Blackburn Council cuts: 'Slash union reps to save cash'

Lancashire Telegraph: Tory leader Mike Lee Tory leader Mike Lee

BOROUGH Tory leader Mike Lee today called on Blackburn with Darwen’s Labour leadership to stop paying £94,000 a year for town hall union representatives and use the cash to save school crossing patrols.

He and Liberal Democrat leader David Foster said 50 per cent cuts in lollipop men and women, reductions in road safety education and maintenance of traffic signals, road signs and speed calming measures could put people, especially children, at risk of injury.

They were reacting to Labour’s proposed service cuts to be debated at the council forum on January 31.

These include axing 500 jobs, phasing out old people’s homes, scrapping school uniform grants, closing up to five children’s centres and reducing library, swimming pool and gym hours.

Coun Lee highlighted plans to slash the number of lollipop people.

He said: “They are talking about saving £75,000 over two years by halving the number of school crossing patrols yet there is an item in the budget for £90,000 a year to pay and provide offices for unions reps.

“That should go. Why should the council taxpayer fund them, instead of the unions?

“We should have a freeze on annual salary increments for council staff which would save £1million pounds and possibly 30 jobs, cushioning cuts elsewhere.

“We must examine whether the council can afford to lease the office block in Cathedral Court and whether it should support the Blackburn College sports development.

“The borough needs to look at maximising revenue from sports and swimming facilities, as at Darwen Leisure, rather than cut hours across the board and then look at closing underused facilities.

“They also need to speed up transferring community centres to local groups, particularly Bangor Street.”

Coun Foster said: “We are concerned at the size of the cuts and their impact on local people.

“Cutting back on road safety, roadsigns and reducing school crossing patrols will put people at risk and could cause injuries shifting the costs elsewhere.

“We should be looking at how we can save costs through working with other authorities and agencies and investing to increase our local economy.

“I will fight long and hard to keep borough services at Darwen Town Hall.”

Darwen Sunnyhurst Labour councillor Pete Hollings said: “These were very difficult decisions. Everybody in the Labour group was devastated at the level of cuts. It seems the government is penalising the North of England for voting Labour.”

Family fears struggle without clothes grant

MUM-of-three Catherine Jordan struggled to buy her three children’s school uniforms even with a council grant.

She believes many of the 5,325 Blackburn with Darwen families currently getting the cash, worth between £24 and £56 per pupil, will really struggle without the help.

Mrs Jordan, of Bolton Road Darwen, used the grants, which are to be axed, to buy school clothes for her Melissa, 15; Matthew, 13; and Victoria, five.

She said: “I used the grants to get their first uniforms. It was really difficult. I was struggling to afford them and pay my gas and electricity.

“They were really useful. I don’t know how some families will be able to afford uniforms, gas, electricity and food without them.”

Mrs Jordan, used Mum’s The Word, a Shadsworth-based group that collects, refurbishes and recycles uniforms across the borough, to replace the items her children regularly ruin during the school day.

It provides blazers for £12 instead of £26 to £100, shirts for 50 pence to £1 instead of £5 to £10 and shorts for 50p.

Rachel Rhodes of the organisation said: “Without the grants a lot of families are going to really struggle with affording uniforms.”

Sue Cotton, chief executive of Child Action North West said: “I am very concerned about these cuts. Closing children’s centres will have a real impact on families. They provide early intervention and support that can prevent all sort of problems later on.

“I deeply worried about proposals to reduce the number of children receiving intensive support by 50. Their needs will not just go away.

'Shutting homes could store up problems'

PHASING out Blackburn with Darwen’s four old people’s homes by the end of 2015 and reducing care for elderly residents in their own properties have raised concerns.

Transferring residents to new-build developments will save the council £1million a year.

The borough is reviewing the costs of home care for pensioners and the future of free telecare for the over-80s, cutting costs at day centres and reducing direct payment rates for personal assistants.

North Turton Tory councillor Colin Rigby, 71, said: “I am concerned that reducing care for older people at home is a false economy.

“Older people want to stay in their own homes and looking after them there is cheaper than residential care.

“We want to do all we can to keep older people in their own homes and there is money in the council’s reserves to pay for that.

“With a large and growing elderly problem the council could be storing up problems for the future.

“I understand people’s worries about moving to new-build modern homes but it the long run it will be better.”

Chief executive Harry Catherall is committed to ensuring this is done sympathetically.”

Liberal Democrat leader Coun David Foster said: “The transfer of elderly residents from borough old people’s homes is going to have to be carefully managed.”

Shadsworth with Whitebirk Labour councillor Jim Shorrock said: “Reducing support for older people at home will increase the pressure on residential accommodation and the NHS.”

Knock-on effects for health

PROPOSALS to reduce hours and increase charges at council gyms, sports facilities and swimming pools have caused concern about the future fitness of the borough’s residents.

Former Blackburn Rovers star Kevin Gallacher, right, said: “Reducing open hours and raising charges means less people use gyms, pools and sports facilities which has a knock on effect on their health and fitness in the long term.”

Sue Cotton, chief executive of Child Action North West said: “Making it more difficult and expensive to access fitness facilities will not just affect the health of children but whole family activities. Many parents take their children swimming.”

Comments (65)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:09pm Wed 23 Jan 13

ToffeeGuy says...

Same.Old.Tories.

Union haters. If the Tories had their way we'd all be on £1.50 an hour with zero employment rights.
Same.Old.Tories. Union haters. If the Tories had their way we'd all be on £1.50 an hour with zero employment rights. ToffeeGuy

3:17pm Wed 23 Jan 13

karltop says...

Why should my council tax pay for politically affiliated union representatives and their offices?
Why should my council tax pay for politically affiliated union representatives and their offices? karltop

3:23pm Wed 23 Jan 13

louderfasterlonger says...

karltop wrote:
Why should my council tax pay for politically affiliated union representatives and their offices?
Because Employment Law legislates that way to avoid bullying and intimidation by an employer who has agreed that a union can be formed and that they can go about their business without hindrence.
[quote][p][bold]karltop[/bold] wrote: Why should my council tax pay for politically affiliated union representatives and their offices?[/p][/quote]Because Employment Law legislates that way to avoid bullying and intimidation by an employer who has agreed that a union can be formed and that they can go about their business without hindrence. louderfasterlonger

3:41pm Wed 23 Jan 13

ossydingle says...

louderfasterlonger wrote:
karltop wrote: Why should my council tax pay for politically affiliated union representatives and their offices?
Because Employment Law legislates that way to avoid bullying and intimidation by an employer who has agreed that a union can be formed and that they can go about their business without hindrence.
Sorry but I agree with karltop, I am a union member and pay increased fees for unions membership, how about unions making 50% of the costs to cover the rental instead of waisting money on representavies expenses
[quote][p][bold]louderfasterlonger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]karltop[/bold] wrote: Why should my council tax pay for politically affiliated union representatives and their offices?[/p][/quote]Because Employment Law legislates that way to avoid bullying and intimidation by an employer who has agreed that a union can be formed and that they can go about their business without hindrence.[/p][/quote]Sorry but I agree with karltop, I am a union member and pay increased fees for unions membership, how about unions making 50% of the costs to cover the rental instead of waisting money on representavies expenses ossydingle

3:45pm Wed 23 Jan 13

midas says...

From ACAS:

Employees who are union representatives of an independent trade union recognised by their employer are to be permitted reasonable time off during working hours to carry out certain trade union duties.
.
An employer who permits union representatives time off for trade union duties must pay them for the time off taken. The employer must pay either the amount that the union representative would have earned had they worked during the time off taken or, where earnings vary with the work done, an amount calculated by reference to the average hourly earnings for the work they are employed to do.
.
Perhaps, if the Union reps were to publish the amount of "reasonable time off during working hours to carry out certain trade union duties" that they each undertook then this argument wouldn't arise.
From ACAS: Employees who are union representatives of an independent trade union recognised by their employer are to be permitted reasonable time off during working hours to carry out certain trade union duties. . An employer who permits union representatives time off for trade union duties must pay them for the time off taken. The employer must pay either the amount that the union representative would have earned had they worked during the time off taken or, where earnings vary with the work done, an amount calculated by reference to the average hourly earnings for the work they are employed to do. . Perhaps, if the Union reps were to publish the amount of "reasonable time off during working hours to carry out certain trade union duties" that they each undertook then this argument wouldn't arise. midas

3:53pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Jack Herer says...

Whilst I often decry the top level Tories for looking after the rich first and foremost, the same can't be said of the grass roots Conservatives.

As with Ged Mirfin's comments yesterday, Coun Lee's comments today are nothing but straight forward common sense, which importantly put the public first and foremost.

Why are Labour oddly quiet at the disgrace of the council paying for union duties when they are cutting front line services instead? How are Labour ever putting the public first there? It's clearly a gravy train, where you scratch their selfish back, they'll scratch yours.

Two extra responses for Labour councillor Pete Hollings. First when he says: “ It seems the government is penalising the North of England for voting Labour,” he needs to realise that the north actually penalises itself by voting Labour.

Under Labour the north becomes a huge exercise in public sector wastage. When financial reality inevitably bites, people naturally lose their unsustainable public sector jobs. There is no alternative; there is no money to keep up this debt ridden spending. Under Labour the north is constantly reliant on the south for wealth generation therefore. Under Labour the north is constantly begging. The north couldn't get more penalised than it does when it votes Labour. We don't want to be beggars thanks - the north can stand on it's own if it's given a chance.

Secondly, with this comment from Coun Hollings; " Everybody in the Labour group was devastated at the level of cuts," he missed off; "because it could mean the gravy train coming to a halt." He then forgot to add; "but the Labour group was delighted when they realised they could shaft the poor suckers on the front line instead, as well as the hard working tax payer of course."

Socialism in the 21st century - champagne and canopies all round please!
Whilst I often decry the top level Tories for looking after the rich first and foremost, the same can't be said of the grass roots Conservatives. As with Ged Mirfin's comments yesterday, Coun Lee's comments today are nothing but straight forward common sense, which importantly put the public first and foremost. Why are Labour oddly quiet at the disgrace of the council paying for union duties when they are cutting front line services instead? How are Labour ever putting the public first there? It's clearly a gravy train, where you scratch their selfish back, they'll scratch yours. Two extra responses for Labour councillor Pete Hollings. First when he says: “ It seems the government is penalising the North of England for voting Labour,” he needs to realise that the north actually penalises itself by voting Labour. Under Labour the north becomes a huge exercise in public sector wastage. When financial reality inevitably bites, people naturally lose their unsustainable public sector jobs. There is no alternative; there is no money to keep up this debt ridden spending. Under Labour the north is constantly reliant on the south for wealth generation therefore. Under Labour the north is constantly begging. The north couldn't get more penalised than it does when it votes Labour. We don't want to be beggars thanks - the north can stand on it's own if it's given a chance. Secondly, with this comment from Coun Hollings; " Everybody in the Labour group was devastated at the level of cuts," he missed off; "because it could mean the gravy train coming to a halt." He then forgot to add; "but the Labour group was delighted when they realised they could shaft the poor suckers on the front line instead, as well as the hard working tax payer of course." Socialism in the 21st century - champagne and canopies all round please! Jack Herer

3:56pm Wed 23 Jan 13

ToffeeGuy says...

Look.Look.Look.

The Tories use the Unions as a diversionary tactic.

Fact is, if Cllr Lees party had got it's economic policies right nationally councils wouldn't have to cut so drastically.

Cllr Lees party are leading us into a treble dip recession. They are failing at a national level, we are suffering at a local level.
Look.Look.Look. The Tories use the Unions as a diversionary tactic. Fact is, if Cllr Lees party had got it's economic policies right nationally councils wouldn't have to cut so drastically. Cllr Lees party are leading us into a treble dip recession. They are failing at a national level, we are suffering at a local level. ToffeeGuy

4:03pm Wed 23 Jan 13

midas says...

ToffeeGuy wrote:
Look.Look.Look. The Tories use the Unions as a diversionary tactic. Fact is, if Cllr Lees party had got it's economic policies right nationally councils wouldn't have to cut so drastically. Cllr Lees party are leading us into a treble dip recession. They are failing at a national level, we are suffering at a local level.
Look.Look.Look The Labour Party use the Coalition as a diversionary tactic. Fact is, if Cllr Hollerns party hadn't bloated the public sector with voters , sorry employees, then Councils today wouldn't have to cut so drastically.
.
Cllr Hollerns party are sacrificing front line services to try and score cheap political points. They are cutting services whilst they have £50,000,000 in the bank!
[quote][p][bold]ToffeeGuy[/bold] wrote: Look.Look.Look. The Tories use the Unions as a diversionary tactic. Fact is, if Cllr Lees party had got it's economic policies right nationally councils wouldn't have to cut so drastically. Cllr Lees party are leading us into a treble dip recession. They are failing at a national level, we are suffering at a local level.[/p][/quote]Look.Look.Look The Labour Party use the Coalition as a diversionary tactic. Fact is, if Cllr Hollerns party hadn't bloated the public sector with voters , sorry employees, then Councils today wouldn't have to cut so drastically. . Cllr Hollerns party are sacrificing front line services to try and score cheap political points. They are cutting services whilst they have £50,000,000 in the bank! midas

4:07pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Jack Herer says...

louderfasterlonger wrote:
karltop wrote:
Why should my council tax pay for politically affiliated union representatives and their offices?
Because Employment Law legislates that way to avoid bullying and intimidation by an employer who has agreed that a union can be formed and that they can go about their business without hindrence.
Bullying and intimidation if the tax payer doesn't pay for full time union duties? What planet are you on?

The union clearly can be formed, and they can clearly go about their business without hindrance - suggesting otherwise is hogwash.

Therefore why should the tax payer stump the bill to pay for union duties, when the unions can afford millions in party political donations?

What are more important; front line services or party political donations?

The council paying for union duties whilst they are cutting front line services is nothing short of a disgrace.

The union duties gravy train is powered by the misery of the public.Shame on Labour, shame on the unions, fighting tooth and nail to keep it going. How about showing that much passion for the people you are supposed to represent?
[quote][p][bold]louderfasterlonger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]karltop[/bold] wrote: Why should my council tax pay for politically affiliated union representatives and their offices?[/p][/quote]Because Employment Law legislates that way to avoid bullying and intimidation by an employer who has agreed that a union can be formed and that they can go about their business without hindrence.[/p][/quote]Bullying and intimidation if the tax payer doesn't pay for full time union duties? What planet are you on? The union clearly can be formed, and they can clearly go about their business without hindrance - suggesting otherwise is hogwash. Therefore why should the tax payer stump the bill to pay for union duties, when the unions can afford millions in party political donations? What are more important; front line services or party political donations? The council paying for union duties whilst they are cutting front line services is nothing short of a disgrace. The union duties gravy train is powered by the misery of the public.Shame on Labour, shame on the unions, fighting tooth and nail to keep it going. How about showing that much passion for the people you are supposed to represent? Jack Herer

4:19pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Jack Herer says...

midas wrote:
From ACAS:

Employees who are union representatives of an independent trade union recognised by their employer are to be permitted reasonable time off during working hours to carry out certain trade union duties.
.
An employer who permits union representatives time off for trade union duties must pay them for the time off taken. The employer must pay either the amount that the union representative would have earned had they worked during the time off taken or, where earnings vary with the work done, an amount calculated by reference to the average hourly earnings for the work they are employed to do.
.
Perhaps, if the Union reps were to publish the amount of "reasonable time off during working hours to carry out certain trade union duties" that they each undertook then this argument wouldn't arise.
Perfect. Even though the unions have got pots and pots of cash to spare, they have schemed something up with Labour so that the poor hard working tax payer has to stump up for them instead.

This law effectively means the tax payer pays for Labour party donations whether they like it or not. How is that ever fair?

How do Labour ever represent the public, rather than their own selfish interests, when things like this come to light?

How can the unions ever hold their heads up when they protect such a grossly unfair system?

The unions and Labour; what are they apart from a club for public sector fat cats?
[quote][p][bold]midas[/bold] wrote: From ACAS: Employees who are union representatives of an independent trade union recognised by their employer are to be permitted reasonable time off during working hours to carry out certain trade union duties. . An employer who permits union representatives time off for trade union duties must pay them for the time off taken. The employer must pay either the amount that the union representative would have earned had they worked during the time off taken or, where earnings vary with the work done, an amount calculated by reference to the average hourly earnings for the work they are employed to do. . Perhaps, if the Union reps were to publish the amount of "reasonable time off during working hours to carry out certain trade union duties" that they each undertook then this argument wouldn't arise.[/p][/quote]Perfect. Even though the unions have got pots and pots of cash to spare, they have schemed something up with Labour so that the poor hard working tax payer has to stump up for them instead. This law effectively means the tax payer pays for Labour party donations whether they like it or not. How is that ever fair? How do Labour ever represent the public, rather than their own selfish interests, when things like this come to light? How can the unions ever hold their heads up when they protect such a grossly unfair system? The unions and Labour; what are they apart from a club for public sector fat cats? Jack Herer

4:20pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Jack Herer says...

midas wrote:
ToffeeGuy wrote:
Look.Look.Look. The Tories use the Unions as a diversionary tactic. Fact is, if Cllr Lees party had got it's economic policies right nationally councils wouldn't have to cut so drastically. Cllr Lees party are leading us into a treble dip recession. They are failing at a national level, we are suffering at a local level.
Look.Look.Look The Labour Party use the Coalition as a diversionary tactic. Fact is, if Cllr Hollerns party hadn't bloated the public sector with voters , sorry employees, then Councils today wouldn't have to cut so drastically.
.
Cllr Hollerns party are sacrificing front line services to try and score cheap political points. They are cutting services whilst they have £50,000,000 in the bank!
Here, here.

Nail on the head.
[quote][p][bold]midas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ToffeeGuy[/bold] wrote: Look.Look.Look. The Tories use the Unions as a diversionary tactic. Fact is, if Cllr Lees party had got it's economic policies right nationally councils wouldn't have to cut so drastically. Cllr Lees party are leading us into a treble dip recession. They are failing at a national level, we are suffering at a local level.[/p][/quote]Look.Look.Look The Labour Party use the Coalition as a diversionary tactic. Fact is, if Cllr Hollerns party hadn't bloated the public sector with voters , sorry employees, then Councils today wouldn't have to cut so drastically. . Cllr Hollerns party are sacrificing front line services to try and score cheap political points. They are cutting services whilst they have £50,000,000 in the bank![/p][/quote]Here, here. Nail on the head. Jack Herer

4:33pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Blackburn fans love horses says...

£90k a year for Union reps is an absolute scandal in this age of austerity.

What benefits do the unions actually provide the modern worker with nowadays? They are outdated politically-biased dianosaurs who should have been put out to grass years ago.
£90k a year for Union reps is an absolute scandal in this age of austerity. What benefits do the unions actually provide the modern worker with nowadays? They are outdated politically-biased dianosaurs who should have been put out to grass years ago. Blackburn fans love horses

4:35pm Wed 23 Jan 13

oldblue says...

Tory leader Mike Lee has it exactly right. Why should front line services be so adversely affected whilst Union representives are subsidised by the long suffering council tax payer. Blackburn has sunk to being one of the poorest towns in the Uk whilst consistently voting Labour at national and local level. And some good it has done us. Where is the exit?
Tory leader Mike Lee has it exactly right. Why should front line services be so adversely affected whilst Union representives are subsidised by the long suffering council tax payer. Blackburn has sunk to being one of the poorest towns in the Uk whilst consistently voting Labour at national and local level. And some good it has done us. Where is the exit? oldblue

4:59pm Wed 23 Jan 13

B52bomber says...

Why is it poor are always affected by council cuts
Why is it poor are always affected by council cuts B52bomber

5:00pm Wed 23 Jan 13

jack daniels says...

Blackburn fans love horses wrote:
£90k a year for Union reps is an absolute scandal in this age of austerity.

What benefits do the unions actually provide the modern worker with nowadays? They are outdated politically-biased dianosaurs who should have been put out to grass years ago.
If you look at the non-existent rights we had 150yrs ago you'd not be asking what's the point.

The union used to be the collective voice of the working class, not so much now I'll admit, but with these parasite condems looking to remove your workers rights, your right for a safe work place and your rights under EU law, you have to ask yourself - who's going to speak for me?
[quote][p][bold]Blackburn fans love horses[/bold] wrote: £90k a year for Union reps is an absolute scandal in this age of austerity. What benefits do the unions actually provide the modern worker with nowadays? They are outdated politically-biased dianosaurs who should have been put out to grass years ago.[/p][/quote]If you look at the non-existent rights we had 150yrs ago you'd not be asking what's the point. The union used to be the collective voice of the working class, not so much now I'll admit, but with these parasite condems looking to remove your workers rights, your right for a safe work place and your rights under EU law, you have to ask yourself - who's going to speak for me? jack daniels

5:00pm Wed 23 Jan 13

ladysal says...

I belong to a Union. I pay subs to belong to that Union. I think it is astonishing and very wrong that Council tax payers are paying wages and providing accommodation for Union reps. How they can possibly justify cutting school crossings whilst paying out for this is indefensible. If I though it would work, I would work out the amount of my council tax which would be spent on this and pay it directly to the school crossing person at my daughter's school.
I have no particular political allegiance, but this is disgusting.
I belong to a Union. I pay subs to belong to that Union. I think it is astonishing and very wrong that Council tax payers are paying wages and providing accommodation for Union reps. How they can possibly justify cutting school crossings whilst paying out for this is indefensible. If I though it would work, I would work out the amount of my council tax which would be spent on this and pay it directly to the school crossing person at my daughter's school. I have no particular political allegiance, but this is disgusting. ladysal

5:05pm Wed 23 Jan 13

jack daniels says...

ToffeeGuy wrote:
Look.Look.Look.

The Tories use the Unions as a diversionary tactic.

Fact is, if Cllr Lees party had got it's economic policies right nationally councils wouldn't have to cut so drastically.

Cllr Lees party are leading us into a treble dip recession. They are failing at a national level, we are suffering at a local level.
Well said!

If the local Tories where any good they would be in power. What we do have is failed government with a failed economic policy heading for certain disaster.
[quote][p][bold]ToffeeGuy[/bold] wrote: Look.Look.Look. The Tories use the Unions as a diversionary tactic. Fact is, if Cllr Lees party had got it's economic policies right nationally councils wouldn't have to cut so drastically. Cllr Lees party are leading us into a treble dip recession. They are failing at a national level, we are suffering at a local level.[/p][/quote]Well said! If the local Tories where any good they would be in power. What we do have is failed government with a failed economic policy heading for certain disaster. jack daniels

5:11pm Wed 23 Jan 13

jack daniels says...

If the council and every other company was actually honest and fair with it's employees then we wouldn't need any unions, but greed and bullying is rife no matter where you are.

I do however feel that they should pay their way and if that means an increase in subs, then so be it!
If the council and every other company was actually honest and fair with it's employees then we wouldn't need any unions, but greed and bullying is rife no matter where you are. I do however feel that they should pay their way and if that means an increase in subs, then so be it! jack daniels

5:31pm Wed 23 Jan 13

jack daniels says...

“We should have a freeze on annual salary increments for council staff which would save £1million pounds and possibly 30 jobs, cushioning cuts elsewhere."

He should at least praise the staff for taking what is in effect a pay cut for the unpaid days the staff take that has helped to save money in an attempt to retain the quality, staff levels and services that are still available.

Cllr Lees you are a disgrace to humanity and you shouldn't dare look the hard working staff in the eye when you sit on your rotund comfortable bottom in the town hall chambers.
“We should have a freeze on annual salary increments for council staff which would save £1million pounds and possibly 30 jobs, cushioning cuts elsewhere." He should at least praise the staff for taking what is in effect a pay cut for the unpaid days the staff take that has helped to save money in an attempt to retain the quality, staff levels and services that are still available. Cllr Lees you are a disgrace to humanity and you shouldn't dare look the hard working staff in the eye when you sit on your rotund comfortable bottom in the town hall chambers. jack daniels

5:44pm Wed 23 Jan 13

jack daniels says...

oldblue wrote:
Tory leader Mike Lee has it exactly right. Why should front line services be so adversely affected whilst Union representives are subsidised by the long suffering council tax payer. Blackburn has sunk to being one of the poorest towns in the Uk whilst consistently voting Labour at national and local level. And some good it has done us. Where is the exit?
I seem to recall that it was Thatcher in the 80's and 90's that created the rot in Lancashire with the destruction on engineering and production jobs in the borough. We could also argue that it was the capitaist factory owners in the 50's that invited and employed poor immigrants from India, Pakistan and Bangledesh to our shores, which in turn now costs the council hundreds and thousands in housing and other services.

I'm no lover of the new liebour war starters but at least Straw got money pumped into our ailing town - the same money the condems are taking away.
[quote][p][bold]oldblue[/bold] wrote: Tory leader Mike Lee has it exactly right. Why should front line services be so adversely affected whilst Union representives are subsidised by the long suffering council tax payer. Blackburn has sunk to being one of the poorest towns in the Uk whilst consistently voting Labour at national and local level. And some good it has done us. Where is the exit?[/p][/quote]I seem to recall that it was Thatcher in the 80's and 90's that created the rot in Lancashire with the destruction on engineering and production jobs in the borough. We could also argue that it was the capitaist factory owners in the 50's that invited and employed poor immigrants from India, Pakistan and Bangledesh to our shores, which in turn now costs the council hundreds and thousands in housing and other services. I'm no lover of the new liebour war starters but at least Straw got money pumped into our ailing town - the same money the condems are taking away. jack daniels

5:49pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Joseph Yossarian says...

The unions don't want to have to pay out of their own pockets for people working on behalf of the union.

They wuld rather cut council staff than give up their own "entitlement" to somebody elses money.

If they had any sense of good they would pay union members for the activty they do.

They are way too greedy for that.
It's that standard socialist way - why should I (as a socialist) pay for anything I want when somebody else can pay for it instead.

Unions stuff their executives with 6 figure salaries and final salary pensions at the expense of their members, who get surprisingly little in return.

Unions today are superfluous; they are a pointless throwback to a byegone age when they meant something good.
The unions don't want to have to pay out of their own pockets for people working on behalf of the union. They wuld rather cut council staff than give up their own "entitlement" to somebody elses money. If they had any sense of good they would pay union members for the activty they do. They are way too greedy for that. It's that standard socialist way - why should I (as a socialist) pay for anything I want when somebody else can pay for it instead. Unions stuff their executives with 6 figure salaries and final salary pensions at the expense of their members, who get surprisingly little in return. Unions today are superfluous; they are a pointless throwback to a byegone age when they meant something good. Joseph Yossarian

5:50pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Joseph Yossarian says...

louderfasterlonger wrote:
karltop wrote: Why should my council tax pay for politically affiliated union representatives and their offices?
Because Employment Law legislates that way to avoid bullying and intimidation by an employer who has agreed that a union can be formed and that they can go about their business without hindrence.
So they should pay their own way then, just like the rest of us.
[quote][p][bold]louderfasterlonger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]karltop[/bold] wrote: Why should my council tax pay for politically affiliated union representatives and their offices?[/p][/quote]Because Employment Law legislates that way to avoid bullying and intimidation by an employer who has agreed that a union can be formed and that they can go about their business without hindrence.[/p][/quote]So they should pay their own way then, just like the rest of us. Joseph Yossarian

5:54pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Joseph Yossarian says...

jack daniels wrote:
Blackburn fans love horses wrote: £90k a year for Union reps is an absolute scandal in this age of austerity. What benefits do the unions actually provide the modern worker with nowadays? They are outdated politically-biased dianosaurs who should have been put out to grass years ago.
If you look at the non-existent rights we had 150yrs ago you'd not be asking what's the point. The union used to be the collective voice of the working class, not so much now I'll admit, but with these parasite condems looking to remove your workers rights, your right for a safe work place and your rights under EU law, you have to ask yourself - who's going to speak for me?
I can speak for me thanks.
Failing that should my employment rights be abused, my no win no fee lawyer can speak for me.
With thanks to Mr A. Blair, ironically enough.
[quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Blackburn fans love horses[/bold] wrote: £90k a year for Union reps is an absolute scandal in this age of austerity. What benefits do the unions actually provide the modern worker with nowadays? They are outdated politically-biased dianosaurs who should have been put out to grass years ago.[/p][/quote]If you look at the non-existent rights we had 150yrs ago you'd not be asking what's the point. The union used to be the collective voice of the working class, not so much now I'll admit, but with these parasite condems looking to remove your workers rights, your right for a safe work place and your rights under EU law, you have to ask yourself - who's going to speak for me?[/p][/quote]I can speak for me thanks. Failing that should my employment rights be abused, my no win no fee lawyer can speak for me. With thanks to Mr A. Blair, ironically enough. Joseph Yossarian

6:18pm Wed 23 Jan 13

useyourhead says...

So in a nutshell the council are using our money to pay a miriad people to stop them breaking the law!
-
wouldn't one impartial consultant or advisor who could oversee it's employment policies be cheaper?
So in a nutshell the council are using our money to pay a miriad people to stop them breaking the law! - wouldn't one impartial consultant or advisor who could oversee it's employment policies be cheaper? useyourhead

6:22pm Wed 23 Jan 13

N4you! says...

we need a lollipop
we need a lollipop N4you!

6:36pm Wed 23 Jan 13

jack daniels says...

Joseph Yossarian wrote:
jack daniels wrote:
Blackburn fans love horses wrote: £90k a year for Union reps is an absolute scandal in this age of austerity. What benefits do the unions actually provide the modern worker with nowadays? They are outdated politically-biased dianosaurs who should have been put out to grass years ago.
If you look at the non-existent rights we had 150yrs ago you'd not be asking what's the point. The union used to be the collective voice of the working class, not so much now I'll admit, but with these parasite condems looking to remove your workers rights, your right for a safe work place and your rights under EU law, you have to ask yourself - who's going to speak for me?
I can speak for me thanks.
Failing that should my employment rights be abused, my no win no fee lawyer can speak for me.
With thanks to Mr A. Blair, ironically enough.
fair enough, but if they change the laws for the worse, like they are trying to do, what use are your no win - no fee lawyers?

Will the unions do anything now? I doubt it, yet we will always need a collective as one voice is seldom heard.
[quote][p][bold]Joseph Yossarian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Blackburn fans love horses[/bold] wrote: £90k a year for Union reps is an absolute scandal in this age of austerity. What benefits do the unions actually provide the modern worker with nowadays? They are outdated politically-biased dianosaurs who should have been put out to grass years ago.[/p][/quote]If you look at the non-existent rights we had 150yrs ago you'd not be asking what's the point. The union used to be the collective voice of the working class, not so much now I'll admit, but with these parasite condems looking to remove your workers rights, your right for a safe work place and your rights under EU law, you have to ask yourself - who's going to speak for me?[/p][/quote]I can speak for me thanks. Failing that should my employment rights be abused, my no win no fee lawyer can speak for me. With thanks to Mr A. Blair, ironically enough.[/p][/quote]fair enough, but if they change the laws for the worse, like they are trying to do, what use are your no win - no fee lawyers? Will the unions do anything now? I doubt it, yet we will always need a collective as one voice is seldom heard. jack daniels

6:42pm Wed 23 Jan 13

grunny says...

Ok here we go!!!

All the full time reps who work for the council are seconded to the role therefore the money is actually the pay for they would be receiving for their actual job at the council.

Anybody who is a rep could be seconded that's also includes lollypop ladies and gentlemen. If I remember rightly the last chief executive many years ago was a trade union activist with NALGO many moons ago.

We all have gripes about trade unions including myself but we have to remember what the trade unions do for their memebers. They are there to represent their members either at work or in an industrial tribunal and yes they cant win every case but they try their best.

The unions have got minimal wages for the majority of the people in the country, they run educational courses with the support of employers helping members of staff get better qualifications. They defend workers rights so that their is less bullying in the work place and to work reasonable hours and forced to do overtime if they don't want to.

They ensure health and safety is enforced in the workplace. so the workplace is safe not just for the employee and members of the public.

Other reps who have to work are given reasonable time off to represent their members and if it was not for these reps there would be more people off from work and yes there are staff members who are found to be cleared of all investigations.

So Cll Lee your suggestion of getting rid of all these reps would make more problems for the council. You also should remember that if there are going to be consultations between the council and the unions they will need time off to talk about and consult not just their members but non members as well.

You should also remember that on the whole both the council and the unions have a good working relationship to try and solve the problems which are upon us and I hope as a citizen of this town and a former employee of the council can find some way of not making too many cuts to services and losing hard working front line members of staff who provide valuable services to the people of Blackburn and Darwen.
Ok here we go!!! All the full time reps who work for the council are seconded to the role therefore the money is actually the pay for they would be receiving for their actual job at the council. Anybody who is a rep could be seconded that's also includes lollypop ladies and gentlemen. If I remember rightly the last chief executive many years ago was a trade union activist with NALGO many moons ago. We all have gripes about trade unions including myself but we have to remember what the trade unions do for their memebers. They are there to represent their members either at work or in an industrial tribunal and yes they cant win every case but they try their best. The unions have got minimal wages for the majority of the people in the country, they run educational courses with the support of employers helping members of staff get better qualifications. They defend workers rights so that their is less bullying in the work place and to work reasonable hours and forced to do overtime if they don't want to. They ensure health and safety is enforced in the workplace. so the workplace is safe not just for the employee and members of the public. Other reps who have to work are given reasonable time off to represent their members and if it was not for these reps there would be more people off from work and yes there are staff members who are found to be cleared of all investigations. So Cll Lee your suggestion of getting rid of all these reps would make more problems for the council. You also should remember that if there are going to be consultations between the council and the unions they will need time off to talk about and consult not just their members but non members as well. You should also remember that on the whole both the council and the unions have a good working relationship to try and solve the problems which are upon us and I hope as a citizen of this town and a former employee of the council can find some way of not making too many cuts to services and losing hard working front line members of staff who provide valuable services to the people of Blackburn and Darwen. grunny

7:03pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Jack Herer says...

jack daniels wrote:
Blackburn fans love horses wrote:
£90k a year for Union reps is an absolute scandal in this age of austerity.

What benefits do the unions actually provide the modern worker with nowadays? They are outdated politically-biased dianosaurs who should have been put out to grass years ago.
If you look at the non-existent rights we had 150yrs ago you'd not be asking what's the point.

The union used to be the collective voice of the working class, not so much now I'll admit, but with these parasite condems looking to remove your workers rights, your right for a safe work place and your rights under EU law, you have to ask yourself - who's going to speak for me?
Who's me though? If it's Joe Public then the unions categorically don't speak for them, they shaft them, pretty much any opportunity they get; be that strikes at the most inconvenient time, or just milking them for completely unsustainable and unfair benefits to their members, and always to the detriment of the poor hard working sucker in the street.

Unions today are a pale, shameful reflection of the proud organisations they were set up as; once they upheld the rights of the working man, now, to most people, they are unfortunately parasites who bleed them dry. That's just the reality of today's champagne unions, who have created and now actively protect an upper echelon of fat cats in the public sector.
[quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Blackburn fans love horses[/bold] wrote: £90k a year for Union reps is an absolute scandal in this age of austerity. What benefits do the unions actually provide the modern worker with nowadays? They are outdated politically-biased dianosaurs who should have been put out to grass years ago.[/p][/quote]If you look at the non-existent rights we had 150yrs ago you'd not be asking what's the point. The union used to be the collective voice of the working class, not so much now I'll admit, but with these parasite condems looking to remove your workers rights, your right for a safe work place and your rights under EU law, you have to ask yourself - who's going to speak for me?[/p][/quote]Who's me though? If it's Joe Public then the unions categorically don't speak for them, they shaft them, pretty much any opportunity they get; be that strikes at the most inconvenient time, or just milking them for completely unsustainable and unfair benefits to their members, and always to the detriment of the poor hard working sucker in the street. Unions today are a pale, shameful reflection of the proud organisations they were set up as; once they upheld the rights of the working man, now, to most people, they are unfortunately parasites who bleed them dry. That's just the reality of today's champagne unions, who have created and now actively protect an upper echelon of fat cats in the public sector. Jack Herer

7:03pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Jack Herer says...

jack daniels wrote:
Blackburn fans love horses wrote:
£90k a year for Union reps is an absolute scandal in this age of austerity.

What benefits do the unions actually provide the modern worker with nowadays? They are outdated politically-biased dianosaurs who should have been put out to grass years ago.
If you look at the non-existent rights we had 150yrs ago you'd not be asking what's the point.

The union used to be the collective voice of the working class, not so much now I'll admit, but with these parasite condems looking to remove your workers rights, your right for a safe work place and your rights under EU law, you have to ask yourself - who's going to speak for me?
Who's me though? If it's Joe Public then the unions categorically don't speak for them, they shaft them, pretty much any opportunity they get; be that strikes at the most inconvenient time, or just milking them for completely unsustainable and unfair benefits to their members, and always to the detriment of the poor hard working sucker in the street.

Unions today are a pale, shameful reflection of the proud organisations they were set up as; once they upheld the rights of the working man, now, to most people, they are unfortunately parasites who bleed them dry. That's just the reality of today's champagne unions, who have created and now actively protect an upper echelon of fat cats in the public sector.
[quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Blackburn fans love horses[/bold] wrote: £90k a year for Union reps is an absolute scandal in this age of austerity. What benefits do the unions actually provide the modern worker with nowadays? They are outdated politically-biased dianosaurs who should have been put out to grass years ago.[/p][/quote]If you look at the non-existent rights we had 150yrs ago you'd not be asking what's the point. The union used to be the collective voice of the working class, not so much now I'll admit, but with these parasite condems looking to remove your workers rights, your right for a safe work place and your rights under EU law, you have to ask yourself - who's going to speak for me?[/p][/quote]Who's me though? If it's Joe Public then the unions categorically don't speak for them, they shaft them, pretty much any opportunity they get; be that strikes at the most inconvenient time, or just milking them for completely unsustainable and unfair benefits to their members, and always to the detriment of the poor hard working sucker in the street. Unions today are a pale, shameful reflection of the proud organisations they were set up as; once they upheld the rights of the working man, now, to most people, they are unfortunately parasites who bleed them dry. That's just the reality of today's champagne unions, who have created and now actively protect an upper echelon of fat cats in the public sector. Jack Herer

7:23pm Wed 23 Jan 13

jack daniels says...

Jack Herer wrote:
jack daniels wrote:
Blackburn fans love horses wrote:
£90k a year for Union reps is an absolute scandal in this age of austerity.

What benefits do the unions actually provide the modern worker with nowadays? They are outdated politically-biased dianosaurs who should have been put out to grass years ago.
If you look at the non-existent rights we had 150yrs ago you'd not be asking what's the point.

The union used to be the collective voice of the working class, not so much now I'll admit, but with these parasite condems looking to remove your workers rights, your right for a safe work place and your rights under EU law, you have to ask yourself - who's going to speak for me?
Who's me though? If it's Joe Public then the unions categorically don't speak for them, they shaft them, pretty much any opportunity they get; be that strikes at the most inconvenient time, or just milking them for completely unsustainable and unfair benefits to their members, and always to the detriment of the poor hard working sucker in the street.

Unions today are a pale, shameful reflection of the proud organisations they were set up as; once they upheld the rights of the working man, now, to most people, they are unfortunately parasites who bleed them dry. That's just the reality of today's champagne unions, who have created and now actively protect an upper echelon of fat cats in the public sector.
Now then Jack H. I've not responded to any of your comments because I know that we very rarely see eye to eye.

To respond to your comment however. can i just point out that the unions have played a significant role in the two largest protests in London in living memory.

An opportunity for people like you and me to protest against an unjust war and as a chance to protest against the cuts to public services from a government NOBODY voted in.
[quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Blackburn fans love horses[/bold] wrote: £90k a year for Union reps is an absolute scandal in this age of austerity. What benefits do the unions actually provide the modern worker with nowadays? They are outdated politically-biased dianosaurs who should have been put out to grass years ago.[/p][/quote]If you look at the non-existent rights we had 150yrs ago you'd not be asking what's the point. The union used to be the collective voice of the working class, not so much now I'll admit, but with these parasite condems looking to remove your workers rights, your right for a safe work place and your rights under EU law, you have to ask yourself - who's going to speak for me?[/p][/quote]Who's me though? If it's Joe Public then the unions categorically don't speak for them, they shaft them, pretty much any opportunity they get; be that strikes at the most inconvenient time, or just milking them for completely unsustainable and unfair benefits to their members, and always to the detriment of the poor hard working sucker in the street. Unions today are a pale, shameful reflection of the proud organisations they were set up as; once they upheld the rights of the working man, now, to most people, they are unfortunately parasites who bleed them dry. That's just the reality of today's champagne unions, who have created and now actively protect an upper echelon of fat cats in the public sector.[/p][/quote]Now then Jack H. I've not responded to any of your comments because I know that we very rarely see eye to eye. To respond to your comment however. can i just point out that the unions have played a significant role in the two largest protests in London in living memory. An opportunity for people like you and me to protest against an unjust war and as a chance to protest against the cuts to public services from a government NOBODY voted in. jack daniels

8:11pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Kev says...

jack daniels wrote:
oldblue wrote:
Tory leader Mike Lee has it exactly right. Why should front line services be so adversely affected whilst Union representives are subsidised by the long suffering council tax payer. Blackburn has sunk to being one of the poorest towns in the Uk whilst consistently voting Labour at national and local level. And some good it has done us. Where is the exit?
I seem to recall that it was Thatcher in the 80's and 90's that created the rot in Lancashire with the destruction on engineering and production jobs in the borough. We could also argue that it was the capitaist factory owners in the 50's that invited and employed poor immigrants from India, Pakistan and Bangledesh to our shores, which in turn now costs the council hundreds and thousands in housing and other services.

I'm no lover of the new liebour war starters but at least Straw got money pumped into our ailing town - the same money the condems are taking away.
If you ever get round to removing your loony left wing nutter rose tinted specs and tinfoil hat; take a look around you......

Now then, who has done more damage to Blackburn.

Thatcher - or Williams, followed by her Oxford dwelling puppet Straw, parachuted into

Haven't (some) of us done very nicely thank you, on the back of the Socialist policies our town has endured

To hell with the workers!
So long as you're all right Jack!
[quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]oldblue[/bold] wrote: Tory leader Mike Lee has it exactly right. Why should front line services be so adversely affected whilst Union representives are subsidised by the long suffering council tax payer. Blackburn has sunk to being one of the poorest towns in the Uk whilst consistently voting Labour at national and local level. And some good it has done us. Where is the exit?[/p][/quote]I seem to recall that it was Thatcher in the 80's and 90's that created the rot in Lancashire with the destruction on engineering and production jobs in the borough. We could also argue that it was the capitaist factory owners in the 50's that invited and employed poor immigrants from India, Pakistan and Bangledesh to our shores, which in turn now costs the council hundreds and thousands in housing and other services. I'm no lover of the new liebour war starters but at least Straw got money pumped into our ailing town - the same money the condems are taking away.[/p][/quote]If you ever get round to removing your loony left wing nutter rose tinted specs and tinfoil hat; take a look around you...... Now then, who has done more damage to Blackburn. Thatcher - or Williams, followed by her Oxford dwelling puppet Straw, parachuted into Haven't (some) of us done very nicely thank you, on the back of the Socialist policies our town has endured To hell with the workers! So long as you're all right Jack! Kev

8:12pm Wed 23 Jan 13

moanalotmore says...

The Tory leader has got it wrong, There are two low paid staff seconded to do union duties. No way is the cost £9200. and not much for 3000 union members. Certainly less than Tory councillors.

Also the arrangement was in place when the Tories ran the Council.

If he wants to stand up for Blackburn then he should slam the governments cuts of £30 million which is driving the cuts in jobs and services in Blackburn and Darwen.

The unions will fight for jobs and services for people in Blacburn and Darwen.

Will he? Clearly not. He appears to only want to close down opposition to the cuts.

He is not standing up for Blackburn and Darwen, but distracting attention whilst he and his Tory government pick our pockets.
The Tory leader has got it wrong, There are two low paid staff seconded to do union duties. No way is the cost £9200. and not much for 3000 union members. Certainly less than Tory councillors. Also the arrangement was in place when the Tories ran the Council. If he wants to stand up for Blackburn then he should slam the governments cuts of £30 million which is driving the cuts in jobs and services in Blackburn and Darwen. The unions will fight for jobs and services for people in Blacburn and Darwen. Will he? Clearly not. He appears to only want to close down opposition to the cuts. He is not standing up for Blackburn and Darwen, but distracting attention whilst he and his Tory government pick our pockets. moanalotmore

8:42pm Wed 23 Jan 13

DEO VOLENTE says...

We must not forget that the "Unions" collectively bankroll "New Labour". That is the same "New Labour" who have damaged the U,K, so badly with their politically disorientated, economically disasterous, ideology that it can never be repaired. But that was the point was it not? The "Unions" like "New Labour" are now powerless and have a falling membership. The "Unions" are like "New Labour" in fact Dinosaurs, out of touch, out of time and out of influence, The one favour that the "Unions" did the U.K was to choose the current "New Labour" Loser, oh sorry! I mean "Leader". For that we must be grateful. As for the town of Blackburn consistently voting "New Labour" one only has to look at the lamentable,badly planned, racially segregated, run down, dirty, apathetic, cultural void that the town has become. No jobs, No ambition,No pride, No day time or night time economy,No leadership, No policies, No ideas, as the great John Lydon said "No Future", "New Labour" now have the town that they created, the town that they deserve, they should hang their heads in shame.Look well upon the Monster that "New Labour" created. Look well upon the "Northern Ill Town" " Never, Never, Never, Never vote "New Labour" again. It is "New Labour that are responsible for the cuts now being made, it is "New Labour" who sold your future and your childrens futures and never forget it!

Deus Vobiscum
We must not forget that the "Unions" collectively bankroll "New Labour". That is the same "New Labour" who have damaged the U,K, so badly with their politically disorientated, economically disasterous, ideology that it can never be repaired. But that was the point was it not? The "Unions" like "New Labour" are now powerless and have a falling membership. The "Unions" are like "New Labour" in fact Dinosaurs, out of touch, out of time and out of influence, The one favour that the "Unions" did the U.K was to choose the current "New Labour" Loser, oh sorry! I mean "Leader". For that we must be grateful. As for the town of Blackburn consistently voting "New Labour" one only has to look at the lamentable,badly planned, racially segregated, run down, dirty, apathetic, cultural void that the town has become. No jobs, No ambition,No pride, No day time or night time economy,No leadership, No policies, No ideas, as the great John Lydon said "No Future", "New Labour" now have the town that they created, the town that they deserve, they should hang their heads in shame.Look well upon the Monster that "New Labour" created. Look well upon the "Northern Ill Town" " Never, Never, Never, Never vote "New Labour" again. It is "New Labour that are responsible for the cuts now being made, it is "New Labour" who sold your future and your childrens futures and never forget it! Deus Vobiscum DEO VOLENTE

8:46pm Wed 23 Jan 13

DEO VOLENTE says...

Ed Milliband?

I very nearly split my sides laughing! I hope that he gets over his cold though he sounds all blocked up.

Deus Vobiscum
Ed Milliband? I very nearly split my sides laughing! I hope that he gets over his cold though he sounds all blocked up. Deus Vobiscum DEO VOLENTE

8:46pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Good call says...

jack daniels wrote:
Jack Herer wrote:
jack daniels wrote:
Blackburn fans love horses wrote:
£90k a year for Union reps is an absolute scandal in this age of austerity.

What benefits do the unions actually provide the modern worker with nowadays? They are outdated politically-biased dianosaurs who should have been put out to grass years ago.
If you look at the non-existent rights we had 150yrs ago you'd not be asking what's the point.

The union used to be the collective voice of the working class, not so much now I'll admit, but with these parasite condems looking to remove your workers rights, your right for a safe work place and your rights under EU law, you have to ask yourself - who's going to speak for me?
Who's me though? If it's Joe Public then the unions categorically don't speak for them, they shaft them, pretty much any opportunity they get; be that strikes at the most inconvenient time, or just milking them for completely unsustainable and unfair benefits to their members, and always to the detriment of the poor hard working sucker in the street.

Unions today are a pale, shameful reflection of the proud organisations they were set up as; once they upheld the rights of the working man, now, to most people, they are unfortunately parasites who bleed them dry. That's just the reality of today's champagne unions, who have created and now actively protect an upper echelon of fat cats in the public sector.
Now then Jack H. I've not responded to any of your comments because I know that we very rarely see eye to eye.

To respond to your comment however. can i just point out that the unions have played a significant role in the two largest protests in London in living memory.

An opportunity for people like you and me to protest against an unjust war and as a chance to protest against the cuts to public services from a government NOBODY voted in.
1.What was the point of the Iraq war rally when as soon as the war started the public just started saying "support our brave lads fighting for our freedom".
2. What are the unions actually doing about the financial looting that is commonly known as "the cuts",answer=NOTHING
.They have had two silly a to b marches in central london, and two national strikes, in nearly three years, not much of a fightback is it.
3.Do you agree with the bankster bailouts
[quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Blackburn fans love horses[/bold] wrote: £90k a year for Union reps is an absolute scandal in this age of austerity. What benefits do the unions actually provide the modern worker with nowadays? They are outdated politically-biased dianosaurs who should have been put out to grass years ago.[/p][/quote]If you look at the non-existent rights we had 150yrs ago you'd not be asking what's the point. The union used to be the collective voice of the working class, not so much now I'll admit, but with these parasite condems looking to remove your workers rights, your right for a safe work place and your rights under EU law, you have to ask yourself - who's going to speak for me?[/p][/quote]Who's me though? If it's Joe Public then the unions categorically don't speak for them, they shaft them, pretty much any opportunity they get; be that strikes at the most inconvenient time, or just milking them for completely unsustainable and unfair benefits to their members, and always to the detriment of the poor hard working sucker in the street. Unions today are a pale, shameful reflection of the proud organisations they were set up as; once they upheld the rights of the working man, now, to most people, they are unfortunately parasites who bleed them dry. That's just the reality of today's champagne unions, who have created and now actively protect an upper echelon of fat cats in the public sector.[/p][/quote]Now then Jack H. I've not responded to any of your comments because I know that we very rarely see eye to eye. To respond to your comment however. can i just point out that the unions have played a significant role in the two largest protests in London in living memory. An opportunity for people like you and me to protest against an unjust war and as a chance to protest against the cuts to public services from a government NOBODY voted in.[/p][/quote]1.What was the point of the Iraq war rally when as soon as the war started the public just started saying "support our brave lads fighting for our freedom". 2. What are the unions actually doing about the financial looting that is commonly known as "the cuts",answer=NOTHING .They have had two silly a to b marches in central london, and two national strikes, in nearly three years, not much of a fightback is it. 3.Do you agree with the bankster bailouts Good call

9:24pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Horsfield Cllr says...

Divide and rule! How can we be so dumb as to allow the Tories to make us bicker amongst ourselves. We are being stuffed by the Government. The information about the unions is a load of rubbish too. The unions support the workers and any worker with sense will belong to a union. The people who are the unions deserve a voice. I can't believe all this twaddle that is being batted about. Surely no one believes this rubbish.
Divide and rule! How can we be so dumb as to allow the Tories to make us bicker amongst ourselves. We are being stuffed by the Government. The information about the unions is a load of rubbish too. The unions support the workers and any worker with sense will belong to a union. The people who are the unions deserve a voice. I can't believe all this twaddle that is being batted about. Surely no one believes this rubbish. Horsfield Cllr

10:23pm Wed 23 Jan 13

fireonthemountain says...

Anyone who is a union member should not be
allowed to vote on the grounds of insanity .

Long live (Saint) Margaret T .
Well done David C , for lowering unemployment ,
paying down the defecit , standing up to Europe ,
and giving us a referendum (though I would prefer
one tomorrow) .

Unions - throwback to the seventies , and before , when
they destroyed Steel , Coal , Shipbuidling , Motor Manufacturing
etc etc

All part of Liebours master plan of control , admin and taxes .
Big Brother - we know best . Destroy independantt thought .

Communists the lot of them .
Anyone who is a union member should not be allowed to vote on the grounds of insanity . Long live (Saint) Margaret T . Well done David C , for lowering unemployment , paying down the defecit , standing up to Europe , and giving us a referendum (though I would prefer one tomorrow) . Unions - throwback to the seventies , and before , when they destroyed Steel , Coal , Shipbuidling , Motor Manufacturing etc etc All part of Liebours master plan of control , admin and taxes . Big Brother - we know best . Destroy independantt thought . Communists the lot of them . fireonthemountain

10:23pm Wed 23 Jan 13

ToffeeGuy says...

Jack Herer wrote:
louderfasterlonger wrote:
karltop wrote:
Why should my council tax pay for politically affiliated union representatives and their offices?
Because Employment Law legislates that way to avoid bullying and intimidation by an employer who has agreed that a union can be formed and that they can go about their business without hindrence.
Bullying and intimidation if the tax payer doesn't pay for full time union duties? What planet are you on?

The union clearly can be formed, and they can clearly go about their business without hindrance - suggesting otherwise is hogwash.

Therefore why should the tax payer stump the bill to pay for union duties, when the unions can afford millions in party political donations?

What are more important; front line services or party political donations?

The council paying for union duties whilst they are cutting front line services is nothing short of a disgrace.

The union duties gravy train is powered by the misery of the public.Shame on Labour, shame on the unions, fighting tooth and nail to keep it going. How about showing that much passion for the people you are supposed to represent?
"why should the tax payer stump the bill to pay for union duties?"

You seem to forget that the millions of union members are tax payers as well. They are probably quite happy to have a very, very, very small part of that tax pay for employment protection.

Distraction techniques. The Tories focus on Unions whilst their pals in the city get huge bonuses, they cut the top rate of tax to 45% and huge corparations avoid tax.
[quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]louderfasterlonger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]karltop[/bold] wrote: Why should my council tax pay for politically affiliated union representatives and their offices?[/p][/quote]Because Employment Law legislates that way to avoid bullying and intimidation by an employer who has agreed that a union can be formed and that they can go about their business without hindrence.[/p][/quote]Bullying and intimidation if the tax payer doesn't pay for full time union duties? What planet are you on? The union clearly can be formed, and they can clearly go about their business without hindrance - suggesting otherwise is hogwash. Therefore why should the tax payer stump the bill to pay for union duties, when the unions can afford millions in party political donations? What are more important; front line services or party political donations? The council paying for union duties whilst they are cutting front line services is nothing short of a disgrace. The union duties gravy train is powered by the misery of the public.Shame on Labour, shame on the unions, fighting tooth and nail to keep it going. How about showing that much passion for the people you are supposed to represent?[/p][/quote]"why should the tax payer stump the bill to pay for union duties?" You seem to forget that the millions of union members are tax payers as well. They are probably quite happy to have a very, very, very small part of that tax pay for employment protection. Distraction techniques. The Tories focus on Unions whilst their pals in the city get huge bonuses, they cut the top rate of tax to 45% and huge corparations avoid tax. ToffeeGuy

10:24pm Wed 23 Jan 13

jack daniels says...

Kev wrote:
jack daniels wrote:
oldblue wrote:
Tory leader Mike Lee has it exactly right. Why should front line services be so adversely affected whilst Union representives are subsidised by the long suffering council tax payer. Blackburn has sunk to being one of the poorest towns in the Uk whilst consistently voting Labour at national and local level. And some good it has done us. Where is the exit?
I seem to recall that it was Thatcher in the 80's and 90's that created the rot in Lancashire with the destruction on engineering and production jobs in the borough. We could also argue that it was the capitaist factory owners in the 50's that invited and employed poor immigrants from India, Pakistan and Bangledesh to our shores, which in turn now costs the council hundreds and thousands in housing and other services.

I'm no lover of the new liebour war starters but at least Straw got money pumped into our ailing town - the same money the condems are taking away.
If you ever get round to removing your loony left wing nutter rose tinted specs and tinfoil hat; take a look around you......

Now then, who has done more damage to Blackburn.

Thatcher - or Williams, followed by her Oxford dwelling puppet Straw, parachuted into

Haven't (some) of us done very nicely thank you, on the back of the Socialist policies our town has endured

To hell with the workers!
So long as you're all right Jack!
This is why I ignored you and thanks for proving me right!

From the first sentence you wrote you are starting with the silly insults and ignoring my comment which supported my opinion.

I refuse to contribute to an over-extended comments list trading pointless diatribes with someone who won't consider my viewpoint, which nobody will care about in 48hrs anyway.
[quote][p][bold]Kev[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]oldblue[/bold] wrote: Tory leader Mike Lee has it exactly right. Why should front line services be so adversely affected whilst Union representives are subsidised by the long suffering council tax payer. Blackburn has sunk to being one of the poorest towns in the Uk whilst consistently voting Labour at national and local level. And some good it has done us. Where is the exit?[/p][/quote]I seem to recall that it was Thatcher in the 80's and 90's that created the rot in Lancashire with the destruction on engineering and production jobs in the borough. We could also argue that it was the capitaist factory owners in the 50's that invited and employed poor immigrants from India, Pakistan and Bangledesh to our shores, which in turn now costs the council hundreds and thousands in housing and other services. I'm no lover of the new liebour war starters but at least Straw got money pumped into our ailing town - the same money the condems are taking away.[/p][/quote]If you ever get round to removing your loony left wing nutter rose tinted specs and tinfoil hat; take a look around you...... Now then, who has done more damage to Blackburn. Thatcher - or Williams, followed by her Oxford dwelling puppet Straw, parachuted into Haven't (some) of us done very nicely thank you, on the back of the Socialist policies our town has endured To hell with the workers! So long as you're all right Jack![/p][/quote]This is why I ignored you and thanks for proving me right! From the first sentence you wrote you are starting with the silly insults and ignoring my comment which supported my opinion. I refuse to contribute to an over-extended comments list trading pointless diatribes with someone who won't consider my viewpoint, which nobody will care about in 48hrs anyway. jack daniels

10:27pm Wed 23 Jan 13

ToffeeGuy says...

midas wrote:
ToffeeGuy wrote:
Look.Look.Look. The Tories use the Unions as a diversionary tactic. Fact is, if Cllr Lees party had got it's economic policies right nationally councils wouldn't have to cut so drastically. Cllr Lees party are leading us into a treble dip recession. They are failing at a national level, we are suffering at a local level.
Look.Look.Look The Labour Party use the Coalition as a diversionary tactic. Fact is, if Cllr Hollerns party hadn't bloated the public sector with voters , sorry employees, then Councils today wouldn't have to cut so drastically.
.
Cllr Hollerns party are sacrificing front line services to try and score cheap political points. They are cutting services whilst they have £50,000,000 in the bank!
Fact is, if the Condems got the economy moving again, if they went after tax avoiding corporations, if they hadn't cut the top rate of tax, there would be money for the finest of public services.

The Tories are idealogically driven to reduce the public sector, but we won't see any benefit in reduced taxes they will be for the rich.

Every person employed by the council spends money in local shops which keeps the local economy going. If the council cuts we all suffer.
[quote][p][bold]midas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ToffeeGuy[/bold] wrote: Look.Look.Look. The Tories use the Unions as a diversionary tactic. Fact is, if Cllr Lees party had got it's economic policies right nationally councils wouldn't have to cut so drastically. Cllr Lees party are leading us into a treble dip recession. They are failing at a national level, we are suffering at a local level.[/p][/quote]Look.Look.Look The Labour Party use the Coalition as a diversionary tactic. Fact is, if Cllr Hollerns party hadn't bloated the public sector with voters , sorry employees, then Councils today wouldn't have to cut so drastically. . Cllr Hollerns party are sacrificing front line services to try and score cheap political points. They are cutting services whilst they have £50,000,000 in the bank![/p][/quote]Fact is, if the Condems got the economy moving again, if they went after tax avoiding corporations, if they hadn't cut the top rate of tax, there would be money for the finest of public services. The Tories are idealogically driven to reduce the public sector, but we won't see any benefit in reduced taxes they will be for the rich. Every person employed by the council spends money in local shops which keeps the local economy going. If the council cuts we all suffer. ToffeeGuy

11:16pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Info-warrior says...

If the Unions were on all out attack at the government and earning their subs then I would have no quarrels with any unionist having a decent living. There is just to many these days earning a living out the public purse for very little effort. The first thing the Unionists should be doing is ensuring that we never ever ever have another coalition government. Even if we all have to go and vote another twenty times to find out an out right winner, we should never have this coalition nonsense again.

We no longer have a need for unions under the current government, well not unless Georgie boy as changed course and created some growth and jobs for the unions to protect. No growth no jobs no unions no Labour totalised tyranny by design. At some point the sheeple will see it for what it is just before they drop in the final few drips of Zyklon B into their evening shower. History always as a way of repeating itself in varied ways but always the same outcome.

Be warry of all these changes what are going on around us at the moment, the government are strangling everything they can get their grubby thieving little hands on and crushing the unions into the history books would be a massive victory for any tory government. And thats exactly whats happening here.

Wakey wakey rise and shine smell the coffee your living with crime....from 9/11 to Tyranny in less than a decade and the main course is yet to come so hold on tight the next twelve months are going to get a bit turbulent to say the least....stock up.
If the Unions were on all out attack at the government and earning their subs then I would have no quarrels with any unionist having a decent living. There is just to many these days earning a living out the public purse for very little effort. The first thing the Unionists should be doing is ensuring that we never ever ever have another coalition government. Even if we all have to go and vote another twenty times to find out an out right winner, we should never have this coalition nonsense again. We no longer have a need for unions under the current government, well not unless Georgie boy as changed course and created some growth and jobs for the unions to protect. No growth no jobs no unions no Labour totalised tyranny by design. At some point the sheeple will see it for what it is just before they drop in the final few drips of Zyklon B into their evening shower. History always as a way of repeating itself in varied ways but always the same outcome. Be warry of all these changes what are going on around us at the moment, the government are strangling everything they can get their grubby thieving little hands on and crushing the unions into the history books would be a massive victory for any tory government. And thats exactly whats happening here. Wakey wakey rise and shine smell the coffee your living with crime....from 9/11 to Tyranny in less than a decade and the main course is yet to come so hold on tight the next twelve months are going to get a bit turbulent to say the least....stock up. Info-warrior

11:25pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Kev says...

jack daniels wrote:
Kev wrote:
jack daniels wrote:
oldblue wrote:
Tory leader Mike Lee has it exactly right. Why should front line services be so adversely affected whilst Union representives are subsidised by the long suffering council tax payer. Blackburn has sunk to being one of the poorest towns in the Uk whilst consistently voting Labour at national and local level. And some good it has done us. Where is the exit?
I seem to recall that it was Thatcher in the 80's and 90's that created the rot in Lancashire with the destruction on engineering and production jobs in the borough. We could also argue that it was the capitaist factory owners in the 50's that invited and employed poor immigrants from India, Pakistan and Bangledesh to our shores, which in turn now costs the council hundreds and thousands in housing and other services.

I'm no lover of the new liebour war starters but at least Straw got money pumped into our ailing town - the same money the condems are taking away.
If you ever get round to removing your loony left wing nutter rose tinted specs and tinfoil hat; take a look around you......

Now then, who has done more damage to Blackburn.

Thatcher - or Williams, followed by her Oxford dwelling puppet Straw, parachuted into

Haven't (some) of us done very nicely thank you, on the back of the Socialist policies our town has endured

To hell with the workers!
So long as you're all right Jack!
This is why I ignored you and thanks for proving me right!

From the first sentence you wrote you are starting with the silly insults and ignoring my comment which supported my opinion.

I refuse to contribute to an over-extended comments list trading pointless diatribes with someone who won't consider my viewpoint, which nobody will care about in 48hrs anyway.
Of course you ignored me!

To disagree with a Socialist bedwetter is heresy in your occluded world

It's called ducking the question
Thatcher or Straw?
[quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kev[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]oldblue[/bold] wrote: Tory leader Mike Lee has it exactly right. Why should front line services be so adversely affected whilst Union representives are subsidised by the long suffering council tax payer. Blackburn has sunk to being one of the poorest towns in the Uk whilst consistently voting Labour at national and local level. And some good it has done us. Where is the exit?[/p][/quote]I seem to recall that it was Thatcher in the 80's and 90's that created the rot in Lancashire with the destruction on engineering and production jobs in the borough. We could also argue that it was the capitaist factory owners in the 50's that invited and employed poor immigrants from India, Pakistan and Bangledesh to our shores, which in turn now costs the council hundreds and thousands in housing and other services. I'm no lover of the new liebour war starters but at least Straw got money pumped into our ailing town - the same money the condems are taking away.[/p][/quote]If you ever get round to removing your loony left wing nutter rose tinted specs and tinfoil hat; take a look around you...... Now then, who has done more damage to Blackburn. Thatcher - or Williams, followed by her Oxford dwelling puppet Straw, parachuted into Haven't (some) of us done very nicely thank you, on the back of the Socialist policies our town has endured To hell with the workers! So long as you're all right Jack![/p][/quote]This is why I ignored you and thanks for proving me right! From the first sentence you wrote you are starting with the silly insults and ignoring my comment which supported my opinion. I refuse to contribute to an over-extended comments list trading pointless diatribes with someone who won't consider my viewpoint, which nobody will care about in 48hrs anyway.[/p][/quote]Of course you ignored me! To disagree with a Socialist bedwetter is heresy in your occluded world It's called ducking the question Thatcher or Straw? Kev

12:27am Thu 24 Jan 13

grunny says...

Thought of the day:

If unions are no longer necessary or obsolete then why do companies spend millions trying to get rid of them.
Thought of the day: If unions are no longer necessary or obsolete then why do companies spend millions trying to get rid of them. grunny

1:19am Thu 24 Jan 13

jellybiff says...

i belong in a union and pay dues etc .Allowing paid time off is OK. but why is the tax payer having to pay for the offices ,desks etc That means i am now paying twice once through my dues and once through my council tax.I will ask for a rebate or time to pay
i belong in a union and pay dues etc .Allowing paid time off is OK. but why is the tax payer having to pay for the offices ,desks etc That means i am now paying twice once through my dues and once through my council tax.I will ask for a rebate or time to pay jellybiff

1:35am Thu 24 Jan 13

english rose 1 says...

jellybiff wrote:
i belong in a union and pay dues etc .Allowing paid time off is OK. but why is the tax payer having to pay for the offices ,desks etc That means i am now paying twice once through my dues and once through my council tax.I will ask for a rebate or time to pay
By law employers must consult with employees regarding changes to contracts / redundancies / terms and conditions etc; Consulting with paid union reps SAVES Councils (and other large organisations) money by not having to consult with thousands of individuals.
*
[quote][p][bold]jellybiff[/bold] wrote: i belong in a union and pay dues etc .Allowing paid time off is OK. but why is the tax payer having to pay for the offices ,desks etc That means i am now paying twice once through my dues and once through my council tax.I will ask for a rebate or time to pay[/p][/quote]By law employers must consult with employees regarding changes to contracts / redundancies / terms and conditions etc; Consulting with paid union reps SAVES Councils (and other large organisations) money by not having to consult with thousands of individuals. * english rose 1

8:43am Thu 24 Jan 13

Joseph Yossarian says...

english rose 1 wrote:
jellybiff wrote: i belong in a union and pay dues etc .Allowing paid time off is OK. but why is the tax payer having to pay for the offices ,desks etc That means i am now paying twice once through my dues and once through my council tax.I will ask for a rebate or time to pay
By law employers must consult with employees regarding changes to contracts / redundancies / terms and conditions etc; Consulting with paid union reps SAVES Councils (and other large organisations) money by not having to consult with thousands of individuals. *
And yet in my company of 2,000 we seem to survive quite happily without a union.
[quote][p][bold]english rose 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jellybiff[/bold] wrote: i belong in a union and pay dues etc .Allowing paid time off is OK. but why is the tax payer having to pay for the offices ,desks etc That means i am now paying twice once through my dues and once through my council tax.I will ask for a rebate or time to pay[/p][/quote]By law employers must consult with employees regarding changes to contracts / redundancies / terms and conditions etc; Consulting with paid union reps SAVES Councils (and other large organisations) money by not having to consult with thousands of individuals. *[/p][/quote]And yet in my company of 2,000 we seem to survive quite happily without a union. Joseph Yossarian

8:47am Thu 24 Jan 13

Joseph Yossarian says...

jack daniels wrote:
Joseph Yossarian wrote:
jack daniels wrote:
Blackburn fans love horses wrote: £90k a year for Union reps is an absolute scandal in this age of austerity. What benefits do the unions actually provide the modern worker with nowadays? They are outdated politically-biased dianosaurs who should have been put out to grass years ago.
If you look at the non-existent rights we had 150yrs ago you'd not be asking what's the point. The union used to be the collective voice of the working class, not so much now I'll admit, but with these parasite condems looking to remove your workers rights, your right for a safe work place and your rights under EU law, you have to ask yourself - who's going to speak for me?
I can speak for me thanks. Failing that should my employment rights be abused, my no win no fee lawyer can speak for me. With thanks to Mr A. Blair, ironically enough.
fair enough, but if they change the laws for the worse, like they are trying to do, what use are your no win - no fee lawyers? Will the unions do anything now? I doubt it, yet we will always need a collective as one voice is seldom heard.
That's a good description of the anti-democratic nature of the unions. Trying to force the minority view of the non-elected hard-core socialists onto the rest of us.
[quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joseph Yossarian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Blackburn fans love horses[/bold] wrote: £90k a year for Union reps is an absolute scandal in this age of austerity. What benefits do the unions actually provide the modern worker with nowadays? They are outdated politically-biased dianosaurs who should have been put out to grass years ago.[/p][/quote]If you look at the non-existent rights we had 150yrs ago you'd not be asking what's the point. The union used to be the collective voice of the working class, not so much now I'll admit, but with these parasite condems looking to remove your workers rights, your right for a safe work place and your rights under EU law, you have to ask yourself - who's going to speak for me?[/p][/quote]I can speak for me thanks. Failing that should my employment rights be abused, my no win no fee lawyer can speak for me. With thanks to Mr A. Blair, ironically enough.[/p][/quote]fair enough, but if they change the laws for the worse, like they are trying to do, what use are your no win - no fee lawyers? Will the unions do anything now? I doubt it, yet we will always need a collective as one voice is seldom heard.[/p][/quote]That's a good description of the anti-democratic nature of the unions. Trying to force the minority view of the non-elected hard-core socialists onto the rest of us. Joseph Yossarian

8:52am Thu 24 Jan 13

Jack Herer says...

moanalotmore wrote:
The Tory leader has got it wrong, There are two low paid staff seconded to do union duties. No way is the cost £9200. and not much for 3000 union members. Certainly less than Tory councillors.

Also the arrangement was in place when the Tories ran the Council.

If he wants to stand up for Blackburn then he should slam the governments cuts of £30 million which is driving the cuts in jobs and services in Blackburn and Darwen.

The unions will fight for jobs and services for people in Blacburn and Darwen.

Will he? Clearly not. He appears to only want to close down opposition to the cuts.

He is not standing up for Blackburn and Darwen, but distracting attention whilst he and his Tory government pick our pockets.
Yes but do the unions fight for jobs and services that we actually need?

Do they heck, they happily discard front line services for political point scoring. All the unions fight tooth and nail for is to keep highly paid fat cats and gravy train perks.

Why shouldn't they? If they can claim central government isn't giving them enough, it gives them more to squander in future. It's win win for the unions bleating about less money and cutting front line services.

If you are so incredulous that union reps costs are so high, could it be just another gravy train therefore? I can't see Coun Lee making up those figures. Do yo now realise you've been hookwinked the unions / Labour, as to the extent of this gravy train?

Shameful aren't they the unions.
[quote][p][bold]moanalotmore[/bold] wrote: The Tory leader has got it wrong, There are two low paid staff seconded to do union duties. No way is the cost £9200. and not much for 3000 union members. Certainly less than Tory councillors. Also the arrangement was in place when the Tories ran the Council. If he wants to stand up for Blackburn then he should slam the governments cuts of £30 million which is driving the cuts in jobs and services in Blackburn and Darwen. The unions will fight for jobs and services for people in Blacburn and Darwen. Will he? Clearly not. He appears to only want to close down opposition to the cuts. He is not standing up for Blackburn and Darwen, but distracting attention whilst he and his Tory government pick our pockets.[/p][/quote]Yes but do the unions fight for jobs and services that we actually need? Do they heck, they happily discard front line services for political point scoring. All the unions fight tooth and nail for is to keep highly paid fat cats and gravy train perks. Why shouldn't they? If they can claim central government isn't giving them enough, it gives them more to squander in future. It's win win for the unions bleating about less money and cutting front line services. If you are so incredulous that union reps costs are so high, could it be just another gravy train therefore? I can't see Coun Lee making up those figures. Do yo now realise you've been hookwinked the unions / Labour, as to the extent of this gravy train? Shameful aren't they the unions. Jack Herer

9:02am Thu 24 Jan 13

Jack Herer says...

english rose 1 wrote:
jellybiff wrote:
i belong in a union and pay dues etc .Allowing paid time off is OK. but why is the tax payer having to pay for the offices ,desks etc That means i am now paying twice once through my dues and once through my council tax.I will ask for a rebate or time to pay
By law employers must consult with employees regarding changes to contracts / redundancies / terms and conditions etc; Consulting with paid union reps SAVES Councils (and other large organisations) money by not having to consult with thousands of individuals.
*
The council saves money now by paying unions reps?

That's so ridiculous, it's genuinely funny.

The council will of course have to consult twice because of the unions - once with union members, once with non-union members. Double the work is clearly only a saving in la la Labour land.

Two obvious questions; why should a non-union member of staff subsidise union work with their taxes, when they aren't allowed access to those union services because they aren't a member?

It's clearly rotten.

Second; why should the tax payer pay for union duties, when the unions have so much spare cash they donate millions in party donations.

It means the tax payer effective pays for random party donations, whilst at the same time being told that front line services need to cut.

That's obviously rotten beyond belief. Is it any wonder that decent union members are coming on here to say how disgusted they are with that?

Simple question, how are donations to a political party ever more important than front line services?
[quote][p][bold]english rose 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jellybiff[/bold] wrote: i belong in a union and pay dues etc .Allowing paid time off is OK. but why is the tax payer having to pay for the offices ,desks etc That means i am now paying twice once through my dues and once through my council tax.I will ask for a rebate or time to pay[/p][/quote]By law employers must consult with employees regarding changes to contracts / redundancies / terms and conditions etc; Consulting with paid union reps SAVES Councils (and other large organisations) money by not having to consult with thousands of individuals. *[/p][/quote]The council saves money now by paying unions reps? That's so ridiculous, it's genuinely funny. The council will of course have to consult twice because of the unions - once with union members, once with non-union members. Double the work is clearly only a saving in la la Labour land. Two obvious questions; why should a non-union member of staff subsidise union work with their taxes, when they aren't allowed access to those union services because they aren't a member? It's clearly rotten. Second; why should the tax payer pay for union duties, when the unions have so much spare cash they donate millions in party donations. It means the tax payer effective pays for random party donations, whilst at the same time being told that front line services need to cut. That's obviously rotten beyond belief. Is it any wonder that decent union members are coming on here to say how disgusted they are with that? Simple question, how are donations to a political party ever more important than front line services? Jack Herer

10:59am Thu 24 Jan 13

jack daniels says...

Joseph Yossarian wrote:
jack daniels wrote:
Joseph Yossarian wrote:
jack daniels wrote:
Blackburn fans love horses wrote: £90k a year for Union reps is an absolute scandal in this age of austerity. What benefits do the unions actually provide the modern worker with nowadays? They are outdated politically-biased dianosaurs who should have been put out to grass years ago.
If you look at the non-existent rights we had 150yrs ago you'd not be asking what's the point. The union used to be the collective voice of the working class, not so much now I'll admit, but with these parasite condems looking to remove your workers rights, your right for a safe work place and your rights under EU law, you have to ask yourself - who's going to speak for me?
I can speak for me thanks. Failing that should my employment rights be abused, my no win no fee lawyer can speak for me. With thanks to Mr A. Blair, ironically enough.
fair enough, but if they change the laws for the worse, like they are trying to do, what use are your no win - no fee lawyers? Will the unions do anything now? I doubt it, yet we will always need a collective as one voice is seldom heard.
That's a good description of the anti-democratic nature of the unions. Trying to force the minority view of the non-elected hard-core socialists onto the rest of us.
But could we not also argue that this government is doing the exact same thing but towards a hard core right wing ideology?

How many people voted lib dem and can't believe what has happened?
[quote][p][bold]Joseph Yossarian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joseph Yossarian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Blackburn fans love horses[/bold] wrote: £90k a year for Union reps is an absolute scandal in this age of austerity. What benefits do the unions actually provide the modern worker with nowadays? They are outdated politically-biased dianosaurs who should have been put out to grass years ago.[/p][/quote]If you look at the non-existent rights we had 150yrs ago you'd not be asking what's the point. The union used to be the collective voice of the working class, not so much now I'll admit, but with these parasite condems looking to remove your workers rights, your right for a safe work place and your rights under EU law, you have to ask yourself - who's going to speak for me?[/p][/quote]I can speak for me thanks. Failing that should my employment rights be abused, my no win no fee lawyer can speak for me. With thanks to Mr A. Blair, ironically enough.[/p][/quote]fair enough, but if they change the laws for the worse, like they are trying to do, what use are your no win - no fee lawyers? Will the unions do anything now? I doubt it, yet we will always need a collective as one voice is seldom heard.[/p][/quote]That's a good description of the anti-democratic nature of the unions. Trying to force the minority view of the non-elected hard-core socialists onto the rest of us.[/p][/quote]But could we not also argue that this government is doing the exact same thing but towards a hard core right wing ideology? How many people voted lib dem and can't believe what has happened? jack daniels

11:28am Thu 24 Jan 13

jack daniels says...

Kev wrote:
jack daniels wrote:
Kev wrote:
jack daniels wrote:
oldblue wrote:
Tory leader Mike Lee has it exactly right. Why should front line services be so adversely affected whilst Union representives are subsidised by the long suffering council tax payer. Blackburn has sunk to being one of the poorest towns in the Uk whilst consistently voting Labour at national and local level. And some good it has done us. Where is the exit?
I seem to recall that it was Thatcher in the 80's and 90's that created the rot in Lancashire with the destruction on engineering and production jobs in the borough. We could also argue that it was the capitaist factory owners in the 50's that invited and employed poor immigrants from India, Pakistan and Bangledesh to our shores, which in turn now costs the council hundreds and thousands in housing and other services.

I'm no lover of the new liebour war starters but at least Straw got money pumped into our ailing town - the same money the condems are taking away.
If you ever get round to removing your loony left wing nutter rose tinted specs and tinfoil hat; take a look around you......

Now then, who has done more damage to Blackburn.

Thatcher - or Williams, followed by her Oxford dwelling puppet Straw, parachuted into

Haven't (some) of us done very nicely thank you, on the back of the Socialist policies our town has endured

To hell with the workers!
So long as you're all right Jack!
This is why I ignored you and thanks for proving me right!

From the first sentence you wrote you are starting with the silly insults and ignoring my comment which supported my opinion.

I refuse to contribute to an over-extended comments list trading pointless diatribes with someone who won't consider my viewpoint, which nobody will care about in 48hrs anyway.
Of course you ignored me!

To disagree with a Socialist bedwetter is heresy in your occluded world

It's called ducking the question
Thatcher or Straw?
Loony Left??

Bedwetter??

First of all you need to be a lot more polite if you wish me to respond to your question.

Secondly. What is the point of responding to somebody so rabidly against what I believe in.

The only loony here is you Kev.
[quote][p][bold]Kev[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kev[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]oldblue[/bold] wrote: Tory leader Mike Lee has it exactly right. Why should front line services be so adversely affected whilst Union representives are subsidised by the long suffering council tax payer. Blackburn has sunk to being one of the poorest towns in the Uk whilst consistently voting Labour at national and local level. And some good it has done us. Where is the exit?[/p][/quote]I seem to recall that it was Thatcher in the 80's and 90's that created the rot in Lancashire with the destruction on engineering and production jobs in the borough. We could also argue that it was the capitaist factory owners in the 50's that invited and employed poor immigrants from India, Pakistan and Bangledesh to our shores, which in turn now costs the council hundreds and thousands in housing and other services. I'm no lover of the new liebour war starters but at least Straw got money pumped into our ailing town - the same money the condems are taking away.[/p][/quote]If you ever get round to removing your loony left wing nutter rose tinted specs and tinfoil hat; take a look around you...... Now then, who has done more damage to Blackburn. Thatcher - or Williams, followed by her Oxford dwelling puppet Straw, parachuted into Haven't (some) of us done very nicely thank you, on the back of the Socialist policies our town has endured To hell with the workers! So long as you're all right Jack![/p][/quote]This is why I ignored you and thanks for proving me right! From the first sentence you wrote you are starting with the silly insults and ignoring my comment which supported my opinion. I refuse to contribute to an over-extended comments list trading pointless diatribes with someone who won't consider my viewpoint, which nobody will care about in 48hrs anyway.[/p][/quote]Of course you ignored me! To disagree with a Socialist bedwetter is heresy in your occluded world It's called ducking the question Thatcher or Straw?[/p][/quote]Loony Left?? Bedwetter?? First of all you need to be a lot more polite if you wish me to respond to your question. Secondly. What is the point of responding to somebody so rabidly against what I believe in. The only loony here is you Kev. jack daniels

11:30am Thu 24 Jan 13

ilovemyjob1 says...

Mike Lee is only pi..ed off because he was ousted as leader on the last raft of cuts a few years ago I suspect Trade Union involvement really stuck in his throat..... remind me again why? o yeah he wanted to close Shadsworth Leisure Centre....Is it still open?
Mike Lee is only pi..ed off because he was ousted as leader on the last raft of cuts a few years ago I suspect Trade Union involvement really stuck in his throat..... remind me again why? o yeah he wanted to close Shadsworth Leisure Centre....Is it still open? ilovemyjob1

11:35am Thu 24 Jan 13

ilovemyjob1 says...

Mike Lee is only pi..ed off because he was ousted as leader on the last raft of cuts a few years ago I suspect Trade Union involvement really stuck in his throat..... remind me again why? o yeah he wanted to close Shadsworth Leisure Centre....Is it still open?
Im wondering if the 90k+ is an inflated quote please show us how you came to this figure please
Mike Lee is only pi..ed off because he was ousted as leader on the last raft of cuts a few years ago I suspect Trade Union involvement really stuck in his throat..... remind me again why? o yeah he wanted to close Shadsworth Leisure Centre....Is it still open? Im wondering if the 90k+ is an inflated quote please show us how you came to this figure please ilovemyjob1

11:42am Thu 24 Jan 13

Shirley Bassey says...

Grunny - well said. Without the unions employees would have no voice.

As for the lollipop ladies/men I agree, we do need to keep them, it's bad enough seeing parents take risks crossing busy roads with their kids and setting bad examples. When that service is gone it's only a matter of time before a fatality happens but surely the school have some role to play in this? Have they been asked to at least partially fund the posts and I'm sure there'll be some people in the community willing to help out, even adhoc. We need to think differently and help ourselves a bit more than relying on the council to provide every single service.

I agree with Councillor Foster, the council should be looking at sharing services with other authorities, do we really need so many chief executives, directors and councillors in this part of Lancashire??? If the Tory's really do expect the poorer northern Council's to deal with these unfair cuts then they should be asking for bigger Unitary authorities to be formed.
Grunny - well said. Without the unions employees would have no voice. As for the lollipop ladies/men I agree, we do need to keep them, it's bad enough seeing parents take risks crossing busy roads with their kids and setting bad examples. When that service is gone it's only a matter of time before a fatality happens but surely the school have some role to play in this? Have they been asked to at least partially fund the posts and I'm sure there'll be some people in the community willing to help out, even adhoc. We need to think differently and help ourselves a bit more than relying on the council to provide every single service. I agree with Councillor Foster, the council should be looking at sharing services with other authorities, do we really need so many chief executives, directors and councillors in this part of Lancashire??? If the Tory's really do expect the poorer northern Council's to deal with these unfair cuts then they should be asking for bigger Unitary authorities to be formed. Shirley Bassey

11:44am Thu 24 Jan 13

jack daniels says...

Info-warrior wrote:
If the Unions were on all out attack at the government and earning their subs then I would have no quarrels with any unionist having a decent living. There is just to many these days earning a living out the public purse for very little effort. The first thing the Unionists should be doing is ensuring that we never ever ever have another coalition government. Even if we all have to go and vote another twenty times to find out an out right winner, we should never have this coalition nonsense again.

We no longer have a need for unions under the current government, well not unless Georgie boy as changed course and created some growth and jobs for the unions to protect. No growth no jobs no unions no Labour totalised tyranny by design. At some point the sheeple will see it for what it is just before they drop in the final few drips of Zyklon B into their evening shower. History always as a way of repeating itself in varied ways but always the same outcome.

Be warry of all these changes what are going on around us at the moment, the government are strangling everything they can get their grubby thieving little hands on and crushing the unions into the history books would be a massive victory for any tory government. And thats exactly whats happening here.

Wakey wakey rise and shine smell the coffee your living with crime....from 9/11 to Tyranny in less than a decade and the main course is yet to come so hold on tight the next twelve months are going to get a bit turbulent to say the least....stock up.
I understand what you are saying and agree with a good part of it. We could also mention how the banks, the Chinese and Arabs have been quietly buying businesses, land (and power - making our governement ever more sidelined and obsolete.

While our current unions have lost our way, as well as outright control of the old labour party, we at least have the experience of dragging ourselves out of the chainless slavery that was the industrial revolution and hopefully this will happen again.

The occupation of St Pauls cathedral being a brilliant example of people coming together to protest against this and the previous capitalist government.
[quote][p][bold]Info-warrior[/bold] wrote: If the Unions were on all out attack at the government and earning their subs then I would have no quarrels with any unionist having a decent living. There is just to many these days earning a living out the public purse for very little effort. The first thing the Unionists should be doing is ensuring that we never ever ever have another coalition government. Even if we all have to go and vote another twenty times to find out an out right winner, we should never have this coalition nonsense again. We no longer have a need for unions under the current government, well not unless Georgie boy as changed course and created some growth and jobs for the unions to protect. No growth no jobs no unions no Labour totalised tyranny by design. At some point the sheeple will see it for what it is just before they drop in the final few drips of Zyklon B into their evening shower. History always as a way of repeating itself in varied ways but always the same outcome. Be warry of all these changes what are going on around us at the moment, the government are strangling everything they can get their grubby thieving little hands on and crushing the unions into the history books would be a massive victory for any tory government. And thats exactly whats happening here. Wakey wakey rise and shine smell the coffee your living with crime....from 9/11 to Tyranny in less than a decade and the main course is yet to come so hold on tight the next twelve months are going to get a bit turbulent to say the least....stock up.[/p][/quote]I understand what you are saying and agree with a good part of it. We could also mention how the banks, the Chinese and Arabs have been quietly buying businesses, land (and power - making our governement ever more sidelined and obsolete. While our current unions have lost our way, as well as outright control of the old labour party, we at least have the experience of dragging ourselves out of the chainless slavery that was the industrial revolution and hopefully this will happen again. The occupation of St Pauls cathedral being a brilliant example of people coming together to protest against this and the previous capitalist government. jack daniels

1:10pm Thu 24 Jan 13

RamMHW says...

Perhaps the tories and lib dems in Blackburn would be better lobbying their own parties in government about halting these cuts. The money could be raised in other ways by stopping tax evasion and avoidance, taxing the rich more by reinstating the 50p tax rate and introducing some kind of wealth tax, be it mansion or otherwise. They could also introduce more council tax bands for those with incredibly large properties.

The unions help to protect staff rights and employment. It is no secret that the tories are not friends of the unions and perhaps without them they can undo all the good work that has been done such as getting rid of health and safety at work, making it easy to sack someone just because you don't like them and all the other Beecroft suggestions that they are trying to get in the back door. Really they want employees to have no rights at all so that they can be sacked at will even if they have done nothing wrong.
Perhaps the tories and lib dems in Blackburn would be better lobbying their own parties in government about halting these cuts. The money could be raised in other ways by stopping tax evasion and avoidance, taxing the rich more by reinstating the 50p tax rate and introducing some kind of wealth tax, be it mansion or otherwise. They could also introduce more council tax bands for those with incredibly large properties. The unions help to protect staff rights and employment. It is no secret that the tories are not friends of the unions and perhaps without them they can undo all the good work that has been done such as getting rid of health and safety at work, making it easy to sack someone just because you don't like them and all the other Beecroft suggestions that they are trying to get in the back door. Really they want employees to have no rights at all so that they can be sacked at will even if they have done nothing wrong. RamMHW

1:22pm Thu 24 Jan 13

BlackburnEyes says...

jack daniels wrote:
Info-warrior wrote: If the Unions were on all out attack at the government and earning their subs then I would have no quarrels with any unionist having a decent living. There is just to many these days earning a living out the public purse for very little effort. The first thing the Unionists should be doing is ensuring that we never ever ever have another coalition government. Even if we all have to go and vote another twenty times to find out an out right winner, we should never have this coalition nonsense again. We no longer have a need for unions under the current government, well not unless Georgie boy as changed course and created some growth and jobs for the unions to protect. No growth no jobs no unions no Labour totalised tyranny by design. At some point the sheeple will see it for what it is just before they drop in the final few drips of Zyklon B into their evening shower. History always as a way of repeating itself in varied ways but always the same outcome. Be warry of all these changes what are going on around us at the moment, the government are strangling everything they can get their grubby thieving little hands on and crushing the unions into the history books would be a massive victory for any tory government. And thats exactly whats happening here. Wakey wakey rise and shine smell the coffee your living with crime....from 9/11 to Tyranny in less than a decade and the main course is yet to come so hold on tight the next twelve months are going to get a bit turbulent to say the least....stock up.
I understand what you are saying and agree with a good part of it. We could also mention how the banks, the Chinese and Arabs have been quietly buying businesses, land (and power - making our governement ever more sidelined and obsolete. While our current unions have lost our way, as well as outright control of the old labour party, we at least have the experience of dragging ourselves out of the chainless slavery that was the industrial revolution and hopefully this will happen again. The occupation of St Pauls cathedral being a brilliant example of people coming together to protest against this and the previous capitalist government.
No labour means no taxes by stealth...
No labour means not wasting record amounts of money to fund projects that were unfulfilled and have become obsolete (NHS IT programme)...

No Labour means we dont have a 10 year rail plan that was replaced within 2 years and quietly swept under the carpet

No Labour means not having 110% mortgages and people thinking its normal

No Labour means a realistic debt to GDP balance

No Labour means that its union paymasters wont have first refusal on goverment policy

No Labour means restriction of immigration

No Labour means protecting our jobs unlike when chesire cat was in power and bent over for anyone brandishing cash (hinduja's...to name one)

Would you like me to go on...stop deluding yourself into thinking we live in an era where militant union activity is required! and FYI those protesting in St Pauls were predominantly squatters, drug users and benefit claimants that hijacked the debate....the filth left over took weeks to clean...ha ha ha similar to the filth labour left unfortunately it'll take longer than weeks perhaps even decades! You happily voted for the previous so called capitalist goverment as they increased your benefits, turned a blind eye, killed our manufacturing industry and sold off the country's gold....tax and spend all the way its in the labour party's genes!
[quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Info-warrior[/bold] wrote: If the Unions were on all out attack at the government and earning their subs then I would have no quarrels with any unionist having a decent living. There is just to many these days earning a living out the public purse for very little effort. The first thing the Unionists should be doing is ensuring that we never ever ever have another coalition government. Even if we all have to go and vote another twenty times to find out an out right winner, we should never have this coalition nonsense again. We no longer have a need for unions under the current government, well not unless Georgie boy as changed course and created some growth and jobs for the unions to protect. No growth no jobs no unions no Labour totalised tyranny by design. At some point the sheeple will see it for what it is just before they drop in the final few drips of Zyklon B into their evening shower. History always as a way of repeating itself in varied ways but always the same outcome. Be warry of all these changes what are going on around us at the moment, the government are strangling everything they can get their grubby thieving little hands on and crushing the unions into the history books would be a massive victory for any tory government. And thats exactly whats happening here. Wakey wakey rise and shine smell the coffee your living with crime....from 9/11 to Tyranny in less than a decade and the main course is yet to come so hold on tight the next twelve months are going to get a bit turbulent to say the least....stock up.[/p][/quote]I understand what you are saying and agree with a good part of it. We could also mention how the banks, the Chinese and Arabs have been quietly buying businesses, land (and power - making our governement ever more sidelined and obsolete. While our current unions have lost our way, as well as outright control of the old labour party, we at least have the experience of dragging ourselves out of the chainless slavery that was the industrial revolution and hopefully this will happen again. The occupation of St Pauls cathedral being a brilliant example of people coming together to protest against this and the previous capitalist government.[/p][/quote]No labour means no taxes by stealth... No labour means not wasting record amounts of money to fund projects that were unfulfilled and have become obsolete (NHS IT programme)... No Labour means we dont have a 10 year rail plan that was replaced within 2 years and quietly swept under the carpet No Labour means not having 110% mortgages and people thinking its normal No Labour means a realistic debt to GDP balance No Labour means that its union paymasters wont have first refusal on goverment policy No Labour means restriction of immigration No Labour means protecting our jobs unlike when chesire cat was in power and bent over for anyone brandishing cash (hinduja's...to name one) Would you like me to go on...stop deluding yourself into thinking we live in an era where militant union activity is required! and FYI those protesting in St Pauls were predominantly squatters, drug users and benefit claimants that hijacked the debate....the filth left over took weeks to clean...ha ha ha similar to the filth labour left unfortunately it'll take longer than weeks perhaps even decades! You happily voted for the previous so called capitalist goverment as they increased your benefits, turned a blind eye, killed our manufacturing industry and sold off the country's gold....tax and spend all the way its in the labour party's genes! BlackburnEyes

1:49pm Thu 24 Jan 13

RamMHW says...

Perhaps bankers could also be forced to return all the bonuses paid to them over ther last 10 years as they clearly have not earned them. If someone claimed benefits they weren't entitled to they would have to pay them back and probably be imprisoned! The same should happen to the bankers who caused this mess in the first place.

People really ought to remember that MT ruined this country by selling off all our manufacturing and giving away British Rail, British Gas and other utilities etc etc. Do you really think prices for these would be so high if they were still nationalised? The tories want to privatise everything so there is no public service. The only losers here are everyone that isn't rich. The only people that will make any money are the friends of the tories who give jobs to each other for no other reason than they are friends.

All union members when they join tick a box to say whether they wish to be affiliated to the labour party, if they tick no, their subs cannot in any be be donated to the labour party.

There are only 3 paid union reps, Branch Secretaries and Assistant Branch Secretary who recieve their normal pay from the council to perform union duties which they are kept very busy with owing to the number of cases they have to deal with. Any other rep represents people they don't have time to and attends meetings about serious issues affecting the staff they work with and represent. The majority of preparation work is done in a union reps own time at home.
Perhaps bankers could also be forced to return all the bonuses paid to them over ther last 10 years as they clearly have not earned them. If someone claimed benefits they weren't entitled to they would have to pay them back and probably be imprisoned! The same should happen to the bankers who caused this mess in the first place. People really ought to remember that MT ruined this country by selling off all our manufacturing and giving away British Rail, British Gas and other utilities etc etc. Do you really think prices for these would be so high if they were still nationalised? The tories want to privatise everything so there is no public service. The only losers here are everyone that isn't rich. The only people that will make any money are the friends of the tories who give jobs to each other for no other reason than they are friends. All union members when they join tick a box to say whether they wish to be affiliated to the labour party, if they tick no, their subs cannot in any be be donated to the labour party. There are only 3 paid union reps, Branch Secretaries and Assistant Branch Secretary who recieve their normal pay from the council to perform union duties which they are kept very busy with owing to the number of cases they have to deal with. Any other rep represents people they don't have time to and attends meetings about serious issues affecting the staff they work with and represent. The majority of preparation work is done in a union reps own time at home. RamMHW

1:58pm Thu 24 Jan 13

RamMHW says...

I have also recently learnt that the MPs have a lovely subsidised canteen where they can eat lavish meals at low cut prices every day. Apparently they are also given a £160 per week grocery allowance - how is this right when a job seeker can only have £71 per week. Seems to me it is the government that needs to cut back on their own spending and expenses. We have seen all these cuts to local government yet the cutbacks in Whitehall amount to somewhere between 6-8%. The cuts should be made in London!
I have also recently learnt that the MPs have a lovely subsidised canteen where they can eat lavish meals at low cut prices every day. Apparently they are also given a £160 per week grocery allowance - how is this right when a job seeker can only have £71 per week. Seems to me it is the government that needs to cut back on their own spending and expenses. We have seen all these cuts to local government yet the cutbacks in Whitehall amount to somewhere between 6-8%. The cuts should be made in London! RamMHW

1:58pm Thu 24 Jan 13

jack daniels says...

BlackburnEyes wrote:
jack daniels wrote:
Info-warrior wrote: If the Unions were on all out attack at the government and earning their subs then I would have no quarrels with any unionist having a decent living. There is just to many these days earning a living out the public purse for very little effort. The first thing the Unionists should be doing is ensuring that we never ever ever have another coalition government. Even if we all have to go and vote another twenty times to find out an out right winner, we should never have this coalition nonsense again. We no longer have a need for unions under the current government, well not unless Georgie boy as changed course and created some growth and jobs for the unions to protect. No growth no jobs no unions no Labour totalised tyranny by design. At some point the sheeple will see it for what it is just before they drop in the final few drips of Zyklon B into their evening shower. History always as a way of repeating itself in varied ways but always the same outcome. Be warry of all these changes what are going on around us at the moment, the government are strangling everything they can get their grubby thieving little hands on and crushing the unions into the history books would be a massive victory for any tory government. And thats exactly whats happening here. Wakey wakey rise and shine smell the coffee your living with crime....from 9/11 to Tyranny in less than a decade and the main course is yet to come so hold on tight the next twelve months are going to get a bit turbulent to say the least....stock up.
I understand what you are saying and agree with a good part of it. We could also mention how the banks, the Chinese and Arabs have been quietly buying businesses, land (and power - making our governement ever more sidelined and obsolete. While our current unions have lost our way, as well as outright control of the old labour party, we at least have the experience of dragging ourselves out of the chainless slavery that was the industrial revolution and hopefully this will happen again. The occupation of St Pauls cathedral being a brilliant example of people coming together to protest against this and the previous capitalist government.
No labour means no taxes by stealth...
No labour means not wasting record amounts of money to fund projects that were unfulfilled and have become obsolete (NHS IT programme)...

No Labour means we dont have a 10 year rail plan that was replaced within 2 years and quietly swept under the carpet

No Labour means not having 110% mortgages and people thinking its normal

No Labour means a realistic debt to GDP balance

No Labour means that its union paymasters wont have first refusal on goverment policy

No Labour means restriction of immigration

No Labour means protecting our jobs unlike when chesire cat was in power and bent over for anyone brandishing cash (hinduja's...to name one)

Would you like me to go on...stop deluding yourself into thinking we live in an era where militant union activity is required! and FYI those protesting in St Pauls were predominantly squatters, drug users and benefit claimants that hijacked the debate....the filth left over took weeks to clean...ha ha ha similar to the filth labour left unfortunately it'll take longer than weeks perhaps even decades! You happily voted for the previous so called capitalist goverment as they increased your benefits, turned a blind eye, killed our manufacturing industry and sold off the country's gold....tax and spend all the way its in the labour party's genes!
Can I quickly point out that I'm not an advocate of the Labour party and neither have I voted for them. In my previous post I actually classified them as -

"this and the previous capitalist government"

which pretty much nullifies the first half of your post.

As for your opinion about me

"deluding yourself into thinking we live in an era where militant union activity is required".

I have to say that if you think that things are going fine, and that Gideon Osborne and the rest of the government have your interests at heart, then you need to consider who is the deluded one posting on here.

Considering that you hadn't really read my post, waffled on about Cheshire cats (???) and the inclusion of your childish "ha ha ha", I think we'll award you that prestigious accolade of being deluded.
[quote][p][bold]BlackburnEyes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Info-warrior[/bold] wrote: If the Unions were on all out attack at the government and earning their subs then I would have no quarrels with any unionist having a decent living. There is just to many these days earning a living out the public purse for very little effort. The first thing the Unionists should be doing is ensuring that we never ever ever have another coalition government. Even if we all have to go and vote another twenty times to find out an out right winner, we should never have this coalition nonsense again. We no longer have a need for unions under the current government, well not unless Georgie boy as changed course and created some growth and jobs for the unions to protect. No growth no jobs no unions no Labour totalised tyranny by design. At some point the sheeple will see it for what it is just before they drop in the final few drips of Zyklon B into their evening shower. History always as a way of repeating itself in varied ways but always the same outcome. Be warry of all these changes what are going on around us at the moment, the government are strangling everything they can get their grubby thieving little hands on and crushing the unions into the history books would be a massive victory for any tory government. And thats exactly whats happening here. Wakey wakey rise and shine smell the coffee your living with crime....from 9/11 to Tyranny in less than a decade and the main course is yet to come so hold on tight the next twelve months are going to get a bit turbulent to say the least....stock up.[/p][/quote]I understand what you are saying and agree with a good part of it. We could also mention how the banks, the Chinese and Arabs have been quietly buying businesses, land (and power - making our governement ever more sidelined and obsolete. While our current unions have lost our way, as well as outright control of the old labour party, we at least have the experience of dragging ourselves out of the chainless slavery that was the industrial revolution and hopefully this will happen again. The occupation of St Pauls cathedral being a brilliant example of people coming together to protest against this and the previous capitalist government.[/p][/quote]No labour means no taxes by stealth... No labour means not wasting record amounts of money to fund projects that were unfulfilled and have become obsolete (NHS IT programme)... No Labour means we dont have a 10 year rail plan that was replaced within 2 years and quietly swept under the carpet No Labour means not having 110% mortgages and people thinking its normal No Labour means a realistic debt to GDP balance No Labour means that its union paymasters wont have first refusal on goverment policy No Labour means restriction of immigration No Labour means protecting our jobs unlike when chesire cat was in power and bent over for anyone brandishing cash (hinduja's...to name one) Would you like me to go on...stop deluding yourself into thinking we live in an era where militant union activity is required! and FYI those protesting in St Pauls were predominantly squatters, drug users and benefit claimants that hijacked the debate....the filth left over took weeks to clean...ha ha ha similar to the filth labour left unfortunately it'll take longer than weeks perhaps even decades! You happily voted for the previous so called capitalist goverment as they increased your benefits, turned a blind eye, killed our manufacturing industry and sold off the country's gold....tax and spend all the way its in the labour party's genes![/p][/quote]Can I quickly point out that I'm not an advocate of the Labour party and neither have I voted for them. In my previous post I actually classified them as - "this and the previous capitalist government" which pretty much nullifies the first half of your post. As for your opinion about me "deluding yourself into thinking we live in an era where militant union activity is required". I have to say that if you think that things are going fine, and that Gideon Osborne and the rest of the government have your interests at heart, then you need to consider who is the deluded one posting on here. Considering that you hadn't really read my post, waffled on about Cheshire cats (???) and the inclusion of your childish "ha ha ha", I think we'll award you that prestigious accolade of being deluded. jack daniels

2:00pm Thu 24 Jan 13

jack daniels says...

RamMHW wrote:
Perhaps bankers could also be forced to return all the bonuses paid to them over ther last 10 years as they clearly have not earned them. If someone claimed benefits they weren't entitled to they would have to pay them back and probably be imprisoned! The same should happen to the bankers who caused this mess in the first place.

People really ought to remember that MT ruined this country by selling off all our manufacturing and giving away British Rail, British Gas and other utilities etc etc. Do you really think prices for these would be so high if they were still nationalised? The tories want to privatise everything so there is no public service. The only losers here are everyone that isn't rich. The only people that will make any money are the friends of the tories who give jobs to each other for no other reason than they are friends.

All union members when they join tick a box to say whether they wish to be affiliated to the labour party, if they tick no, their subs cannot in any be be donated to the labour party.

There are only 3 paid union reps, Branch Secretaries and Assistant Branch Secretary who recieve their normal pay from the council to perform union duties which they are kept very busy with owing to the number of cases they have to deal with. Any other rep represents people they don't have time to and attends meetings about serious issues affecting the staff they work with and represent. The majority of preparation work is done in a union reps own time at home.
well said
[quote][p][bold]RamMHW[/bold] wrote: Perhaps bankers could also be forced to return all the bonuses paid to them over ther last 10 years as they clearly have not earned them. If someone claimed benefits they weren't entitled to they would have to pay them back and probably be imprisoned! The same should happen to the bankers who caused this mess in the first place. People really ought to remember that MT ruined this country by selling off all our manufacturing and giving away British Rail, British Gas and other utilities etc etc. Do you really think prices for these would be so high if they were still nationalised? The tories want to privatise everything so there is no public service. The only losers here are everyone that isn't rich. The only people that will make any money are the friends of the tories who give jobs to each other for no other reason than they are friends. All union members when they join tick a box to say whether they wish to be affiliated to the labour party, if they tick no, their subs cannot in any be be donated to the labour party. There are only 3 paid union reps, Branch Secretaries and Assistant Branch Secretary who recieve their normal pay from the council to perform union duties which they are kept very busy with owing to the number of cases they have to deal with. Any other rep represents people they don't have time to and attends meetings about serious issues affecting the staff they work with and represent. The majority of preparation work is done in a union reps own time at home.[/p][/quote]well said jack daniels

5:49pm Thu 24 Jan 13

Joseph Yossarian says...

RamMHW wrote:
Perhaps bankers could also be forced to return all the bonuses paid to them over ther last 10 years as they clearly have not earned them. If someone claimed benefits they weren't entitled to they would have to pay them back and probably be imprisoned! The same should happen to the bankers who caused this mess in the first place. People really ought to remember that MT ruined this country by selling off all our manufacturing and giving away British Rail, British Gas and other utilities etc etc. Do you really think prices for these would be so high if they were still nationalised? The tories want to privatise everything so there is no public service. The only losers here are everyone that isn't rich. The only people that will make any money are the friends of the tories who give jobs to each other for no other reason than they are friends. All union members when they join tick a box to say whether they wish to be affiliated to the labour party, if they tick no, their subs cannot in any be be donated to the labour party. There are only 3 paid union reps, Branch Secretaries and Assistant Branch Secretary who recieve their normal pay from the council to perform union duties which they are kept very busy with owing to the number of cases they have to deal with. Any other rep represents people they don't have time to and attends meetings about serious issues affecting the staff they work with and represent. The majority of preparation work is done in a union reps own time at home.
Are the union reps, branch secretaries and so on working full time on union activities? Or part time?
either way, if they are paid by the council for doing union activity that is just plain wrong.

ps those nasty bankers with their knighthoods given to them by labour.....
[quote][p][bold]RamMHW[/bold] wrote: Perhaps bankers could also be forced to return all the bonuses paid to them over ther last 10 years as they clearly have not earned them. If someone claimed benefits they weren't entitled to they would have to pay them back and probably be imprisoned! The same should happen to the bankers who caused this mess in the first place. People really ought to remember that MT ruined this country by selling off all our manufacturing and giving away British Rail, British Gas and other utilities etc etc. Do you really think prices for these would be so high if they were still nationalised? The tories want to privatise everything so there is no public service. The only losers here are everyone that isn't rich. The only people that will make any money are the friends of the tories who give jobs to each other for no other reason than they are friends. All union members when they join tick a box to say whether they wish to be affiliated to the labour party, if they tick no, their subs cannot in any be be donated to the labour party. There are only 3 paid union reps, Branch Secretaries and Assistant Branch Secretary who recieve their normal pay from the council to perform union duties which they are kept very busy with owing to the number of cases they have to deal with. Any other rep represents people they don't have time to and attends meetings about serious issues affecting the staff they work with and represent. The majority of preparation work is done in a union reps own time at home.[/p][/quote]Are the union reps, branch secretaries and so on working full time on union activities? Or part time? either way, if they are paid by the council for doing union activity that is just plain wrong. ps those nasty bankers with their knighthoods given to them by labour..... Joseph Yossarian

5:53pm Thu 24 Jan 13

Good call says...

BlackburnEyes wrote:
jack daniels wrote:
Info-warrior wrote: If the Unions were on all out attack at the government and earning their subs then I would have no quarrels with any unionist having a decent living. There is just to many these days earning a living out the public purse for very little effort. The first thing the Unionists should be doing is ensuring that we never ever ever have another coalition government. Even if we all have to go and vote another twenty times to find out an out right winner, we should never have this coalition nonsense again. We no longer have a need for unions under the current government, well not unless Georgie boy as changed course and created some growth and jobs for the unions to protect. No growth no jobs no unions no Labour totalised tyranny by design. At some point the sheeple will see it for what it is just before they drop in the final few drips of Zyklon B into their evening shower. History always as a way of repeating itself in varied ways but always the same outcome. Be warry of all these changes what are going on around us at the moment, the government are strangling everything they can get their grubby thieving little hands on and crushing the unions into the history books would be a massive victory for any tory government. And thats exactly whats happening here. Wakey wakey rise and shine smell the coffee your living with crime....from 9/11 to Tyranny in less than a decade and the main course is yet to come so hold on tight the next twelve months are going to get a bit turbulent to say the least....stock up.
I understand what you are saying and agree with a good part of it. We could also mention how the banks, the Chinese and Arabs have been quietly buying businesses, land (and power - making our governement ever more sidelined and obsolete. While our current unions have lost our way, as well as outright control of the old labour party, we at least have the experience of dragging ourselves out of the chainless slavery that was the industrial revolution and hopefully this will happen again. The occupation of St Pauls cathedral being a brilliant example of people coming together to protest against this and the previous capitalist government.
No labour means no taxes by stealth...
No labour means not wasting record amounts of money to fund projects that were unfulfilled and have become obsolete (NHS IT programme)...

No Labour means we dont have a 10 year rail plan that was replaced within 2 years and quietly swept under the carpet

No Labour means not having 110% mortgages and people thinking its normal

No Labour means a realistic debt to GDP balance

No Labour means that its union paymasters wont have first refusal on goverment policy

No Labour means restriction of immigration

No Labour means protecting our jobs unlike when chesire cat was in power and bent over for anyone brandishing cash (hinduja's...to name one)

Would you like me to go on...stop deluding yourself into thinking we live in an era where militant union activity is required! and FYI those protesting in St Pauls were predominantly squatters, drug users and benefit claimants that hijacked the debate....the filth left over took weeks to clean...ha ha ha similar to the filth labour left unfortunately it'll take longer than weeks perhaps even decades! You happily voted for the previous so called capitalist goverment as they increased your benefits, turned a blind eye, killed our manufacturing industry and sold off the country's gold....tax and spend all the way its in the labour party's genes!
"No labour means no taxes by stealth"
Is that why we still have the tv licence fee and goons being employed to intimidate and harrass those who haven't payed up, regardless of wether they watch tel-lie-vision or not.You need to wake up.
[quote][p][bold]BlackburnEyes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Info-warrior[/bold] wrote: If the Unions were on all out attack at the government and earning their subs then I would have no quarrels with any unionist having a decent living. There is just to many these days earning a living out the public purse for very little effort. The first thing the Unionists should be doing is ensuring that we never ever ever have another coalition government. Even if we all have to go and vote another twenty times to find out an out right winner, we should never have this coalition nonsense again. We no longer have a need for unions under the current government, well not unless Georgie boy as changed course and created some growth and jobs for the unions to protect. No growth no jobs no unions no Labour totalised tyranny by design. At some point the sheeple will see it for what it is just before they drop in the final few drips of Zyklon B into their evening shower. History always as a way of repeating itself in varied ways but always the same outcome. Be warry of all these changes what are going on around us at the moment, the government are strangling everything they can get their grubby thieving little hands on and crushing the unions into the history books would be a massive victory for any tory government. And thats exactly whats happening here. Wakey wakey rise and shine smell the coffee your living with crime....from 9/11 to Tyranny in less than a decade and the main course is yet to come so hold on tight the next twelve months are going to get a bit turbulent to say the least....stock up.[/p][/quote]I understand what you are saying and agree with a good part of it. We could also mention how the banks, the Chinese and Arabs have been quietly buying businesses, land (and power - making our governement ever more sidelined and obsolete. While our current unions have lost our way, as well as outright control of the old labour party, we at least have the experience of dragging ourselves out of the chainless slavery that was the industrial revolution and hopefully this will happen again. The occupation of St Pauls cathedral being a brilliant example of people coming together to protest against this and the previous capitalist government.[/p][/quote]No labour means no taxes by stealth... No labour means not wasting record amounts of money to fund projects that were unfulfilled and have become obsolete (NHS IT programme)... No Labour means we dont have a 10 year rail plan that was replaced within 2 years and quietly swept under the carpet No Labour means not having 110% mortgages and people thinking its normal No Labour means a realistic debt to GDP balance No Labour means that its union paymasters wont have first refusal on goverment policy No Labour means restriction of immigration No Labour means protecting our jobs unlike when chesire cat was in power and bent over for anyone brandishing cash (hinduja's...to name one) Would you like me to go on...stop deluding yourself into thinking we live in an era where militant union activity is required! and FYI those protesting in St Pauls were predominantly squatters, drug users and benefit claimants that hijacked the debate....the filth left over took weeks to clean...ha ha ha similar to the filth labour left unfortunately it'll take longer than weeks perhaps even decades! You happily voted for the previous so called capitalist goverment as they increased your benefits, turned a blind eye, killed our manufacturing industry and sold off the country's gold....tax and spend all the way its in the labour party's genes![/p][/quote]"No labour means no taxes by stealth" Is that why we still have the tv licence fee and goons being employed to intimidate and harrass those who haven't payed up, regardless of wether they watch tel-lie-vision or not.You need to wake up. Good call

11:06am Mon 28 Jan 13

BlackburnEyes says...

Good call wrote:
BlackburnEyes wrote:
jack daniels wrote:
Info-warrior wrote: If the Unions were on all out attack at the government and earning their subs then I would have no quarrels with any unionist having a decent living. There is just to many these days earning a living out the public purse for very little effort. The first thing the Unionists should be doing is ensuring that we never ever ever have another coalition government. Even if we all have to go and vote another twenty times to find out an out right winner, we should never have this coalition nonsense again. We no longer have a need for unions under the current government, well not unless Georgie boy as changed course and created some growth and jobs for the unions to protect. No growth no jobs no unions no Labour totalised tyranny by design. At some point the sheeple will see it for what it is just before they drop in the final few drips of Zyklon B into their evening shower. History always as a way of repeating itself in varied ways but always the same outcome. Be warry of all these changes what are going on around us at the moment, the government are strangling everything they can get their grubby thieving little hands on and crushing the unions into the history books would be a massive victory for any tory government. And thats exactly whats happening here. Wakey wakey rise and shine smell the coffee your living with crime....from 9/11 to Tyranny in less than a decade and the main course is yet to come so hold on tight the next twelve months are going to get a bit turbulent to say the least....stock up.
I understand what you are saying and agree with a good part of it. We could also mention how the banks, the Chinese and Arabs have been quietly buying businesses, land (and power - making our governement ever more sidelined and obsolete. While our current unions have lost our way, as well as outright control of the old labour party, we at least have the experience of dragging ourselves out of the chainless slavery that was the industrial revolution and hopefully this will happen again. The occupation of St Pauls cathedral being a brilliant example of people coming together to protest against this and the previous capitalist government.
No labour means no taxes by stealth... No labour means not wasting record amounts of money to fund projects that were unfulfilled and have become obsolete (NHS IT programme)... No Labour means we dont have a 10 year rail plan that was replaced within 2 years and quietly swept under the carpet No Labour means not having 110% mortgages and people thinking its normal No Labour means a realistic debt to GDP balance No Labour means that its union paymasters wont have first refusal on goverment policy No Labour means restriction of immigration No Labour means protecting our jobs unlike when chesire cat was in power and bent over for anyone brandishing cash (hinduja's...to name one) Would you like me to go on...stop deluding yourself into thinking we live in an era where militant union activity is required! and FYI those protesting in St Pauls were predominantly squatters, drug users and benefit claimants that hijacked the debate....the filth left over took weeks to clean...ha ha ha similar to the filth labour left unfortunately it'll take longer than weeks perhaps even decades! You happily voted for the previous so called capitalist goverment as they increased your benefits, turned a blind eye, killed our manufacturing industry and sold off the country's gold....tax and spend all the way its in the labour party's genes!
"No labour means no taxes by stealth" Is that why we still have the tv licence fee and goons being employed to intimidate and harrass those who haven't payed up, regardless of wether they watch tel-lie-vision or not.You need to wake up.
The licence fee is a tax agreed to pay for us to watch rubbish, repeats and questionable individuals.....you can choose not watch the crap and read a book! or better still if enough people dont pay it as a protest then perhaps they will listen....and given the BBC's global commercial activities i doubt they even need our licence fee money....not really sure why we need to subsidise them for offering a global service which they receive sufficient revenue anyway! stealth taxes are listed below imposed by the previous capatalist government just take your pick.....!!

July 1997
01 • Mortgage Interest Tax Relief At Source (MIRAS) reduced from 15% to 10%
02 • Dividend Tax Credits for pension schemes abolished
03 • Income tax relief on health insurance abolished
04 • Insurance Premium Tax extended to some health insurance
05 • Road Fuel Tax escalator increased to 6%
06 • Vehicle Excise Duty increased
07 • Tobacco duty escalator increased to 5%
08 • Stamp Duty raised to 2%
09 • Carry back of Corporation Tax losses limited to 1 year
10 • Windfall tax on utilities


March 1998
11 • Tax relief for the married couple's allowance (MCA) cut to 10%
12 • Top rate of Insurance Premium Tax extended to travel insurance
13 • Exceptional increase in tobacco and alcohol duties
14 • Duties on casinos and gaming machines raised
15 • Road Fuel Tax escalator increase brought forward
16 • Tax on company cars increased
17 • Tax relief on foreign earnings abolished
18 • Tax concessions for certain professions abolished
19 • Capital gains tax imposed on certain non-residents
20 • Restriction of Capital Gains Tax relief on reinvestment
21 • Corporation tax payments on account brought forward
22 • Stamp duty increased again
23 • Certain hydrocarbon duties increased
24 • Additional diesel duties introduced
25 • Landfill Tax increased
26 • Double tax credits on certain dividends restricted

March 1999
27 • National Insurance Contributions earning limit raised
28 • NI Contributions for self-employed increased
29 • Tax relief of Married Couple's Allowance abolished
30 • MIRAS abolished
31 • Self-employed contractors to pay NI and income tax as if employees
32 • Company car business mileage discount limited
33 • Double escalator on tobacco duties
34 • Insurance Premium Tax increased to 5%
35 • Vocational training relief abolished
36 • Employer NI Contribution base broadened to include all benefits in kind
37 • VAT on some banking services increased
38 • Tax on reverse premiums paid to tenants by landlords introduced
39 • Duty on domestic fuel oils up
40 • Vehicle Excise Duty for lorries increased
41 • Landfill tax escalator introduced
42 • Stamp Duty rates raised again to 2.5/3.5%

March 2000
43 • Tobacco duties increased above inflation
44 • Stamp duty raised for 4th time, scope of duty extended
45 • Extra taxation of life assurance companies
46 • Rules on tax havens tightened up
47 • Company car taxes raised

2001
The Chancellor gives the exhausted nation a year off – no new stealth taxes!

April 2002
48 • Personal tax allowances frozen
49 • National Insurance threshold frozen
50 • NI Contributions for employers raised
51 • NI Contributions for employees raised
52 • NI Contributions for self-employed raised
53 • North Sea taxation increased
54 • Duty on some alcoholic drinks raised
55 • Stamp duty thresholds frozen
56 • Tax relief on investment in film industy restricted
57 • Rules on corporate debt tightened
58 • Nil-rate threshold for inheritance tax raised by less than the rate of inflation

April 2003
59 • VAT imposed on electronically supplied services
60 • Domestic staff on £89/week to pay NI & income tax, employers to pay NI
61 • Betting duty increases
62 • Tax on red diesel and fuel oil increased
63 • Anti-tax haven rules tightened to cover more UK firms with Irish subsidiaries
64 • Vehicle excise duty raised
65 • Personal tax allowances frozen again

July, 2003
66 • £35 added to all fines and £3 added to the cost of a home insurance policy

September, 2003
67 • Price of petrol raised 7p per gallon (with the VAT)

October, 2003
68 • Up to 8 times increase in the stamp duty on leases for retail premises
69 • Airport Tax doubled

December, 2003
70 • 40% extra Council Tax on second homes was sneaked in while the Westminster Wonders were breaking up for their hols a whole week before Xmas.
Additional info : It has been pointed out that a number of councils gave an even bigger discount for second homes and the increase for some people can be 80%. Plus the usual 6-18% annual rise, depending on how bloated the council's operations have become.
Exemptions may be granted if the second home owner (1) has to live somewhere because of his/her employment, (2) the dwelling comes with the job, or (3) there are special threat/security reasons involved. All of which excuses apply to 10, Downing Street, the home of a certain Mr. Anthony B. Liar. (Thanks to M.K.)

January, 2004
71 • £60 per day fine for late submission of self-assessment income tax forms
72 • Traffic wardens to receive powers to impose fines for a whole bunch of offences to keep poor people off the roads. The offences will include parking more than 19 inches from the kerb (£100) and dithering by people who are lost
[quote][p][bold]Good call[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BlackburnEyes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Info-warrior[/bold] wrote: If the Unions were on all out attack at the government and earning their subs then I would have no quarrels with any unionist having a decent living. There is just to many these days earning a living out the public purse for very little effort. The first thing the Unionists should be doing is ensuring that we never ever ever have another coalition government. Even if we all have to go and vote another twenty times to find out an out right winner, we should never have this coalition nonsense again. We no longer have a need for unions under the current government, well not unless Georgie boy as changed course and created some growth and jobs for the unions to protect. No growth no jobs no unions no Labour totalised tyranny by design. At some point the sheeple will see it for what it is just before they drop in the final few drips of Zyklon B into their evening shower. History always as a way of repeating itself in varied ways but always the same outcome. Be warry of all these changes what are going on around us at the moment, the government are strangling everything they can get their grubby thieving little hands on and crushing the unions into the history books would be a massive victory for any tory government. And thats exactly whats happening here. Wakey wakey rise and shine smell the coffee your living with crime....from 9/11 to Tyranny in less than a decade and the main course is yet to come so hold on tight the next twelve months are going to get a bit turbulent to say the least....stock up.[/p][/quote]I understand what you are saying and agree with a good part of it. We could also mention how the banks, the Chinese and Arabs have been quietly buying businesses, land (and power - making our governement ever more sidelined and obsolete. While our current unions have lost our way, as well as outright control of the old labour party, we at least have the experience of dragging ourselves out of the chainless slavery that was the industrial revolution and hopefully this will happen again. The occupation of St Pauls cathedral being a brilliant example of people coming together to protest against this and the previous capitalist government.[/p][/quote]No labour means no taxes by stealth... No labour means not wasting record amounts of money to fund projects that were unfulfilled and have become obsolete (NHS IT programme)... No Labour means we dont have a 10 year rail plan that was replaced within 2 years and quietly swept under the carpet No Labour means not having 110% mortgages and people thinking its normal No Labour means a realistic debt to GDP balance No Labour means that its union paymasters wont have first refusal on goverment policy No Labour means restriction of immigration No Labour means protecting our jobs unlike when chesire cat was in power and bent over for anyone brandishing cash (hinduja's...to name one) Would you like me to go on...stop deluding yourself into thinking we live in an era where militant union activity is required! and FYI those protesting in St Pauls were predominantly squatters, drug users and benefit claimants that hijacked the debate....the filth left over took weeks to clean...ha ha ha similar to the filth labour left unfortunately it'll take longer than weeks perhaps even decades! You happily voted for the previous so called capitalist goverment as they increased your benefits, turned a blind eye, killed our manufacturing industry and sold off the country's gold....tax and spend all the way its in the labour party's genes![/p][/quote]"No labour means no taxes by stealth" Is that why we still have the tv licence fee and goons being employed to intimidate and harrass those who haven't payed up, regardless of wether they watch tel-lie-vision or not.You need to wake up.[/p][/quote]The licence fee is a tax agreed to pay for us to watch rubbish, repeats and questionable individuals.....you can choose not watch the crap and read a book! or better still if enough people dont pay it as a protest then perhaps they will listen....and given the BBC's global commercial activities i doubt they even need our licence fee money....not really sure why we need to subsidise them for offering a global service which they receive sufficient revenue anyway! stealth taxes are listed below imposed by the previous capatalist government just take your pick.....!! July 1997 01 • Mortgage Interest Tax Relief At Source (MIRAS) reduced from 15% to 10% 02 • Dividend Tax Credits for pension schemes abolished 03 • Income tax relief on health insurance abolished 04 • Insurance Premium Tax extended to some health insurance 05 • Road Fuel Tax escalator increased to 6% 06 • Vehicle Excise Duty increased 07 • Tobacco duty escalator increased to 5% 08 • Stamp Duty raised to 2% 09 • Carry back of Corporation Tax losses limited to 1 year 10 • Windfall tax on utilities March 1998 11 • Tax relief for the married couple's allowance (MCA) cut to 10% 12 • Top rate of Insurance Premium Tax extended to travel insurance 13 • Exceptional increase in tobacco and alcohol duties 14 • Duties on casinos and gaming machines raised 15 • Road Fuel Tax escalator increase brought forward 16 • Tax on company cars increased 17 • Tax relief on foreign earnings abolished 18 • Tax concessions for certain professions abolished 19 • Capital gains tax imposed on certain non-residents 20 • Restriction of Capital Gains Tax relief on reinvestment 21 • Corporation tax payments on account brought forward 22 • Stamp duty increased again 23 • Certain hydrocarbon duties increased 24 • Additional diesel duties introduced 25 • Landfill Tax increased 26 • Double tax credits on certain dividends restricted March 1999 27 • National Insurance Contributions earning limit raised 28 • NI Contributions for self-employed increased 29 • Tax relief of Married Couple's Allowance abolished 30 • MIRAS abolished 31 • Self-employed contractors to pay NI and income tax as if employees 32 • Company car business mileage discount limited 33 • Double escalator on tobacco duties 34 • Insurance Premium Tax increased to 5% 35 • Vocational training relief abolished 36 • Employer NI Contribution base broadened to include all benefits in kind 37 • VAT on some banking services increased 38 • Tax on reverse premiums paid to tenants by landlords introduced 39 • Duty on domestic fuel oils up 40 • Vehicle Excise Duty for lorries increased 41 • Landfill tax escalator introduced 42 • Stamp Duty rates raised again to 2.5/3.5% March 2000 43 • Tobacco duties increased above inflation 44 • Stamp duty raised for 4th time, scope of duty extended 45 • Extra taxation of life assurance companies 46 • Rules on tax havens tightened up 47 • Company car taxes raised 2001 The Chancellor gives the exhausted nation a year off – no new stealth taxes! April 2002 48 • Personal tax allowances frozen 49 • National Insurance threshold frozen 50 • NI Contributions for employers raised 51 • NI Contributions for employees raised [Class 1 up 1%] 52 • NI Contributions for self-employed raised 53 • North Sea taxation increased 54 • Duty on some alcoholic drinks raised 55 • Stamp duty thresholds frozen 56 • Tax relief on investment in film industy restricted 57 • Rules on corporate debt tightened 58 • Nil-rate threshold for inheritance tax raised by less than the rate of inflation April 2003 59 • VAT imposed on electronically supplied services 60 • Domestic staff on £89/week to pay NI & income tax, employers to pay NI 61 • Betting duty increases 62 • Tax on red diesel and fuel oil increased 63 • Anti-tax haven rules tightened to cover more UK firms with Irish subsidiaries 64 • Vehicle excise duty raised 65 • Personal tax allowances frozen again July, 2003 66 • £35 added to all fines and £3 added to the cost of a home insurance policy September, 2003 67 • Price of petrol raised 7p per gallon (with the VAT) October, 2003 68 • Up to 8 times increase in the stamp duty on leases for retail premises 69 • Airport Tax doubled December, 2003 70 • 40% extra Council Tax on second homes was sneaked in while the Westminster Wonders were breaking up for their hols a whole week before Xmas. Additional info : It has been pointed out that a number of councils gave an even bigger discount for second homes and the increase for some people can be 80%. Plus the usual 6-18% annual rise, depending on how bloated the council's operations have become. Exemptions may be granted if the second home owner (1) has to live somewhere because of his/her employment, (2) the dwelling comes with the job, or (3) there are special threat/security reasons involved. All of which excuses apply to 10, Downing Street, the home of a certain Mr. Anthony B. Liar. (Thanks to M.K.) January, 2004 71 • £60 per day fine for late submission of self-assessment income tax forms 72 • Traffic wardens to receive powers to impose fines for a whole bunch of offences to keep poor people off the roads. The offences will include parking more than 19 inches from the kerb (£100) and dithering by people who are lost BlackburnEyes

11:21am Mon 28 Jan 13

BlackburnEyes says...

jack daniels wrote:
BlackburnEyes wrote:
jack daniels wrote:
Info-warrior wrote: If the Unions were on all out attack at the government and earning their subs then I would have no quarrels with any unionist having a decent living. There is just to many these days earning a living out the public purse for very little effort. The first thing the Unionists should be doing is ensuring that we never ever ever have another coalition government. Even if we all have to go and vote another twenty times to find out an out right winner, we should never have this coalition nonsense again. We no longer have a need for unions under the current government, well not unless Georgie boy as changed course and created some growth and jobs for the unions to protect. No growth no jobs no unions no Labour totalised tyranny by design. At some point the sheeple will see it for what it is just before they drop in the final few drips of Zyklon B into their evening shower. History always as a way of repeating itself in varied ways but always the same outcome. Be warry of all these changes what are going on around us at the moment, the government are strangling everything they can get their grubby thieving little hands on and crushing the unions into the history books would be a massive victory for any tory government. And thats exactly whats happening here. Wakey wakey rise and shine smell the coffee your living with crime....from 9/11 to Tyranny in less than a decade and the main course is yet to come so hold on tight the next twelve months are going to get a bit turbulent to say the least....stock up.
I understand what you are saying and agree with a good part of it. We could also mention how the banks, the Chinese and Arabs have been quietly buying businesses, land (and power - making our governement ever more sidelined and obsolete. While our current unions have lost our way, as well as outright control of the old labour party, we at least have the experience of dragging ourselves out of the chainless slavery that was the industrial revolution and hopefully this will happen again. The occupation of St Pauls cathedral being a brilliant example of people coming together to protest against this and the previous capitalist government.
No labour means no taxes by stealth... No labour means not wasting record amounts of money to fund projects that were unfulfilled and have become obsolete (NHS IT programme)... No Labour means we dont have a 10 year rail plan that was replaced within 2 years and quietly swept under the carpet No Labour means not having 110% mortgages and people thinking its normal No Labour means a realistic debt to GDP balance No Labour means that its union paymasters wont have first refusal on goverment policy No Labour means restriction of immigration No Labour means protecting our jobs unlike when chesire cat was in power and bent over for anyone brandishing cash (hinduja's...to name one) Would you like me to go on...stop deluding yourself into thinking we live in an era where militant union activity is required! and FYI those protesting in St Pauls were predominantly squatters, drug users and benefit claimants that hijacked the debate....the filth left over took weeks to clean...ha ha ha similar to the filth labour left unfortunately it'll take longer than weeks perhaps even decades! You happily voted for the previous so called capitalist goverment as they increased your benefits, turned a blind eye, killed our manufacturing industry and sold off the country's gold....tax and spend all the way its in the labour party's genes!
Can I quickly point out that I'm not an advocate of the Labour party and neither have I voted for them. In my previous post I actually classified them as - "this and the previous capitalist government" which pretty much nullifies the first half of your post. As for your opinion about me "deluding yourself into thinking we live in an era where militant union activity is required". I have to say that if you think that things are going fine, and that Gideon Osborne and the rest of the government have your interests at heart, then you need to consider who is the deluded one posting on here. Considering that you hadn't really read my post, waffled on about Cheshire cats (???) and the inclusion of your childish "ha ha ha", I think we'll award you that prestigious accolade of being deluded.
you say you dont vote or advocate for them but you would rather see them in power than the alternatives (unless you want B N P).....and thats where this country were caught out for the 14 years in power....happy to sit at home and sign on, claim tax credits etc etc and both goverment and claimant turned a blind eye now that a new government is in place that needs to apply some reality to our finances everyone is up in arms....cheshire cat (not cats) = tony teflon blair....ha ha ha is not childish unless you have had your humour removed! and you have no authority to award anything! I dont need gideon osbourne to do me any favours i'm debt free, mortgage free, never claimed anything off the goverment and wont be relying on the state.... and before you ask and imply, i did not come from a rich background or inherited anything hard work grit and honest working and PRUDENCY has afforded me to boast the above! and i did read your post you like all your labour thinking (but not voting) brothers want to bring down a government that had the mandate to form a coalition...typical union thuggish activity that has held this country back!
[quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BlackburnEyes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Info-warrior[/bold] wrote: If the Unions were on all out attack at the government and earning their subs then I would have no quarrels with any unionist having a decent living. There is just to many these days earning a living out the public purse for very little effort. The first thing the Unionists should be doing is ensuring that we never ever ever have another coalition government. Even if we all have to go and vote another twenty times to find out an out right winner, we should never have this coalition nonsense again. We no longer have a need for unions under the current government, well not unless Georgie boy as changed course and created some growth and jobs for the unions to protect. No growth no jobs no unions no Labour totalised tyranny by design. At some point the sheeple will see it for what it is just before they drop in the final few drips of Zyklon B into their evening shower. History always as a way of repeating itself in varied ways but always the same outcome. Be warry of all these changes what are going on around us at the moment, the government are strangling everything they can get their grubby thieving little hands on and crushing the unions into the history books would be a massive victory for any tory government. And thats exactly whats happening here. Wakey wakey rise and shine smell the coffee your living with crime....from 9/11 to Tyranny in less than a decade and the main course is yet to come so hold on tight the next twelve months are going to get a bit turbulent to say the least....stock up.[/p][/quote]I understand what you are saying and agree with a good part of it. We could also mention how the banks, the Chinese and Arabs have been quietly buying businesses, land (and power - making our governement ever more sidelined and obsolete. While our current unions have lost our way, as well as outright control of the old labour party, we at least have the experience of dragging ourselves out of the chainless slavery that was the industrial revolution and hopefully this will happen again. The occupation of St Pauls cathedral being a brilliant example of people coming together to protest against this and the previous capitalist government.[/p][/quote]No labour means no taxes by stealth... No labour means not wasting record amounts of money to fund projects that were unfulfilled and have become obsolete (NHS IT programme)... No Labour means we dont have a 10 year rail plan that was replaced within 2 years and quietly swept under the carpet No Labour means not having 110% mortgages and people thinking its normal No Labour means a realistic debt to GDP balance No Labour means that its union paymasters wont have first refusal on goverment policy No Labour means restriction of immigration No Labour means protecting our jobs unlike when chesire cat was in power and bent over for anyone brandishing cash (hinduja's...to name one) Would you like me to go on...stop deluding yourself into thinking we live in an era where militant union activity is required! and FYI those protesting in St Pauls were predominantly squatters, drug users and benefit claimants that hijacked the debate....the filth left over took weeks to clean...ha ha ha similar to the filth labour left unfortunately it'll take longer than weeks perhaps even decades! You happily voted for the previous so called capitalist goverment as they increased your benefits, turned a blind eye, killed our manufacturing industry and sold off the country's gold....tax and spend all the way its in the labour party's genes![/p][/quote]Can I quickly point out that I'm not an advocate of the Labour party and neither have I voted for them. In my previous post I actually classified them as - "this and the previous capitalist government" which pretty much nullifies the first half of your post. As for your opinion about me "deluding yourself into thinking we live in an era where militant union activity is required". I have to say that if you think that things are going fine, and that Gideon Osborne and the rest of the government have your interests at heart, then you need to consider who is the deluded one posting on here. Considering that you hadn't really read my post, waffled on about Cheshire cats (???) and the inclusion of your childish "ha ha ha", I think we'll award you that prestigious accolade of being deluded.[/p][/quote]you say you dont vote or advocate for them but you would rather see them in power than the alternatives (unless you want B N P).....and thats where this country were caught out for the 14 years in power....happy to sit at home and sign on, claim tax credits etc etc and both goverment and claimant turned a blind eye now that a new government is in place that needs to apply some reality to our finances everyone is up in arms....cheshire cat (not cats) = tony teflon blair....ha ha ha is not childish unless you have had your humour removed! and you have no authority to award anything! I dont need gideon osbourne to do me any favours i'm debt free, mortgage free, never claimed anything off the goverment and wont be relying on the state.... and before you ask and imply, i did not come from a rich background or inherited anything hard work grit and honest working and PRUDENCY has afforded me to boast the above! and i did read your post you like all your labour thinking (but not voting) brothers want to bring down a government that had the mandate to form a coalition...typical union thuggish activity that has held this country back! BlackburnEyes

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree