fairly well was that the poor will be the ones getting very disproprtionately clobbered.

I find this beleivable.

I still support trimming welfare budgets. But i do beleive the lower earners are going to get whipped, and the champagne classes get to moan and groan about how hard they've got it whilst enjoying unprecedented affluence.

They will all be bitching in the Daily Mail and Telegraph and on here about how the govt hasnt put the boot into the poorest enough.

With millionaires running the country you have a government out of touch with the realities of life for most people..

There was a similar debate in Ireland when the austerity measures were started. "Tax the rich!" was the battle cry of the unions and elements of the media. It stopped when some economists pointed out that even an 80% tax on all of the wealth within the country would barely make a dent in 1 years fiscal shortfall.

The deficit is so large, only taxes and cuts to the working & middle classes (the population bulge) will make any sort of impression on the shortfall. So yes, it will be the "working poor" and the "coping classes" that will get hammered over the next few years.

Tighten your belts, and get ready for all the posturing from the VIs.

[blankster]

Has anyone ever noticed when the public sector strike? or anyone striking?

You obviously don't remember the 'winter of discontent' during the reign of the Callaghan government. Rubbish piling up in the streets, the dead left unburied. What about all the strikes by miners and railway workers in the days when their industries were publicly owned.

My advice is to think before you post

[Alan B'Stard MP]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100913/tuk-mass-union-strike-threat-to-be-endor-45dbed5.html

Mass Union Strike Threat To Be Endorsed

1 hour 10 mins ago

© Sky News 2010

Union leaders are set to endorse plans for the biggest show of British industrial action for two decades against the Government's proposed spending cuts.

What they are saying is no to austerity, no to job cuts and yes to continuation of the Brown dream of owt for nowt.

Capital vs Labour ....a worthy cause and based in sound logic.

Unfortunately the Labour is looking for the Capital in the wrong place.

Edited September 13, 2010 by Alan B'Stard MP

[The Masked Tulip]

There was no general strike in the 1980s - much talked about, loads of union huff and puff but it never happened and where we are now is no where as nearly as bad as the 1980s were.

[Bruce Banner]

Bags I drive a train .

[Zngland]

From a HPC perspective you want the Socialists/ Faux Keynesians to win out ,this will bring the Bond Market and all "off " balance

sheet economic factors to a crescendo, then we will be judged on our "fundamentals" and face quickly all the $hit that goes with.

Edited September 13, 2010 by Zngland

[cybernoid]

Noone in the private sector has any sympathy. Private sector has been living with real term wage decreases and redundancy for years. All this will do is hi light how good they have it (relatively) and piss off those that are inconvenienced by it. They should consider themselves fortunate it lasted this long.

[tomandlu]

There was a similar debate in Ireland when the austerity measures were started. "Tax the rich!" was the battle cry of the unions and elements of the media. It stopped when some economists pointed out that even an 80% tax on all of the wealth within the country would barely make a dent in 1 years fiscal shortfall.

Tchh - economists. People just want the pain to be spread fairly. Why should the rich get off relatively untouched?

[Orsino]

It's just like 1980 all over again. Labour thought they were just months away from regaining power back then too. The thing is that people today still remember the dead going unburied and the rubbish piling up in the streets in 1979. It's entered folklore. Similarly they will remember the queues outside Northern Rock branches and the forced nationalisation of several banks. The early eighties were beset with politically-motivated strikes and they did nothing but strengthen support for the Conservative government.

[leicestersq]

I listened to Brendan Barber talking yesterday, the thrust of what he said, which he argued fairly well was that the poor will be the ones getting very disproprtionately clobbered.

I find this beleivable.

I still support trimming welfare budgets. But i do beleive the lower earners are going to get whipped, and the champagne classes get to moan and groan about how hard they've got it whilst enjoying unprecedented affluence.

They will all be bitching in the Daily Mail and Telegraph and on here about how the govt hasnt put the boot into the poorest enough.

With millionaires running the country you have a government out of touch with the realities of life for most people..

Just to let you know, I am in favour of some redistribution of income via taxation. And I didnt agree with bailing out banks, nor do I have any truck with tax evasion, and I feel angry at avoidance schemes too. I mean, 'image rights' is a legalised tax scam for footballers, I dont understand why it isnt shut down.

But I will take issue with the notion that the poor are going to get clobbered by all of this. What worries me is that if the bond market roars, the government has to balance the books. Where do you think that the axe will fall then? And it will be a much mightier axe than is being proposed now. Those on benefits will be the ones to suffer, the end of the welfare state is a real possibility if we have a £170bn deficit that the bond market will no longer finance. The government has to spend money on things like roads and police and prisons and an army and raising tax and the land registry, whether we like it or not. Benefits for those worst off, and especially pensions, would have to go first.

I personally think that this nation has a choice, cut now, and make do with the reduced amount you get, or take your chances, dont cut, and risk losing the lot.

As long as you are aware that this is the choice and the gamble you face, then go for it, oppose the cuts and hope it all works out and the poor are protected.

Good luck is all I can say.

[Charlie Don't Surf]

I don't think union members have got the appetite anymore. It is to some extent a culture of apathy, deferred gratification and me-me-me-ism that have landed us where we are now. Can't see potential self-inflicted hardship happening myself

[John The Pessimist]

Tchh - economists. People just want the pain to be spread fairly. Why should the rich get off relatively untouched?

The point is not to let rich off untouched. The point is that the scale of the problem is so vast, that the wealthy alone will make little or no impression on the deficit.

The well-to-do are also far more mobile than the rest of us, and they are more likely to become "non-resident" for tax purposes if they were being squeezed. On the other hand, Joe Public, with his/her ties to the community is forced to stump up the cash.

Edited September 13, 2010 by John The Pessimist

[RichB]

To a certain extent, I'm on their side. The cost of sorting out the mess is falling primarily on those who can least afford to pay, then on the middle-classes, and finally on the rich afaict. The financial crisis and globalisation (and the latter and the rising costs of the welfare state are linked IMHO) has hurt everyone except those at the top of the heap, and that is just wrong.

Remind me, what caused the problems in the first place? Oh yes, people NOT BEING ABLE TO PAY BACK WHAT THEY OWE.

Guess that probably encompasses the poorest by definition does it not? Those with net assets below 0 and an inability to maintain the payments on that debt - ie negative income and 0 assets.