You are here: Home » Comment »

Dear Eds, show us your Balls and back the strikes

November 29, 2011 10:29 am

Author:

Sarah Hayward

Tags:

Share this Article

Tomorrow about 2 million public sector workers will go on strike. The disruption will could mean real difficulty for working parents, out patients, people trying to return to the country and more. I myself have an outpatient appointment that was booked weeks ago and I don’t yet know if it will be affected. But it’s a small price to pay compared to the recklessness that this government is treating the pension schemes of millions of public sector workers.

The rhetoric since the weekend from the government has been provocative and agreesive. Gove branding teachers militant is just one example of many. They simply aren’t prepared to talk reasonably any more. And when communications break down workers are left with little option but to strike.

But their arguemnts about pension reform are as spurious as their unwarranted attacks on teachers. Taking the pension scheme I know most about the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS), the government’s case for reform simply doesn’t stack up.

The LGPS is managed locally by pension committees at Local Councils. The only people who qualify for pensions payments from Camden’s scheme are Camden’s former employees. Elected represetatives of each authority with expert advisers manage very large sums of money to ensure the current and future viability of the schemes for it’s members. The LGPS is stable now and for the future.

Over three years though the government wants to increase staff contributions from 6.6% to 9.8% for every employee. There are no plans for the extra revenue raised to be invested in the future viability of the scheme. This increase amounts to nothing more than an additional tax of hundreds of pounds per year for local government officers up and down the country. Many of whom fall in to the lowest paid workers in the country.

The increase in contributions runs the real risk of mass opt outs from the scheme. The cross party, but Tory controlled Local Government Association agrees. They believe that the risk of opt outs could undermine the future viability of the scheme – the less people are paying in, the less affordable future pensions payments are. Such a reckless approach runs the very real risk of greater demands on taxpayers in future of bailing out a failing pension fund because the very actions this government is taking will destabilise it so much.

Viewed through that lens it starts to look less like a move aimed at affordability and sustainability or even deficit reduction and more like an ideologically driven move to undermine the attractiveness of the public sector as an employer. We’ve been here before of course. The Thatcher and Major governments chipped away at terms and conditions of public sector employees to deter people going in to public service as a career. When Labour won the 1997 general election schools and hospitals and local councils were on their knees. This attack on public sector pensions is just one part of what is becoming a sustained assault on the public sector.

The attacks are sustained and thorough because the Tories don’t believe in state provided public services and much less any semblance of universality. David Cameron has said so. Repeatedly. The Lib Dems are powerless to stop them.

Supporting the strikes isn’t just about a fight for low paid workers to keep hold of more of their salary or a reaction to the appalling way the government has handled what it laughably calls negotiation.

No, supporting the strikes should be essential as a signal that we, the whole Labour movement, continue to support strong, high quality public services delivered on the basis of need, not ability to pay.

http://twitter.com/kulgancrydee Kulgan of Crydee
In this case, two ‘Eds’ are definately not better than one.
John Ruddy
The point about the extra contributions not going into the pension pots to make them more sustainable is one that needs to be made time and again. Many people think – thanks to our one-sided media – that these increases are necessary because the pensions are unafforadable.
UNISON has done some research here in Scotland, http://www.unison-scotland.org.uk/news/2011/novdec/2711.htm and has shown that local government schemes receive nearly £300million more in contributions than they pay out in benefits.

Hugh
But where did those pension schemes receive that money from? Take Falkirk with its £17,462,000 “surplus”. Of the contributions £17,197,000 is from members. More than three times as much, £52,306,000, is from the employer: the government. Compare that the the proposals for auto enrolment next year: the employer contribution will be 3% minimum; the employee 4%.
Furthermore, the Unison figures just show the particular position this year and tells us nothing about the long term, which is a problem given that we’re talking about pensions. In fact, take Falkirk again and the scheme is not fully funded: It owes more in promised retirement benefits than it has in assets – a difference of about 20% at the last valuation – similar in fact to Sarah Haywood’s scheme if memory serves.

