The Left: Moribund.

[Anna]

As to bringing down this or any other government, there's an instrument called a General Election for that purpose, so there would be no need for riots to achieve that end - and with what would you imagine it being replaced in any case? Are you able to see an administration waiting in the wings that is not morally bankrupt or bankrupt of ideas? - if so, do please let us know of what and whom it consists!

Exactly. God forbid that full scale riots would mean another Labour government (it was them who got us into the financial mess, the present government really have no idea, neither do Labour, neither does anyone else, to be honest) So what do you suggest Flossie, assuming the Government can be brought down? Some sort of collective people power?

[Pilchardman]

As to bringing down this or any other government, there's an instrument called a General Election for that purpose

Except it never does, since we have only a choice between one brand of neoliberal or another. If voting changed anything, they'd ban it.

[amateur51]

I'm sorry, but it IS a damp squib: minimal disruption to public services and Heathrow moving 'like a dream'.

These foolish people can look forward to having their pensions slashed AND having less money for Christmas.

The days when strikes stopped anything are long gone: face it. In fact, you could probably count the number of 'successful' strikes in Britain's history on the fingers of one hand.

I think that Willie Walsh would be surprised to hear you say that, Mandy

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13880312

[ahinton]

Except it never does, since we have only a choice between one brand of neoliberal or another. If voting changed anything, they'd ban it.

OK, if you say so (and I'm not about to disagree), but if that's the reason why a General Election will change nothing, it'll be the self-same reason why riots will also change nothing, because the electors and the rioters will, broadly speaking, be the same people.

[handsomefortune]

All to pay for Osborne's completely ineffectual 'plans'.

totally flosshilde.

fwiw, there's rarely/never been a london protest that has been declared a 'success' by any govt. nor one that hasn't been played down in terms of number of particpants. it's just a commonplace tactical response to any mass public support of x. hackneyed, inaccurate govt rhetoric about squibs changes absolutely nothing.

US theorists predict that public response at the implimentation of new laws, (such as the one linked), may well bring on civil disorder on a huge scale. what do people make as to the veracity of this article?

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-28/news/30449283_1_aclu-battlefield-civilians#ixzz1f1mUmR5h

regardless, perhaps all smaller 'insults' need temporarily forgetting? a mass protest, specifically aimed at calling an election might hit the spot more effectively, without authorities having to get violent and (arguably) lawless themselves? let's hope so....i just hope and pray the link is ONLY bogus sensationalism ...has no truth whatsoever. personally, i suspect it's for real, and effects everybody....not just american citizens. it's hard to judge, with no knowlege of the journo who wrote it, or the publication. i guess if it's for real, and if it's passed this week, then it'll be in the mainstream uk news ..... or maybe not?

so, very uncertain times and in so many ways.

(it was them who got us into the financial mess,

how could anyone believe this about nulabour? i am not a nulabour fan - however they did not get us in this mess. if you believe that, you'll believe any old codswallop, as it supports hatred of nulabour. it's utter rubbish. we are simply all involved in a global crisis, caused by longterm mismanagement of finance.

a global economic crisis, currently opportunistically manipulated, to the full, by corrupt cynical governments around the world.

perhaps the green party might be 'unsavvy', honest enough not to manipulate the situation to their own advantage ...quite as badly as tories are currently relishing?

at this rate mandryka will be posting to no one soon! she'll be the only one left ...presumably! though social chaos has a nasty habit of being uncontrollable - so there's no protection, not even for the most devout tories, or fans of free market economies...... chaos doesn't select its victims on this basis, is random. she'll have to play with an injured mouse, sing it frightening songs, instead of particpating in web discussion. so, i guess that's a prospect some might well look forward to!!!

[amateur51]

But I don't believe that you were right to warn us all of this, since the subject matter is serious and would be so whether or not any alleged or actual trolling were to intervene from time to time into the thread's development.

Of course.

Why else would you post so often?

And at such length.

All just my opinion, of course.

[ahinton]

Of course.

Why else would you post so often?

And at such length.

All just my opinion, of course.

I post what I do in order to try to put forward some helpful comment on a subject that deserves serious consideration rather than trolling; I don't think that any of what I've posted could conceivably fall into the category of the kind of trolling that you have ascribed to another poster.

All just my opinion, of course.

[Mandryka]

I think that Willie Walsh would be surprised to hear you say that, Mandy

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13880312

Hardly a strike: more like a 'little local difficulty'.

[amateur51]

I post what I do in order to try to put forward some helpful comment on a subject that deserves serious consideration rather than trolling; I don't think that any of what I've posted could conceivably fall into the category of the kind of trolling that you have ascribed to another poster.

All just my opinion, of course.

I agree.

That was not the point that I was making.

But I'll leave it there

[amateur51]

Hardly a strike: more like a 'little local difficulty'.

Twenty-two days of strikes in 2010 at a cost to BA of £150m 'a little local difficulty' - yeah right

[handsomefortune]

i'm afraid tis 'a little local difficulty' if my # 170 is an actuality amateur51 ....

[ahinton]

Hardly a strike: more like a 'little local difficulty'.

For BA cabin crew, perhaps - but then what proportion of those on strike yesterday did they represent?

As to the cost of last year's cabin crew strikes, you might call it a "little local difficulty" but I assure you that it amounted to more than I make in a year...

The only "local difficulty" that I can see clearly from here is the one that you appear to have in seeing equally clearly that yesterday's strike affected a substantial proportion of the British population and last year's BA cabin crew series thereof cost a lot of money. That's your prerogative, of course, but I think that we're all aware of your perception blockages here, so there's no particular need for you to re-air them.

[Simon B]

Self-employed are secretly the biggest fans of state handouts

I have a question for the self-employed. Why was that your choice? For those who are self-employed and who invested in pensions, I have sympathy. For those who didn’t, I have the following questions. What world were you living in when you felt that pension provision wasn't something to be arranged by you but rather something to whinge about not having? Isn't it, well, not very business like? What faith should I have in your product or service? I genuinely don’t understand it. You might appear to have decided to rely purely on the state pension. Isn’t this an extraordinary reliance on state welfare given your business ethics?

I studiously avoid commenting on most Platform 3 threads, preferring to adhere to the wise old pub axiom of "No betting or politics". However, there comes a point...

This ("Self-employed are secretly the biggest fans of state handouts") is, well, not possible to respond to in temperate language.

Re: "I have a question for the self-employed. Why was that your choice?"

Big assumption there. Often no free choice is involved. I and all my colleagues were made compulsorily redundant. No protesting, industrial action, striking or whatever ensued, it would have been utterly futile, self-defeating and is virtually unheard of in the sector. If commercial reality dictates you're not needed any more, you're gone. That's it.

The subsequent position in the relevant sector is that there are now few jobs to go to. It's not just that there are few vacancies, increasingly the jobs no longer exist. Or rather they do, but in China etc. Precisely in order to avoid being "fans of state handouts", i.e. sitting around on your backside collecting JSA, many in this position accept one currently available alternative. Namely, taking short-term contracts of a few months duration on a self-employed basis, wherever in the country there might be some work going on whatever terms are offered.

This of course means no holiday pay, no statutory holidays, no sick pay, little or no compensation in the event of termination, no guarantee of any future work (sometimes from as little as in 1 hour's notice even within a 3 month contract), no protection to speak of from employment law and a whole other long list of nothings.

And of course, no pension. In some cases rates of pay are such that people in this position aren't left with any disposable income to put into a private pension. Particularly so when they have no idea whether their income is going to drop to £0 an hour in 1 hour's time upon being given notice. Despite this, the legal arrangement under which they may need to operate can require them to pay National Insurance at a marginal rate of around 25% since they may end up paying both employers and employees NICs. If anyone should expect some sort of state pension in return, it's them...

Meanwhile, those who are able to put some income aside in money-purchase pensions (the only other mainstream option bar ordinary saving from taxed income) are all too aware of the cost and fallibility of these. Something on the order of 20% of gross income needs to be put into these, continuously, to result in a fairly derisory pension at the end. That's on the kind of optimistic assumptions on which they're sold, ignoring the financial chaos all around us which presents all too high a likelihood of much worse future performance at best and total destruction at worst.

This is all old-hat to many who will, years ago, have crossed a similar pensions reality-gap courtesy of their employers. Experiences tended to go a bit like this:

Employer announces that they're closing the defined-benefit scheme (even getting on for two decades ago, there was no such thing as a final salary scheme available to most younger employees). Employee contributions to rise from 1% to 6-7% for much less likely benefit, with a large risk element being introduced, all of which is assumed by employees.

We are given two choices: 1) Accept the change 2) Tough luck, go to 1). A debate ensues in which employer stance is, barely paraphrasing, "if you don't like it you're very welcome to **** off and work for someone else who will offer you something better". Basically, this alternative employer doesn't exist, everyone knows it, the new pensions reality spreads across the sector and is accepted as a fait accompli. That's reality for you out there in an open market. Over time, fund performance is consistently poor, contributions continue to rise for the same or less likely result. Then idiot genius Brown comes along and in the true cynical style of politicians of all hues pulls a taxation stroke he's hoping the average schmuck(/voter) is too thick to notice as it's to do with something obscure like ACT relief on dividends, not income tax which is apparently all we're fit to understand. This really messes the whole business up in grand style.

Over time it's become necessary to put more and more in to (give or take the near total uncertainty as to what the outcome will be anyway) to get less out. Latterly, employee contributions of at least 12% were needed, as an overall contribution of 20% is reckoned to be required and even generous employers rarely match employee contributions at greater than 8%.

In this light, what the government is proposing for public sector pensions does indeed seem comparitively generous.

[Serial_Apologist]

i'm afraid tis 'a little local difficulty' if my # 170 is an actuality amateur51 ....

I'm pretty sure Mandryka is a man, from the general tone of writing. I could be mistaken... I sometimes am, these days...

Your comment, HSF, about the Greens reminds us there is a reformist alternative to the Virtually Indistinguishable Three; but where are they in all of this? Never mentioned in reportage of the St Pauls peace encampment; never called on to comment on "the Greenest government", or asked, "OK, what would be your solution?".

While one shouldn't I suppose be surprised at the Greens' sidelining, it would be *nice* for an "impartial* bbc commentator to find out their line on, eg, steering pressure on bank lending towards underfunded alternative energy r & d, with tax breaks for same, given that "we" seem to be quite good at being ahead in this field.

[teamsaint]

just to add to add to the response in post #177

presumably whoever posted this had not heard about sky high house prices, business rates, University tuition fees, ludicrous rent reviews,competition, VAT regulations, checks and accountants bills, huge rises in fuel prices etc etc to bottom of page.

We should all be grateful to the self employed for being one less person chasing the decent jobs, and make sure that for their two kinds of NIC's they get a half decent pension in their old age.
That is all.