Are the Unions damaging Labour's chance of election in 2015?

First topic message reminder :

The multitude of examples of disgraceful behaviour by Trade Unions over the past year have really started to show them up as the evil bully-boys they are.

Latest example being the vicious targeting of the wives and children of Ineos managers:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24758166

Question is, will this start to hurt Labour's chances of election in 2015?

Clearly formerly 'Red' Ed is concerned as he's taken steps to distance himself from both their antics and the Unions themselves, surely all this negativity will have to bite at some point? This could be the last thing Labour's already dwindling opinion poll leads need - could 2014 be the year of the turning point re public opinion or the main two parties??

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:The top 1% pays both a larger amount of tax AND a higher proportion of total tax receipts now than they ever did under Labour.

Other things being the same, the one would equate to the other. Of course, other things aren't the same. The combined share of income of the richest 1% is at its highest since about 1930, and is on its way up. In 1997 the average income of the top 0.1% was £650k. By 2007 that doubled to £1.2m For the top 1% that increase was £250k to £450k. Meanwhile the average of the bottom 90 percentiles increased from £10k to £12k.

You are trying to argue that richer people are being stigmatised based on their tax bills. However, as the link you've provided shows, they are actually paying LESS in tax as a proportion of their incomes. The increase in total take is purely due to the increase in inequality (or perhaps a decrease in avoidance).

It doesn't just describe total take though.  It shows proportion of total take.  How much should the top 1% pay of the country's total tax bill? They pay 30% now, something like 20% under Labour (without back-checking the article). 50% maybe? 100% so that none of the rest of us have to pay anything at all??

At some point the Laffer Curve concept will always kick in.

Are you arguing that the super rich's tax bill has increased and the reason is NOT because the gap between the rich and the poor has gotten wider resulting in the super rich having more income that can be taxed?

I'm stating that the PROPORTION, not just gross volume, of total tax paid by the top 1% is now 30% as opposed to circa 20% under Labour a no, this isn't all explained by increasing income equality.

It is all explained by increasing income inequality.

If I give food to the poor I am called a saint. If I ask why the poor have no food I am called a communist. : Helder Camara

Speaking of the rich-poor gap, did you know it grew far more under Blair than it did under Thatcher?

So much for a party that represents the working class.

Duty281 wrote:Speaking of the rich-poor gap, did you know it grew far more under Blair than it did under Thatcher?

So much for a party that represents the working class.

But the poor were better off under Labour, lots of benefts such as EMA and tuition fee benefits, council tax benefits and housing benefits etc were scrapped under the coalition.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Speaking of the rich-poor gap, did you know it grew far more under Blair than it did under Thatcher?

So much for a party that represents the working class.

But the poor were better off under Labour, lots of benefts such as EMA and tuition fee benefits, council tax benefits and housing benefits etc were scrapped under the coalition.

Perhaps because the country was ruined financially by the Labour party?

Thatcher and Major left us on the brink of an economic super-age, Blair and Brown left us without two pennies to rub together.

Oh and poverty increased under the 1997-2010 Labour government, I believe.

"That is the same old Labour, never again!"
David Cameron

Duty281 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Speaking of the rich-poor gap, did you know it grew far more under Blair than it did under Thatcher?

So much for a party that represents the working class.

But the poor were better off under Labour, lots of benefts such as EMA and tuition fee benefits, council tax benefits and housing benefits etc were scrapped under the coalition.

Perhaps because the country was ruined financially by the Labour party?

Thatcher and Major left us on the brink of an economic super-age, Blair and Brown left us without two pennies to rub together.

Oh and poverty increased under the 1997-2010 Labour government, I believe.

"That is the same old Labour, never again!"
David Cameron

The whole world suffered from economic meltdown.

the poor (which includes the working poor) were better off pre 2010 than they are now.

Under labour the poor were better off.

I think it is safe to say that the Conservatives may never win a majority at a General election ever again. 92 was the last election they won which is 21 years ago. They will not win in 2015 so the next possible chance is 2020 which is 28 years. The rise of UKIP and the destrucion of the Lib Dems will make it even harder for the Tories to win a majority at a General election. Unless you are tophat who thinks people will not vote labour because of the trade unions haha

Even Tony Blair admitted recently that his Labour government could have done more to lessen the impact.

