I've watched the below video from the Channel 4 News Website with
Prof. David Blanchflower:
His interview is the bottom of the mentioned Web-Page.
I haven't got my own business & not the sharp on 'the mechanics of Economics';
so if you are either or both could you please watch the mentioned Video & explain what
the Prof. is saying?
I've been very impressed with him when he was on Simon Mayo's BBC Radio 5Live Show, last year.
Yet, in this Channel 4 News Interview; I can't understand the majority what he's saying.
As we are a Digital Community, could my fellow residents in Swinging Heaven please help me understand.
Many thanks.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Can you please help me understand this very complex, issue?
Basically:
So much of the current economy is dependent upon work done for the state
That would include things like road construction and alterations, the larger projects of which are managed by a central government agency. Into this would factor the contractors to do the qwork and the smaller cpmoanies providing the materials etc.
So cutting projects would lead to unemployment, which would cost both us, and hence the economy, a lot of dosh.
You could cut benefits given to those unemployed, but that makes up a small amount of the total benefits cost (most of which is the state pension).
Capital gains up to 40% is going to hurt some, but not me !
Vat up to 20%+ by 2013 is going to hurt all.....except those with nothing to spend.
So much of the current economy is dependent upon work done for the state
That would include things like road construction and alterations, the larger projects of which are managed by a central government agency. Into this would factor the contractors to do the qwork and the smaller cpmoanies providing the materials etc.
So cutting projects would lead to unemployment, which would cost both us, and hence the economy, a lot of dosh.
You could cut benefits given to those unemployed, but that makes up a small amount of the total benefits cost (most of which is the state pension).
Capital gains up to 40% is going to hurt some, but not me !
Vat up to 20%+ by 2013 is going to hurt all.....except those with nothing to spend.
A good thread, thanks.
Accepted most of what has been said. What we also need to stimulate growth is easier interface for people on benefits to get into low paid work and then reverse the trend of everything going overseas. Callcentres need to come back from countries who export more to us than we do to them and we really ought to try and re-establish a mainstream manufacturing base again.
Plim :sad:
Accepted most of what has been said. What we also need to stimulate growth is easier interface for people on benefits to get into low paid work and then reverse the trend of everything going overseas. Callcentres need to come back from countries who export more to us than we do to them and we really ought to try and re-establish a mainstream manufacturing base again.
Plim :sad:
Quote by Kaznkev
2 more points, if you put up vat it will penalise the poorest most,but not for an awful lot of income.
Secondly i wish keynesian ideas hadnt been totally ditched,
Pharoh,imagine if instead the unemployed all got paid for other projects that needed doing,they would spend the money they recieved and thus boost the economy creating jobs and thus cutting the number the government needs to employ.
Mount Rushmore was created following this reasoning.
But what about the employees that get laid-off to "employ" the unemployed, at lower wages ?
To some extent that is happening now, and has been for some years. Some unemployed get "work experience" employment....where they are paid the benefit to do the 40 hour week....the carrot being a full-time job at the end....but at the end they get dumped...and have put-up with having the pee extracted from them by the ones who get a lot more for their labour.
Sex God
Quote by Plimboy
A good thread, thanks.
Accepted most of what has been said. What we also need to stimulate growth is easier interface for people on benefits to get into low paid work and then reverse the trend of everything going overseas. Callcentres need to come back from countries who export more to us than we do to them and we really ought to try and re-establish a mainstream manufacturing base again.
Plim :sad:
Good point about getting people back into work, even if that work has to initially be subsisdised by 'In work benefits' as people in work stimulate the economy. It costs to go to work - travel, clothes, childcare, which in turn put other people into work, and which in turn ... You get my point. The only concern with a lot of these lower paid jobs is the uncertainty and the sustainability. Figures show that low paid jobs, heavily subsidised by in work transfers, such as tax credits often are not long lasting and the person is more likely to return to benefits in a shorter period of time than someone who takes an higher paid job who does not claim in work benefits.
