Todays strikes.

[jonthefox]

Do you agree with them?.

Personally i dont as i work in industry and feel the public sector workers recieve a far better deal.

The nation as a whole has to expect poorer working conditions, no pay rises and poor pensions (if you can afford one).

[purpleronnie]

Why on earth would you expect poorer working conditions?

The government will always say the strikes arent right and negotiaitions have to continue without the strikes and the workers feel in this case that the extra contributions they have to pay arent going towards their pensions but are instead just getting the government out of a financial mess. The fact 100'000's of public sector workers could lose their jobs is something worth striking over alone is it not? Would you want to pay more into your pensions and have to work longer and accept a pension thats based on a career average rather than your final salary?

I know were very anti-strike in britain but sometimes its necessary.

[Saxondale]

My misses is off because she's a teacher. She's off out getting her hair done!

I disagree with it all. The public sector pensions have been far too generous for too long - at everybody else's expense.

My misses argues that teachers shouldn't have to work until 68 (or whatever it is) - but why the fvck not when everybody will have to?!

Many public sector workers seem to have a mentality that the they are martyrs for doing a job far harder than anyone else in far worse conditions. In reality this is bollocks.

If you want to experience tough, put yourself in the shoes of the Bombardier workers in Derby whose jobs are going down the swanny because of cuckoo public sector decision making.

[sdb]

I'm on strike. I can only assume people who disagree with them aren't fully aware of just how much Government proposals are gonna affect peoples lives for decades to come. Why it's the public sector getting so savagely mauled is still a mystery to me.

[Saxondale]

Why it's the public sector getting so savagely mauled is still a mystery to me.

a) It's not just the public sector. In a recession, it's far better to be in the public sector than the private.

b) The state can't afford to carry on as it is.

[leicsmac]

a) It's not just the public sector. In a recession, it's far better to be in the public sector than the private.

b) The state can't afford to carry on as it is.

True, but whose fault is that? I think a lot of public sector workers are just pissed off that they (and the private sector too, come to that) are being hit hard due to something they had nothing to do with and had no control over. Why should they - and why should anyone, in fact - have to pay for the mistakes of shyster speculator banksters who knew they could fail with their gambles and get bailed out with taxpayers money?

Add the fact that the rightwing press (funded by the rich elite) are doing a fine job trying to turn the private and public sector workers against each other (have you seen a S*n editorial recently?) and making sure the people who are really to blame are going to get away scot-free, while the rest of us (in both sectors) pick up the tab. Disgusting.

So while the strike today may not serve a useful purpose from a financial standpoint, it may give an idea of just how pissed off people are at being exploited.

[z-layrex]

I didn't strike, and none of the nurses in my unit are striking either for ethical reasons, we do support it though.

[Saxondale]

Add the fact that the rightwing press (funded by the rich elite) are doing a fine job trying to turn the private and public sector workers against each other (have you seen a S*n editorial recently?) and making sure the people who are really to blame are going to get away scot-free, while the rest of us (in both sectors) pick up the tab. Disgusting.

Yes, true, everbody's paying the price for the mess the banks got into. But the public sector shouldn't be immune from this.

Plus the overspending by the previous government has more to do with the deficit than the bail-out of the banks. Public spending quite simply went out of control and it has to be reeled back in.

[Bugg]

It's been a bit of a ball ache as I turned up at College but none of my tutors were there (to be expected) but It's hindering the work I want to do, especially when we were told that the day would be as normal even though there is not even a cover tutor.

[Jon the Hat]

I don't agree with today's strikes. I think the public sector has shared the good times with the private sector (more jobs, more pay to parity with the private sector, same pensions, national pay rates when cost of living varies widely), and when it now comes to sharing the pain (less jobs, pay freezes, pension changes already in place in the private sector) they are shirking their responsibilities.

I also think that certain jobs should not be allowed to strike, including for example doctors, nurses and midwvies. I am however as ever very impressed with those voted in favour but go to work anyway because those who rely on them cannot take a day off from their needs.