John Ruddy
Many of these assets are stocks and shares.
I think the “value” of these things goes down as well as up.
They’ve gone down a bit in recent years.
And dont forget, even if a scheme has less assets than it has promised to pay out, its not the end of the world, as your pension is not paid out all at once, but in the form of a little bit each year.

Hugh
A actuarial valuation that puts the scheme 80% funded accounts for the fact they pay out a little each year; that’s why the scheme is working to address the shortfall over 20 years.
Nevertheless, it tells us significantly more about the schemes position than Unison’s figures. Unsurprisingly.

Anonymous
Brilliant input today, John, if I may say so.
Thankyou for your support.
Jo

Anonymous
Superbly encapsulated Sarah- the best article I’ve seen on this topic.
I agree this is bound to be far more than just a single issue about reducing pensions;
in the fact they are singling out public service workers,
as opposed to tackling huge inequalities in pay across all sectors.
It’s driven by an underlying ideology, which was clear during the 80′s and 90′s for example,
when we weren’t in deficit?
It’s this constant mission to “roll back the (welfare) state” as they see it;
also obsession with tax payers in my view,(used as justification.)
So now the massive deficit, sparked by irresponsible practices of some global banks and financial institutions has to be shouldered by ordinary and frontline public service workers?
What about the high paid- across all sectors, who can well afford to club together and make far greater contributions?
These measures will hit older part time women with families and caring reponsibilities the hardest,
and is bound to have knock on effects; especially if they are the main breadwinner, eg as single parents, or caring for elderly relatives or children.
Like all of us, they have to pay for housing and living costs,
plan for the future, and simply just get by.
This rhetoric about “militant ” workers simply won’t wash with the public;
we all use these services and are very familiar with staff like teachers and support staff.
People wouldn’t take this kind of action unless feeling totally up against the wall
and at the end of their tether.
They deserve our support, unequivicably.
That includes our party too.
Let’s hope practical and sensible solutions can be formulated,
without the need for aggressive tactics and rhetoric.
Jo
Anonymous
PS- If they had any sense, they would realise how these measures
are likely to alienate the female vote even further…..52% of the population?
Not only that- but they don’t have a mandate to carry out this extent of
policies which uniformly hit women and families so hard.
J
Pingback: Dear Eds, show us your Balls and back the strikes « Sarah Hayward's Blog
LabourVoter
Sarah identifies the motive behind the governments plan and hits the nail on the head: “an ideologically driven move to undermine the attractiveness of the public sector as an employer.” If the government have their way public services will become a ‘sink’ option used only by those who are unable to find/afford any alternative.
Sure, it would be unusual for a Labour opposition to go all out in support of a strike but the cautiousness of the two Eds’ response to events beyond the Commons is so extreme they’re beginning to give the impression that they’re either clueless or frightened.
Anonymous
“Public sector job losses to hit 710, 000 by 2017- OBR;”
Guardian, today.
What impact on quality of frontline services?

Anonymous
None. As there are approximately 7m PSW then this is only a 10% reduction in 5 or so years. And as all 7m are not frontline jobs . . .

Dave Postles
Bollocks. There are statutory services and discretionary services. There are services which are supposedly statutory, but are funded within the miscellaneous funding allocation. So libraries (statutory), museums and art galleries (not statutory) have already lost significant numbers of posts because they are in the miscellaneous funding category. Museums in Nottingham and Leicester have closed. Others are open only three days each week. Together we performed fantastic work in the 70s in making new forms of libraries, museums and art galleries available to the public. Since the 80s, with the pressure on local government funding, those services and sites have contracted. Gove rabbits on about the English heritage. Well, the real English heritage – in its expression through industrialization, the people, and everyday life – is being destroyed as museums close and are restricted in their services. It is quite possible that charges will escalate and even that artefacts and art will be disposed for sale. As to foreign culture, those who remain in well-remunerated jobs will be able to take their kids abroad to see those historical cultures at first hand. I learnt about Egyptology, Romano-British development, the Pre-Cambrian Charnwood, and John Ferneley, by visiting Leicester’s fabulous museums (now a shadow). All that exposure is now prejudiced. Having contributed to those processes of accessibility, I am dismayed – even more so because I hear the narratives of constriction and destruction first-hand. If you think that these sort of front-line services will not be the first to be affected, then you do not understand the politics and policies of local authorities.