Another consideration about getting the country back working is that, on the whole, the people who have been hit hardest by this recession is different from what this country has seen in the past. No longer has it been the manual worker who has been hit the hardest, but more and more white collar workers have been hit and these are the groups of people where 'created' or government susidised jobs are of no help. The younger generation has also been hit badly and steps need to be taken to get them working, or we could end up recreating the culture of benefit generations we had in the late 80's and 90's. However, the new coalition government has decided to scrap all existing Welfare policies and recreate something completely new. So what will happen to all the companies who presently have contracts to deliver existing welfare programmes? Surely it will cost more to 'opt out' of these contracts rather than just to phase things in to what ever their new polices are?
More "white collar" workers have been hit because there are less "dirty collar" workers due to manufacturing getting it in the neck.....
No welfare policies is what both tory and liems want.....not so much workfare as workhouse-fare.
The reality of low paid jobs is that there is very little benefit available for those who have no children....or are single....and being unemployed and in a partnership means a basic jobseekers allowance....nobody gets rich on that.
Getting the country working again is a good slogan.
Not so good is that lots of the goods bought are not made here. Which means that not only do the wages not come here, but neither does the money (apart from the massive mark-up made by resellers)
Not only that, but the goods will never be made here unless wages go down....work that one out.
And if you want further depression about depression.........read on:
And not only tory ministers, or liem ministers...
No welfare policies is what both tory and liems want.....not so much workfare as workhouse-fare.
The reality of low paid jobs is that there is very little benefit available for those who have no children....or are single....and being unemployed and in a partnership means a basic jobseekers allowance....nobody gets rich on that.
Getting the country working again is a good slogan.
Not so good is that lots of the goods bought are not made here. Which means that not only do the wages not come here, but neither does the money (apart from the massive mark-up made by resellers)
Not only that, but the goods will never be made here unless wages go down....work that one out.
And if you want further depression about depression.........read on:
I do not envy David Cameron and George Osborne as they navigate these lethal waters. As Bruno Waterfield reports from Brussels, they will face their first clash next week when the new Chancellor is presented with the Barroso proposals, that is to say proposals for a reversal of the English Civil War and the re-establishment of Stuart monarchical absolutism.
The truth is that no British government can ever put Europe on the back-burner and hope it goes away. It hits you in the face, again, and again, and again. This is why so many British ministers end up feeling a visceral hatred for the project
And not only tory ministers, or liem ministers...
Sex God
Good point JTS, as you say, if you are single or a childless couple then there is very little for help available, but the Labour Governments policy has been based very much around getting children out of poverty, by moving more parents into work (not even going to comment on the rights and wrongs of that) and all in work benefits have been targeted on this group. However, as you say, Jobseekers or any other benefits certainly do not help anyone get rich, and their initial aim of preventing poverty is not even being achieved. But surely anything which helps people earn a wage, helps the country in the long run? Surely the additional costs of going to work, not only distributes the income/outgoings but also creates more jobs?
Irrespective of the kidn of work, we do need to get people back into work, or into their first jobs for a lot of the younger generation, but we need 'proper' jobs and if possilbe, physically make something rather than just be a country of service jobs. But then I cant help wondering if it has gone too far and if we are now too far away from a manufactuing country to ever get things back up and running.
Irrespective of the kidn of work, we do need to get people back into work, or into their first jobs for a lot of the younger generation, but we need 'proper' jobs and if possilbe, physically make something rather than just be a country of service jobs. But then I cant help wondering if it has gone too far and if we are now too far away from a manufactuing country to ever get things back up and running.
Sex God
When it comes to manufacturing I think for the most part we cannot compete in a global market.
I watched a friends documentary about shipping containers and the impact they had in the global market. It's apparently now cheaper to ship something from the far east than it is to move the same container 100 miles in this country.
The only way to make us even remotely competitive is by heavy government subsidisation, which means squeezing the peasants (ie us) until we're dry which isn't exactly a vote winner.
It's a brave new world and I'm not sure quite how certain parts of British society fit into that world any more.
