Tory propaganda against most of us.

The government introduced a scheme today which sounded like it was designed to help small employers access occupational health services for those employees who are off sick. Obviously most people don't want to be off work sick and if there is service that employers can use to assist them in getting back to work, then good. Even better if these employers are being assisted by the state. Good I thought...or so I thought.

Then a Tory MP turned up to explain it. Before you know it there's talk of swinging the leg, not really sick, skivers, 'how many sick days have I got left' etc.

Is it just me who can see a steady drip, drip, drip against ordinary folk who are in receipt of benefits/state support of any kind, or not? I'm swinging myself to be honest, towards the left. My mum told me people with intelligence go more right wing as they get older - well her words were 'if you vote Tory when you are young, you've no heart. If you vote Labour when you are older you've no head'. I think I'm losing mine.

I started left, veered right and have been veering left again for some time, DaleLad.

I started right then swung to the middle and ended up somewhat left of mid-centre. Although I do have some startling right wing views as a result of international events and the future. Times change and sensible people base their 'views' on the present and projected futures which as a result should 'change' to suit the circumstances as they arise and are forecast. Although forecasting can frequently be a flawed concept.
But who, meaning the individual, is to say - their views are the right ones ????????

We are still fighting the class war of the seventies. I have very little time off work, but I know people in both public and private industry who take their uncertified sick days as extended holiday. It pees me off, particularly when I see those genuinely in need of benefit getting a hard time.

How do you unscramble eggs? Management believe with some justification that workers are on the fiddle. Workers believe, with the same justification, that the bosses are determined to screw them.

Both sides, unions and management have demonstrable feet of clay (at a minimum). Unless both sides pull their horns in and start trusting good intentions, at least a little, we are damned.

the older l get the more left wing l get

I work on a simple principle, if a piece of legislation or political philosophy is intended to exploit people either by design or default then I am against it. I find the likelihood of exploitation has always come from the right wing of politics.

past it wrote: I work on a simple principle, if a piece of legislation or political philosophy is intended to exploit people either by design or default then I am against it. I find the likelihood of exploitation has always come from the right wing of politics.

"Always", past it? Try telling that to the people of North Korea.

You lived and worked through th seventies as did I. You cannot deny that the exploitation and bullying was just about evenly balanced. There are many instances of strong-arm unions destroying small and medium manufacturing enterprises.

I won't deny the asset stripping in the 80s, but how many of those companies would have been ripe if they had not been bled dry by rapacious unions?

Prudence Tempered wrote:

past it wrote: I work on a simple principle, if a piece of legislation or political philosophy is intended to exploit people either by design or default then I am against it. I find the likelihood of exploitation has always come from the right wing of politics.

"Always", past it? Try telling that to the people of North Korea.

Cannot deny the position in NK. I was not talking about military dictatorships whether of the right or left, but what is regarded as the product of democratic countries and yes I know those dictatorships will call themselves democratic.

johnb wrote:You lived and worked through th seventies as did I. You cannot deny that the exploitation and bullying was just about evenly balanced. There are many instances of strong-arm unions destroying small and medium manufacturing enterprises.

I won't deny the asset stripping in the 80s, but how many of those companies would have been ripe if they had not been bled dry by rapacious unions?

You and I are not going to agree about unions trying to improve the conditions of their members or to protect their jobs. Remember unions were created to prevent exploitation and until Thatcher destroyed them they had largely succeeded. The free market economy we have now with virtually no union protection is all about the survival of the cheapest and the fittest. Checks and balances, safety, regulations are being eroded so quickly that we will soon be back to the 19 Century when exploitation was the norm and unions may have to be reborn.

There was a balance. Yes, there was exploitation, but the balance would have been made. The late 60s and 70s swung the balance way to far the other way. It is again swung to far to the bankers and corporates. With the idiots in the union executive at the moment they are not going to swing it back.

Just a thought. How many people now complaining voted for the coalition?

I voted Liberal Democrat. Didn't get what I voted for either - though in absolute truth, I voted for an MP t represent me in Parliament.

Charly wrote:Nobody voted for the coalition TP, none of the parties gained enough power to rule on their own, thats what a coalition means...two (or more) parties joining forces.

I know Charly and that is what I mean. Who voted for a coalition that is not working?

As I said TP, nobody voted for a coalition. There isnt anywhere on a ballot paper that says
'Coalition'

Coalitions are formed from transitional periods of change. When the 'needs' of the electorate are confused and the 'needs' of the State likewise. There isn't a 'black and white' choice at the moment. All is grey.
We may, like Italy, go through quite a few General Elections in the future where the outcome is 'blurred'. In consequence we may avoid extremes (not to be sanctioned) and formulate a concensus which suits most.
Blessed are the peace-makers - - but it's bloody boring.

teamplayer2 wrote:

Charly wrote:Nobody voted for the coalition TP, none of the parties gained enough power to rule on their own, thats what a coalition means...two (or more) parties joining forces.

I know Charly and that is what I mean. Who voted for a coalition that is not working?

According to our (unwritten) constitution nobody in the UK votes for a government of any colour or persuasion. Instead we are expected to select a local representative and it is the winners of these individual contests that go on to appoint a government

PT is correct which is why it's a bit unfair to talk about unelected Prime Ministers,(Gordon Brown for example) No PM is ever elected by the people.