[leicsmac]

Yes, true, everbody's paying the price for the mess the banks got into. But the public sector shouldn't be immune from this.

Plus the overspending by the previous government has more to do with the deficit than the bail-out of the banks. Public spending quite simply went out of control and it has to be reeled back in.

As much as I agree...reeling in public spending is going to lead to ill feeling, again because people will feel they are being hit financially because of a problem they did not cause. I don't know about you, but if someone told me I had to hand over money because someone who had nothing to do with me had been frivolous with it, I'd be pissed off too.

Additionally, these cuts are going to lead to redundancies. What then? More people on benefits? The private sector is not taking up the slack, and as a result unemployment, benefit claiming and by assocation public spending will rise. It's a snake swallowing its own tail.

There's a whole generation of young people out there wanting to work - but there are too few jobs available - the public sector doesn't have any, and the private sector isn't creating any. Not nearly enough, anyway.

[Rocket-Ron]

My sister in-law voted not to strike as she feels it only gets the parents backs up and only aids sympathy for the govement.

What she did vote for though was a stop on any out of hours activity for her school. Which i think can be far more effective

[Jon the Hat]

As much as I agree...reeling in public spending is going to lead to ill feeling, again because people will feel they are being hit financially because of a problem they did not cause. I don't know about you, but if someone told me I had to hand over money because someone who had nothing to do with me had been frivolous with it, I'd be pissed off too.

Additionally, these cuts are going to lead to redundancies. What then? More people on benefits? The private sector is not taking up the slack, and as a result unemployment, benefit claiming and by assocation public spending will rise. It's a snake swallowing its own tail.

There's a whole generation of young people out there wanting to work - but there are too few jobs available - the public sector doesn't have any, and the private sector isn't creating any. Not nearly enough, anyway.

I think the cause is a bone of contention, and too many people buy the "it wos the bankers what done it" line, which is only partly true. The fact is we had a boom off the back of a superficial feeling of wealth caused by unsustainable property prices. Banks, councils government and private individuals are all in the same boat. The public and private sector is going through an inevitable contraction as people readjust to what is actually their real wealth, and yes it is painful, yes it is difficult and no there is no way around it.

[philce]

Yes, true, everbody's paying the price for the mess the banks got into. But the public sector shouldn't be immune from this.

Plus the overspending by the previous government has more to do with the deficit than the bail-out of the banks. Public spending quite simply went out of control and it has to be reeled back in.

So we keep the public sector pensions, pay rises etc etc. who's going to pay for it? Look at Greece, and soon Italy/Spain/Portugal (see the common theme there? All lazy bureaucratic and public sector heavy). No-one will be at work so no taxes to collect.

As mentioned the last administration overspent, sold off the assets (gold etc) then stripped the private pensions, the current administration is trying to get us out of the mess we are all in. Some of the comments I have heard are laughable.

My private pension is worth F**k all, shall I go on strike? No I'm just grateful that I have a job right now and not relying on state handouts and pleading poverty with my massive flatscreen TV and always with fags in my hand (for which no duty has been paid). But then that is another situation completely.....

Whilst I sympathise and agree with some of the comments made by the unions and the members, (less than 30% actually bothered to vote in some ballots) we are all in this together, we have had it too easy for years now, the credit card is now maxed out and someone has to pay it back!

[Saxondale]

As much as I agree...reeling in public spending is going to lead to ill feeling, again because people will feel they are being hit financially because of a problem they did not cause. I don't know about you, but if someone told me I had to hand over money because someone who had nothing to do with me had been frivolous with it, I'd be pissed off too.

Additionally, these cuts are going to lead to redundancies. What then? More people on benefits? The private sector is not taking up the slack, and as a result unemployment, benefit claiming and by assocation public spending will rise. It's a snake swallowing its own tail.

There's a whole generation of young people out there wanting to work - but there are too few jobs available - the public sector doesn't have any, and the private sector isn't creating any. Not nearly enough, anyway.

Here's an analogy:

* Child's foster parent gives child lots of sweets, which the child enjoys a lot.

* Child gets obese, to the point where he is ill and gets moved to another foster parent

* New foster parent stops giving child lots of sweets. Child is very unhappy because he's used to getting lots of lovely sweets.

Obviously the child is the public sector and the foster parents are the two governements.

The Labour foster parent has fed the public sector child lots of sweeties and he's got too fat!

It is the Coalition foster parents responsibility to slim the fat, spoilt public sector child down before it all goes badly wrong.

Especially when the sweets are provided by the fat child's private sector classmates from sweety tax revenue!

[Saxondale]

So we keep the public sector pensions, pay rises etc etc. who's going to pay for it? Look at Greece, and soon Italy/Spain/Portugal (see the common theme there? All lazy bureaucratic and public sector heavy). No-one will be at work so no taxes to collect.

As mentioned the last administration overspent, sold off the assets (gold etc) then stripped the private pensions, the current administration is trying to get us out of the mess we are all in. Some of the comments I have heard are laughable.

My private pension is worth F**k all, shall I go on strike? No I'm just grateful that I have a job right now and not relying on state handouts and pleading poverty with my massive flatscreen TV and always with fags in my hand (for which no duty has been paid). But then that is another situation completely.....

Whilst I sympathise and agree with some of the comments made by the unions and the members, (less than 30% actually bothered to vote in some ballots) we are all in this together, we have had it too easy for years now, the credit card is now maxed out and someone has to pay it back!

I think you're getting confused. I'm emphatically against the public sector strikes!

Please re-read my posts.

[philce]

I think you're getting confused. I'm emphatically against the public sector strikes!

Please re-read my posts.

Sorry, wasn't aimed at anybody in particular, I clicked on reply instead of post!

Sorry if any offence taken.

[Saxondale]

Sorry, wasn't aimed at anybody in particular, I clicked on reply instead of post!

Sorry if any offence taken.

Fair play.

Good post by the way, I totally agree with you.

[leicsmac]

I think the cause is a bone of contention, and too many people buy the "it wos the bankers what done it" line, which is only partly true. The fact is we had a boom off the back of a superficial feeling of wealth caused by unsustainable property prices. Banks, councils government and private individuals are all in the same boat. The public and private sector is going through an inevitable contraction as people readjust to what is actually their real wealth, and yes it is painful, yes it is difficult and no there is no way around it.

Not everyone is in the same boat. Many of those people who made their money off the property boom, and speculative trading, have been able to keep their money - to hide it where it cannot be affected by the current recession. Put bluntly - many of the rich elite who made their money during the good times are not having to help out now. Instead, ordinary people (through these cuts) are doing it. Yes, many ordinary people overspent and made crap credit decisions, and cutting back on spending is definitely required, but what is needed is evenhandedness across the board.

Here's an analogy: * Child's foster parent gives child lots of sweets, which the child enjoys a lot.* Child gets obese, to the point where he is ill and gets moved to another foster parent* New foster parent stops giving child lots of sweets. Child is very unhappy because he's used to getting lots of lovely sweets.Obviously the child is the public sector and the foster parents are the two governements.The Labour foster parent has fed the public sector child lots of sweeties and he's got too fat!It is the Coalition foster parents responsibility to slim the fat, spoilt public sector child down before it all goes badly wrong.Especially when the sweets are provided by the fat child's private sector classmates from sweety tax revenue!

Fair enough - but to extend the analogy further - surely the 'child' in this case should have the freedom of choice to take or refuse however many sweets they want? Or, at the very least - see that all the other children around him - all of them, and as I mentioned above it's not all of them - being treated the same way.

And I say again about the public sector/private sector debate - both sides are being hit hard, by rights the private sector workers should be up in arms about this too - but they're not, mainly because job security is more precarious there and even a shitty job is preferable to no job at all in the present climate. That and the press playing both sides against each other by making misleading comparisons.

If these public sector cuts are going to work, the private sector must start offering more opportunities, and the Government must give them the tools to do so. Neither is happening right now.

[Saxondale]

Fair enough - but to extend the analogy further - surely the 'child' in this case should have the freedom of choice to take or refuse however many sweets they want? Or, at the very least - see that all the other children around him - all of them, and as I mentioned above it's not all of them - being treated the same way.

And I say again about the public sector/private sector debate - both sides are being hit hard, by rights the private sector workers should be up in arms about this too - but they're not, mainly because job security is more precarious there and even a shitty job is preferable to no job at all in the present climate. That and the press playing both sides against each other by making misleading comparisons.

If these public sector cuts are going to work, the private sector must start offering more opportunities, and the Government must give them the tools to do so. Neither is happening right now.

So in your extension to the analogy, the public sector child should be allowed as much sweets (money) as it wants? Surely that's not right?!

I absolutely agree, we need more private sector jobs. That's the hard bit!

I think the coalition are trying to stimulate this but it takes time.

One fundamental way to stimulate private sector growth is to reduce taxes -> therefore tax revenue -> therefore public sector funding.

No doubt about it, it's a tough situation for everybody!

[Jon the Hat]

Not everyone is in the same boat. Many of those people who made their money off the property boom, and speculative trading, have been able to keep their money - to hide it where it cannot be affected by the current recession. Put bluntly - many of the rich elite who made their money during the good times are not having to help out now. Instead, ordinary people (through these cuts) are doing it. Yes, many ordinary people overspent and made crap credit decisions, and cutting back on spending is definitely required, but what is needed is evenhandedness across the board.

If your point is that the tax receipts during the good times from the people who made a lot of money have stopped, yet the increased public sector spending has continued and we cannot afford it, then I agree fully.

[leicsmac]

So in your extension to the analogy, the public sector child should be allowed as much sweets (money) as it wants? Surely that's not right?!

I absolutely agree, we need more private sector jobs. That's the hard bit!

I think the coalition are trying to stimulate this but it takes time.

One fundamental way to stimulate private sector growth is to reduce taxes -> therefore tax revenue -> therefore public sector funding.

No doubt about it, it's a tough situation for everybody!

Well...yes, but that is assuming the 'child' is logical and sound enough of judgement to know how many (or how much) is enough to stay healthy. And sadly that's been proven to not be the case time and time again, so I guess I have to retract that point. I'm really not a fan of authoritarianism of that type, though.

As for the private sector - it takes time, but that's time we don't have. Unemployment is going to keep growing, and by extension public spending, unless the Government offers more radical incentives to companies to hire new staff. I'm not sure what the solution would be, but one is urgently required.

[leicsmac]

If your point is that the tax receipts during the good times from the people who made a lot of money have stopped, yet the increased public sector spending has continued and we cannot afford it, then I agree fully.

That's exactly my point. People who can most afford to help, and who took the most during the boom years, are now not helping during the bust years. Either by paying increased taxes (or any taxes at all, come to that) or by letting their companies hire more staff and lower unemployment. And by extension, they're adding to the problem - if they did these two things, the public coffers would increase (more taxes) and spending would decrease (less public sector wages, less benefits).

That is their way to help the rest of us who are being told to 'do our bit' during these times, and they're not doing it.

EDIT: Guess my point is the cuts need to be approached from more than one direction.

[Trav Le Bleu]

[Yojoe36]

Public: "Leave our money!! Stop cuts!!! Let's go on strike!!!"

Tories: "We need to make cuts to pay off the debt. Otherwise we'll go bankrupt, and won't be able to afford anything"

Public: "BOOOO!! Conservatives out!!"

EDL: "It's the pakis fault"

Me: "This country is so fvcked"