Anonymous
Eloquently put Dave; you probably have more knowledge and expertise in this matter than most; we need to hear the realities out there to counteract the rhetoric and myths being peddled.
I don’t always blame people for thinking like this;
it’s probably what they’ve sub consciously absorbed
via some chunks of the media or current propaganda…..
not all that is written down or spouted is true,
but can be grossly distorted or selectively presented.
I think the “truth” always wins out-
especially if can be backed up like this.
Jo

Hugh
“Bollocks” is many things, but it’s not eloquent.
Dave Postles
It’s me werking-class background, init?
Anonymous
I don’t always blame people for
thinking like this; it’s probably what they’ve sub consciously
absorbedvia some chunks of the media or current
propaganda…..not all that is written down or spouted is true,
but can be grossly distorted or selectively presented.
Ahh right, so because I don’t conform to your line of thinking I must have allowed myself to become sub-consciously absorbed (wonderful phrase).
And of course it can only be non-Labour propaganda that is grossly distorted or selectively presented. Look within your own party first.
Is it any wonder that I don’t vote for this bloody party anymore!
Anonymous
Apologies LE, I was talking more generally; gleaning an impression via comments across the blogisphere…..
I agree all mainstream parties are guilty of tactics like these, but having worked in the NHS for nearly 3 decades as a frontline professional, I am literally amazed by what is put out there, and I notice it very acutely.
I also think politics can get in the way of sensible pragmatic presentation of the facts; it all becomes too hyped and overblown.
I don’t know how the public can respond when they are not given a realistic picture.
But I do trust those workers in the main- implicitly.
They have a lot to lose and are putting themselves on the line.
Thanks, Jo.
Anonymous
Apology accepted . . . and I tend to agree with your post.
The politicians do seem to believe that the vast majority of us actually believe every word they say – unfortunately the opposite is a lot closer to the truth.
The problem is if Joe Public was actually given “a realistic picture” would they believe it? . . or would it just be treated as hype and spin as is the norm.
Anonymous
Thanks, LordElpus.
I personally think the public will believe what they can relate to, and see around them. We all use public services, and many have friends and family who work in some capacity within roles, so very aware of the issues.
By openly villifying people or trying to set one group against another, these divisive tactics appear obvious and uncomvincing.
It can also look bullying, picking on one group of workers in society, many of whom do a magnificent job behind the scenes throughout working lives.
I just think it’s got to the point where many feel “enough’s enough.”
I think there needs to be analysis of actual “need” in this country, in frontline service provision for example- that is out in the open.
Many people probably don’t realise how serious some of the problems are out there, being dealt with by trained staff daily. Yet little recognition or awareness.
I’m think of examples like child protection or mental health.
It’s as if public service workers have somehow been lumped together like one homogenous mass, with the implication being they are a “burden” to tax payers and society in general.
And yet the “burdens” would be far greater without quality provision or expertise of staff.
It’s those underlying assumptions and use of language that needs challenging and reframing I believe.
Cheers, Jo.
Anonymous
If they told us the facts and not spin or lies perhaps we might learn to trust them, although I doubt they could do it.
LabourVoter
Most people form their judgements from their own experiences, not unsubstantiated ‘facts’ relayed by others.
Osborne and most of the front bench are multi-millionaires with private trust funds who’ve never done a proper job. The rest of us are dependent on employment and pensions, benefits etc.Is it surprising they struggle to see things from the position of the ordinary person? When they retire to their mansions at the weekend, warming themselves at the baronial fireplace, you can bet, for the life of them, they can’t understand why anyone would want to go on strike.
Anonymous
Forgive me for being hysterical, your talking about the Tories being rich, and the Labour lot are what on benefits. for god sake mate you need to take a long hard look at the Labour party
LabourVoter
Not at all, dear chum.
I saying that experience forms opinion.

Anonymous
I think I represent the silent majority when I ask (without asking this with any prejudicial angle or “agenda”) that, if public spending is being reduced to 2007 levels (as I believe I have read elsewhere), how come we could afford them then and not now?

Dave Postles
My post actually reflects how these services have been contracting since the 1980s. The problem for local government is that, because of government legislation, it is constantly accruing new demands. The result is always that miscellaneous services suffer, because that’s where the cuts can be most easily made. It has been a continuous process since the 1980s. What has happened is that it has been accelerated, by caps on revenue, inflation, and the demand for more cuts in services. It is happening and there was forewarning HERE by elected members. Lady Eaton, chair of the Local Government Association, a Conservative Party elected member, complained that the cuts were frontloaded too much and that more time was needed for planning for reduced services. It is, nonetheless, in the case of miscellaneous services not a new phenomenon but a continuous process since the 1980s, particularly in unitary urban authorities where the social and economic problems are most intense.
Anonymous
A reasonable hypothesis, but what data do you have to support it? The records clearly demonstrate that we spend many times over more than we did in the 80′s on “services” (and substantially more than an inflation-adjusted “benchmark” level), so if the quality of services are contracting, we need to ask why: if it is not proportional to money put in, then it logically is unreasonable to suggest that it is proportional to money taken out. If, conversely, we are suggesting that we are not putting enough money in to support the amount of additional services we are offering (i.e. introduced since the 80′s), then we need to have a grown up debate around whether those new services are all necessary, and if they are, whether we can afford to give them all the money they need.
My strong suspicion, though unproven, is that the latter, i.e. funding everything at 100% capacity, is politically unpalatable (not to mention unaffordable) for the electorate.

Anonymous
You make the premiss that libraries, museums and art galleries are frontline. Not in my book.