And I think we're all worse off now, considering the economic meltdown and how Britain is only just getting back on her feet.

You must be joking when you say the Conservatives will never win a majority ever again. They're the only party that has the slightest hope of winning a majority in 2015, and after that..who knows. If it's a Lib/Lab coalition in 2015, the country will fall apart pretty bloody quickly, and the majority will swing quickly back to the Conservatives in 2018/19/20.

If it's a Tory/Lib or Tory/UKIP coalition in 2015, then the Tories will quite possibly strengthen for 2020. For 3 and a half years of Cameron's government, they had to repair the mess that Labour left this country in, and from now until 2015, the only way is up for Cameron's Britain.

More than 1,000 new jobs are being created every day - I can only forsee the % of votes for the Conservatives going up from now to 2015.

Duty281 wrote:Even Tony Blair admitted recently that his Labour government could have done more to lessen the impact.

And I think we're all worse off now, considering the economic meltdown and how Britain is only just getting back on her feet.

You musy be joking when you say the Conservatives will never win a majority ever again. They're the only party that has the slightest hope of winning a majority in 2015, and after that..who knows. If it's a Lib/Lab coalition in 2015, the country will fall apart pretty bloody quickly, and the majority will swing quickly back to the Conservatives in 2018/19/20.

If it's a Tory/Lib or Tory/UKIP coalition in 2015, then the Tories will quite possibly strengthen for 2020. For 3 and a half years of Cameron's government, they had to repair the mess that Labour left this country in, and from now until 2015, the only way is up for Cameron's Britain.

More than 1,000 new jobs are being created every day - I can only forsee the % of votes for the Conservatives going up from now to 2015.

Glad you agree that we are all worse off now. Many of the cuts this government have implemented have not been to save money, they are ideological cuts eg EMA which all research said the cost of 500 mil a year was paid for by the benefits eg extra tax, less reliance on welfare etc and housing benefit cuts which this government have said countless times has nothing to do with saving money and JSA cuts which the government have said has nothing to do with saving money.

Do you really believe the Tories are the party that is favourite to win the next election? you are entitled to your opinion but my advice would be not to bet any money on it at the bookies as you will kiss that money goodbye.

Of course we're worse off, because Britain had to make savage cuts to start to amend the financial disaster. Labour of course weren't doing that up to 2010, so the Tories had to. And it was the best thing in the long-term, as evidenced by the fast growth in Britain's economy.

And I believe the most likely outcome of the 2015 election, sadly, will be a Lib/Lab coalition. If any party is going to win a majority though, the Conservatives will. Labour have hit their peak in terms of votes, but with the economy growing (set for 1.3% this quarter), vast numbers of jobs being created, and the standard of living set to improve, the only way is up for the Tory party.

I have both fingers tightly crossed that the 18 months or so between now and the election will see such a level of improvement that the Tories wil secure a majority vote. The very future of Britain could well depend on it - otherwise we shall return to the dark days of a Labour government, and we all know what that means:

- An awful economy
- Little investment in transport and education
- Promotion of multiculturalism and out of control immigration
- A pathetic prime minister
- Sucking up to the EU and the USA

Weak, weak, weak Labour. Please not again.

Duty281 wrote:Of course we're worse off, because Britain had to make savage cuts to start to amend the financial disaster. Labour of course weren't doing that up to 2010, so the Tories had to. And it was the best thing in the long-term, as evidenced by the fast growth in Britain's economy.

And I believe the most likely outcome of the 2015 election, sadly, will be a Lib/Lab coalition. If any party is going to win a majority though, the Conservatives will. Labour have hit their peak in terms of votes, but with the economy growing (set for 1.3% this quarter), vast numbers of jobs being created, and the standard of living set to improve, the only way is up for the Tory party.

I have both fingers tightly crossed that the 18 months or so between now and the election will see such a level of improvement that the Tories wil secure a majority vote. The very future of Britain could well depend on it - otherwise we shall return to the dark days of a Labour government, and we all know what that means:

- An awful economy
- Little investment in transport and education
- Promotion of multiculturalism and out of control immigration
- A pathetic prime minister
- Sucking up to the EU and the USA

Weak, weak, weak Labour. Please not again.

This is from the institute for fiscal studies;

'Under Labour, spending on health and education has increased, from 10.1% of national income in 1996−97 to 14.8% in 2010−11, an increase from 25.3% of public spending to 30.7%. This reflects the government’s decision to allocate significantly more resources to the NHS and to education'

'Spending on public services has increased by an average of 4.4% a year in real terms under Labour, significantly faster than the 0.7% a year average seen under the Conservatives from 1979 to 1997. This is largely due to increases in spending on the NHS, education and transport. Since 2000–01 public investment spending has increased particularly sharply and is now at levels not seen since the mid to late 1970s'.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The Tories have a big problem.............


2. In Three and a half years they've done very little to dispel the notion that they are in it for themselves and their Mates.......They don't seem able to detoxify...

This one issue will probably hurt the Tories more than any other single factor come the election. They can come up with as many stats about the economy as they like. They can point to growth and recovery and falling unemployment until the cows come home, but there is an elephant in the corner which is getting more and more difficult for them to deflect attention away from and it is this:

Somebody is benefitting from the recovery and it aint us.

By 'us', I mean the ordinary working man and woman. There is more money around.... but who is making it..? It isn't me, that's for sure.

People's wages are frozen, or are rising at less than the rate of inflation. More and more people are on zero hours contracts, with only minimal amounts of work that come nowhere near covering their commitments. Domestic fuel prices are skyrocketing and the pattern of little price decreases in the spring (when everybody turns their heating off) followed by significantly higher increases in the Autumn (when people put their heating back on) is now well established and, despite the widely debunked claims about wholesale prices to suppliers, has been rumbled for the profiteering that it is.

So...... Mr and Mrs ordinary are being told by Cameron and his rich mates that the economy is growing and unemployment is a thing of the past, but the vast majority of the population isn't feeling any benefit from it. Rather, we see cuts after cuts after cuts in all our public services and the value of our wages eroded by inflation and savings rates that aren't worth having.

This money being made in the 'recovery' must be going somewhere........... and it isn't going to the masses.

That is why the Tories are, and always will be the party that only gives a damn about the rich.

Cameron's fat cat mates are making a lot of dosh while the rest of us struggle to stay warm this winter.

"Struggle to stay warm"

Don't be so dramatic. People need to take a long hard look at themselves instead of blaming others.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Of course we're worse off, because Britain had to make savage cuts to start to amend the financial disaster. Labour of course weren't doing that up to 2010, so the Tories had to. And it was the best thing in the long-term, as evidenced by the fast growth in Britain's economy.

And I believe the most likely outcome of the 2015 election, sadly, will be a Lib/Lab coalition. If any party is going to win a majority though, the Conservatives will. Labour have hit their peak in terms of votes, but with the economy growing (set for 1.3% this quarter), vast numbers of jobs being created, and the standard of living set to improve, the only way is up for the Tory party.

I have both fingers tightly crossed that the 18 months or so between now and the election will see such a level of improvement that the Tories wil secure a majority vote. The very future of Britain could well depend on it - otherwise we shall return to the dark days of a Labour government, and we all know what that means:

- An awful economy
- Little investment in transport and education
- Promotion of multiculturalism and out of control immigration
- A pathetic prime minister
- Sucking up to the EU and the USA

Weak, weak, weak Labour. Please not again.

This is from the institute for fiscal studies;

'Under Labour, spending on health and education has increased, from 10.1% of national income in 1996−97 to 14.8% in 2010−11, an increase from 25.3% of public spending to 30.7%. This reflects the government’s decision to allocate significantly more resources to the NHS and to education'

'Spending on public services has increased by an average of 4.4% a year in real terms under Labour, significantly faster than the 0.7% a year average seen under the Conservatives from 1979 to 1997. This is largely due to increases in spending on the NHS, education and transport. Since 2000–01 public investment spending has increased particularly sharply and is now at levels not seen since the mid to late 1970s'.

Note it makes no comment about how that spending was funded. Over-excitable naivety has played right into Duty's hands there......#fail

The Fourth Lion wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The Tories have a big problem.............


2. In Three and a half years they've done very little to dispel the notion that they are in it for themselves and their Mates.......They don't seem able to detoxify...

This one issue will probably hurt the Tories more than any other single factor come the election.  They can come up with as many stats about the economy as they like.  They can point to growth and recovery and falling unemployment until the cows come home, but there is an elephant in the corner which is getting more and more difficult for them to deflect attention away from and it is this:

Somebody is benefitting from the recovery and it aint us.

By 'us', I mean the ordinary working man and woman.   There is more money around.... but who is making it..?   It isn't me, that's for sure.

Please define 'ordinary'.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

The Fourth Lion wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The Tories have a big problem.............


2. In Three and a half years they've done very little to dispel the notion that they are in it for themselves and their Mates.......They don't seem able to detoxify...

This one issue will probably hurt the Tories more than any other single factor come the election.  They can come up with as many stats about the economy as they like.  They can point to growth and recovery and falling unemployment until the cows come home, but there is an elephant in the corner which is getting more and more difficult for them to deflect attention away from and it is this:

Somebody is benefitting from the recovery and it aint us.

By 'us', I mean the ordinary working man and woman.   There is more money around.... but who is making it..?   It isn't me, that's for sure.

Please define 'ordinary'.

Poor people.

Exactly. I always like reading Fourth Lion's posts, but that one just perfectly summed up the point I was making earlier. You're not 'ordinary' or 'normal' unless you're poor and/or hard-up.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Exactly.  I always like reading Fourth Lion's posts, but that one just perfectly summed up the point I was making earlier.  You're not 'ordinary' or 'normal' unless you're poor and/or hard-up.

I get where you're coming from, TopHat, I genuinely do, but you yourself have been quick to pull Truss up on his small sample when quoting polls so lets not get too carried away with a few people on a forum. Its hardly a ringing endorsement of your theory.

I reiterate my own earlier point, all those people you see crammed into central London bars are not 'ordinary' either and hardly conclusive evidence that London is treating all its residents with the same respect.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:"Struggle to stay warm"

Don't be so dramatic. People need to take a long hard look at themselves instead of blaming others.

Last January, an 87 year old man who lived not three streets away from me was found dead in a chair at his house. The cause of death was hypothermia.

It was reported that, on checking, the heating system in his house was fully operational. It simply hadn't been put on. Apparently, he had an outstanding bill from his dual fuel provider that hadn't been paid.

I don't know whether he blamed anybody else for his situation, but I do know that he died from the cold.

So no, let's not get dramatic about people dying. What does it matter to you? I'm sure you're nice and warm.

Appreciate this is impossible to back up, but I'm not just deriving this opinion from an online forum.  It's people in the news and media, it's friends on facebook, people you meet around the place, blokes you see ranting in pubs or drunks on buses.  It's all over the place.  You're only considered 'normal' or 'ordinary' if poor/hard-up.

And whilst I equally appreciate this wasn't your intention, you've further evidenced my point.  Why can't those people be ordinary/normal?  I'm not talking about the Trust Funders in Mahiki in Mayfair or Mamalanges on the Kings Road (if it still exists even), I'm talking about ordinary working people going for a pint after work, or a spot of dinner after work, maybe theatre with the folks for mum's birthday.  You don't know who they are, you don't what they do, where they live or what their socio-economic background is.  But because they don't appear demonstrably hard-up they're written off as 'not normal' or 'not ordinary'.



EDIT: NB: Was in response to Tina.

I personally don’t class myself as rich but by the same token am not poor. Both me and TSMR work and what we generate between us covers our bills and outgoings. However do not have Foie Gras and Cristal for breakfast so suspect I would be what we would have to class as ordinary and I am buggered if I can see or feel the much vaunted economic recovery we are constantly told is happening. Things I practically have to buy such as heating and petrol seem to be getting prohibitively expensive and am certainly seeing no signs of there being more money left over on a month by month basis.

However I did drive past my local boozer the last time England paid and it looked rammed so maybe I am wrong.

The Fourth Lion wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:"Struggle to stay warm"

Don't be so dramatic. People need to take a long hard look at themselves instead of blaming others.

Last January, an 87 year old man who lived not three streets away from me was found dead in a chair at his house.  The cause of death was hypothermia.

It was reported that, on checking, the heating system in his house was fully operational.  It simply hadn't been put on.  Apparently, he had an outstanding bill from his dual fuel provider that hadn't been paid.  

I don't know whether he blamed anybody else for his situation, but I do know that he died from the cold.

So no, let's not get dramatic about people dying.  What does it matter to you?  I'm sure you're nice and warm.

What does that prove? The energy companies have stated they will not cut you off, you just need to ring them and let them know you're struggling. I can't comment for this old fella, but it was certainly an avoidable death had he or a family member taken the required steps to address it.

People don't have money, I get that, but they won't be going cold this winter because if it, unless they make that choice themselves.

To be honest rowley......If you were rich you'd have never known there was a recession in the first place.......

My Wife and I regularly donate food to food banks and give old clothes to charities.......

Apparently they are overloaded with need.........

Osbourne said we are all in it together in 2010.....I imagine that's one of the reasons being patronised like that The British public didn't give the Tories a majority..

"Apparently"

Conclusive proof then.

Food bank use has doubled since 2010.......Conclusive proof......

Trussell Trust on food bank use figures........

Rowley wrote:I personally don’t class myself as rich but by the same token am not poor. Both me and TSMR work and what we generate between us covers our bills and outgoings. However do not have Foie Gras and Cristal for breakfast so suspect I would be what we would have to class as ordinary and I am buggered if I can see or feel the much vaunted economic recovery we are constantly told is happening. Things I practically have to buy such as heating and petrol seem to be getting prohibitively expensive and am certainly seeing no signs of there being more money left over on a month by month basis.

However I did drive past my local boozer the last time England paid and it looked rammed so maybe I am wrong.

Went out to an old hunting ground a few Saturday's back. We were probably 4 of about 30 people in a pub that can hold 300+. We got reminiscing how we used to have to queue for 45 mins to get in the place when we were 16/17, as with all the other pubs in that town. Seems to be the same everywhere nowadays with empty pubs.

I do think there is a lot less disposable money, and a 10 pint night out is now as you say, prohibitively expensive.

It depends where you look. Newcastle city centre is jam packed every single weekend, so much so that I've stopped going because of the busyness (and I'm boring). Again this isn't proof but it depends where you look.

I've personally noticed the recession and am better off now than at the start of it. Maybe I've been lucky, who knows.

With LJ a bit on this. Old people should be looked after. My neighbour is 90+ and in reasonably good nick. Her family live away and over the last few years most of her friends / sister have died. We feel responsible for her so check up on her every now and again, particularly in inclement weather (bought her shopping when we had snow last year). She has our number, her daughters and grandaughters have our number. It is just about doing the right thing really.

Maybe If corporations paid more tax and bankers who put us in this mess weren't getting 91% bonuses.........

Maybe old people could be looked after a bit better..............

I'll be doing the right thing in 2015.........Even if the rest of my family won't.........

Always been a rebel.........

Lumbering_Jack wrote:It depends where you look. Newcastle city centre is jam packed every single weekend, so much so that I've stopped going because of the busyness (and I'm boring). Again this isn't proof but it depends where you look.

I've personally noticed the recession and am better off now than at the start of it. Maybe I've been lucky, who knows.

I think people save up and go to cities like Newcastle London or Leeds. Your average small to mid size towns are suffering.

In response to the questions raised since I made my point, about what constitutes "ordinary people" I would suggest that an ordinary person is somebody whose ambitions in life are the simple common motivations that any of us might have.  

We want to maintain our home, provide for our families and do what we can to make sure that our children have a better life to look forward to.   That's not asking much and it doesn't take a great deal to achieve it.   All it takes is an honest job with a reasonable salary and some employment security.

Ordinary people are not greedy.  They may want to have a holiday, or buy a new car every three or four years, but I don't think that's excessive.  

But there are those amongst us who are not satisfied with such things, and ok.... yes... we need people of entrepreneurial spirit because they are the employment creators and it is only right that, if they take the risks they should reap the rewards.  I have no grudge against businessmen who work hard and put all their labour into building something that gives them a bit more.

But I am also old fashioned enough to think that many of those men want to put something back.  They understand that they have a responsibility to their workforce because at the end of the day, it is their workforce that puts the sweat into whatever it is that the businessmen builds his 'empire' (for want of a better word) on.

These businessmen achieve their aims and are content with that and they accept their responsibility.  In many ways they too are 'ordinary' people.

But when we see greed in the form of casino bankers, or corporate oligarchs, backed up by power politicians who have lost sight of the ordinary people and now think of nothing more than the balance sheet or the next big deal, then we are affected by something nastier.  

And so, at the top, there are the rich and powerful, supported by the power politicians, and down below are the Myrmidons... the Ant People... just trying to maintain a civilised standard of living whilst the greedy try to grab more and more for themselves.  Always more.  Never satisfied, always wanting more.... more.... more and giving less in return.

I would call myself an ordinary person who has been reasonably successful in my aims.  I left school at 14 with no qualifications, but now I own my house, I have a nice car, I was able to send my children to private school and then onto university and now my wife and I are at the stage of our lives where we can relax a little and enjoy the fruits of our labours. We've earned them.

But if I were a teenager starting out today in similar circumstances, what would be my chances..?   Very slim. Almost negligible.  

There is greater national wealth, and more money in circulation now than there ever was, but our country has gone backwards and that is the fault of the greedy.  The fault of the politicians who put party and their own interests before the people.

And yes..... old people will freeze to death in their homes this winter.  Is it their own fault..?  Well, if you judge success by how ruthless and grasping you are, then probably it is.  But perhaps they did what they could with their limited, simple ambition, and weren't prepared for the advent of the ruthless society.  They put their trust in living in a country, with a government that cared.  

Perhaps that was their only, but biggest mistake.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Maybe If corporations paid more tax and bankers who put us in this mess weren't getting 91% bonuses.........

Maybe old people could be looked after a bit better..............

I'll be doing the right thing in 2015.........Even if the rest of my family won't.........

Always been a rebel.........

Can we just make it clear that it is not the tories putting energy bills / fuel prices up. That said, the biggest jumps in fuel prices I remember occured under the last labour government.

Superb piece Fourth Lion.........

How I look at "ordinary" people although I hate using ghastly labels..

no one is ordinary..

TopHat24/7 wrote:

And whilst I equally appreciate this wasn't your intention, you've further evidenced my point.  Why can't those people be ordinary/normal?  I'm not talking about the Trust Funders in Mahiki in Mayfair or Mamalanges on the Kings Road (if it still exists even), I'm talking about ordinary working people going for a pint after work, or a spot of dinner after work, maybe theatre with the folks for mum's birthday.  You don't know who they are, you don't what they do, where they live or what their socio-economic background is.  But because they don't appear demonstrably hard-up they're written off as 'not normal' or 'not ordinary'.



EDIT: NB: Was in response to Tina.

You knew exactly what I meant, TopHat. You're just twisting it around now to suit your point. I am responding on a specific context, not a broad brush stroke of London.

You used the example of bars been full in central London when addressing the issue of London being a recession buster. What you have posted above is actually a far better response than your earlier ham-fisted description (although I don't believe for one minute that it is what you meant when you first jumped in and posted it, it is just a more more reasoned response now you've had time to consider it) it is just 25 posts later than you should have done.

You know as well as I do, the majority of these people, and I stress the majority not all of them, are not 'ordinary' (whatever that means) people. They are not the guy working at Kings Cross fixing railway sleepers, they are not the guy who works at some car re-spraying unit in Hammersmith, they are people with substantially more disposable income than the rest of the population. Accountants, surveyors, IT consultants, traders, bankers etc. Its central London. I repeat, not all of them, but the majority are. The guys spilling out on to the street because the bar is full are generally wearing suits and talking into their BlackBerrys. They are not a guy wearing overalls and high vis jackets.

I am not saying you/they should apologise for spending their money. That is not the point. Good luck to them. But your hastily revised description of central London is not the one I see (and actively avoid but that is for different reasons) every day.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

 They are not a guy wearing overalls and high vis jackets.

Union wouldn't be seen dead in one of those posh London bars

Blame the bankers and the bonuses they get. It's become fashionable to do that now.

People are hypocrits. Moaning you are an ordinary man, yet have the money to educate your children privately. That probably puts you in the top 10 percent of earners.

Take the BBC. Anne Robinson was ripping the CEO's of the big six energy companies a new one for the wages they earned. She probably earns more than they do.

It is far easier to blame big corporations (who employ millions of people by the way) than look at yourself. Increasing corporation tax would be he death of the UK services industry. We need to keep the rates competitive so companies set up base here.

seanmichaels wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:


 They are not a guy wearing overalls and high vis jackets.

Union wouldn't be seen dead in one of those posh London bars

Nah, Union is an IT geek I reckon. He almost certainly wears cords and a blazer. With a jazzy tie.

Union strikes me as a novelty tie guy. Definitely see him as a reindeer tie with a red light on at christmas sort of chap.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:


 They are not a guy wearing overalls and high vis jackets.

Union wouldn't be seen dead in one of those posh London bars

Nah, Union is an IT geek I reckon.  He almost certainly wears cords and a blazer.  With a jazzy tie.

Weekends Union is high vis.

I envisage you having one of these modern 'street' Barbours?

Rowley wrote:Union strikes me as a novelty tie guy. Definitely see him as a reindeer tie with a red light on at christmas sort of chap.

Definitely. I think he looks like a slightly fatter version of Anton Du Beke. I am convinced of it.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

The Fourth Lion wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:"Struggle to stay warm"

Don't be so dramatic. People need to take a long hard look at themselves instead of blaming others.

Last January, an 87 year old man who lived not three streets away from me was found dead in a chair at his house.  The cause of death was hypothermia.

It was reported that, on checking, the heating system in his house was fully operational.  It simply hadn't been put on.  Apparently, he had an outstanding bill from his dual fuel provider that hadn't been paid.  

I don't know whether he blamed anybody else for his situation, but I do know that he died from the cold.

So no, let's not get dramatic about people dying.  What does it matter to you?  I'm sure you're nice and warm.

What does that prove? The energy companies have stated they will not cut you off, you just need to ring them and let them know you're struggling. I can't comment for this old fella, but it was certainly an avoidable death had he or a family member taken the required steps to address it.

People don't have money, I get that, but they won't be going cold this winter because if it, unless they make that choice themselves.

Please do not think I am patronising you, but I might gather from the tenor of your messages that you are probably quite young or have very little understanding of the elderly. It is not my intention to patronise, but there is no other way of really putting this.

You are quite right in what you say, that the suppliers will not cut you off, but that doesn't mean that everybody is willing to run up bills willy nilly and ignore their responsibility to pay. Everything has to be paid for in the end.

Old people have their pride, and in our generation, we grew up to believe that you only had what you could pay for. To be in debt is a thing to be ashamed of and when you cannot pay your way, you simply go without. That may sound ridiculous to some, but it's how a lot of the elderly are.

Many are entitled to benefits, but won't claim them because they feel they are not morally entitled. They will take a state pension because they have worked all their lives and paid their National Insurance Stamp, so they are only taking what they are justly owed. But to claim this benefit, or that benefit, for many, is tantamount to 'taking the dole' and they just won't do it.

And so they suffer and you may say that is their own fault and shrug your shoulders. But would it not be better for the government to provide a better state pension..? Or perhaps pay money directly to the energy companies so that the bills are paid without making the elderly feel as if they are 'spongers' (David Cameron's term, not mine).

There is a very simple reason why the state will not do these things..... because they know that by putting the onus on individuals to claim, they can rely on significant numbers not applying in the first place, and those who do are then means tested, which is another filter that reduces the amount to be paid out.

You may call people who do not claim foolish, but they have their dignity and their self respect. For goodness sake, let them keep that.

seanmichaels wrote:

I envisage you having one of these modern 'street' Barbours?

Nah, understated winter coat. I don't even wear a suit or tie. I'm supposed to I think but I haven't done for about 3 years. Have a rather fetching green shirt and green Next jumper combination on today.

I look pretty cool.

There is a guy here who wears an Indiana Jones style hat to work. He obviously takes it off at his desk. I think that would be Union-esque.

Green shirt under a green jumper, where is the contrast tina.

Excellent post by the way fourth. About sums up my Granddad's view on such things to perfection.

The Fourth Lion wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

The Fourth Lion wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:"Struggle to stay warm"

Don't be so dramatic. People need to take a long hard look at themselves instead of blaming others.

Last January, an 87 year old man who lived not three streets away from me was found dead in a chair at his house.  The cause of death was hypothermia.

It was reported that, on checking, the heating system in his house was fully operational.  It simply hadn't been put on.  Apparently, he had an outstanding bill from his dual fuel provider that hadn't been paid.  

I don't know whether he blamed anybody else for his situation, but I do know that he died from the cold.

So no, let's not get dramatic about people dying.  What does it matter to you?  I'm sure you're nice and warm.

What does that prove? The energy companies have stated they will not cut you off, you just need to ring them and let them know you're struggling. I can't comment for this old fella, but it was certainly an avoidable death had he or a family member taken the required steps to address it.

People don't have money, I get that, but they won't be going cold this winter because if it, unless they make that choice themselves.

Please do not think I am patronising you, but I might gather from the tenor of your messages that you are probably quite young or have very little understanding of the elderly.   It is not my intention to patronise, but there is no other way of really putting this.

You are quite right in what you say, that the suppliers will not cut you off, but that doesn't mean that everybody is willing to run up bills willy nilly and ignore their responsibility to pay.  Everything has to be paid for in the end.

Old people have their pride, and in our generation, we grew up to believe that you only had what you could pay for.  To be in debt is a thing to be ashamed of and when you cannot pay your way, you simply go without.   That may sound ridiculous to some, but it's how a lot of the elderly are.  

Many are entitled to benefits, but won't claim them because they feel they are not morally entitled.  They will take a state pension because they have worked all their lives and paid their National Insurance Stamp, so they are only taking what they are justly owed.  But to claim this benefit, or that benefit, for many, is tantamount to 'taking the dole' and they just won't do it.

And so they suffer and you may say that is their own fault and shrug your shoulders.  But would it not be better for the government to provide a better state pension..?   Or perhaps pay money directly to the energy companies so that the bills are paid without making the elderly feel as if they are 'spongers' (David Cameron's term, not mine).  

There is a very simple reason why the state will not do these things..... because they know that by putting the onus on individuals to claim, they can rely on significant numbers not applying in the first place, and those who do are then means tested, which is another filter that reduces the amount to be paid out.

You may call people who do not claim foolish, but they have their dignity and their self respect.  For goodness sake, let them keep that.

What does that mean? No understanding of the elderly? Does that come with age does it?

It's a well an good saying the government should pay direct to the energy companies, but how would such a system work. Are you not taking away their dignity by paying on their behalf like they are incapable morons? Maybe I just don't understand the old because I'm young.

Rowley wrote:Green shirt under a green jumper, where is the contrast tina.

Very subtle differences, Jeff. The shirt is slightly darker than the jumper and combined with some lighter grey trousers and darker shoes, I have to say I look, and feel, fantastic.

The girls in the office can barely stop looking at me.

My grandparents are either dead, or no contact with them so I can't speak personally for my family.

However, my girlfriends granny who has more money than sense claims every penny she is entitled to. She doesn't need it, but she gets it anyway. BBC had a program on the winter fuel allowance a while back and a group of successful retired men had no problem claiming the money, they didn't need it either.

I'm sporting a blue pants/brown shoes combo today. Got to say is didn't think it would work but I look great.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Rowley wrote:Green shirt under a green jumper, where is the contrast tina.

Very subtle differences, Jeff.  The shirt is slightly darker than the jumper and combined with some lighter grey trousers and darker shoes, I have to say I look, and feel, fantastic.  

The girls in the office can barely stop looking at me.

Probably because they are wondering why the National Trust have sent someone to the office.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Food bank use has doubled since 2010.......Conclusive proof......

Trussell Trust on food bank use figures........

Conclusive proof of people being full of bullcrap.

It's a classic example of joint hypothesis problem, is the increase in food banks because people are so much worse off or because they are so much more precious and incapable/refusing to cope off their own back. There's a woman the writes a food column for the Guardian which gives menus and instructions on how to cook healthy nutritious meals for less than £1 per person. It can be done but, symptomatic of the wider problem, people rather complain they can't eat pizza and microwave meals rather than cooking and preparing meals on the cheap with fresh ingredients.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Maybe If corporations paid more tax and bankers who put us in this mess weren't getting 91% bonuses.........

They we go, more evidence.......

seanmichaels wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Rowley wrote:Green shirt under a green jumper, where is the contrast tina.

Very subtle differences, Jeff.  The shirt is slightly darker than the jumper and combined with some lighter grey trousers and darker shoes, I have to say I look, and feel, fantastic.  

The girls in the office can barely stop looking at me.

Probably because they are wondering why the National Trust have sent someone to the office.

 

That actually is pretty funny. That's twice in 2013 you've made me laugh.