Anyone actually agree about this pay cap on nurses and emergency services? And if so would love to hear the reasons why!!!
I don't mind the concept of a cap but 1% is too low. Why can't it be set up in the same way as the triple lock which seems very generous to pensioners? No way should their pay fall in real terms.
Both my aunties and sister in law have not had a real time pay rise in nearly a decade as nurses due to inflation. The cost of living rises yet their wages don't. It beggars belief it really does.
One left the profession and now manages a coffee shop on more money for a big chain who swerved their tax payments.
What I'm saying about Murdoch is that he may have an agenda, but it doesn't work to claim that he is alone in that. All powerful businessmen or corporations do. But to test it's intensity for Murdoch, look at Sky - Main presenter, Kay Burley, is a northern lass and left leaning. Adam Boulton is married to Blair's ex aide, Angie Hunter. No evidence of a right wing conspiracy there. I don't have a problem with either, but if I think a line is being pushed overtly or covertly, at least I can cancel my Sky subscription. As far as the "much cherished" BBC is concerned, I'd have to sell my TV or they'd send the enforcers round
On both sides, yes. However, the first vote was never going to be anything but a validation of the agreement. And Labour knew that, so they clearly used it to score points.
Labour tabled an amendment to the Queen's Speech calling for an end to the Public Sector pay cap. The government, with the help of the DUP, won a vote on this by 14 votes. The opposition have subsequently made much of Tory MPs cheering as they won a vote to withhold pay from police, firefighters, teachers and nurses. The BBC covered Jeremy Corbyn appearing on stage at Glastonbury and the right-wing press have gone apoplectic.
Right, let's try to end this endless debate and get to some consensus politics shall we? The UK is in the Top 7 countries in the world for wealth? - How many of its citizens share in that wealth? The UK is comparable to the US and Singapore where there is enormous wealth with huge disparities for the majority. In terms of average real quality of life per person - it does not come close to the top 20. What is more important for you - that the UK remains in the Top 7 wealthy nations or that it moves up the real quality of life per person on average? Whether you like it or not - if you want to be taken seriously as a country that is on a par with the real leading nations such as Germany, Canada, Scandinavian countries, Austria, etc. you will also have to start thinking about how you can make a fairer system for all. You cannot do that with the current political system being geared towards keeping power at any cost. So many long term infrastructure decisions for the country are being deffered, to the point of it being dangerous for the country's TCO. The proposal should be this, and it works in the truly developed countries. A Blue block and a Red block - Before any prospective General Election, the country's parties align themselves to one or the other. You will have to go away from the first past the post system and join the proportional representation revolution. I have heard that the UK has gone from the open field crop system to the rotational crop system previously - so change can happen and be beneficial! You will then be faced with more parties emerging - is that a bad thing? You will then be faced with the knowledge of who you are supporting in the Blue block, tactical voting will be a thing of the past and likewise for the Red block. Parties will be forced to move off the centrist, ****e middle ground and initially move towards socialism to get some kind of ****ing equality back. For those of you that don't like an equal, fair society, you will be well advised to **** off to the US or Russia, or the Middle East. Parties will also realise that you need sustained growth, real manufacturing and well educated and looked after population - that takes money. So guess what, Industries are also looked after - but not to the detriment of the majority. Undoubtedly you'll have some **** storm years of getting used to it, parties that have something to offer and stick to their principles will eventually thrive. ****s like May, Gove, Blair, Cameron and all the other power mad ****s will be ****ed off. The really important decisions will be made bi-partisan, you'll end up as they do in all the other "well developed" countries, even talking to each other, regardless of who holds the "power" at that time. You'll have a world where nurses, teachers, firemen, are respected and paid well. It aint a perfect system, nothing ever is, but it's got to be better than the **** storm you're in at the moment. I'm over this weekend and I'm ****ing dreading it as I'll have to shut up and not speak my mind for fear of offending my oldest friends. Remember - Do you aspire to be the USA, Russia or a Canada/Germany? You're choice, but you better make one soon. And just to piss off Stan and Col - God bless you all
Murdoch and people like him have far too much influence over our media - press, TV and online. But I don't - and never have - believed Murdoch has a right wing agenda himself. He supported Blair, once, didn't he? (Maybe not the best example.). I believe Murdoch has a Murdoch agenda, and wants to influence whatever is best for him and his business interests. If he can get it done through the Conservatives or UKIP, then he'll promote their interests and they will return the favour in some tangible way that benefits him once they have the controls. If Labour are willing and able, he'll help them and expect something back. For him, and other non-dom people like him, our country is just a business opportunity. Media moguls shouldn't be able to affect democracy in the way they are capable of in the UK. No politician that goes public on any desire to curb their ability to exert undue influence will ever get media mogul support and can expect a sh*tstorm of abuse in response.
I have been spending the week in a town occupied by The Annual General Assembly of the Church of the Nazarene. Literally thousands of the buggers, and not the types to enter into a light hearted intellectual debate on the nature of belief, I've been keeping a low profile. You could have added that lovely Denmark, with its sickening consensus politics and coalitions, it's outrageous 60% tax rate over $55k of income in return for comprehensive public services, its happy, generally non materialistic people, has a national debt of 38% of GDP, the useless lefty bastards. After 7 years of 'austerity' the U.K. has a national debt of 90% and collapsing public services. But it hasn't been 'austerity' has it? Austerity is shared by the whole population. It's been a sustained punishment beating of those least able to defend themselves. Bastards like me haven't suffered at all, I pay less tax on a bigger income than in 2010. It stinks. Anybody remember where we left the social contract?
Bloody hell Stan, you've done well there to keep schtum. We can slap each other on the back all we like, but it does nothing. Those bastards S&P, Moody's, I've asked it before, how did we give them all that power and why? Austerity, Austerity - who's won out of that? I suppose I'm one of these Nouveau Champagne Socialists , but **** my old age , let's gamble on it for the young. I'd rather bet on them, than our sheister generation. And I really am a ****, laughing my head off at my previous company's "IT issues". Can remember one of my last meetings where I was shot down for questioning our IT security. On to another subject whilst we're on it, and no poor bastard has been run over by some lunatic, so making emotions run high. **** security against terrorism, it's IT security that we should be ****ting ourselves as to whether it's good enough.
Yes I did. You cannot argue that every time a random assortment of people cheers and claps loudly for one point of view that the BBC has deliberately shipped those people in because they like their views. If you do want to argue that perhaps you can explain why there have been so many QTs where the vast majority were pro-Brexit when if I recall the vote was quite narrow 52-48. Were those audiences hand picked to endorse the BBC's point of view or a left wing agenda? Presumably as you agree with that point of view, you are not going to complain of bias by the BBC on those occasions. I haven't complained of editorial bias by the Beeb on those occasions and doubt I ever will because I accept that others with different points of view have a right to be heard and aired even though I disagree with them.
I've always found the BBC to be pretty consistently positioned in a place where they've questioned the performance of those who hold power, whether that's been the Conservatives or Labour. Seems fair enough as there's not much mileage in reporting on the performance on the opposition. They don't strike me as abrasive or agressive as the left wing media (and I do read the Guardian online primarily) or the right wing media either. As to the leaders debate (which I watched at the time), the audience did seem fairly partizan but the selected questions were from an even spectrum and grilled Corbyn as much as Rudd (the others barring Nuttalls got an easy run of it).