Anonymous
They aren’t in the sense of saving lives etc.
But for some they are a lifeline in communities,
especially libraries.
Think about the wider context: education, culture, public participation in the arts, jobs, community; dissemination of knowledge and information.
All things that make up “quality of life” and bring people together. Children and young people need access to these cultural artefacts; it’s also a sign of a civilised society.
I heard that many people joined that big march last year because they were deeply upset about closure of libraries and the impact it would have on their towns, villages and local area.
Also community services generally- like day care centres for the elderly; refuges for the homeless and people suffering domestic violence; mental health drop in’s, youth centres, CAB’s- etc.
In differing degrees- all “frontline.”
Jo
Dave Postles
‘Not in my book.’
Not from your local library then, of course, but other people do rely on local libraries as frontline services.
Dave Postles
Oh, and I should add here that central reference libraries contain services used by SMEs (commercial and technical service librarians) as well as providing frequent locations for CABs.
Anonymous
To true and they are vital for looking for things like Jobs if sadly your job center closes.
They are vital for the elderly who use them to find out things like how to use a computer ours does a course in getting to know your computer.
These are vital for the locality once you lose them you will not get them back that’s for sure.
jaime taurosangastre candelas
Thankfully, in at least Cambridgeshire, libraries still retain funding and investment from a Tory-dominated Council. I’m very glad that my local town a few miles from the village has recently opened (a couple of months ago) a much larger and better library than the old one. The plans for the upgrade in library are about 3 years old, but the actual building work did not start until about a year ago, well after the Coalition took power. I’ve only been in a couple of times with the children for their books, but I can see that there’s all sorts of other services present, and it is rapidly becoming a hub for the community. It seems much busier than the old library, and is about 3 times the size. The local housing association also built about 20 affordable homes behind the library as part of the site development plan, which are now in occupation. The site had been a privately owned cinema which closed and sold the land to the council.
http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/CMSWebsite/Apps/News/Details.aspx?ref=239
You can see that it’s a fantastic new facility, really modern and large:
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2549127
Anonymous
If I may add Jaime, I gather there is a very worrying and patchy picture across the country; many being forced to close.
A lot of high profile writers have been leading campaigns; possibly one- M.Morpungo.
It may be that some areas have far more funding from local councils than others; but I’m glad that some are being protected.
Personally I think there should be universal provision in every community, especially access for children; but also for some it’s a lifeline; eg unemployed, retired on low income, disabled, the elderly, etc.
I think there needs to be a close eye on what is happening up and down the country, especially in less well off areas.
Jo
jaime taurosangastre candelas
I agree Jo, but the microscope needs to be on Councils, not national Government. I’m sure that some Councils are aggressively cutting back on this sort of expenditure, which some may even see as “discretionary”. I’m not very informed about local government funding, but in Cambridgeshire’s case I know how much council tax I pay for a Band C house, £1281 a year, which I think is slightly under the national average. If Cambridgeshire can open a new multi-facility library, why can’t other councils keep theirs’ open?
Anonymous
Jaime, just to say briefly,
there’s been a lot of discussion about levels of funding to different councils and across parties elsewhere, eg on LL in the past. Sarah could probably enlighten much further on this topic also.
My belief is that national govt should set priorities, and libraries would come amongst those high on the “community,” education and culture agendas.
It’s not enough to leave such important resources and assets to chance, or some kind of nudge theory….also some councils are more adept and far sighted than others.
I just found a couple of articles which might provide wider context and explain the reasons people feel so passionately about protecting our libraries and cultural artfacts:
“Campaigners urge government to stand up for libraries,”
P.Jones, The Bookseller.com
13/1/11.
(It’s excellent.)
Also-
“Boyd Tonkin: Not one more library must close,”
Independent,(The week in books;)
12/8/11.
It’s particularly poignant, because written in the context of the riots I think.
But I’ve seen much more besides- eg via twitter.
Thanks, Jo.
Anonymous
I wonder how many Labour councils are closing libraries, museums, art galleries etc whilst keeping their Diversity Manager and his staff?
Dave Postles
County councils always have an easier position about their discretionary spending and miscellaneous services because they do not face the same social and economic pressures as urban authorities and that situation has always obtained. In the present circumstances, they are actually favoured because this government allocates more funding for counties which have stabilized their council tax, which is usually the former ‘shire’ counties. The comparison is invidious. That situation has obtained since the 1980s.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
Because Cambridgeshire is a comparatively wealthy area where schemes such as the one you describe are financially feasible in a way they wouldn’t be in other areas. Also, you have to spend far less on, say, social services, than an area with greater social deprivation

Anonymous
LE, even the traditionally moderate RCN, representing many nurses,
“threaten to call strike ballot in January if govt does not begin credible negotiations.”
From: “Nurses’ strike over pensions edges ever closer;”
Guardian, 10/11.
These are all unprecedented events, bringing together many people across professions and working areas.
J

Anonymous
“They simply aren’t prepared to talk reasonably any more.”
I’ll translate. “Why won’t they give us exactly what we want?”

Anonymous
If you are suggesting these are unreasonable workers and people,
then how come vast majority have never taken this action before;
or would even contemplate?
This is about betrayal of trust and agreed conditions of service,
based on fair premises.
It is not fair that ordinary workers on low to modest levels of salary and pensions
should be hit so disproportionately compared to the high paid from any sector in society.
Also- frontline professions like teaching, nursing, police, fire personnel, ambulance staff
provide essential services to the infrastructure of this country; and workers deserve fair recompense for the high level of skill and demands required.
I’d be surprised if many government ministers had a clue what some of these
roles entail on a day to day basis; eg social workers and probation staff;
mental health professionals.
It’s also a question of meeting the very real needs of the people of this country,
not always easily quantifiable in monetary terms.
J

Anonymous
OK then – reality; for the workers, that is.
Anonymous
Hi Derek, sorry I didn’t see your comment;
and for some reason didn’t receive via my disqus feed,
which usually triggers response?
Re your comments; it’s very hard to work out what is going on;
I don’t think the public can make head nor tail of it all…..
They keep blaming the deficit on external factors such as
Labour, the Eurozone, and last year the snow?
It may well be there is some truth- but it’s not put into context or explained.
But what they never seem to do is say it’s about their choice of approach
over economic policy, or consider need for flexible options?
The danger is, if they are constrained by political factors
such as saving face, they will be unable to apply purely pragmatic
solutions or see a wider perspective.
The “unspoken” part is the ideological aspect; for example,
attitude towards what they perceive as “the state.”
That translates into policy over the NHS, schools, local government,
welfare, and jobs in the public services’ sector?
Did GO apologise or have any remorse about his announcements
about salary freezes equating to about 15% pay cut over ?2 years
for public services’ staff?
Or the fact that could impact on other areas like wages and pensions
for lower paid workers?
Did he say anything about bridging the pay gap between
highest and lowest paid across all sectors?
Is he favouring some groups more than others in his economic
outlook; is the subtext of GO and DC partially about paving the way for
increased privatisation of public services?
I think there is a lot we are not hearing!
Also just seen the local paper Derek-
a lot about strength of feeling of workers.
These are very ordinary people who quite frankly have had enough.
Hope all is OK where you are Derek, and good luck if you are supporting
any actions locally.
Jo

jaime taurosangastre candelas
I’m sorry Jo, while I do empathise with your broadest thinking, it’s no good justifying it with nonsense.
“They keep blaming the deficit on external factors such as
Labour, the Eurozone, and last year the snow?”
The current iteration of a structural deficit has been in existence since FY 2002. If you don’t believe me, look at the numbers on the ONS and NAO websites, which I believe to be neutral. The structural deficit is a measure of purely political spending decisions taken between the PM and Chancellor. It is nothing to do with the Eurozone or the snow.
Public sector salary freezes are not 15% over two years, as the rate of inflation is less than 7.5%. The blended RPI for 2009/10 and 2010/11 looks like being about 9.2% over 2 years, but we’ll have to wait until April to know that. Given that most public sector workers are on an annual spine point increase which in the NHS is on average 1.8%, the salary freeze is likely to work out at about 3% per annum. Not welcome, I admit, but hardly the 15% you point to.
You very often mention pragmatism, getting away from rhetoric, a wider context or a consensual view and so on in your posts, and then you go and post something like this.

Anonymous
You know very well I am making general comments and opinion/overview;(also addressed to Derek, in his response to me.)
But sadly you revert to past type and use as an opportunity to attack in a personal way, by putting me down and saying people are talking “nonsense.”Because you don’t agree with opinion.
There are ways to express opinion, and it doesn’t involve attempting to ridicule other people or to try to whip up some sort of row between posters; encouraging others to jump on the bandwagon etc.
I am sorry to say the following, but it is based on many experiences of being on the receiving end of your commentary, and seeing you do the same to others on selective occasions.
You appear to enjoy showing off your “prowess” about economic statistics etc, knowing full well that others do not have the same level of knowledge in certain areas.I suggest you take something like this to posters such as Peter B or Chris C, who you are likely to know full well will give you a detailed reposte.
But your selectively picking out my post and the way you have expressed yourself towards me in such a deliberate fashion makes me feel wary to trust interacting with you on any topic in the future. You can’t have it both ways.
Either show respect, despite differing views, or desist from trying to engage with people you are ultimately seeking to undermine;
possibly for purposes of personal political agenda.
And I will not be drawn into an argument because you happen to take umbridge over someone’s opinion that doesn’t fit into your world view.
Dialogue has remained pretty civilized today across LL, despite differences of opinion between posters. Let’s keep it that way.
I appreciate you have posted some facts and figures here; but you could have stated that without adding the innuendo and withering remarks.
I’ll add one more article here, and then I’m done.
“Public sector to foot bill for G.Osborne’s growth plan,”
Guardian, 29/11.
Please do not approach me on the blogs in the future Jaime;
from past experience on this forum I do not trust your motives.
I thought you had genuinely changed your attitiude and approach, but it seems late at night, the old verbiage is creeping back in;
it’s as if the opportunity has arisen for you.
I may not have a great knowledge of economics but I damn well do have a good grasp of human nature and skills of observation.
I will respect your views on this forum, but do not wish further one to one interaction. Please do not approach me again.
Thankyou.

Anonymous
The “15%” cut equation to pay freeze over about 2 years was quoted by D.Prentis on the R4 news;
not my analysis.
I was assuming may be common knowledge, as heard widely on the news.
It may be a matter of opinion or fact.

jaime taurosangastre candelas
It’s total obllocks to misquote JPG, but then D Prentis is hardly impartial. The interviewer should have asked him to justify it.
Just because a union baron says something, do you believe it? Do you expect everyone to believe it? Do you not check the claim against solid facts? Do you then go on to allow this unchecked statement to influence your thinking? Do you then allow this influenced thinking to be put forth in public with your own thoughts on something like a political website? Oh, yes, you do.
Anonymous
I am not JPG, but interesting you should make that analogy, seeing as we are both Labour minded people.
Mr P was quoted directly on the R4 news; I see no reason why I am not permitted to refer to that to illustrate points; also I was addressing Derek in a different thread of dialogue, not you.
I suggest if you have such a huge problem with the political arguments being made, you seek out more constructive ways to address.
ie. attack the arguments, NOT the posters.
That is a simple rule of engagement which still seems to have passed you by.
J
http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
Its quite reasonable that participants on a Labour website should be more prepared to believe a Union leader than a Tory-Liberal right-wing strike-breaker from the most Tory constituency in Britain!

jaime taurosangastre candelas
If you are making “general comments and opinion”, then why not make that plain, rather than hope that the very specific “Labour, the Eurozone, and last year the snow” is understood to be “general comments and opinion”? I can only read your words at face value. As you say, “…you could have stated that without adding the innuendo and withering remarks.” I’d invite you to examine whether your innuendo and comments mount up to “withering remarks” about people trying very hard to save this country from the wreckage left by Labour, albeit ones not ever backed up by facts as you don’t do facts, numbers or any other reality-based metrics, do you Jo? No, with you it’s all feelings, suspicion, going off at a tangent, illogical thought processes, seeing conspiracy theories were there are none, and whining, all expressed in endlessly ill-argued posts of multiple paragraphs and sentences ending with a ? Every time I read one of your posts, I mostly think “get a grip and grow up, join the real world”.
It is entirely truthful that at no single occasion has any tory or other politician, commentator, reporter, or other right wing person EVER said that the deficit was down to the Eurozone or the snow. That’s because to make that case would be farcical. I’ll leave you to work out which of your three suggestions for the cause of the deficit remains true.
You are very over-sensitive, if I am allowed to observe. I take people as I find them. In your case, I find you smart, intellectual, passionate about issues of great social importance, but possessed of a blind spot of almost global proportions that does not allow you to perceive contrary opinion as anything other than other than a vast conspiracy against your view of life.

Anonymous
Considering your vast intellectual knowledge
and superior wisdom, I’m surprised you find the time or interest to pore over people’s blogs and pick apart their thoughts, apparently for your own purposes.It hinges on a bullying tone.
I happen to think attitude is important.
As for “get a grip and join the real world”
I assume that means agreeing with your opinion.
You have no right to assume about other people’s lives or thinking.
And I certainly don’t feel the need to explain
why your assumptions and allusions are entirely
wrong.
I make these comments following on from many experiences like these on the receiving end of similar commentary, and observing it towards others.Strangely, those deemed “Labour loyalists” in the past; which leads me to believe this may be more about asserting some sort of dominant political position via blogs.My view is, there is room for wide opinion, and a waste of time and energy simply seeking out “opponents” to attack.
What exactly is your purpose on this left leaning forum? Is it to gloat or mock people whose opinion you are vehemently opposed to; but choose to target people selectively and on selective occasions; eg late at night?
I think trust between posters is necessary to enable free flowing discussion and good natured debate. It’s about basic interaction and good communication; also genuine intent.
So therefore, it is not possible-when an impression given of underhanded tactics, creeping up on people unprovoked,inconsistency of approach towards people, being disingenuous,
even dishonest- through wilfully misinterptreting people’s comments and twisting meanings.
Could this be to appear superior on some way?
I have no problem whatsoever with anyone’s opinions or political persuasion, so long as expressed with basic respect between posters.
What I do have a problem with is impression of goading/misconstruing and manipulation of people’s expressed thoughts and views, or ulterior motives which are not made clear.
Trolling techiniques etc.
I think it’s all very debased behaviour, especially for people that should know better and know exactly what they are doing, or could be using their intellectual capacity in more constructive ways.
I think all of us have a responsibility to post in a reasonable fashion and in good faith- not deliberately seek out conflict merely for the sake of undermining people on any level.
I think these ethics apply to any form of human interaction, whether it be in person or online.
The mask of anonymity or posting behind a screen is no excuse for treating people badly.
I believe these to be general principles; and perhaps blogging is a political process all in itself.
It’s about basic common sense between people too.
OK, I think I’ve written enough in response.
J
http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
Jo: he’s just a nasty little bully. Probably 5ft 4 with a small dick. Ignore him – he never has anything worth listening to in any case
Anonymous
What an unpleasantly personalised comment.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
You are a bully. Is harassment your usual style?

Anonymous
And yet he gave nurses and teachers and the dust bin men a decent wages, he gave me £4000 year in child credits, but yes your right Blair did ruin the idea of a socialist party because he actually helped the rich get richer, but his two wars and the lies he used to get us into that war.
But now of course we are seeing nurses and teachers and the sick the disabled and the poor getting a dam sight poorer as the country re-adjusts to a new world after the banking crises.
Anonymous
I did try to edit and shorten post on further reflection,
but for some reason system is not accepting.
I’ll have to leave it at that.
Anonymous
Why is this being placed at top of thread Mark, when I am clearly adding to my post further down for explanation?

Latest

Comment
Housing upheaval can be traced back to Thatcher
By Chris Williamson
If further evidence was needed that the Government is destroying our communities then it came by the bucket load with proposals to relocate hundreds of housing benefit claimants. Councils across London desperately searched for a solution to the housing benefit cap that made it impossible for some of the capital’s poorest residents to stay in their homes. First we heard of plans to move residents to Darlington, Stoke, Hull and parts of Yorkshire. But the revelation that Westminster Council planned [...]
Read more →
Featured
The austerity consensus has collapsed
By Owen Jones
There is no alternative: the only way out of Britain’s current economic plight is massive cuts to public spending. Taxes on the wealthiest must be slashed: they are blocks on aspiration and economically counterproductive. Austerity is the only game in town. Or so we have been told ever since the Coalition was formed in the rose gardens of Number 10 Downing Street. The overwhelming majority of the media has gladly reinforced the Government line, and those voices calling for an [...]
Read more →
Comment
Should Labour go further on football reform?
By Ben Shave
“As a party, Labour should take great pride in the fact that we initiated Supporters Direct, but now is the time to go further.” These sentiments, expressed in a recent article for Progress by Steve Rotheram MP, hark back to a time where the landscape was somewhat different for the Labour party, but similar in many ways to that faced by football supporters in 2012. The Football Taskforce was established soon after Labour came to power in 1997, with the [...]
Read more →
Comment
Making Labour Policy: Who calls the tune?
By Ann Black
Excellent election results and rising polls have brought a mood of unity and created space and time for serious work on policy. Francois Hollande’s victory shows that austerity is not the only option, and Labour must start to develop an alternative agenda, rejecting the Tory politics of resentment and division in favour of policies which are fair, principled and credible: on housing, crime, transport, health, schools, higher education, manufacturing, tax, defence, social care, equality, employment rights and the environment. We [...]
Read more →
News
It’s the budget what won it…
Why did Labour win the 2010 local elections so convincingly? It’s the budget right? This graph of polling from TNS BMRB certainly suggests that. Labour’s slim lead extends rapidly following the budget (highlighted) – and current stands at 12 points (42/30). And as for why Labour did better in 2012 compared to the 2011 elections – just compare May and May 2012. A year is a long time in politics…
Read more →