I watched a friends documentary about shipping containers and the impact they had in the global market. It's apparently now cheaper to ship something from the far east than it is to move the same container 100 miles in this country.
The only way to make us even remotely competitive is by heavy government subsidisation, which means squeezing the peasants (ie us) until we're dry which isn't exactly a vote winner.
It's a brave new world and I'm not sure quite how certain parts of British society fit into that world any more.
What is the point of providing some people with work if those people are used to undercut the employment of others ?
For instance: Why put people on cleaning streets at 64 quid a week if all it means is the council end the contracts of cleaning companies and use the cheaper option ?
The example I gave of employers using the 64-quid worker just because it is cheap was real....
Providing make-work jobs is not an option it's a waste of money and time, and it's just an excuse used to show that something is being done...
Training is also another "something being done" excuse....look at the jobs merry-go-round....training people to enter data, then using them to enter data on unemployment....etc, etc, etc.
The favoured theme used to be that manufacturing didn't matter...services would provide the work...
But then the services also became "overseas-sourced"........
This country is too expensive..............to much money goes to government............ but without that money there would be much less work....does nobody else sees the major problems of that ?
You cannot reduce the wages, because that would lead to other problems......but on the current high wage/s we are unable to attract much investment...
I believe it is called an economic negative feedback loop.
Everything being done suppresses still further what should be done.
For instance: Why put people on cleaning streets at 64 quid a week if all it means is the council end the contracts of cleaning companies and use the cheaper option ?
The example I gave of employers using the 64-quid worker just because it is cheap was real....
Providing make-work jobs is not an option it's a waste of money and time, and it's just an excuse used to show that something is being done...
Training is also another "something being done" excuse....look at the jobs merry-go-round....training people to enter data, then using them to enter data on unemployment....etc, etc, etc.
The favoured theme used to be that manufacturing didn't matter...services would provide the work...
But then the services also became "overseas-sourced"........
This country is too expensive..............to much money goes to government............ but without that money there would be much less work....does nobody else sees the major problems of that ?
You cannot reduce the wages, because that would lead to other problems......but on the current high wage/s we are unable to attract much investment...
I believe it is called an economic negative feedback loop.
Everything being done suppresses still further what should be done.
Quote by JTS
Basically:
So much of the current economy is dependent upon work done for the state
That would include things like road construction and alterations, the larger projects of which are managed by a central government agency. Into this would factor the contractors to do the qwork and the smaller cpmoanies providing the materials etc.
So cutting projects would lead to unemployment, which would cost both us, and hence the economy, a lot of dosh.
You could cut benefits given to those unemployed, but that makes up a small amount of the total benefits cost (most of which is the state pension).
Capital gains up to 40% is going to hurt some, but not me !
Vat up to 20%+ by 2013 is going to hurt all.....except those with nothing to spend.
Many thanks for the above & also another person whom let me know about what Keynesian Economics is; found that very interesting.
Since our nation has got a new Prime Minister; the vibe in my City... Liverpool, has become very tense.
During his first speech outside 10 Downing Street, Prime Minister Cameron in my view took a clever dig at people on Benefits. It went like...
'Its not what your entitled to but what you can do to earn them'.
The next day all types of different people mentioned this whom I encountered with the theme being...
How can a Man that was born with a 'Sliver Spoon' has the right to judge anybody?.
Another thing, I 've seen on Facebook is the rise in the word 'Riot(s)', since the mentioned PM Cameron Speech.
I feel that his "targeting areas of Traditional Benefits Dependency" with these places always being non-Conservative locations will create more pressure in Society especially within my City.
For the record, I do blame Labour & in a perfect world the former PM in my opinion should go in-front of a Commons Select Committee & explain why the nation is in this worrying state. It might be a Global Economic Crisis but the job / role of any PM is to defend the UK for future or present danger.
All I hope; for all our sakes Prof. David Blanchflower prediction doesn't come true but it seems that the new coalition places a large amount of our nations problems on people whom claim Benefit.
I view the issue with Tax Evasion done by people whom are in Employment; yet taking action against them is harder than an person whom is Unemployed.
If our new Prime Minister doesn't do his best to connect with the entire nation & explain his Economic Strategy but more importantly be willing to modify this via speaking to all types of people from Prof. Blanchflower to ordinary people of Liverpool some of whom are on Benefits.
Then I predict this nation really having a North - South Divide, of which it may never recover. This could easily become violent.
Can a person born into privilege really connect with me?
With 40 years of work behind me, and 40 years of tax and national insurance, I really need a person who has never worked telling me that I have to earn any benefit I may claim.
I'll return to a previous idea, that of the unemployed working for their benefits.
They would be working, if the jobs were there. How you can get 2.5 million (+) doing work that isn't there will be really interesting.....and if the work is there, then so should the pay...not 60 quid for 40 hours....and if the work is there, and the pay is there, then why wasn't it there before ?
There have already been problems with community payback....such as not being able to use it to tend schools/old-persons homes etc...because clever clogs who thought it out never considered that many would not pass the crb check....so when 2.5 million descend on schools to cut the playing fields they'll have to be checked as well....(those that have playing fields)
I'll repeat this: The major benefit is old-age-pension, the state one. That makes-up the lions share of the 168 billion....and cuts would have to start there, no matter what the election promises were. Either cuts or increase the age. Or both. And not by 2034, but now.
And then there is the public service pension, which costs everyone about 500 quid a year....
Nope.
Paddling up shit creek without a boat about sums the place up.
I'll return to a previous idea, that of the unemployed working for their benefits.
They would be working, if the jobs were there. How you can get 2.5 million (+) doing work that isn't there will be really interesting.....and if the work is there, then so should the pay...not 60 quid for 40 hours....and if the work is there, and the pay is there, then why wasn't it there before ?
There have already been problems with community payback....such as not being able to use it to tend schools/old-persons homes etc...because clever clogs who thought it out never considered that many would not pass the crb check....so when 2.5 million descend on schools to cut the playing fields they'll have to be checked as well....(those that have playing fields)
I'll repeat this: The major benefit is old-age-pension, the state one. That makes-up the lions share of the 168 billion....and cuts would have to start there, no matter what the election promises were. Either cuts or increase the age. Or both. And not by 2034, but now.
And then there is the public service pension, which costs everyone about 500 quid a year....
Nope.
Paddling up shit creek without a boat about sums the place up.
Quote by JTS
With 40 years of work behind me, and 40 years of tax and national insurance, I really need a person who has never worked telling me that I have to earn any benefit I may claim.
I'll return to a previous idea, that of the unemployed working for their benefits.
They would be working, if the jobs were there. How you can get 2.5 million (+) doing work that isn't there will be really interesting.....and if the work is there, then so should the pay...not 60 quid for 40 hours....and if the work is there, and the pay is there, then why wasn't it there before ?
There have already been problems with community payback....such as not being able to use it to tend schools/old-persons homes etc...because clever clogs who thought it out never considered that many would not pass the crb check....so when 2.5 million descend on schools to cut the playing fields they'll have to be checked as well....(those that have playing fields)
I'll repeat this: The major benefit is old-age-pension, the state one. That makes-up the lions share of the 168 billion....and cuts would have to start there, no matter what the election promises were. Either cuts or increase the age. Or both. And not by 2034, but now.
And then there is the public service pension, which costs everyone about 500 quid a year....
Nope.
Paddling up shit creek without a boat about sums the place up.
Would you like to define public service pension, and explain what you mean, and the derivation of your claim as to its cost?
Orgasminator
I've just had to give a lecture to some 6th form students on this very subject! 
The UK is in debt to the tune of £167bn, made up of short, medium and long-term debt (in the form of government guilts and bonds).
The revenue to repay this debt comes mainly from taxes and duties from the UK population and companies trading in the UK.
The 'core' of the economic problem at the moment is that the day-to-day running cost of the country plus the repayment of the borrowed money and interest exceeds the income from taxation and duties. In laymans terms we are spending more than we earn and there needs to be a rebalancing/refinancing of the budget to keep the UK's credit rating.
As most of us have had to do in the past year or so, we've cut our own personal expenditure to match what we are physically earning (including any benefits recieved from the state).
Relating this to the current political scene, the Conservatives/Lib-Dems want to repay this 'debt' at an earlier point in time than Labour do.
To do this, the government has a number of options (1) 100% of the short-term debt is paid for by increasing taxes and duties. (2) they reduce government expenditure to cover the debt. (3) a combination of 1&2.
To avoid all the 'full pain' falling on either the public buy raising taxes and duties, or on the government's budget by cutting state funding and benefits it will be done by a combination of the two (which is the option proposed by Labout/Conservatives and the Lib-Dems) - the question is what % of split will fall on which category.
The Conservatives want to repay £6bn as quickly as possible, this will 'shift' the % added to the taxes/duties to a lower % than a Labour Govenment and increase the % taken from not starting/deferring/reducing government direct expenditure. The labour part wanted the reverse to slightly reduce the government expenditure and increase the taxation and duties.
What the professor is worried about is that if too many cuts are made on the government expenditure is that this will lead to greater lay-off's in the public sector and some 'large' infractuture projects that generate 'wealth' in the 'private' sector will not happen and business confidence will be affected - sending us back into a 'recession' (negative growth) and that the debt level (government short-term borrowing) will increase at a faster rate than we can ever repay (a la Greece) - in his words the 'Death spiral'. This would lead to a downgrading of the UK's credit-score and ultimately cost the government a higher rate of interest to borrow money - which then leads back to either more increased taxes/duties or more cuts in government expenditure to 'balance the books'.
The UK is in debt to the tune of £167bn, made up of short, medium and long-term debt (in the form of government guilts and bonds).
The revenue to repay this debt comes mainly from taxes and duties from the UK population and companies trading in the UK.
The 'core' of the economic problem at the moment is that the day-to-day running cost of the country plus the repayment of the borrowed money and interest exceeds the income from taxation and duties. In laymans terms we are spending more than we earn and there needs to be a rebalancing/refinancing of the budget to keep the UK's credit rating.
As most of us have had to do in the past year or so, we've cut our own personal expenditure to match what we are physically earning (including any benefits recieved from the state).
Relating this to the current political scene, the Conservatives/Lib-Dems want to repay this 'debt' at an earlier point in time than Labour do.
To do this, the government has a number of options (1) 100% of the short-term debt is paid for by increasing taxes and duties. (2) they reduce government expenditure to cover the debt. (3) a combination of 1&2.
To avoid all the 'full pain' falling on either the public buy raising taxes and duties, or on the government's budget by cutting state funding and benefits it will be done by a combination of the two (which is the option proposed by Labout/Conservatives and the Lib-Dems) - the question is what % of split will fall on which category.
The Conservatives want to repay £6bn as quickly as possible, this will 'shift' the % added to the taxes/duties to a lower % than a Labour Govenment and increase the % taken from not starting/deferring/reducing government direct expenditure. The labour part wanted the reverse to slightly reduce the government expenditure and increase the taxation and duties.
What the professor is worried about is that if too many cuts are made on the government expenditure is that this will lead to greater lay-off's in the public sector and some 'large' infractuture projects that generate 'wealth' in the 'private' sector will not happen and business confidence will be affected - sending us back into a 'recession' (negative growth) and that the debt level (government short-term borrowing) will increase at a faster rate than we can ever repay (a la Greece) - in his words the 'Death spiral'. This would lead to a downgrading of the UK's credit-score and ultimately cost the government a higher rate of interest to borrow money - which then leads back to either more increased taxes/duties or more cuts in government expenditure to 'balance the books'.
the death spiral of the british pound and economy, just like those of euroland, portugal, italy, ireland, greece and spain (the pigs) will not be decided by fiscal policies of cuts, when or by how much but by far more powerful economic influences like central bank's, hedge funds and derivitives.
quantatatve easing (digital or paper printing) supposedly directed by the government over the bank of england in order for that bank to buy worthless toxic assets from other bankrupt banks was supposed to save us (the economy).
unfortunately for us, darling and brown omitted to tell us, that by increasing the money supply (q.e.), the pound would fall in value against other currencies causing inflation which is far higher than statistical data admits. also, that the new money (q.e.) would not be going into circulation in the economy, just temporarily negate some of the worthless crap in british banks, therefore maintaining their solvency.
our elected representatives at that time also did'nt tell us, that while the BANK OF ENGLAND would print 200 billion pounds out of thin air, it was a loan to the treasury (tax payer) AT FUCKING INTEREST that the present and future tax payers (children and grand children) would have to pay back at fucking interest and forfiet services.
it would make absolutely no difference whatsoever the outcome of the general election, majority government, minority goverment or coalition, condems, liblab or party majority. THE SAME FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC POLICY WILL BE CARRIED OUT and the purpose of the electoral chirade is to maintain the myth that the population has a say in what goes on (democracy).
quantatatve easing (digital or paper printing) supposedly directed by the government over the bank of england in order for that bank to buy worthless toxic assets from other bankrupt banks was supposed to save us (the economy).
unfortunately for us, darling and brown omitted to tell us, that by increasing the money supply (q.e.), the pound would fall in value against other currencies causing inflation which is far higher than statistical data admits. also, that the new money (q.e.) would not be going into circulation in the economy, just temporarily negate some of the worthless crap in british banks, therefore maintaining their solvency.
our elected representatives at that time also did'nt tell us, that while the BANK OF ENGLAND would print 200 billion pounds out of thin air, it was a loan to the treasury (tax payer) AT FUCKING INTEREST that the present and future tax payers (children and grand children) would have to pay back at fucking interest and forfiet services.
it would make absolutely no difference whatsoever the outcome of the general election, majority government, minority goverment or coalition, condems, liblab or party majority. THE SAME FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC POLICY WILL BE CARRIED OUT and the purpose of the electoral chirade is to maintain the myth that the population has a say in what goes on (democracy).
The "economy" has been a big fiddle for the last 30 years...at least.
There are far more serious problems looming, both for Europe and GB.
Offshoring industry is shortly to be revealed as spectacularly wrong (as many said decades ago) when the prices go up for foreign-made goods....due to both raw material price rises and increased demand from the workers making the products.
While the obvious result is that goods manufacturing can "come home" that will not help the raw material costs and availability. Many of the rare earths used in semiconductor manufacture are sourced from the same third-world countries that make the end product.
And then there is the looming energy crisis:
From:
Fairly soon we will lose 14 of the nuclear and coal-fired power stations which supply 40 per cent of the electricity that currently keeps all our economy running. Never mind, if things continue the way they are going there will be no industry to power anyway.
There are far more serious problems looming, both for Europe and GB.
Offshoring industry is shortly to be revealed as spectacularly wrong (as many said decades ago) when the prices go up for foreign-made goods....due to both raw material price rises and increased demand from the workers making the products.
While the obvious result is that goods manufacturing can "come home" that will not help the raw material costs and availability. Many of the rare earths used in semiconductor manufacture are sourced from the same third-world countries that make the end product.
And then there is the looming energy crisis:
Britain is still the only country in the world already committed by law to cutting its CO2 emissions by more than 80 per cent over the next 40 years - although we emit less than 2 per cent of the world's total. In the name of fighting an imaginary problem, we are soon going to have an imaginary economy – and Mr Huhne's name will join all the others on its tombstone
From:
Fairly soon we will lose 14 of the nuclear and coal-fired power stations which supply 40 per cent of the electricity that currently keeps all our economy running. Never mind, if things continue the way they are going there will be no industry to power anyway.
Sex God
Quote by awayman
Claim as to its cost.....
SO that's one 404 error, and one misquote from a report about how unfunded public sector pensions (and not all public secotr pensions are unfunded) to try and substantiate your claims.
Good luck...
both links worked ok and what i read seemed to substantiate jts claims
why the aggression
Not all are unfunded ?
My partner works at an ex-nhs department (now private)..
Her previous nhs pension was "frozen" at take-over and she started a private pension with the company (had to)...her personal contributions went up from 4.5% (nhs) to % minimum (private) for a lower pot at the end of time...
The fact is that the vast majority of psp are unfunded, even when the person makes a personal contribution the money gained goes towards paying those already retired.
When the public services were half the size they are now the cost was fairly small.
Of course, as I stated above (sort-of) a lot of public service is now being moved to private companies...but the pension they had when they were employed by the state directly still has to be paid eventually.
No matter what your personal slant on the subject is, that pension is now a financial mountain that has to be paid...by an ailing economy that is based on paper. By us really.
My partner works at an ex-nhs department (now private)..
Her previous nhs pension was "frozen" at take-over and she started a private pension with the company (had to)...her personal contributions went up from 4.5% (nhs) to % minimum (private) for a lower pot at the end of time...
The fact is that the vast majority of psp are unfunded, even when the person makes a personal contribution the money gained goes towards paying those already retired.
When the public services were half the size they are now the cost was fairly small.
Of course, as I stated above (sort-of) a lot of public service is now being moved to private companies...but the pension they had when they were employed by the state directly still has to be paid eventually.
No matter what your personal slant on the subject is, that pension is now a financial mountain that has to be paid...by an ailing economy that is based on paper. By us really.
Quote by Lizaleanrob
Claim as to its cost.....
SO that's one 404 error, and one misquote from a report about how unfunded public sector pensions (and not all public secotr pensions are unfunded) to try and substantiate your claims.
Good luck...
both links worked ok and what i read seemed to substantiate jts claims
why the aggression
No aggression. I just asked where you were getting your facts from, and it turns out to be an article in the paper that supports the blackshirts.
For public sector workers pensions are deferred wages - for many, in the LGPS for instance, their pension contributions are calculated to build their pension pot to the level required t deliver their pension - on other words their pension is funded, not unfunded.
Sex God
sorry im still a bit green here
are we now saying that the link does in fact work butis not valid as it was written by the wrong kind of news paper :doh:
do you have any opposite arguments by the correct type of news papers ?? to back your statements
as an unsure observer (scuse the paper pun )id like to see both sides and make my own opinion now
are we now saying that the link does in fact work butis not valid as it was written by the wrong kind of news paper :doh:
do you have any opposite arguments by the correct type of news papers ?? to back your statements
as an unsure observer (scuse the paper pun )id like to see both sides and make my own opinion now
Quote by Lizaleanrob
sorry im still a bit green here
are we now saying that the link does in fact work butis not valid as it was written by the wrong kind of news paper :doh:
do you have any opposite arguments by the correct type of news papers ?? to back your statements
as an unsure observer (scuse the paper pun )id like to see both sides and make my own opinion now
Yep that is exactly right.
Murdoch is hated it seems even to the point of some thinking anything is written in them is mere rubbish.
Still do not worry about it. I have been running that gauntlet on here from day one, and that is a few years I can tell you.
But if it is from the...Guardian or the Eye or the Socialist rags well................
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
sorry im still a bit green here
are we now saying that the link does in fact work butis not valid as it was written by the wrong kind of news paper :doh:
do you have any opposite arguments by the correct type of news papers ?? to back your statements
as an unsure observer (scuse the paper pun )id like to see both sides and make my own opinion now
Yep that is exactly right.
Murdoch is hated it seems even to the point of some thinking anything is written in them is mere rubbish.
Still do not worry about it. I have been running that gauntlet on here from day one, and that is a few years I can tell you.
But if it is from the...Guardian or the Eye or the Socialist rags well................
All rhetoric :giggle: