mjmooney Posted October 4, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted October 4, 2012 Maybe this"working class Ed" routine working class Ed whojust happens to live in a £1.6m house ?On that note, have you been following the latest Scargill story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Maybe this"working class Ed" routine working class Ed who just happens to live in a £1.6m house ?On that note, have you been following the latest Scargill story? No , but just had a look .. the Barbican flat story I assume .. everything that is wrong with the Union leaders in my opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Maybe this"working class Ed" routine working class Ed who just happens to live in a £1.6m house ?On that note, have you been following the latest Scargill story? No , but just had a look .. the Barbican flat story I assume .. everything that is wrong with the Union leaders in my opinion And imo the only credible argument against re-nationalisng the railways. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Nationalise the railways and have all the work done by robots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Funny how the Tory supporters on VT and on the web scratch around and try (and typically fail) to link unions, labour and anyone that does not hold their right wing views together and make up some story as justification for the vile policies that this Gvmt and their supporters are imposing on the UK Where in the "rule book" does it state that wealth means that you cannot have a social conscience and be a supporter of Labour? Why and where does it say that people at the top of Unions organizations should have no money and only live in Council houses (assuming there are any left after the Tory led ideas of selling them off)? The reality is still oozing out of the Tory led Gvmt that they are looking after their "own" people, and these are typically rich, with little or no social conscience. Screw unto others while protecting our own. No doubt next week we will see the Tory party supporters infest their conference and all of the crocodile tears that they shed in the news will be dried up while they make the typical speeches and every second word will be Labour etc. Maybe if they could explain why debt continues to massively increase, why the bosses continue to get massive raises in pay while workers don't seem to enjoy this. I have seen many Gvmts come and go and this is easily up there as being one of the worst both inept and cruel at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 LOL at Liam Fox http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9587433/Does-the-Tory-party-still-care-about-its-voters.html "The size of the global economy has grown from $30 trillion in 2000 to $69 trillion today" Money illusion anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 If the Tories feel Dave isn't cutting it anymore then I bloody hope Liam Fox is not the man they go to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 5, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted October 5, 2012 Where in the "rule book" does it state that wealth means that you cannot have a social conscience and be a supporter of Labour? Why and where does it say that people at the top of Unions organizations should have no money and only live in Council houses (assuming there are any left after the Tory led ideas of selling them off)? Ah well you see, when union leaders do live in council houses, they get slagged off for that too, see Bob Crow for an example of this. Me I don't think Bob Crow should be living in a council house but you can't then slate a different union leader for not living in a council house. The railways on the other hand should be nationalised, un-beechinged where possible and be thought of as infrastructure not profit making. As much freight as possible should be utilising the rail network too, getting all those heavy goods vehicles off the motorways (for it is they that cause the roads to be chugged up in the first place). I do however accept that awol has a point re unions and a nationalised monopoly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Nationalised monopoly vs a natural monopoly? Let's not assume that the private sector in this case is going to be super duper more efficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Ah well you see, when union leaders do live in council houses, they get slagged off for that too, see Bob Crow for an example of this. but the money he saves allows him to run up £650 bills at Scotts of Mayfair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 talking of railways Millions of pounds in "taxpayer bailouts" are being paid to the private train operators, it was revealed today. It added to the furore surrounding the national rail franchise system in the wake of the shambles over running of the West Coast Main Line (WCML.) The government has admitted, in answer to a question from Lord Bradsaw, that seven train operators are receiving "revenue support". click here if you cho cho chose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 That's not exactly an evening standard investigative scoop. It is pretty well known that the rail network doesn't cover all its costs through tickets, it never has. The current government are cutting back on the funding support leading to fare rises much greater than inflation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Where in the "rule book" does it state that wealth means that you cannot have a social conscience and be a supporter of Labour? The same chapter of the "rule book" that states wealth means you cannot have a social conscience and be a supporter of the Conservatives... Or we can grow up, stop talking about "rule books" and accept that social conscience, wealth and political affiliation have little or no correlation. If people - you, in this case - stopped trying to claim exclusivity over the moral high ground on the basis of your political beliefs then the discussions on here might be far more balanced and informative. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 The desperation of the tory party and its supporters reaches a new low this morning. Cameron saying milliband wants to turn the uk into east germany and hunt with his thoroughly offensive views on abortion. And then they wonder why so many people despise them The same chapter of the "rule book" that states wealth means you cannot have a social conscience and be a supporter of the Conservatives... Or we can grow up, stop talking about "rule books" and accept that social conscience, wealth and political affiliation have little or no correlation. If people - you, in this case - stopped trying to claim exclusivity over the moral high ground on the basis of your political beliefs then the discussions on here might be far more balanced and informative. obviously a nerve touched there, truth hurting again? And typical post on poster i see maybe bullingdon flashman is the normal tory trait that many say. Reality shows that typical tory politics has little or no social conscience however you may try to deflect from examining it. Then again is there such a thing as society? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 ....at least this is worth answering: Then again is there such a thing as society? Of course, but I don't think that 'society' and the 'state' are the same thing, although there is an overlap in some areas. Of course some Conservatives may still believe Thatcher's comment was correct, just as some Labour supporters may still believe Saddam had WMD. Favouring the broad outlook of a particular political party doesn't mean subscribing to every word ever uttered by its present or former leaders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 ....at least this is worth answering: Of course, but I don't think that 'society' and the 'state' are the same thing, although there is an overlap in some areas. Of course some Conservatives may still believe Thatcher's comment was correct, just as some Labour supporters may still believe Saddam had WMD. Favouring the broad outlook of a particular political party doesn't mean subscribing to every word ever uttered by its present or former leaders. who said society and he state were the same? The broad outlook of the tory party is based purely and simply on self self self attitude and protection of the richer in society and simply bollox to those who do not belong to that. Look at the nhs a core part of society a nhs that cameron like previous tory pms and most tory supporters now have lied about supporting. He tries and fails to claim massive more investment but fails to mention the billions of cuts and 5500 fewer nurses how exactly is that part of a policy that supports society? How can tax cuts that only favour rich while poorer continue to get poorer be a fair one? How can people like hunt have such obscene views on things like the nhs and abortion and is then put in charge. A leading tory mp calling the police plebs i suppose is an inducation of a tolerant society? Continued scandals in the tory membership from parliament down to council members is what exactly? Cameron, osborne and many many tory supporters have little refard for those outside of their small community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 who said society and he state were the same? When the current government has suggested that certain functions are better performed by various independent charities or social groups and structures you have generally howled with outrage that this is the government's role. You can possibly see then why one might surmise you don't really appreciate the difference. The broad outlook of the tory party is based purely and simply on self self self attitude and protection of the richer in society and simply bollox to those who do not belong to that The broad outlook of the labour party is based purely and simply on implementing a system designed to infantilise and indoctrinate a nation with post-Soviet socialism, destroying anyone who doesn't want to be part of that.................. Childish caricatures are childish. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 The new 'voluntary' owner employee suggestion is not going to be (necessarily) voluntary for new employees from next April, apparently: From Personnel today Employees will be asked to give up some of their employment rights in exchange for shares in their company and tax-free gains, under a new "owner-employee" employment contract announced by the Government today. In his speech to the Conservative Party conference, Chancellor George Osborne set out a "voluntary three-way deal", which would see employees give up such rights as those around unfair dismissal and redundancy. In return, employees would get between £2,000 and £50,000 worth of shares in the business they work for and would be exempt from paying capital gains tax on any profit made from them. While the new owner-employee employment contract will be optional for existing employees, firms will be able to choose to only offer this type of contract for new hires from April 2013. People employed on the contract will give up their rights around unfair dismissal, redundancy, the right to request flexible working and time off for training. Women will also have to give 16 weeks' notice of their date of return from maternity leave, instead of the usual eight weeks. The new contract is intended for "fast growing" small and medium-sized companies, although firms of any size will be able to use it. "Get shares and become owners of the company you work for," urged Osborne. "Owners, workers and the taxman, all in it together. Workers of the world unite." ...more on link Edit: Link to announcement on BIS site. Also, the annual exemption for CGT is £10.6k for this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Sounds like an extremely dumb idea that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 I don't think they have any idea what they are doing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts